|
The Anthropology of International
Relations
By Eduard Batalov
Current
inquiries in the field of IR arguably tend to ignore the "human
factor". For example, while analyzing global challenges,
many prominent scholars operate mostly at the systemic and
nation-state levels, but fail to adequately address the intellectual
capacities and creative potential of national and international
leaders who tackle global challenges. It is important that the studies of the Human as a designer
and builder of international relations not equate Homo politicus
with Homo international – the latter functions in a wide variety
of areas apart from politics, including transnational economic
or cultural exchanges. Research on the "international
dimension" of human behavior should embrace and, possibly,
link "macro-variables" (such as the national character
or mass psychology) and "micro-variables" (e.g.
psychological profiles of popular leaders). An anthropological study of IR should also consider how international
factors change humans. These factors include implications
of humanitarian interventions, regime changes and democratization
under outside influence – to name just a few. The normative
thrust of the discipline should be focused on shaping a New
Homo international whose worldview, values, commitments and
activities are defined and driven by global concerns.
The Self-Determination of
the Russian Nation
By Valery Tishkov
It was only recently that political leaders
and officials in the Russian Federation began to employ the
term "rossiiskaya natsiya (nation)", or "rossiiskiy
narod (people)" to denote the country’s multi-ethnic
population. The adjective "rosiiskiy" here derives
from "Rossia" – the name of the whole Russian State
– and is distinct from "russkiy" (literally meaning
"Russian by ethnic origin"). Rossia is populated
by a large variety of ethnic groups forming the "rossiiskaya
nation" and the Russian Federation as a state. It is,
therefore, suggested that, to avoid confusion of Russians
as an ethnic group with Russians as the nation constituting
the Russian State, the Russian Federation be called Rossia
instead of Russia in English. The people of Rossia (not only ethnic Russians!) have been
long carrying out mission civilisatrice with regard to both
the non-Russian areas of contemporary Russia and many surrounding
states. This was done, among other policies, by propagating
the Russian language which remains the main communication
tool not only within the former Soviet republics, but also
among the inhabitants of different new independent states. The people from these republics seeking to get permanent residence
in the Russian Federation should not be repelled by migration
authorities out of hand as unwelcome migrants. A wiser policy
is necessary whereby the best brains and the most disciplined
and able workers would be invited to live and apply their
skills in Russia.
The Contemporary American
Socio-Economic Model
By Victor Supyan
The relative success of American economy
in the last quarter-century has been defined by specific national
trends as well as state-of-the-art policies rather than by
the observance of general liberal economy principles. These
trends include flexible modes of short-run production, the
rising role of knowledge and the expansion of information
transmission infrastructure, rapid growth of the service sector
(which now accounts for 80% of the U.S. GDP), transition to
corporate ownership of means of production, and shrinking
influence of trade unions in the U.S. economy. With a highly adaptive economy, the U.S. surpassed all other
OECD states in the average GDP growth rate (4.4%) over the
period from 1972 to 2003. Currently, the U.S. produces the
largest GDP which accounts for over 21.3% of the world economic
output. American per capita income of $38,500 yields only
to that of Luxemburg. The United States remains the largest
international investor and creditor. It is also the world’s
leading recipient of foreign capital. After a short downturn in 2001-2003, the U.S. economy started
gathering new speed. In 2000-2004, productivity growth in
the non-agricultural sector reached 4.3% mainly due to the
introduction of new technologies. Although during the 2004 campaign George W. Bush was anxious
to stress distinctions between his presidential platform and
that of the Democratic candidate, the Republican economic
agenda was in fact no less "socially-oriented" than
a traditional left-of-the-center program.
Norms in World Politics
By Yuri Davydov
Rules can serve as a powerful regulative
mechanism in IR. To be an effective tool, they need to be
unambiguous and supported by an administrative apparatus that
monitors their application and coordinates enforcement. Rules
also need to be adaptive and widely accepted as legitimate.
Regulation by rules (as opposed to regulation by force) has
major limitations commonly attributed to the lack of ultimate
authority in IR and the presence of "wrong-doing"
states, e.g. those with undemocratic regimes prone to violence. Rules can be based on morality or legal norms. Yet attempts
to achieve the "rule of morality" in world politics
can lead to excesses in the form of "unbound" behavior
by states believing in their "manifest destiny".
International legal norms appear to be a more effective regulator
than parochial moral values. International order built around
evolving norms is preferable to an order based on morality
or far-fetched "world government" ideals. International norms are based on coordination rather than
subordination. Unlike domestic legal systems, international
norms are created directly by member of the community – national
states. These are most effective in regulating specific "technical"
aspects of IR – such as arms limitations or jus in belli.
The body of contemporary international law is a result of
a century-and-a-half-long evolution which started with conventions
regulating the treatment of injured combatants and civilians
in armed conflicts. |