intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2023.21.2.73.2intertrends-334Research ArticleРЕАЛЬНОСТЬ И ТЕОРИЯREALITY AND THEORYПроблема «очеловечивания» в теории международных отношенийAnthropomorphizing the State in IR TheoryЛошкарёвИ. Д.LoshkariovI.

Лошкарёв Иван Дмитриевич - кандидат политических наук, доцент Кафедры политической теории

Москва

Ivan Loshkariov – Associate Professor, Department of Political Theory

 119454, Moscow 

МГИМО МИД РоссииРоссияMGIMO UniversityRussian Federation2023071220232122243Copyright © Лошкарёв И.Д., 20232023Лошкарёв И.Д.Loshkariov I.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/334

В современной теории международных отношений существует ряд трудноразрешимых проблем, отношение исследователей к которым само по себе демаркирует и маркирует получаемые научные результаты. К числу таких проблем принадлежит и проблема «очеловечивания» — приписывания (или выявления) определённых человеческих характеристик сложным социальным субъектам, в первую очередь государствам. Эта исследовательская техника (и/или онтологическое допущение) зачастую не сводится только к использованию фигур речи, но служит для фиксации эпистемологических оснований дальнейшего теоретизирования. Цель данной статьи состоит в систематизировании существующих подходов к «очеловечиванию» для дальнейшего осмысления этой теоретической проблемы. Автор реконструирует три основные традиции «очеловечивания», восходящие к работам Г. Гроция, Т. Гоббса и Г. Гегеля. Каждой из традиций присущи как определённое понимание значения данной исследовательской техники, так и гносеологические последствия, которые в неявной форме влияют на получаемый результат и его последующую интерпретацию. Традицию Г. Гроция отличает метафорическое понимание «очеловечивания», связанное со своеобразным пониманием прав и свобод индивида. В традиции Т. Гоббса, напротив, внутренние характеристики государства рассматриваются по аналогии с человеком, тогда как выявленные сходства используются для постановки новых исследовательских вопросов. Наконец, традиция, возникшая под влиянием Г. Гегеля, связывает проблематику «очеловечивания» с процессами внешней коммуникации государств. В статье даётся упорядоченная трактовка таких последствий, при этом традиции увязываются с существующими теоретическими школами (насколько это возможно). Впоследствии проводится анализ синтеза нескольких традиций «очеловечивания», представленный А. Вендтом. Новая формирующаяся традиция «очеловечивания» нацелена на чёткое обозначение собственных эпистемологических и онтологических оснований, а также на повышение теоретического статуса самого этого явления. В статье делается вывод о возможности, ограничениях и перспективах пересмотра и более активного привлечения «очеловечивания» в рефлективистской и неопозитивистской методологиях, а также о вероятности появления гибридных версий трёх основных исследовательских традиций.

There are several problems in the modern theory of international relations that are difficult to solve, but the very existence of which leads to a certain demarcation of possible and received knowledge. These phenomena include the problem of ‘anthropomorphizing’, which is an attribution or an identification of certain human characteristics with complex social actors, including, above all, states. This research technique is often not limited to the use of any figures of speech and serves to ascertain the ontological and epistemological foundations for further theorizing. The purpose of this article is to systematize the existing approaches to ‘anthropomorphizing’ and put forward further directions for understanding this theoretical problem. The author reconstructs the three main traditions of ‘anthropomorphizing’ – back to the works of Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes and Georg Hegel. Each tradition has both a certain understanding as regards the meaning of this research technique and ontological along with epistemological consequences, which implicitly affect the result obtained. The tradition of Hugo Grotius is distinguished by a metaphorical understanding of ‘anthropomorphizing’ associated with a peculiar perception of the rights and freedoms of the individual. On the contrary, the tradition of Thomas Hobbes considers the internal characteristics of the state in comparison with a person while similarities are used to raise new research questions. Finally, the last tradition arose under the influence of Georg Hegel. It connects the problem of ‘anthropomorphizing’ with the processes of external communication of states. The article provides an orderly interpretation of ontological and epistemological consequences as well as the traditions that are linked to existing theoretical schools (as much as possible). The author analyzes the synthesis of several traditions of ‘anthropomorphizing’ presented by constructivist Alexander Wendt. The emerging tradition of ‘anthropomorphizing’ is aimed at clearly defining its own epistemological and ontological foundations while raising the theoretical status of ‘humanization’ itself. As a result, the article concludes on the possibility, limitations and prospects of revisiting and more actively using the concept of ‘anthropomorphizing’ in reflectivist and neopositivist methodologies, as well as the likelihood of hybrid versions of the three main research traditions.

