CC BY
6
UDC 303.01
Basavina A.A.
The 2nd year master student
In Translation
in business-communication of the Euro-Arctic region NARFU named after M. V. Lomonosov Russia, Arkhangelsk IS THE REALIST THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OUTDATED IN UNDERSTANDING GLOBAL SECURITY PROBLEMS?
Abstract. In this article, the author considers the realist theory in modern world. The attempt is made to analyze relevance of the main point of classical realism to the current situation on the world stage.
Key words: realist theory, international relations, security
Басавина А.А. студент 2 курса магистратуры Направление «Перевод в бизнес-коммуникации Евро-арктического
пространства» САФУ им М.В. Ломоносова Россия, г. Архангельск
Аннотация: В данной статье автор рассматривает теорию реализма в современном мире. Предпринимается попытка проанализировать актуальность основных положений классического реализма в современных международных отношениях.
Ключевые слова: теория реализма, международные отношения, безопасность
International relations nowadays implement more complex forms of cooperation between nations, political, social and economic institutions, and individuals. New forms of non-traditional security issues have emerged at the end of XX century, such as terrorism, environmental issues etc. Political realism, popularity of which was at its peak during forties and sixties of XX century, have been heavily criticized by some IR scholars since the end of Cold War. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the XXI century, the interest towards political realism has grown. But are the assumptions of realist theory relevant in the modern world?
First of all, there had been attempts of transforming the realist theory before the end of the Cold War. During the 1970s, a new model of interstate relations, based on economic cooperation/competition, had become dominant in the world. Some assumptions of classical realism were no longer relevant at that period. This led to heated discussions within groups of realism theorists. As a result, a new branch of realist theory - neo-realism - appeared. Its assumptions amended those of classical realism, but were very similar to ideas of liberalism. It proves that classical realism is not completely suitable for modern international relations.
To justify my point, I'm going to examine assumption of classical realism in comparison with the current situation on the world stage.
The state is the most important international actor
Through the first half of the XX century states were not limited in their decision-making when it came to international relations. There were no supranational organisations that shared common strategies. The first attempt of establishing such an organisation, the League of Nations, turned out to be ineffective and could not prevent the global war. However, after the World War II, the world has seen a huge growth of the number of non-state actors.
Organisations that have control over significant resources also affect international relations nowadays. Transnational corporations (TNCs), nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) have enough power to influence international processes, conflicts and procedures.
Trade, instead of sovereign states, and people are more closely linked than ever before. Advances in communication and transportation technologies coincided with the accelerated globalization lead countries to become more interdependent through a rapid increase in cross-border movement of goods and capital1.
The example of TNC having huge influence is the case of US-based TNC Texaco. While operating in Ecuador, Texaco was technically immune to human rights claims. The company dumped toxic waste in the Amazon region. Realism assumes that a sovereign country—in this case Ecuador—has to ensure that human rights are enforced, and has the power to do so. But due to the importance of foreign investment, particularly developing countries cannot follow their obligations. Texaco, with global earnings four times the size of Ecuador's GDP, was able to operate "as a state unto itself'2.
Non-governmental organizations, even being a subject to the rule of states, have influenced states' behaviors in many ways. InterAction, which is one of the most representative networks of US-based NGOs and has 192 members, has maintained a strong relationship with the US government over the last two decades. After gathering information from their members, InterAction has provided a substantial recommendation and consultation for the reform of US foreign aid policies (InterAction website).
Inter-governmental organizations, even though they are backed by states, influence state leaders to a certain degree. Their secretariat members play key but often invisible roles in persuading states to act, coordinating the efforts of different groups, providing the diplomatic skills to secure agreements, and ensuring the effectiveness of programs (Margaret P. Karns, Karen A. Mingst, and Kendall W. Stiles). The prime example is the UN Secretary-General.
1 Kose, M.A. and Ozturk, E.O. 'A World of Change: Taking Stock of the Past Half Century', Finance & Development, September 2014, p.7
2 Jochnick, C. 'Confronting the impunity of non-state actors: new fields for the promotion of human rights', Human Rights Quarterly, 1999, p. 58
-
However, although non-state organizations influence international relations to a certain degree, it is states who have the final say (Arts 2003). Major interstate organizations, such as UN and NATO, are comprised of states, whose main concern is to protect their interests. Therefore, states have capability to lobby their interests through IGOs. TNCs, in some cases, can as well be backed by states (Russian government owns a controlling stake of Gazprom). So, the state is still the decision-maker in international relations
The international system is anarchic (self-help system) In realists' opinion, anarchy of international system has two aspects. Firstly, there is no common government whose orders would be mandatory to be executed by all states in the world. Secondly, states should rely on themselves and their own ability to defend their interests in international relations. But are these assumptions still relevant in international relations today?
