intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2020.18.4.63.1intertrends-228Research ArticleРЕАЛЬНОСТЬ И ТЕОРИЯREALITY AND THEORYЛидерство и принятие внешнеполитических решений в эпоху нового технологического укладаLeadership and Foreign Policy Decision-Making in the Next Innovation WaveСучковМ. А.SuchkovM. A.

Сучков Максим Александрович - кандидат политических наук, доцент Кафедры прикладного анализа международных проблем 

Москва

Dr Maksim Suchkov - Associate Professor, Department of Applied International Political Analysis

Moscow 119454

suchkov.m@my.mgimo.ruРеброО И.RebroO. I.

Ребро Ольга Игоревна - эксперт Центра перспективных американских исследований ИМИ 

Москва

Mrs Olga Rebro - Expert, Center of Advanced American Studies, Institute for International Studies

Moscow 119454

СушенцовA. А.SushentsovA. A.

Сушенцов Андрей Андреевич - кандидат политических наук, директор Института международных исследований

Москва

 

Dr Andrey Sushentsov - Director, Institute for International Studies, Associate Professor, Department of Applied International Political Analysis

Moscow 119454

БайковА.BaykovA. A.

Байков Андрей Анатольевич - кандидат политических наук, доцент, директор Научно-образовательного форума по международным отношениям

Москва

Dr Andrey Baykov - Executive Director, Academic and Educational Forum on International Relations, Visiting Professor, Henley Business School, University of Reading (UK)

Moscow 119454

МГИМО МИД РоссииРоссияMGIMO UniversityRussian Federation2020301220201846280Copyright © Сучков М.А., Ребро О.И., Сушенцов A.А., Байков А.A., 20202020Сучков М.А., Ребро О.И., Сушенцов A.А., Байков А.Suchkov M.A., Rebro O.I., Sushentsov A.A., Baykov A.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/228

Развитие цифровых технологий превращает существующее знание об окружающем мире в единую количественно измеримую систему и приводит к глубоким переменам во взаимодействии человека с информацией. Появление новых возможностей формирует качественно новую технологическую среду, в которой одновременно расширяется использование данных и снижаются барьеры при взаимодействии человека с ней. Мы находимся в начале трансформаций, сопоставимых по значению с распространением книгопечатания, однако человечество ещё только начинает ощущать неизбежные социальные и политические последствия нового технологического уклада. Анализируя происходящие процессы цифровизации, авторы данного исследования намечают магистральные направления влияния цифровых технологий на международные отношения и принятие внешнеполитических решений.

С точки зрения теоретического осмысления цифровизации основные школы теории международных отношений предлагают разнообразные, но пока дисперсные подходы к определению влияния новых технологий на соотношение силы международных субъектов, природу государств и их взаимоотношений в качественно новой международной среде, а также последствия трансформации восприятия этих процессов на реальную политику. При этом на фоне увеличения количественной измеримости – и как следствие рациональности – процесса познания окружающего мира теоретики в области принятия решений пока не могут найти верифицируемые способы учёта «человеческого фактора». Тщетность этих усилий подчёркивает центральный тезис настоящей статьи: при общем тренде на конвергенцию измеряемой информационной системы и индивида именно человек будет определять, каким образом использовать новые технологии. Таким образом, эффективность лидерства в международных отношениях будет определяться «качеством человеческого капитала» правящих элит.

Такие характеристики цифровой среды, как доступность информации, скорость передачи данных и устранение пространственных барьеров, с одной стороны, усиливают аналитические способности человека и как следствие качество принимаемых решений. С другой стороны, они приводят к смещению акцентов: осмысление решения уступает место поиску наиболее приемлемого варианта, выявление и устранение причин кризиса – управлению информацией о нём, а качество решений измеряется не долгосрочными последствиями, но сиюминутным одобрением