очеловечиваниекоммуникацияиндивидтеория международных отношенийсоциальная онтологияanthropomorphizingcommunicationindividualtheory of international relationssocial ontologyReferencesАлексеева Т.А. Теория международных отношений в зеркалах «научных картин мира»: что дальше? // Сравнительная политика. 2017. Т. 8. №. 4. C. 30–41.(1866). International Policy. Essays on the foreign policy of England. London: Chapman and Hall. 636 p.Баталов Э.Я. Антропология международных отношений. М.: Изд-во «Аспект Пресс», 2018. 352 c.Abulof U. (2015). The malpractice of “rationality” in international relations. Rationality and Society. Vol. 27. No. 3. P. 358–384.Гегель Г.В.Ф. Работы разных лет: В 2 т. Т. 1. М.: Институт философии АН СССР; Мысль, 1970. 668 c.Alekseeva T.A. (2017). Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij v zerkalah “nauchnyh kartin mira”: chtodal'she? [IR Theory Through Lenses of Scientific World Pictures: What’s Next?] Sravnitel'naja politika. Vol. 8. No. 4. P. 30–41.Гегель Г.В.Ф. Сочинения. Т. 4. М.: Изд-во социально-экономической литературы, 1959. 630 c.Batalov E. Ya. (2018). Antropologija mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij [The Anthropology of International Relations]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 352 p.Гегель Г.В.Ф. Философия права. М.: Мысль, 1990. 524 c.Beitz C.R. (1999). Political theory and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 264 p.Гоббс Т. Сочинения в двух томах. Т. 2. М.: Институт философии АН СССР; Мысль, 1991. 713 с.Beyer A.C. (2017). International Political Psychology: Explorations into a New Discipline. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 207 p.Гроций Г. О праве войны и мира. М.: Ладомир, 1994. 868 с.Bilgin P. (2008). Thinking Past ‘Western’IR? Third World Quarterly. Vol. 29. No. 1. P. 5–23.Катаев Д.С., Фельдман Д.М. Человек в науке о мировой политике // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. 2010. №. 6. С. 102–107.Bull H. (1976). Martin Wight and the theory of international relations: the second Martin Wight Memorial Lecture. Review of International Studies. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 101–116.Куайн У.В.О. С точки зрения логики: 9 логико-философских очерков / Пер. с англ. В.А. Ладова и В.А. Суровцева; Под общ.ред. В.А. Суровцева. Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 2003. 166 c.Bull H. (1981). Hobbes and the international anarchy. Social Research. Vol. 48. No. 4. P. 717–738.Кузнецов А.М. Человек в международных отношениях: дань времени или необходимая трансформация парадигмы? //Политическая концептология. 2013. №. 2. С. 218–229.Burns T. (2014). Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism? Journal of International Political Theory. Vol. 10. No. 3. P. 325–344.Фельдман Д.М. Мировая политика во власти толпы? // Власть. 2014. №. 8. С. 28–32.Cutler A.C. (1991). The ‘Grotian tradition’ in international relations. Review of International Studies. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 41–65.Филиппов А.Ф. Актуальность философии Гоббса. Статья первая // Социологическое обозрение. 2009. Т. 8. №. 3. С. 102–112.Epstein C. (2011). Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 327–350.Худайкулова А.В., Неклюдов Н.Я. Концепция онтологической безопасности в международно-политическом дискурсе // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. 2019. №. 6 (69). С. 129–148.Fel'dman D.M. (2014). Mirovaja politika vo vlasti tolpy? [World Politics in the Hands of Crowds]. Vlast'. No. 8. P. 28–32.Шмитт К. Левиафан в учении о государстве Томаса Гоббса. М.: Владимир Даль, 2006. 300 c.Filippov A. F. (2009). Aktual'nost' filosofii Gobbsa. Stat'ja pervaja [Relevance of Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy: article one]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 102–112.Штраус Л. Введение в политическую философию / Пер. с англ. М. Фетисова. М.: Логос; Праксис, 2000. 364 c.Fleming S. (2021). The two faces of personhood: Hobbes, corporate agency and the personality of the state. European Journal of Political Theory. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 5–26.Харкевич М.