After the end of the Cold War, the authority of political realism was seriously shaken. Bipolar system of international relations was broken and nature of international relations had changed to "mature anarchy". It means that international system remains anarchic but it can be regulated by community or union of western states.
International system needed a leader who could contain international security. USA fulfilled this role. It allows them to claim privilege in the forms of exceptions to the general rules of behavior in the international arena. As the largest debtor in the world, the US expect to continue receiving loans and continue to exist, spending more than their own capabilities allow. Their leaders explain this by the "gravity of the military burden" that the US should bear, protecting the rest of humanity (and, first of all, western world) from the numerous threats to its security. International relations, in fact, depend on USA. It concerns not only "marginal" traditional peripheral zones of the international system (i.e. undeveloped states of the Third world) and "active" or "main" peripheral zones such as East Asia, Eats Europe, Latin America, India, but also such traditional "centers of the system" as Japan and Western Europe.
So, USA are not common government whose order should be followed by all states, but many states still depend on them. But this dependence can become weaker due to the fact that achievements of progress have become available for weak states and ordinary individuals too. In addition, crises of previous years have shaken the authority of the USA, but nowadays the situation has not changed drastically (But who knows what will happen after president elections in the USA). So, the first assumption doesn't work fully.
As for the second assumption, western liberal-democratic states can guarantee international security. However, if western states do not have desire to fight with each other, it does not mean that it's the same way for them when it comes to the rest of the world. There is no guarantee that rich and strong democratic states will help weaker states in other regions where there are threats to their security.
Nowadays there are a lot of different types organisations in all regions of the world that defend interests of states in political, social, and economic spheres. It does not look like relations are based on the principle of self-help.
Speaking about the military aspect, if country is not yet in any military organisation (alliance, union etc.), they can rely on themselves to defend their interests. At the same time, joining the military organization means losing some sovereignty.
So, neither the first assumption nor the second does not exist in the fully. The system has evolved from anarchic to "mature" anarchic.
Power is the main means of states' security ensuring
This approach was relevant during more than a half of the XX century. However, neorealists reconsidered this assumption in the 70s.
If earlier power had only military aspect, now the concept of "power" does not only have military meaning, but includes economic, scientific and cultural aspects.
Here is a bright example which proves this. Nowadays there are a lot of conflicts because of cultural identity that cause an open armed struggle. But there is latent hostility that exist between highly developed cultural unrelated states, for instance the USA and Japan. While Japan had been rebuilding economy, Americans were loyal and their attitude towards Japan resembled of this of a "teacher towards pupil". But, as soon as Japan has become economic superpower and started investing large amounts of money into American economy, America responded with open irritation. It was caused by the reluctance of Americans to work under the Japanese manager's guidance at Japanese company. In the same time, there is no negative reaction on ingestions activity of western states (cultural related) in the US market3.
This example does not mean that military aspects lost its significance, because otherwise states would stop producing military equipment. It means that states can ensure their security by increasing economic, scientific, and social potential. Still, it is clear that all these tools are used to increase military potential of a state. So, for instance, the invention of nuclear weapons has changed the international system. Any war between nuclear states can be the end of humanity's existence. In addition, spread of this weapons among states which have not had in before, can also lead to universal catastrophe. Nuclear weapons are the guarantee of preventing usual and nuclear wars.
Moreover, nowadays there is a new type of power - soft power. What rendered soft power 'soft', according to Nye, was that its expression does not involve coercion via threats or inducement via payments4. Main tools of soft power are language and culture of state. So, for example, American's soft power strategy is based on three aspects. The first is American culture and life style. Opinion polls shows that about 80 % of respondents from 43 states admire
3 Khmylev V. Modern International Relations. Tomsk: Tomsk Polytechnic University, 2010, p.20.
4 Bilgin, P. and Elis, B, 'Hard Power, Soft Power: Toward a More Realistic Power Analysis', Insight Turkey 10 (2).
2008, p.11.
Americans achievements in science and technology and about 60 % like American music and TV5. The second is political ideology which based on public diplomacy. The main goal is control over informational resources and information flows. One of the tools is exchange program, some of whose alumni have become presidents after that (Mikhail Saakashvili, Victor Yushchenko).