The evolution of digital technologies rooted in the transformation of the world into a holistic quantifiable system brings about foundational shifts in how an individuals interact with information. Current technological progress is cyclical in nature: emerging capabilities create different environment with new threats that prompt further search for technological solutions to address them, and occurs\on two interwoven tracks: the increasing sophistication of the information system itself (better ways to collect, store and analyze data) and better means of human interaction with it (search engines, faster connection, more seamless interface with devices). Similar in scope to the spread of printed books, the digital transformation is still at its nascency: the “printing press” has been invented, but the humanity is yet to perfect it and experience the full array of social and political changes it is bound to incur.This article is an attempt to peek into such “digital future”. Taking stock of the observable trends it charts the course of major shifts in approaches to foreign policy and maps out possible impediments for effective leadership in the new era.The conceptualization of the transformations is picking up speed, yet main IR schools tackling dispersed aspects, such as the impact of digital technologies on the balance of power (realism), on the nature of government and international environment (liberalism) and on the interpretation of the emerging processes (constructivism), do not offer a comprehensive approach. At the same time despite the growing analyzability and, hence, rationality of the world the studies of the decision-making process still struggle to account for the “human nature” of state leadership.The futility of the attempts to measure irrationality underlines the core argument of the article – with the overall trend for deeper convergence between an information system and a human the emerging digital future will be determined by individuals, who will remain the ultimate stewards of international relations. As a result, the efficiency of leadership, including smart utilization of technological advances, will depend on the quality of “human capital” of elites.On the one hand, accessibility of information, faster data travel and the absence of physical boundaries in the digital space enhance analytical abilities of individuals and improve the quality of decision making. On the other hand, the increasing effortlessness of retrieving, storing and disseminating information results in the shift of perspective: laborious process of developing a solution is substituted by search for the most acceptable alternative, solving a crisis is replaced with manipulating the perception of it, and the quality of decisions is judged not by long-term consequences but by immediate movements in opinion polls.

