intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2023.21.4.75.1intertrends-397Research ArticleРЕАЛЬНОСТЬ И ТЕОРИЯREALITY AND THEORYКибернетическая концепция глобального управленияCybernetic Model of Global GovernanceХаркевичМаксимKharkevichMaximМГИМО МИД России, МоскваРоссияMGIMO University, Moscow, 119454Russian Federation2023250420242144152Copyright © Харкевич М., 20242024Харкевич М.Kharkevich M.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/397

Кибернетическая модель управления, предложенная Норбертом Винером, хорошо описана для национального уровня. Она предполагает постоянный мониторинг значимых показателей для обеспечения успешной обратной связи в отношении предпринимаемых управленческих действий и постоянную адаптацию поведения с опорой на собираемую информацию. Несмотря на то что изначально она разрабатывалась для решения технических задач, её положения оказались переносимы на социальную реальность. Тем не менее для анализа транснациональных и глобальных процессов модель практически не использовалась, невзирая на сложившиеся для этого условия. Сама практика глобального управления стала напоминать классические кибернетические задачи, как, например, удержание средней температуры по планете в пределах роста до 1,5°C относительно доиндустриального периода. Фактически речь идёт о создании системы климат-контроля в планетарных масштабах. Решение такой задачи требует не только изменения моделей социального поведения и экономического потребления на индивидуальном уровне, но и учёта механизмов климатической и геологической эволюции планеты. В статье прослеживается генеалогия кибернетической модели управления от её первого описания в работах Н. Винера до современных работ в политических науках, выделаются основные концепты и ограничения данной модели. С помощью Копенгагенской школы изучения безопасности, в частности с помощью концепта «макросекьюритизации», обосновывается выбор изменения климата в качестве показательного случая для оценки применимости кибернетической модели глобального управления. Анализ практики реализации глобального управления в сфере изменения климата соответствует основным характеристикам кибернетической модели и может быть представлена как её практическая реализация. При этом распространение этой модели на другие сферы глобального управления проблематично, так как требует высокого уровня макросекьюритизации регулируемого вопроса при выделении одного-двух относительно легкоизмеримых показателей.

The cybernetic model of governance, well-established at the national level, has yet to be applied in transnational and global dimensions for analytical purposes, despite favorable conditions for its implementation. Global governance practices are increasingly resembling classic cybernetic challenges, such as maintaining the planet's average temperature within a 1.5°C increase relative to the pre-industrial era. This task essentially involves the creation of climate control on a planetary scale. Its resolution demands not only an acceleration of the energy transition and changes in social behavior and economic consumption patterns at an individual level but also a consideration of the mechanisms of the planet's climatic and geological evolution. This article traces the genealogy of the cybernetic governance model from its initial description in the works of Norbert Wiener to contemporary studies in political science, identifying key concepts and limitations of this model. Utilizing the Copenhagen School of Security Studies, particularly the concept of "macro-securitization," the article justifies the selection of climate change as a crucial case for the cybernetic model of global governance. The analysis of the practice of implementing global governance in the field of climate change aligns with the main characteristics of the cybernetic model and can be viewed as its practical application. The cybernetic model's primary challenge in a global context lies in its requirement for an overarching, unified approach to complex and diverse global issues. The model's emphasis on measurable indicators poses difficulties in areas where quantifiable metrics are less apparent or where multiple competing interests and values must be balanced. This necessitates a nuanced understanding of the global political and socio-economic landscape and the intricate interplay between various actors and factors influencing global governance. The article suggests that while the cybernetic model offers valuable insights for certain global challenges, particularly in environmental governance, its broader application across diverse global governance domains warrants careful consideration and adaptation to the complex realities of global politics and policy-making.