For China, soft power is cooperation with neighboring states, enhancing of regional and subregional cooperation, economic integration with Asia-Pacific countries.
So, nowadays power of states is not based only on military aspects, although it plays the key role. In international relations, there are other tools for ensuring power such as economic, social, scientific aspects and soft power.
Power is "zero-sum" and is usually measured by material resources
In zero-sum conflicts, the rivals have opposite interests. One side will gain exactly as much as the other side will lose. Conflicts over territory and civil wars are two examples of zero-sum conflicts. Even though civil wars are still happening in the world today, most conflicts, as well as potential ones, are non-zero sum situations.
Most of zero-sum conflicts happened before the middle of the XX century. With the end of World War II and, most importantly, development of nuclear weapons, a new global conflict has the potential to be a non-zero sum conflict. There is no chance of the aggressor to not face a counter attack from its victim or, what is also possible, other nuclear nation. The nuclear attack would also undermine the aggressor's image and even make it an outcast.
As we have already mentioned, there are methods to distinguish hard and soft power in the modern world. Therefore, if a state implements means of hard power to protect its interests, it automatically loses in the means of soft power, which in the modern world can be a driving force for positive impact in the country. The brightest example of this is current situation in Ukraine and Russia's annex of Crimea. Even though Russia have gained new territory (which it claims belongs to it historically), the annex (as well as Russia's overall involvement in Ukrainian crisis) caused stir between Russia and the US, as well as most of the countries of Western Europe. This led to sanctions against Russia that hamper its economic development. Thus, war in Ukraine is a "non-zero-sum game".
What's more, it is no longer exactly true that power can only be measured by material resources. XXI century is dubbed "The Century of Information". Those who have information have the power. The growing authority of mass media is a prime example of this idea.
Mass media today plays the vital role in shaping peoples' opinions on relevant topics. Its power constantly grows, with emergence of new technologies. Not only do mass media outlets provide latest information, but they also can control viewers' attitude towards certain individuals or even groups of people. This usually leads to information wars between mass media outlets backed by
5 Nye Jr., Joseph S. Soft Power. The means to success in world politics. - N.Y.: Public Affairs, 2004, p. 64.
groups with different interests. One of the latest examples of that is bias in both Russian and Western mass media concerning war in Ukraine.
Great powers monopolize international security discourse, and most organisations are great-power directed or dominated
Great powers can, in fact, have significant control over international security discourse. China, France, Great Britain, Russia and USA, all members of United Nations Security Council, have the authority to veto resolutions, thus protecting their interests. Also, there have been several attempts of enlarging the number of Security Council permanent members, but none of them have yet been successful. Original holders of Security Council seats are not willing to share their authority with other countries, even if these countries possess nuclear arsenal (in case of India).
Another example of international security discourse monopolization is the level of dominance of the US in NATO. First of all, major part of financing of NATO comes from the US, which proves that America might even be more interested in NATO than European countries. What's more, NATO's main objective was to be a counterforce to the Communist regimes. Through the second half of the XX century it was all about NATO against the Warsaw Pact countries in Europe. However, 25 years from the dissolution of both USSR and the Warsaw Pact, NATO is still active and enlarging constantly. It may be the case that the US utilizes NATO to spread its influence over European countries and have an ability to threaten Russia right by its borders.
However, in the modern world it's not only states and non-state actors who can affect international security discourse. Terrorist groups nowadays are a major threat to international security. Ever since the 9/11 and the beginning of "The War on Terrorism", world's greatest powers have stressed many times the importance of joint efforts to stop the spread of terrorism. Today, the major part of international security discourse has to deal with stopping ISIL (ISIS). The Islamic State, while not being a state in its classical definition, therefore monopolizes international security discourse.
Nevertheless, the term "terrorism" is very subjective and deeply political. A group fighting for its rights can be labelled terrorists under one set of circumstances, while it can be considered a peacemaking group in a different set of conditions. This can depend on political context and interests of states and nonstate actors at any given period. For example, as the leader of the African National Congress, Nelson Mandela was found guilty of sabotage during the apartheid regime in South Africa and was imprisoned for 27 years. Four years after his release from prison, Mandela became the country's first president to be elected democratically6. Therefore, there are certain cases of using the label "terrorist" to
weaken one's opponents or achieve public appeal. -
6 Columbia Peoples and Vaughan-Williams, N. Critical Security Studies. An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2015, p.141.