технологиитехнологический укладтеория международных отношенийпроцесс принятия решенийвнешнеполитические решениявнешняя политикадилемма рациональности при принятии решенийлидерствопостправдасимволизация внешней политикиtechnologyinnovation wavetheory of international relationsforeign policydecision-making processrationality in decision-makingleadershippost-truthpolitical symbolsИсследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ и ЭИСИ в рамках научного проекта №20-011-31066.The study was funded by RFBR and EISR, project number 20-011-31066.ReferencesДанилин И.В. Влияние цифровых технологий на лидерство в глобальных процессах: от платформ к рынкам? // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. 2020. 13(1). С. 100–116.Allison G. (1969). Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. American Political Science Review, 63: 689–718.Дегтерёв Д.А. Компьютерное моделирование международных отношений // Международные процессы. 2011. Т. 9. №. 3. С. 53–66.Allison G., Zelikow P. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Vol. 327. No. 729.1. Boston: Little, Brown.Истомин И.А. Логика поведения государств в международной политике. М.: Аспект Пресс, 2019. 296 с.Astorino-Courtois A., Trusty B. (2000). Degrees of Difficulty: The Effect of Israeli Policy Shifts on Syrian Peace Decisions. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44: 359–377.Мельникова О.А. Основные задачи информационного обеспечения внешнеполитической деятельности // Вестник МГИМО Университета. 2015. №. 2 (41). С. 93–100.Bendor J., Hammond T.H. (1992). Rethinking Allison’s Models. American Political Science Review, 86: 301–322.Цыганков П.А. Теория международных отношений: традиции и современность / Сост., науч. ред. и коммент. П.А. Цыганкова. М.: Гардарики, 2002. 400 с.Berejikian J.D. (2002). A Cognitive Theory of Deterrence. Journal of Peace Research, 39(2): 165–183.Allison G. Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis // American Political Science Review, 63, 1969. P. 689–718.Brodie B. (ed.). (1946). The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. 214 p.Allison G., Zelikow P. Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown, 1971. 338 p.Brulé D., Mintz A. (2006). Blank Check or Marching Orders? Public Opinion and Presidential Use of Force in the United States. In H. Starr (ed.) Approaches, Levels and Methods of Analysis in International Politics: Crossing Boundaries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 157–172.Astorino-Courtois A., Trusty B. Degrees of Difficulty: The Effect of Israeli Policy Shifts on Syrian Peace Decisions. // Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44, 2000. P. 359–377.Bueno de Mesquita B. (1980). An Expected Utility Theory of International Conflict. The American Political Science Review, 74(4): 917–931.Bendor J., Hammond T.H. Rethinking Allison’s Models // American Political Science Review, 86, 1992. P. 301–322.Bueno de Mesquita B. (1981). The War Trap. New Haven: Yale University Press. 223 p. Carlsnaes W. et al. (2012). Handbook of International Relations. SAGE. 904 p.Berejikian J.D. A Cognitive Theory of Deterrence // Journal of Peace Research, 39(2), 2002. P. 165–183.Carmines E.G., Stimson J.A. (1980). The Two Faces of Issue Voting. American Political Science Review, 74: 78–91.Brodie B. (ed.). The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1946. 214 p.Christensen E., Redd S. (2004). Bureaucrats vs. the Ballot Box in Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Experimental Analysis of the Bureaucratic Politics Model and the Poliheuristic Theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48: 69–90.Brulé D., Mintz A. Blank Check or Marching Orders? Public Opinion and Presidential Use of Force in the United States // H. Starr (ed.) Approaches, Levels and Methods of Analysis in International Politics: Crossing Boundaries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. P. 157–172.Cobb M.D., Kuklinski J.H. (1997). Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political Persuasion. American Journal of Political Science, 41: 88–121.Bueno de Mesquita B. An Expected Utility Theory of International Conflict // The American Political Science Review, 74(4), 1980. P. 917–931.Craig A., Valeriano B. (2016). Conceptualising Cyber Arms Races. IEEE Proceedings for CCDCOE CyberCon, 8th International Conference on Cyber Conflict: Cyber Power: 141–158.Bueno de Mesquita B. The War Trap. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. 223 p.Cummings M.L., Roff H.M., Cukier K., Parakilas J., Bryce H. (2018). Artificial Intelligence and International Affairs: Disruption Anticipated. Chatham House Report. 50 p.Carlsnaes W. et al. Handbook of International Relations. SAGE, 2012. 904 p.Cyert R.M., March J.G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 332 p.Carmines E.G., Stimson J.A. The Two Faces of Issue Voting // American Political Science Review, 74, 1980. P. 78–91.D’Ancone M. (2017). Post truth. The new war on truth and how to fight back. London: Ebury Press. 