Global issues of world politics and international development appeal for a «holistic», philosophical approach to studying international relations. Sociological and historical methods provide an incomplete analytical framework, which is inadequate to account for the changing reality. As an emerging discipline, Philosophy of International Relations can contribute to understanding the main characteristics of contemporary world order, provide useful insights into the nature and sources of cooperation and competition among international actors, and expand the ethical perspective on international relations. A philosophical view can also be helpful in defining the notion of harmony in international relations which has clear connections to such applied category as stability.
        As an independent field of study, Philosophy of International Relations needs its firm terminological basis. In developing this basis, the discipline can borrow both from the philosophical domain and from basic theoretical approaches to international relations.

The Notion of «World Politics» in Theorizing International Relations

        The discussion of the notion of world politics has emerged as a major development in Russian international relations scholarship. Western scholars display more skepticism about this notion and its analytical value, and do not distinguish between the theory of international relations and that of world politics. In Russian academic community, however, this distinction reflects an implicit competition between the traditional history-based school and the liberal sociological school of international relations. This paper bridges the gap between the two schools by formulating common theoretical and analytical foundations for their co-development.
        The «world-political» approach offers a new prism of analysis which trespasses the realist division between the realms of foreign and domestic policies. Key features of world politics, as opposed to the traditional understanding of international relations, are inseparability of «internal» (intra-national) aspects of policy-making from «external» (international) ones; debates over national sovereignty and international intervention; legitimating, yet incomplete, of new norms of international conduct that justify external interference in cases when national authorities misuse their power. World politics may be viewed as a stage that the international community reached by the end of the XX century. This makes world politics a fruitful analytical paradigm in accounting for international developments after the collapse of bipolarity. However, it lacks a solid factual basis that the historical school of international relations possesses. Hence, the latter could be helpful in verifying conclusions of the former.

Violence and Non-Violence in the «World Democratic Empire»

       In contemporary international politics, violence continues to be a common instrument of conflict behavior. Two major factors limiting the use of force among states have traditionally been international law and nuclear deterrence. However, international norms fail to prevent violence if not backed by a credible force while the balance of terror is too risky and ineffective in curbing low-intensity conflicts.
        Non-violence and peace can be best promoted through the expansion of the «democratic empire» with the United States at its core. Although the US continues to employ force after the end of the Cold War, violence is now being used to ensure compliance with certain norms of behavior rather than to destroy ideological enemies or geopolitical rivals. Intrastate violence (i.e., brutal oppression of ethnic minorities or citizens’ civil rights) is no longer tolerated by powerful international actors.
        Other systemic features reducing the role of violence in international relations are the unipolar distribution of power that excludes a global armed conflict; new sources of economic growth that are not related to geopolitical expansion; and the enlargement of the global society of developed nations seeking to institutionalize international affairs and benefit from the peaceful economic exchange.

Contemporary American Approaches to Risk Assessment

Do We Need a Philosophy of International Relations?
Round-table discussion

        Scholars representing leading Russian research centers exchanged opinions on (1) whether it is necessary to develop Philosophy of International Relations as a distinct scholarly discipline and (2) what tasks (if any) should such a discipline tackle. On the one hand, it was suggested that philosophical perspectives have little to contribute to our understanding of international relations, and what is called «Philosophy of International Relations» rarely reaches beyond introducing new terminology to characterize well-known phenomena. Advocates of the opposite point of view maintained that philosophical approaches to international relations can be useful in dealing with questions that traditional theories have been unable to solve. These approaches can also help formulate new questions that the theory of international relations should address. Moreover, Philosophy of International Relations can be commissioned to bridge the gaps between various applied, mid-level and meta-theories of international relations. On the applied level, Philosophy of International Relations may provide common language for different cultures which are often more likely to confront each other rather than find ways of peaceful coexistence.

«Hard» and «Soft» Power in International Relations Theory

        Power is commonly defined as the ability of an actor to achieve a desired outcome vis-a-vis another actor. Under anarchy in the international arena, states tend to employ power to promote their interests. Contemporary international developments result in the expanding diversity of state power components. Apart from the military component, there are economic (financial and commercial), technological, informational, ideological and human (educational) dimensions of power.
        Power of an actor depends not only on the possession of certain resources but also on its position in the structure of international politics. Even a country which is ‘weak’ both economically and militarily can exert strong influence in international relations if more powerful actors have important stakes in this country. States relying on a single or a few components of power are more vulnerable to international shocks than actors with a diversified ‘tool kit’. One of the paradoxes of power is that in order to establish and maintain international institutions and legal norms that would reduce motivation for resorting to power, it seems necessary to have an actor whose power will be used to ensure compliance to this set of norms and institutions by other actors.

Persona grata

Faces and personalities

Blair Ruble (U.S.A.).
«Sounding Blunt Not Necessarily Sounding Bad»

Russia and the Baltic States: A Long Road from «Affection» to Friendship

A Time to Choose

Letter to the Editor

The Proselytes Factor in Russia-EU Relations

Networking

Forum strengthens the academic community

Not Only «Chronocentrism»! Continuing the Discussion

Scripta Manent

Reviews

Empire and Fear
Benjamin Barber. Fear’s Empire. War, Terrorism, and Democracy. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Co., 2003. 220 p.

Siberia: A Burden or a Blessing?
Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy. The Siberian Curse. How Communist Planners Left Russia out in the Cold. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2003. 270 р.

Shifting Priorities
Ivo H. Daalder, James M. Lindsay. America Unbound. The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2003. 246 p.

The Future of U.S. Foreign Policy: Globalists vs. Hegemonists
Agenda for the Nation / Henry J. Aaron, James M. Lindsey,
Pietro S. Nivola (eds.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003. 574 p.

«European Islam» or «Islamic Europe»?
V.G. Sobolev. Muslim Diasporas in EU Member States. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Univ. Press, 2003. 148 p.

Russia on the Baltic: Politics and Security
The Kaliningrad Challenge: Options and Recommendations / Hanne-Margaret Birchenbach, Christian Wellmann (eds.). Munster: Lit Verlag, 2003. 304 p.

In brevi

A potentia ad actum

New doctorships

Contents and Summaries

Our authors