The article deals with the structure, organizational and functional parameters of the global society as a complex represented numerous supersystem or subsystem. However, the article represents many interrelated, interdependent, collaborative and at the same time conflicting subsystems in the face of national states, various international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, etc. The article examines the differences between them are determined by historical, national and cultural traditions, socio- cultural, political, cultural, religious, geopolitical and other characteristics.
Any system is the result of the interaction of interweaving the various factors determining the nature of its structure and self-organization. In this context, in relation to the formation and functioning of the world order is important to clarify the differences between the processes of organization and self-organization, self-management and as a global community in general and his specific subjects.
The organization refers to a set of conscious, purposeful actions of people and institutions (eg, the state) for the creation, regulation and management of those or other phenomena, processes, events for specific tasks. In other words, the organization is a result of the impact on the processes of order formation outside.
Self-organization presupposes action of a certain group of entities that interact with one another in pursuit of their goals, without any coercion from outside, anarchic, through trial and error. In this case, the process system formation, structuring, ensuring order is carried out mainly from within yourself. This is due to the built-in system itself grouping mechanisms and coordination of these subjects during their interaction, mutual attraction and integration.
There are three different, but closely interrelated and complementary levels of organization and self- organization of the international community: the global, regional and national. Speaking of the first level, we mean the formation and functioning of the international community in its relation factors and regional and national level.
The second level includes the mechanisms, processes, particularly the interaction of different actors at national and sub-national character.
At the third level we are talking about the nature of interacting actors of the international community on a national scale, ie, nation-states as the main components of the peace community and subjects of international relations.
Every system arises and develops through trial and error, and competition experiments, during which developed norms and rules of different subjects of International political activity. Each of the subjects of international political relations does so at their own risk, in accordance with their real and potential, goals and interests. As a result, there is a boundless uncertainty confluence limitless set of wills, aspirations, principles, rules, circumstances, etc.
With this understanding of chaos or anarchy does not always need to be represented as a gaping chasm, as a purely destructive beginning. Here, without fear of repetition, it is appropriate to emphasize once again that, with regard to social systems, including the international political system, it is anarchy, not chaos. Often the fact that in a particular historical period is perceived as anarchy, disorder, there is only a manifestation of disorders, erosion familiar forms of life, perceptions, priorities, values, forms, etc. Anarchy and disorder can serve as starting points for designing new forms of order and power relations. At such times, people find the ability to question the foundations of his own existence, of the universe, beliefs, worldview systems, etc.
Any revolutionary upheavals causing breakup of the existing socio-economic, socio-cultural and public- political structures associated with anarchy, uncertainty and equilibrium. This inevitably brings to the fore the problem of overcoming them, restore or create a new order requiring some or other organizational and structural innovations. Most of the watershed in the history of the evolution of international political systems entailed the collapse of great civilizations and empires of the world powers and, accordingly, ruling in different historical periods and the emergence of forms of world order in their place new ones.
Thus, the assertion of the Westphalian system marked the end of the Holy Roman Empire, the balance of power system, the foundations of which were laid by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, was formed on the ruins of the Napoleonic Empire. Versailles-Washington system did the same with the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, while significantly cutting the Russian Empire. Two-pole world order was formed as a result of the defeat of the Third Reich and the Empire of the Rising Sun during World War II. It also led to the collapse of the great colonial empires: British, French, Dutch, Portuguese. The collapse of the bipolar world order was accompanied by the collapse of the multinational Soviet empire, constitute one of its two supporting structures.
It is important to bear in mind that relations between states are formed on the basis of mutual cooperation and interdependence, which are the flip side of the contradictions and conflicts. Consensus and conflict are two opposing and at the same time, interrelated and complementary element of the political system. Removable and penetrating each other, they provide a viable and functioning of the international community. The intensity of the conflict and the stability of the agreement depends on the situation in the world, which creates its own balance of social and political forces, economic, military, political and other factors.
The dynamics of international relations is determined by the fact that, by its very nature, the power of the state is a relative value: win a single state, if not always, then, in any case, often leads to the loss of another state. In other words, the principle of zero-sum game.Therefore, each state being concerned about the possibility of attacks and establishing the rule of another State, seeking to strengthen their own security by building up its power.
Sovereigns always guided by the principle of a Roman sivispacem para bellum - if you want peace, prepare for war. And this, in turn, served as a threat to security of other states, who responded accordingly. In short, the state armed, to establish and maintain a permanent professional army to ensure their own safety. But in doing so they created a threat to the security of other states, which, in turn, also armed.
It is obvious that you can never achieve complete security in a world of States competing and competing with each other. The desire of each of them to strengthen their power and security leads to a decrease in the safety of others and pretend to compete for greater power and safety. And so on to infinity. This creates a vicious circle in which perpetuates itself a threat to security of each of the states - members of the international community. We can say that the struggle of each individual state to survive (the principle of raison d'eta) is an innate feature of international relations.
In the context of a bipolar world order of the Cold War and the traditional concept of balance of power, which justifies the need for military-political balance, eroded or even become a part of history. The main drivers of the behavior of both superpowers were mutual fear and concern for their safety. Accordingly, in the spotlight and on either side stood the pursuit of military buildup. As a result, formed bipolar hierarchical structure of the international community, in which the two superpowers took the top of the pyramid, for them was a group of great powers, then the country is less significant weight and influence in world affairs.