320 p.Christensen E., Redd S. Bureaucrats vs. the Ballot Box in Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Experimental Analysis of the Bureaucratic Politics Model and the Poliheuristic Theory // Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48, 2004. P. 69–90.Danilin I.V. (2020). Vliyanie tsifrovykh tehnologii na liderstvo v globalnykh protsessakh: ot platform k rynkam? [The Impact of Digital Technology on Leadership in Global Trends: From a Platform to Markets?] Vestnik MGIMO, 13(1): 100–116.Cobb M.D., Kuklinski J.H. Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political Persuasion // American Journal of Political Science, 41, 1997. P. 88–121.Degterev D.A. (2011). Kompyuternoye modelirovaniye mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Computer Modelling of International Relations]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 9. №. 3: 53–66.Craig A., Valeriano B. Conceptualising Cyber Arms Races. IEEE Proceedings for CCDCOE CyberCon, 8th International Conference on Cyber Conflict: Cyber Power, 2016. P. 141–158.DeRouen K., Sprecher C. (2004). Initial Crisis Reaction and Poliheuristic Theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48: 56–68.Cummings M.L., Roff H.M., Cukier K., Parakilas J., Bryce H. Artificial Intelligence and International Affairs: Disruption Anticipated. Chatham House Report, 2018. 50 p.Drezner D. (2019) Technological change and international relations. International Relations, 33 (2). P. 286–303.Cyert R.M., March J.G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1963. 332 p.Edelman M. (1971). Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence. Chicago: Markham Publishing. 188 p.D’Ancone M. Post truth. The new war on truth and how to fight back. London: Ebury Press, 2017. 320 p.Eriksson J., Giacomello G. (2007). International Relations and Security in the Digital Age. Routledge. 230 p.DeRouen K., Sprecher C. Initial Crisis Reaction and Poliheuristic Theory // Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48, 2004. P. 56–68.Eriksson J., Newlove-Eriksson L. (2021) Theorizing Technology in International Relations: Prevailing Perspectives and New Horizons. In: Giacomello G. (ed). Technology and International Relations: The New Horizon in Global Power. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. P. 1–21.Drezner D. Technological change and international relations // International Relations, 33 (2), 2019. P. 286–303.Farnham B. (1992). Roosevelt and the Munich Crisis: Insights from Prospect Theory. Political Psychology, 13: 205–235.Edelman M. Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence. Chicago: Markham Publishing, 1971.188 p.Fearon J.D. (1995). Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization, 49: 379–414.Eriksson J., Giacomello G. International Relations and Security in the Digital Age. Routledge, 2007. 230 p.Feldman M.S. (1989). Order without Design: Information Production and Policy Making. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 216 p.Eriksson J., Newlove-Eriksson L. Theorizing Technology in International Relations: Prevailing Perspectives and New Horizons. In: Giacomello G. (ed). Technology and International Relations: The New Horizon in Global Power. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021. P. 1–21.Fritsch S. (2014). Conceptualizing the ambivalent role of technology in international relations: Between systemic change and continuity. The Global Politics of Science and Technology. Vol. 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg: 115–138.Farnham B. Roosevelt and the Munich Crisis: Insights from Prospect Theory // Political Psychology, 13, 1992. P. 205–235.Fukuyama F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press. 418 p.Fearon J.D. Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization, 49, 1995. P. 379–414.Fukuyama F. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Present Day. New York: Farrar, Straus and Girouz, 658 p.Feldman M.S. Order without Design: Information Production and Policy Making. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989. 216 p.Gilardi F. et al. (2012). Handbook of International Relations. SAGE Publications. 904 p.Fritsch S. Conceptualizing the ambivalent role of technology in international relations: Between systemic change and continuity. The Global Politics of Science and Technology. Vol. 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2014. P. 115–138.Halperin M. (1974). Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 400 p.Fukuyama F. Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Present Day. New York: Farrar, Straus and Girouz, 2014. 658 p.Hilsman R. (1967). To Move a Nation. New York: Doubleday. 425 p.Fukuyama F. The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press, 1992. 418 p.Hoijtink, M., Leese, M. (eds.) (2019). Technology and agency in international relations. Routledge. 222 p.Gilardi F. et al. Handbook of International Relations. SAGE Publications, 2012. 904 p.Hudson V.M. (2005). Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of international Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(1): 1–30.Halperin M. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1974. 400 p.Huntington S.P. (1960). Strategic Planning and the Political Process. Foreign Affairs, 38: 285–299.Hilsman R. To Move a Nation. New York: Doubleday, 1967. 