Conclusion
Assumptions of classical realism are not completely outdated, even though they need to be modified in order to be relevant in the modern world. However, the question is - will it still be considered realism?
First of all, state remains as the main decision-maker in international relations. The emergence of new non-state actors, however, has changed the old order. Interstate organizations, such as UN and NATO, have the ability to influence nations' domestic and international policies. Transnational corporations can now operate as "a state in a state", especially in developing and undeveloped countries. Therefore, states and non-state organizations are interdependent.
Also, there is still anarchy in international relations, but it is now "mature anarchy". Firstly, there is a strong hegemon (the US) who can utilize its authority to determine other states' policies. Secondly, with the establishment of international military alliances, such as NATO, states no longer depend only on themselves in the matter of security.
What's more, power still remains the main instrument in security ensuring. However, there are now different types of power, such as economic, scientific and social powers. Thus, soft power can also be an instrument in international security. Nuclear weapons have also changed the approach to traditional power, because nuclear weaponry is capable of preventing both nuclear and regular conflicts on the global scale.
Moreover, the power is no longer exclusively zero-sum. Since there are new approaches to power, the victor in any conflict can still lose in terms of its international authority and economy, which will most likely have a negative impact on the state. Potential nuclear conflicts will not lead to gain of power by any side of the conflict as well.
Finally, great powers tend to monopolize international security discourse. Since the intergovernmental organizations are backed by states, the most powerful of them [states] can use their authority to secure their interests. However, there are also such actors as terrorist groups, who can also have an influence on international security discourse, but the term "terrorist" in some cases rather political and subjective. This term can be used by states to manipulate people's perception and achieve their goals.
Reference:
1. Arts, B. (2003), Non-state actors in global governance - a power analysis, in 'The Governance of Global Issues - Effectiveness, Accountability, and Constitutionalization.', Max-Planck-Projektgruppe Recht der Gemeinschaftsg'uter, ECPR Joint Sessions, Edinburgh, Scotland.
2. Bilgin, P. and Elis, B, 'Hard Power, Soft Power: Toward a More Realistic Power Analysis', Insight Turkey 10 (2), 2008, 5-20.
3. Columbia Peoples and Vaughan-Williams, N. Critical Security Studies. An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2015, 225.
4. InterAction website. URL: www.interaction.org accessed: 9 November 2016
5. Jochnick, C. 'Confronting the impunity of non-state actors: new fields for the promotion of human rights', Human Rights Quarterly, 1999, 56-79.
6. Karns, M.P., Mingst, K.A. and Stiles, K.W. International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Government. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2015, 671.
7. Khmylev V. Modern International Relations. Tomsk: Tomsk Polytechnic University, 2010.-210 p.
8. Kose, M.A. and Ozturk, E.O. 'A World of Change: Taking Stock of the Past Half Century', Finance & Development, September 2014, 6-11.
9. Nye Jr., Joseph S. Soft Power. The means to success in world politics. - N.Y.: Public Affairs, 2004. - 193 p.
UDC 335.17:519.78
Getmanova E. F. Undergraduate Belisheva V.S. Dmitrienko N.Á.
Institute of service sector and entrepreneurship (branch) of DSTU in Shakhty
Russia, Rostov region, Shakhty PROCESS APPROACH IN EDUCATION
Abstract: the article deals with one of the main approaches of educational organization management. Advantages of the process approach, the main types of the educational organizations according to the Federal law of 29.12.2012 N 273-FZ (an edition of 25.12.2018) are considered. The basic processes of educational activity are revealed.
Key words: organization, process approach, process.
In the present conditions of functioning and development of the educational system, the need to improve the quality of education is intensified, which entails better training of specialists of primary, secondary and higher education levels, it reveals the need to improve the system of professional competences by improving the quality management system of Higher education.
The main provisions of the process approach to quality are described in GOST R ISO 9001-2001. According to this document, "the process approach is the application of the system of processes in the organization combined with their identification and interaction, as well as process management". The advantage of the process approach is the continuity of management. The process approach can use a large number of tools and techniques within the normal structure of education. One of the tools of intelligent management is the so-called "process approach". Process approach- is an approach to the organization and analysis of the company, based on the allocation and consideration of its business processes, each of which takes place in conjunction with other business processes of the company or the external environment. Let's consider the process approach on the example of an educational organization.