Винерсоотношение силизменение климатаКопенгагенская школаглобальное управлениеWienerbalance of powerclimate changeCopenhagen schoolglobal governanceReferencesБогатуров А.Д. Динамичная стабильность в международной практике // Очерки теории и политического анализа международных отношений / Под ред. А.Д. Богатурова, Н.А. Косолапова, М.А. Хрусталёва. М.: Московский рабочий, 2002. С. 145–171.Adler E., Barnett M. (1998). Security communities. Cambridge University Press. 462 p.Винер Н. Кибернетика и общество. М.: Иностранная литература, 1958. 200 с.Agamben G. (2009). “What is an apparatus?” and other essays. Stanford University Press. 80 p.Жорнист В.М., Несмашный А.Д., Харкевич М.В., Сафранчук И.А. Дифференциация государств по климатической амбициозности: влияние на мировую политику // Вестник международных организаций. 2022. Т. 17. № 1. С. 163–182. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2022-01-08Avant D.D., Finnemore M., Sell S.K. (2010). Who governs the globe? Cambridge University Press. 439 p.Луман Н. Введение в системную теорию. М.: Логос, 2007. 360 с.Bauer R.A. (1966). Social Indicators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 380 p.Монбриаль Т. Действие и система мира. М.: РОССПЭН, 2005. 488 c.Barnett M., Duvall R. (2004). Power in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 375 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491207Agamben G. “What is an apparatus?” and other essays. Stanford University Press, 2009. 80 p.Beckley M. (2018). The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters. International Security. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 7–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00328Adler E., Barnett M. Security communities. Cambridge University Press, 1998. 462 p.Bianchi C. (2010). Improving performance and fostering accountability in the public sector through systems dynamic modelling. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.1038Avant D.D., Finnemore M., Sell S.K. Who governs the globe? Cambridge University Press, 2010. 439 p. Bauer R.A. Social Indicators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1966. 380 p.Bogaturov A.D. (2002) Dinamicheskaya stabil’nost’ v mezhdunarodnoj praktike [Dynamic stability in international practice]. In: Bogaturov A.D., Kosolapov N.A., Khrustalev M.A. Ocherki teorii i politicheskogo analiza mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij. Moscow: Moskovskiy rabochiy. P. 145–171.Barnett M., Duvall R. Power in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 375 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491207Buzan B., Wæver O. (2009). Macrosecuritisation and security constellations: reconsidering scale in securitisation theory. Review of international studies. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 253–276. doi:10.1017/ S0260210509008511Beckley M. The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters // International Security. 2018. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 7–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00328Davis K. E., Kingsbury B., Merry S. E. (2012). Indicators as a technology of global governance. Law & Society Review. Vol. 46. No. 1. P. 71–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00473.xBianchi C. Improving performance and fostering accountability in the public sector through systems dynamic modelling // Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 2010. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.1038Deutsch K. W. (1963). The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control. New York: Free Press. 316 p.Buzan B., Wæver O. Macrosecuritisation and security constellations: reconsidering scale in securitization theory // Review of international studies. 2009. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 253–276. doi:10.1017/ S0260210509008511Durand M. (2015). The OECD better life initiative: How's life? and the measurement of well-being. Review of Income and Wealth. Vol. 61. No. 1. P. 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12156Davis K.E., Kingsbury B., Merry S.E. Indicators as a technology of global governance // Law & Society Review. 2012. Vol. 46. No. 1. P. 71–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00473.xFalkner R., Buzan B. (2022) (ed.). Great powers, climate change, and global environmental responsibilities. Oxford University Press, 2022. 304 p.Deutsch K.W. The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control. New York: Free Press, 1963. 316 p.Fukuyama F. (2011). The origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 608 p.Durand M. The OECD better life initiative: How's life? and the measurement of well-being // Review of Income and Wealth. 2015. Vol. 61. No. 1. P. 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12156Gause F.G. (2017). Ideologies, alignments, and underbalancing in the new Middle East Cold War. PS: Political Science & Politics. Vol. 50. No. 3. P. 672–675.Fukuyama F. The origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. 608 p.Gerring J. (2007) Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge university press. 