425 p.Hurwitz J., Manne G.A. (2018). Classical Liberalism and the Problem of Technological Change. ICLE Innovation & the New Economy Research Program, White Paper 1. 50 p.Hoijtink, M., & Leese, M. (eds.). Technology and agency in international relations. Routledge, 2019. 222 p.Istomin I.A. (2019). Logika povedeniya gosudarstv v mezhdunarodnoi politike [The Logic of State Conduct in International Politics]. M.: Aspect Press. 296 p.Hudson V.M. Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of international Relations // Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(1), 2005. P. 1–30.Jervis R. (1979). Deterrence Theory Revisited. World Politics, 31(2): 289–324.Huntington S.P. Strategic Planning and the Political Process // Foreign Affairs, 38, 1960. P. 285–299.Kahneman D. et al. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5: 193–206.Hurwitz J., Manne G.A. Classical Liberalism and the Problem of Technological Change. ICLE Innovation & the New Economy Research Program, White Paper 1, 2018. 50 p.Kahneman D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farra, Straus and Giroux, 499 p.Jervis R. Deterrence Theory Revisited // World Politics, 31(2), 1979. P. 289–324.Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47: 263–291.Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farra, Straus and Giroux, 2011. 499 p.Kaplan M. (1957). System and Process in International Relations. Huntington, NY: Krieger. 283 p.Kahneman D. et al. The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias // Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 1991. P. 193–206.Kim W., Bueno de Mesquita B. (1995). How Perceptions Influence the Risk of War. International Studies Quarterly, 39: 51–65.Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk // Econometrica, 47, 1979. P. 263–291.Kissinger H. (2014). World Order. Penguin. 432 p.Kaplan M. System and Process in International Relations. Huntington, NY: Krieger, 1957. 283 p.Levy J.S. (1997). Prospect theory and the cognitive-rational debate. In: Decisionmaking on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate. Lynne Rienner Publishers: 33–50.Kim W., Bueno de Mesquita B. How Perceptions Influence the Risk of War // International Studies Quarterly, 39, 1995. P. 51–65.Levy J.S. (1992). An Introduction to Prospect Theory. Political Psychology, 13: 171–186.Kissinger H. World Order. Penguin, 2014. 432 p.Lewandowsky S. et al. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “Post-Truth” era, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4): 353–369.Levy J.S. Prospect theory and the cognitive-rational debate. In: Decision making on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997. P. 33–50.Lindblom C.E. (1959). The Science of “Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review, 19: 79–88.Levy J.S. An Introduction to Prospect Theory // Political Psychology, 13, 1992. P. 171–186.Losev A. (2016). Countercyclical Policies. Russia in Global Affairs, 14 (3): 70–78.Lewandowsky S. et al. Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “Post-Truth” era // Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 2017. P. 353–369.Maoz Z. (1990). National Choices and International Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lindblom C.E. The Science of “Muddling Through” // Public Administration Review, 19, 1959. P. 79–88.March J.G., Simon H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley. 262 p.Losev A. Countercyclical Policies // Russia in Global Affairs, 14 (3), 2016. P. 70–78.McCarthy D. (2015). Power, information technology, and international relations theory. Palgrave Studies in International Relations, 220 p.Maoz Z. National Choices and International Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 609 p.McDermott R. (1992). Prospect Theory in International Relations: The Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission. Political Psychology, 13: 237–263.March J.G., Simon H.A. Organizations. New York: John Wiley, 1958. 262 p.McIntire L. (2018). The post-truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 240 p.McCarthy D. Power, information technology, and international relations theory. Palgrave Studies in International Relations, 2015. 220 p.Melnikova O.A. (2015). Osnovnyye zadachi informatsionnogo obespecheniya vneshnepoliticheskoi deyatelnosty [The Main Goals of Information Service in Foreign Policy-Making]. Vestnik MGIMO. 2(41): 93–100.McDermott R. Prospect Theory in International Relations: The Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission // Political Psychology, 13, 1992. P. 237–263.Mintz A., Redd S. (2003). Framing Effects in International Relations. Synthese, 135: 193–213.McIntire L. The post-truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018. 