International Order as a Category of International Studies: Theoretical Foundations

This article is devoted to the study of world order in modern political theory. The author shows that modern Anglo-American and Russian political science share common problems related to its study. First, modern internationalists often unjustifiably take the modern world order out of the context of historical development, contrasting it with the entire world history. Second, modern theories of world order are characterized by a high degree of normativity: political processes are assessed from moral and ethical or openly ideological (usually liberal) positions. Third, researchers today often exaggerate the originality, or uniqueness, of the modern world order, although many of its problems existed in the past. Also, in modern political literature the concepts of "order" and "system" are often confused. Moreover, the mechanism of change of world orders, their qualitative difference from each other, even their number and names have not been revealed. In this regard, the author focuses on two interrelated tasks: 1) to define the relationship between the terms "system" and "order of international relations"; 2) to designate the systemic characteristics of world orders, which will make it possible to identify their number, the mechanism of their change and their qualitative difference. The article aims at clarifying the terminology on the subject of world orders and suggests considering them as completed political systems, which have covered their development cycle – from inception to disintegration. The basic concept of the order is that of balance of power between the great powers and the values and rules of interaction established on its basis. The world order emerges as the result of a total war and is terminated by a total war. Some limited wars regulate relations within the world order. The two types of world orders, namely, the hegemonic order and the balance of power order, acted as two equal types of order. Their disintegration is due to objective reasons, namely, the change in the balance of power and degradation of legal norms, which leads to the emergence of extra-systemic revisionists. The author believes that today’s Yalta-Potsdam order is likely to follow the entire cycle of the development of its predecessors.

1. Alekseeva T.A. (2019). Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij kak politicheskaya teoriya i nauka [Theory of international relations as a political theory and science]. Moscow: Aspekt-Press. 608 p.

2. Barnett M. (2021). International Progress, International Order, and the Liberal International Order. The Chinese Journal of International Politics. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 1–22.

3. Batalov E.Y. (2003). “Novyj mirovoj poryadok”: k metodologii analiza [“New World Order": towards the methodology of analysis]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 5. P. 25–37.

4. Baylis J. et al. (eds) (2008). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 622 p.

5. Bertalanfi L. von. (1969). Obshchaia teoriya sistem – kriticheskij obzor [General theory of systems – a critical review]. In Sadovskij V.N., Yudin E.G. (eds) Issledovaniya po obshchej teorii sistem: sbornik perevodov. Moscow: Progress. P. 23–82.

6. Black J. (2003). European Warfare, 1660–1815. London: UCL Press. 279 р.

7. Bogaturov A.D. (1997). Velikie derzhavy na Tikhom okeane. Istoriya i teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij v Vostochnoj Azii posle Vtoroj mirovoj vojny (1945–1995) [Great Powers on the Pacific Ocean. History and Theory of International Relations in East Asia after the Second World War (1945–1995)]. Moscow: Konvert–MONF. 353 p.

8. Bogaturov A.D. (1999) Sindrom pogloshcheniia v mezhdunarodnoi politike [The syndrome of absorption in international politics]. Pro et Contra. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 28–48.

9. Bogaturov A.D. (2003). Mezhdunarodnyj poryadok v nastupivshem veke [International Order in the Starting Century]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 6–23.

10. Bogaturov A.D. (2016). Protsessy vojny i mira [Processes of War and Peace]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 14. No. 3. P. 28–38.

11. Bogaturov A.D., Fenenko A.V. (2008). Krizis strategii “navyazannogo konsensusa” [Crisis of the Strategy of “Forced Consensus”]. Svobodnaya mysl’. No. 11. P. 5–18.

12. Bogaturov A.D., Kosolapov N.A., Khrustalev M.A. (2002). Ocherki teorii i politicheskogo analiza mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij [Essays on the theory and political analysis of international relations]. Мoscow: Nauchno-obrazovatel'nyi forum po mezhdunarodnym otnosheniiam. 384 p.

13. Bull H. (2002). The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. 329 p.

14. Carr E. H. (1964). The Twenty Years' Crisis: 1919–1939. Harper Perennial. 244 p.

15. Clark I. (2005). Legitimacy in international society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 250 p.

16. Clausewitz K. von (1934). O vojne [On War]. T. 1. Moscow: Gosvoenzidat. 692 p.

17. Cooper R. (1993). Is There a New World Order? In Sato S., Taylor T. (eds.) Prospects for global order. Vol. 2. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs. 26 p.