Originally regarding the postwar international order hatched very optimistic hopes. Thus, the Atlantic Charter proclaimed Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in August 1941, contained a number of "general principles" on which the two founded the figure "their hopes for a better future for the world." Provides that "after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny" free nations renounce the use of force and to impose a permanent disarmament of aggressive nation.
And there shall be two categories of countries:" aggressor countries "(particularly Germany, Japan and Italy), which will force disarmed for an indefinite term, and" peace-loving country ", which will be allowed to keep the armed forces, but they hoped to" significantly abbreviated form. "The principle of national self-determination was to serve as "the cornerstone of the new world order."
When you create all aspects of the UN also guided noble aspirations of creating a just world order based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all member states of the organization. However, as we know, everything turned out exactly the opposite. As a result of the Second World War, the world was divided into two opposing socio-political systems - capitalism and socialism. The bipolar structure of international relations in the form of a confrontation between the two military-political blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Pact led by the US and the USSR, respectively.
Europe and the world as a whole were split into rival socio-political systems, two military-political bloc, led by the US and the USSR. Unfolded on this basis, the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, East and West had a profound impact on the main processes, institutions and intergovernmental relations.
In essence, the Cold War came to its natural end in Nome realities that made obsolete the fundamental conditions, its breed, when changed geopolitical configuration of forces realized the impossibility to act according to the rules and imperatives of the Cold War. Therefore, it would not be entirely correct to argue that the Soviet Union surrendered to his opponent as a result of its military deterrence.
As R. Tarthof mentioned, the Cold War was won not taken Reagan arms buildup, do not put forward their doctrine is believed by some. Victory "came to the West, when a new generation of Soviet leaders realized how bad their internal system and that their foreign policy is a failure."
The Soviet Union, in fact, committed suicide due to an internal failure of the empire. As a correspondent of the newspaper "Le Monde" mentioned, the fall of the Berlin Wall is a "part-time victory of capitalism over communism." It is part-time, since it is unknown how many more forcesand recourses would be required, if the leaders of the Soviet Union, who embarked on the path of reform, have not signed its death warrant.
All the great powers and empires disintegrated not only and not so much because of pressure from the outside, but in the strength of growth of their internal inconsistency. Here it is especially important that the Cold War came to its natural end in the reality that made obsolete the fundamental conditions, its breed, when changed geopolitical configuration of forces realized the impossibility to act according to the rules and imperatives of the Cold War.
It is symptomatic that no one foresaw such a turn of events. In fact, we can say that self-destruction was exhausted its possibilities of the system, and there is no need to look for the wiles of whether external or internal enemies. Although they both contributed to it and once the shaft, but they are not the main cause.
Feature of any more or less viable socio-political system is its essential unity. It is a set of ordinal not only similar to each other elements of its constituent individuals, social groups, relationships, attitudes, but also their differences, diversity, pluralism.
Each specific socio-historical reality has its own social and political reality and its system of determination, priorities, and preferences. Being a variable degree or values, they are in a constant state of change and renewal. In the real social being, they interact with each other in constant contradictions and conflicts and penetrate each other. Thus becomes unthinkable isolated from each other by their existence.
The result is a fan of the possible directions of socio-historical development. They certainly can not be represented as an autonomous straight lines, each able to move independently and in isolation in their own way. Here, the principle of a kind of subsidiarity, according to which there are different lines and lines of development that seemed to complement and stimulate each other (eg under the scheme: do not be idealism, there would be no materialism, etc.).
In this sense, we can talk about the probability of a stochastic process. This point is of particular importance in the modern era, when the manifold opportunities offered by scientific and technological progress, erases a clear distinction between the real, probable and possible. The role of probability, its own principles, dynamism and instability, irreversibility and indeterminism increases.
In this formulation of the problem in human history could be considered as a history of clashes and select different alternatives. With this understanding of history is a space where the sum tradeoff between violence and sacrifice, between organizing and disorganizing principles, between order and disorder.
As a result, the world order is always in some state of transition. This fully applies to the modern world is rapidly transformed, acquiring new contours controlled anarchy. The main color of the specifics of this process and give the latest trends in the development and transformation of the modern world. This is primarily globalization, internationalization major spheres of social life, an unprecedented acceleration of time compression and "closing" ecumenical space, a significant predominance of the dynamics of static, etc.
- 1Шумпетер Й. Капитализм, социализм и демакратизм. М., 1995. С. 124-129.
- Смит А. Исследование о природе и причиной богатств народов. М., 1962. С. 3-683.
- Ясперс К. Указ.соч. С. 30.
- Gilpin R. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge, 1981.P. 9.
- Treitschke H. Von. Politiks.Leipzig, 1897. S. 43.
- См.:Waltz K. Theory of world politics. Reading (Mass.), 1979. P. 94.
- Арон Р. Мир и война между народами. М. 2000. С. 709.
- См.: Англо-Американская Декларация (Атлантическая хартия) от 14.08.1941. URL: http://www.law.edu.ru/norm/norm.asp?normID=1167579.
- Киссинджер Г. Дипломатия. М., 1997. С. 351.
- Цит. по: Мунтян М. Международные отношения в координатах общественного развития // Обозреватель-Observer, 1993. № 29. С. 105.