240 p.Mintz A. et al. (1997). The Effect of Dynamic and Static Choice Sets on Political Decision Making: An Analysis Using the Decision Board Platform. American Political Science Review, 91: 553–566.Mintz A., Redd S. Framing Effects in International Relations // Synthese, 135, 2003. P. 193–213.Mintz A. (1993). The Decision to Attack Iraq: A Noncompensatory Theory of Decision Making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(4): 595–618.Mintz A. et al. The Effect of Dynamic and Static Choice Sets on Political Decision Making: An Analysis Using the Decision Board Platform // American Political Science Review, 91, 1997. P. 553–566.Mintz A. (2005). Are Leaders Susceptible to Negative Political Advice? An Experimental Study of HighRanking Military Officers. In: Mintz A. and Russett B.M. (eds.) New Directions for International Relations: Confronting the Method of Analysis Problem. Lahman, MD: Lexington: 223–238.Mintz A. Are Leaders Susceptible to Negative Political Advice? An Experimental Study of High-Ranking Military Officers // Mintz A. and Russett B.M. (eds.) New Directions for International Relations: Confronting the Method of Analysis Problem. Lahman, MD: Lexington, 2005. P. 223–238.Mintz A., DeRouen K. (2010). Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 208 p.Mintz A. The Decision to Attack Iraq: A Noncompensatory Theory of Decision Making // Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(4), 1993. P. 595–618.Mintz A., Geva N. (1997). The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decisionmaking. In: Geva N., Mintz A. (eds.). Decisionmaking on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner: 81–101.Mintz A., DeRouen K. Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 208 p.Monroe K.R. (1991). The Theory of Rational Action: What Is It? How Useful Is It for Political Science? In: Crotty W.J. (ed.) Political Science: Looking to the Future. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press: 75–89.Mintz A., Geva N. The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decisionmaking. In: Geva N., Mintz A. (ed.). Decisionmaking on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1997. P. 81–101.Morgenthau H. J. (1972). Science: servant or master? New York: Meridian Books. 155 p.Monroe K.R. The Theory of Rational Action: What Is It? How Useful Is It for Political Science? // Crotty W.J. (ed.) Political Science: Looking to the Future. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1991. P. 75–89.Morrow J. (2000). The Ongoing Game-Theoretic Revolution. In: Midlarsky M.I. (ed.) Handbook of War Studies II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press: 164–192.Morgenthau H.J. Science: servant or master? New York: Meridian Books, 1972. 155 p.National Research Council (2014). Complex Operational Decision Making in Networked Systems of Humans and Machines: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Morrow J. The Ongoing Game-Theoretic Revolution // Midlarsky M.I. (ed.) Handbook of War Studies II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000. P. 164–192.Nye J.S, Jr. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, 80: 153–171.Nye J.S, Jr. Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalization. London: Routledge, 2004. 240 p.Nye J.S, Jr. (2004). Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalization. London: Routledge. 240 p.Nye J.S, Jr. Soft Power // Foreign Policy, 80, 1990. P. 153–171.Ostrom Ch.W., Job B.L. (1986). The President and the Political Use of Force. The American Political Science Review, 80(2): 541–566.Ostrom Ch.W., Job B.L. The President and the Political Use of Force // The American Political Science Review, 80(2), 1986. P. 541–566.Payne J.W. et al. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 307 p.Payne J.W. et al. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 307 p.Preliminary Study on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. (2019). UNESCO COMEST. 26 February. 33 p. URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367823Preliminary Study on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. UNESCO COMEST. 26 February, 2019. P. 13–14. URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367823Redd S. (2005). The Influence of Advisers and Decision Strategies on Foreign Policy Choices: President Clinton’s Decision to Use Force in Kosovo. International Studies Perspectives, 6: 129–150.Redd S. The Influence of Advisers and Decision Strategies on Foreign Policy Choices: President Clinton’s Decision to Use Force in Kosovo // International Studies Perspectives, 6, 2005. P. 129–150.Redd S. (2002). The Influence of Advisers on Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Experimental Study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46: 335–364.Redd S. The Influence of Advisers on Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Experimental Study // Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46, 2002. P. 335–364.Reus-Smit Ch., Snidal D. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford University Press. 772 p.Reus-Smit Ch., Snidal D. The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford University Press, 2008. 772 p.Robinson J.A., Snyder R.C. (1965). Decision-making in international politics. In: Kelman H.C. (ed.) International Political Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston: 435–463.Robinson J.A., Snyder R.C. Decision-making in international politics // Kelman H.C. (ed.) International Political Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965. P. 435–463.Rosenau J.N. (1966). Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy. In: Farrell R.B. (ed.) Approaches to Comparative and International Politics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press: 115–169.Rosenau J.N. Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy // Farrell R.B. (ed.) Approaches to Comparative and International Politics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1966. P. 115–169.Rosenau J.N. (1990). Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton University Press. 480 p.Rosenau J.N. Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton University Press, 1990. P. 480.Savage L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. N.Y. 294 p.Savage L.J. The Foundations of Statistics. N.Y., 1954. 294 p.Schelling T. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. London: Oxford University Press. 328 p.Schelling T. The Strategy of Conflict. London: Oxford University Press, 1960. 328 p.Scheuerman W.E. (2009). Realism and the critique of technology. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(4): 563–584.Scheuerman W.E. Realism and the critique of technology // Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(4), 2009. P. 563–584.Simon H. (ed.) (1957). Models of Man. New York: John Wiley. 287 p.Simon H. (ed.) Models of Man. New York: John Wiley, 1957. 287 p.Snyder R.C. et al. (2002). Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Revisited). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 186 p.Snyder R.C. et al. Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Revisited). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. 186 p.Solomon T. (2015). The Politics of Subjectivity in American Foreign Policy Discourses. Political Science. 246 p.Solomon T. The Politics of Subjectivity in American Foreign Policy Discourses // Political Science, 2015. 246 p.Stein J.G., Welch D.A. (1997). Rational and Psychological Approaches to the Study of International Conflict: Comparative Strengths and Weaknesses. In: Geva N., Mintz A. (ed.). Decisionmaking on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner: 51–77.Stein J.G., Welch D.A. Rational and Psychological Approaches to the Study of International Conflict: Comparative Strengths and Weaknesses // Geva N., Mintz A. (ed.). Decisionmaking on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1997. P. 51–77.Steinbruner J.D. (1974/2002). The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 332 p.Steinbruner J.D. The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974/2002. 323 p.Surratt C.G. (2017). The Internet and Social Change. McFarland. 239 p.Surratt C.G. The Internet and Social Change. McFarland, 2017. 239 p.Susskind J. (2018). Future Politics: Living Together in a World Transformed by Tech. Oxford University Press. 516 p.Susskind J. Future Politics: Living Together in a World Transformed by Tech. Oxford University Press, 2018. 516 p.Tsygankov P.A. (2002). Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii: traditsii i sovremennost [Theory of International Relations: Traditions and Modern State]. Moscow: Gardariki. 400 p.Verba S. Assumptions of Rationality and Non-Rationality in Models of the International System // World Politics, 14(1), 1961. P. 93–117.Verba S. (1961). Assumptions of Rationality and Non-Rationality in Models of the International System. World Politics, 14(1): 93–117.Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944. 625 p.Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 625 p.Welch D.A. The Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Paradigms: Retrospect and Prospect // International Security, 17(2), 1992. P. 112–146.Welch D.A. (1992). The Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Paradigms: Retrospect and Prospect. International Security, 17(2): 112–146.Wendt A. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 452 p.Wendt A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 452 p.Whyte G., Levi A.S. The Origins and Function of the Reference Point in Risky Group Decision Making: The Case of the Cuban Missile Crisis // Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 1994. P. 243–260.Whyte G., Levi A.S. (1994). The Origins and Function of the Reference Point in Risky Group Decision Making: The Case of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7: 243–260.Wilson W. The Study of Administration // Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 1887. P. 197–222.Wilson W. (1887). The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2): 197–222.Wittman D. How a War Ends: A Rational Model Approach // Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23, 1979. P. 743–763.Wittman D. (1979). How a War Ends: A Rational Model Approach. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23: 743–763.Zagare C.F. Rational Choice Models and International Relations Research // International Interactions, 15(3–4), 1990. P. 197–201.Zagare C.F. (1990). Rational Choice Models and International Relations Research. International Interactions, 15(3-4): 197–201.Zey M. Decision Making: Alternatives to Rational Choice Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1992. 454 p.Zey M. (1992). Decision Making: Alternatives to Rational Choice Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 454 p.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.