В. Формы публичной дипломатии и типы государств // Политика и общество. 2016. №. 9. С. 1244–1255.Friedrichs J., Kratochwil F. (2009). On acting and knowing: How pragmatism can advance international relations research and methodology. International Organization. Vol. 63. No. 4. P. 701–731.Abulof U. The malpractice of “rationality” in international relations // Rationality and Society. 2015. Vol. 27. No. 3. P. 358–384.Gallarotti G. (2013). The Enduring Importance of Hobbes in the Study of IR. URL: https://www.e-ir.info/2013/01/10/hobbes-is-still-extremely-relevant-for-the-study-of-ir-especially-the-cosmopolitanhobbes/ (accessed: 25.04.2022).Beitz C.R. Political theory and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. 264 p.Gilpin R.G. (1984). The richness of the tradition of political realism. International Organization. Vol. 38. No. 2. P. 287–304.Beyer A.C. International Political Psychology: Explorations into a New Discipline. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. 207 p.Grotius J. (1994). O prave vojny i mira [On Law of War and Peace]. Moscow: Ladomir. 868 p.Bilgin P. Thinking Past ‘Western’IR? // Third World Quarterly. 2008. Vol. 29. No. 1. P. 5–23. Bull H. Hobbes and the international anarchy // Social Research. 1981. Vol. 48. No. 4. P. 717–738.Hegel G.V.F. (1959). Sochinenija [Writings]. Vol. 4. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo social'no-jekonomicheskoj literatury. 630 p.Bull H. Martin Wight and the theory of international relations: the second Martin Wight Memorial Lecture // Review of International Studies. 1976. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 101–116.Hegel G.V.F. (1970). Raboty raznyh let. V 2 tomah [Works of different years]. Vol.1. Moscow: Institut filosofii AN SSSR; Mysl’. 668 p.Burns T. Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism? // Journal of International Political Theory. 2014. Vol. 10. No. 3. P. 325–344.Hegel G.V.F. (1990). Filosofiya prava [Philosophy of law]. Moscow: Mysl'. 524 p. Hobbes T. (1991). Sochinenija v dvuh tomah. Tom 1 [Writings in two volumes. Vol. 2]. Moscow: Institut filosofii AN SSSR; Mysl'. 713 p.Cutler A.C. The ‘Grotian tradition’ in international relations // Review of International Studies. 1991. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 41–65.Hooper C. (2001). Manly States: masculinities, international relations, and gender politics. New York: Columbia University Press. 393 р.Epstein C. Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics // European Journal of International Relations. 2011. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 327–350.Jackson P.T. (2004). Hegel's House, or ‘People are states too’. Review of International Studies. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 281–287.Fleming S. The two faces of personhood: Hobbes, corporate agency and the personality of the state // European Journal of Political Theory. 2021. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 5–26.Jeffery R. (2006). Hugo Grotius in international thought. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 228 p. Kahler M. (1998). Rationality in international relations. International Organization. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 919–941.Friedrichs J., Kratochwil F. On acting and knowing: How pragmatism can advance international relations research and methodology // International Organization. 2009. Vol. 63. No. 4. P. 701–731.Kashyap S. (2022). Tracing Hobbes in Realist International Relations Theory. URL: https://www.e-ir.info/2022/02/22/tracing-hobbes-in-realist-international-relations-theory/ (accessed: 25.04.2022).Gallarotti G. The Enduring Importance of Hobbes in the Study of IR. 2013. URL: https://www.e-ir.info/2013/01/10/hobbes-is-still-extremely-relevant-for-the-study-of-ir-especially-the-cosmopolitanhobbes/ (accessed: 25.04.2022).Kataev D.S., Fel'dman D.M. (2010). Chelovek v nauke o mirovoj politike [A human being in the science of world politics]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No. 6. P. 102–107.Gilpin R.G. The richness of the tradition of political realism // International Organization. 