265 p.Gause F.G. Ideologies, alignments, and underbalancing in the new Middle East Cold War // PS: Political Science & Politics. 2017. Vol. 50. No. 3. P. 672–675.Gindarsah I., Priamarizki A. (2021) Explaining Indonesia’s Under-balancing: The Case of the Modernisation of the Air Force and the Navy. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 391–412.Gerring J. Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge university press, 2007. 265 p.Guzzini S. (2013). Power, Realism and Constructivism. London: Routledge. 360 p. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9780203071748Gindarsah I., Priamarizki A. Explaining Indonesia’s Under-balancing: The Case of the Modernisation of the Air Force and the Navy // Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs. 2021. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 391–412.Lewis S. L., Maslin M. A. (2015). Defining the anthropocene. Nature. Vol. 519. No. 7542. P. 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258Great powers, climate change, and global environmental responsibilities / ed. by R. Falkner, B. Buzan. Oxford University Press, 2022. 304 p.Luhmann N. (2007). Vvedenie v sistemnuyu teoriyu [Introduction to system theory]. Moscow: Logos Publishing House. 360 p.Guzzini S. Power, Realism and Constructivism. London: Routledge, 2013. 360 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203071748Malito D.V., Umbach G., Bhuta N. (eds). (2018). The Palgrave handbook of indicators in global governance. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan Cham. 535 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-62707-6Lewis S.L., Maslin M.A. Defining the Anthropocene // Nature. 2015. Vol. 519. No. 7542. P. 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258Montbrial Th. (2005). Dejstvie i systema mira [Action and system of the world]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. 488 p.Peters G. Information and governing: Cybernetic models of governance // The Oxford Handbook of Governance / ed. by D. Levi-Faur. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. P. 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0008.Peters G. (2012). Information and governing: Cybernetic models of governance. In D. Levi-Faur (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 19–32. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0008.Scharpf F.W. The joint decision-trap: Lessons from German federalism and European integration // Public Administration. 1988. Vol. 66. No. 3. P. 239–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1988.tb00694.xScharpf F.W. (1988). The joint decision-trap: Lessons from German federalism and European integration. Public Administration. Vol. 66. No. 3. P. 239–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1988. tb00694.xSchweller R.L. Unanswered threats: Political constraints on the balance of power. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008. 200 p.Schweller R.L. (2008). Unanswered threats: Political constraints on the balance of power. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 200 p.Steinbruner J.D. The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974. 368 p.Steinbruner J.D. (1974). The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 368 p.The Palgrave handbook of indicators in global governance / ed. by D. V. Malito, G. Umbach, N. Bhuta. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan Cham, 2018. 535 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62707-6Wiener N. (1958). Kibernetika i obschestvo [Cybernetics and society]. Moscow: Foreign literature. 200 p.Wiener N. The Human Use of Human Beings Cybernetics and Society. Hachette Books, 1988. 200 p.Wiener N. (1989). The Human Use of Human Beings Cybernetics and Society. Hachette Books. 200 p.Wiener N. Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press, 2019. 352 p.Wiener N. (2019). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press. 352 p.Zapf W. Social reporting in the 1970s and in the 1990s // Social Indicators Research. 2000. Vol. 51. P. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006997731263Zapf W. (2000). Social reporting in the 1970s and in the 1990s. Social Indicators Research. Vol. 51. P. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006997731263Zürn M. A theory of global governance: Authority, legitimacy, and contestation. Oxford University Press, 2018. 368 p.Zhornist V., Nesmashnyi A., Kharkevich M., Safranchuk I. (2022). Differentsiatsiya gosudarstv po klimaticheskoj ambitsioznosti: vliyanie na mirovuyu politiku [State Differentiation by Climate Ambition: Implications for World Politics]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsij. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 163–182. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2022-01-08Zürn M. (2018). A theory of global governance: Authority, legitimacy, and contestation. Oxford University Press. 368 p.Zürn M. (2018). A theory of global governance: Authority, legitimacy, and contestation. Oxford University Press. 368 p.

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