1984. Vol. 38. No. 2. P. 287–304.KHarkevich M. V. (2016). Formy publichnoj diplomatii i tipy gosudarstv [Forms of public diplomacy and types of states]. Politika i obshhestvo. No. 9. P. 1244–1255.Hooper C. Manly States: masculinities, international relations, and gender politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. 393 р.KHudajkulova A., Neklyudov N. (2019). Kontseptsiya ontologicheskoj bezopasnosti v mezhdunarodnopoliticheskom diskurse [Concept of Ontological Security in International Political Discourse]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No. 6 (69). P. 129–148.International Policy. Essays on the foreign policy of England. London: Chapman and Hall, 1866. 636 p.Kuznetsov A.M. (2013). Chelovek v mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenijah: dan' vremeni ili neobkhodimaja transformacija paradigmy? [A human being in international relations: the demand of time or the demanded transformation of science?] Politicheskaja kontseptologiya. No. 2. P. 218–229.Jackson P.T. Hegel's House, or ‘People are states too’ // Review of International Studies.2004. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 281–287.Lerner A. B. (2021). What's it like to be a state? An argument for state consciousness. International Theory. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 260–286.Jeffery R. Hugo Grotius in international thought. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. 228 p. Kahler M. Rationality in international relations // International Organization. 1998. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 919–941.Linklater A. (1996). Hegel, the State and International Relations. In: Clark I. , Neumann I. (eds.). Classical Theories of International Relations. London: Macmillan. P. 93–203.Kashyap S. Tracing Hobbes in Realist International Relations Theory. 2022. URL: https://www.e-ir.info/2022/02/22/tracing-hobbes-in-realist-international-relations-theory/ (accessed: 25.04.2022)Lomas P. (2005). Anthropomorphism, personification and ethics: a reply to Alexander Wendt. Review of International Studies. Vol. 31. No. 2. P. 349–355.Lerner A.B. What's it like to be a state? An argument for state consciousness // International Theory. 2021. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 260–286.MacKay J., Levin J. (2018). A Hegelian realist constructivist account of war, identity, and state formation. Journal of International Relations and Development. Vol. 21. No. 1. P. 75–100.Linklater A. Hegel, the State and International Relations // Classical Theories of International Relations / ed. by Clark I., Neumann I. London: Macmillan, 1996. P. 93–203.Marks M.P. (2011). Metaphors in international relations theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 262 p.Lomas P. Anthropomorphism, personification and ethics: a reply to Alexander Wendt // Review of International Studies. 2005. Vol. 31. No. 2. P. 349–355.Mearsheimer J.J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York–London: W. W. Nanon& Company. 562 p.MacKay J., Levin J. A Hegelian realist constructivist account of war, identity, and state formation // Journal of International Relations and Development. 2018. Vol. 21. No. 1. P. 75–100.Mitzen J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 341–370.Marks M.P. Metaphors in international relations theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. 262 p.Bull H. (1981). Hobbes and the international anarchy. Social Research. Vol. 48. No. 4. P. 717–738.Mearsheimer J.J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York–London: W. W. Nanon&Company, 2001. 562 p.Burns T. (2014). Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism? Journal of International Political Theory. Vol. 10. No. 3. P. 325–344.Mitzen J. Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma // European Journal of International Relations. 2006. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 341–370.Cutler A.C. (1991). The ‘Grotian tradition’ in international relations. Review of International Studies. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 41–65.Neufeld M.A. The restructuring of international relations theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 174 p.Epstein C. (2011). Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 327–350.Neumann I.B. Beware of organicism: the narrative self of the state // Review of International Studies. 2004. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 259–267.Fel'dman D.M. (2014). Mirovaja politika vo vlasti tolpy? [World Politics in the Hands of Crowds]. Vlast'. No. 8. P. 28–32.Onuf N. World of our making: Rules and rule in social theory and international relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1989. 341 p.Filippov A. F. (2009). Aktual'nost' filosofii Gobbsa. Stat'ja pervaja [Relevance of Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy: article one]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 102–112.Ringmar E. On the ontological status of the state // European Journal of International Relations. 1996. Vol. 2. No. 4. P. 439–466.Fleming S. (2021). The two faces of personhood: Hobbes, corporate agency and the personality of the state. European Journal of Political Theory. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 5–26.Schiff J. ‘Real’? As if! Critical reflections on state personhood // Review of International Studies. 2008. Vol. 34. No. 2. P. 363–377.Friedrichs J., Kratochwil F. (2009). On acting and knowing: How pragmatism can advance international relations research and methodology. International Organization. Vol. 63. No. 4. P. 701–731.Skinner Q. Hobbes and Republican Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 245 p.Gallarotti G. (2013). The Enduring Importance of Hobbes in the Study of IR. URL: https://www.e-ir.info/2013/01/10/hobbes-is-still-extremely-relevant-for-the-study-of-ir-especially-the-cosmopolitanhobbes/ (accessed: 25.04.2022).Smith S.B. Hegel’s Views on War, the State, and International Relations // American Political Science Review. 1983. Vol. 77. No. 3. P. 624–632.Gilpin R.G. (1984). The richness of the tradition of political realism. International Organization. Vol. 38. No. 2. P. 287–304.Spragens T.A. The politics of motion: the world of Thomas Hobbes. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1973. 224 p.Grotius J. (1994). O prave vojny i mira [On Law of War and Peace]. Moscow: Ladomir. 868 p.Tuck R. The rights of war and peace: political thought and the international order from Grotius to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 256 p.Hegel G.V.F. (1959). Sochinenija [Writings]. Vol. 4. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo social'no-jekonomicheskoj literatury. 630 p.Vincent A. The Hegelian state and International polities // Review of International Studies. 1983. Vol. 9. No. 3. P. 191–205.Hegel G.V.F. (1970). Raboty raznyh let. V 2 tomah [Works of different years]. Vol.1. Moscow: Institut filosofii AN SSSR; Mysl’. 668 p.Waltz K.N. Theory of International Politics. Long Rove: Waveland Press, 2001. 252 p.Hegel G.V.F. (1990). Filosofiya prava [Philosophy of law]. Moscow: Mysl'. 524 p.Wendt A. How not to argue against state personhood: A reply to Lomas // Review of International Studies. 2005. Vol. 31. No. 2. P. 357–360.Hobbes T. (1991). Sochinenija v dvuh tomah. Tom 1 [Writings in two volumes. Vol. 2]. Moscow: Institut filosofii AN SSSR; Mysl'. 713 p.Wendt A. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 448 p.Hooper C. (2001). Manly States: masculinities, international relations, and gender politics. New York: Columbia University Press. 393 р.Wendt A. The state as person in international theory // Review of international Studies. 2004. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 289–316.Jackson P.T. (2004). Hegel's House, or ‘People are states too’. Review of International Studies. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 281–287.Wight C. Agents, structures and international relations: politics as ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 360 p.Jeffery R. (2006). Hugo Grotius in international thought. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 228 p.Wight M. International Theory: Three Traditions. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1992. 286 p.Kahler M. (1998). Rationality in international relations. International Organization. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 919–941.Williams M.C. Hobbes and international relations: a reconsideration // International Organization. 1996. Vol. 50. No. 2. P. 213–236.Kashyap S. (2022). Tracing Hobbes in Realist International Relations Theory. URL: https://www.e-ir.info/2022/02/22/tracing-hobbes-in-realist-international-relations-theory/ (accessed: 25.04.2022).Yurdusev N.A. Thomas Hobbes and international relations: from realism to rationalism // Australian Journal of International Affairs. 2006. Vol. 60. No. 2. P. 305–321.Kataev D.S., Fel'dman D.M. (2010). Chelovek v nauke o mirovoj politike [A human being in the science of world politics]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No. 6. P. 102–107.KHarkevich M. V. (2016). Formy publichnoj diplomatii i tipy gosudarstv [Forms of public diplomacy and types of states]. Politika i obshhestvo. No. 9. P. 1244–1255.KHarkevich M. V. (2016). Formy publichnoj diplomatii i tipy gosudarstv [Forms of public diplomacy and types of states]. Politika i obshhestvo. No. 9. P. 1244–1255.KHudajkulova A., Neklyudov N. (2019). Kontseptsiya ontologicheskoj bezopasnosti v mezhdunarodnopoliticheskom diskurse [Concept of Ontological Security in International Political Discourse]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No. 6 (69). P. 129–148.KHudajkulova A., Neklyudov N. (2019). Kontseptsiya ontologicheskoj bezopasnosti v mezhdunarodnopoliticheskom diskurse [Concept of Ontological Security in International Political Discourse]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No. 6 (69). P. 129–148.Kuznetsov A.M. (2013). Chelovek v mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenijah: dan' vremeni ili neobkhodimaja transformacija paradigmy? [A human being in international relations: the demand of time or the demanded transformation of science?] Politicheskaja kontseptologiya. No. 2. P. 218–229.Kuznetsov A.M. (2013). Chelovek v mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenijah: dan' vremeni ili neobkhodimaja transformacija paradigmy? [A human being in international relations: the demand of time or the demanded transformation of science?] Politicheskaja kontseptologiya. No. 2. P. 218–229.Lerner A. B. (2021). What's it like to be a state? An argument for state consciousness. International Theory. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 260–286.Lerner A. B. (2021). What's it like to be a state? An argument for state consciousness. International Theory. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 260–286.Linklater A. (1996). Hegel, the State and International Relations. In: Clark I. , Neumann I. (eds.). Classical Theories of International Relations. London: Macmillan. P. 93–203.Linklater A. (1996). Hegel, the State and International Relations. In: Clark I. , Neumann I. (eds.). Classical Theories of International Relations. London: Macmillan. P. 93–203.Lomas P. (2005). Anthropomorphism, personification and ethics: a reply to Alexander Wendt. Review of International Studies. Vol. 31. No. 2. P. 349–355.Lomas P. (2005). Anthropomorphism, personification and ethics: a reply to Alexander Wendt. Review of International Studies. Vol. 31. No. 2. P. 349–355.MacKay J., Levin J. (2018). A Hegelian realist constructivist account of war, identity, and state formation. Journal of International Relations and Development. Vol. 21. No. 1. P. 75–100.MacKay J., Levin J. (2018). A Hegelian realist constructivist account of war, identity, and state formation. Journal of International Relations and Development. Vol. 21. No. 1. P. 75–100.Marks M.P. (2011). Metaphors in international relations theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 262 p.Marks M.P. (2011). Metaphors in international relations theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 262 p.Mearsheimer J.J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York–London: W. W. Nanon& Company. 562 p.Mearsheimer J.J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York–London: W. W. Nanon& Company. 562 p.Mitzen J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 341–370.Mitzen J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 341–370.

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