18. Croxton D. (2013). Westphalia: The Last Christian Peace. Palgrave Macmillan US. 452 p.

19. Davidson J. (2016). The Origins of Revisionist and Status quo States. Springer. 237 p.

20. Davydov Yu. (2002) Norma protiv sily. Problema miroregulirovaniya [Norm versus power. The problem of world regulation]. Moscow: Nauka. 285 p.

21. Duffield J. (2007). What are International Institutions? International Studies Review. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 1–22. Dugin A. G. (2015). Teoriya mnogopolyarnogo mira. Pliuriversum [The theory of a multipolar world. Pluriversum]. Moscow: Evraziiskoe Dvizhenie. 532 p.

22. Etzioni A. (2004). From Empire to Community. N. Y.: Palgrave Macmillan. 256 p.

23. Fenenko A.V. (2020). Istoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii: 1648–1945 [History of International Relations: 1648 – 1945]. 2-e izd. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 800 p.

24. Fenenko A.V. (2022). Vojny v strukture mirovykh poriadkov [Wars in the Structure of World Orders]. Analiz i prognoz. Zhurnal IMEMO RAN. No. 3. Р. 13–36.

25. Finnemore M. (2009). Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity: Why Being a Unipole Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be. World Politics. Vol. 61. No 1. P. 58–85.

26. Florig D. (2010). Hegemonic overreach vs. imperial overstretch. Review of International Studies. 2010. Vol. 36. No 4. P. 1103–1119.

27. Gadzhiev K. (2007). K politsentricheskomu miroporyadku [Towards a political world order]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniia. 2007. No. 4. P. 8–23.

28. Gantman V.I. (1984). Sistema, struktura i protsess razvitiya sovremennykh mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [System, structure and process of development of modern international relations]. Moscow: Nauka. 422 p.

29. Gilpin R.G. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 272 p.

30. Gilpin R.G. (2007). No one loves political realist. Security Studies. 2007. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 3–26.

31. Gross L. (1948). The Peace of Westphalia, 1648–1948. The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 42. No. 1. P. 20–41.

32. Haass R. (2020). The World: a Brief Introduction. New York: Penguin Press. 400 p.

33. Ikenberry J. (2019). After Victory. Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton, Princeton University Press. 336 р.

34. Jarrett M. (2013). The Congress of Vienna and its Legacy: War and Great Power Diplomacy after Napoleon. London: I. B. Tauris & Company. 522 p.

35. Jones R.E. (1981). The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure. Review of International Studies. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 1–14.

36. Istomin I.A. (2016). Refleksiya mezhdunarodnoj sistemy v ofitsialnom diskurse i nauchnom osmyslenii [Reflection of the International System in the Official Discourse and Academic Thinking]. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta. No. 5. P. 20–33.

37. Kaplan M.A. (2005). System and process in international politics. ECPR Press. 260 p.

38. Keohane R. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press, 250 p.

39. Kortunov A.V. (2019). Mezhdu politsentrizmom i bipolyarnost’yu: o rossiskikh narrativakh evolutsii miroporyadka [Between Polycentrism and Bipolarity: About Russian Narratives of the Evolution of

40. World Order]. Rabochaya tetrad’ RSMD. No. 52. URL: https://russiancouncil.ru/papers/RussiaPolycentrism-Bipolarity-WP52Ru.pdf

41. Khrustalev M.A. (1984). Osnovy teorii vneshneо politiki gosudarstva [Fundamentals of the theory of foreign policy of the state]. Moscow: UDN. 80 р.

42. Khrustalev M.A. (2006). Dve vetvi TMO v Rossii [Two Branches of the IR Theory in Russia]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 119–128.

43. Kindleberger Ch.P. (1986). Hierarchy versus inertial cooperation. International Organization. Vol. 40. No. 4. P. 8–46.

44. Kissinger H. (2015). Mirovoj poryadok [World Order]. Moscow: AST Publishers. 512 p.

45. Kosolapov N.A. (2008). Porogovyj uroven’ i veroyatnost’ konflikta SSHA s Rossiej [Threshold Level and the Probability of Conflict of the US with Russia]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 6. No. 18. P. 15–25.

46. Kulagin V.M. (2006). Mezhdunarodnaya bezopasnost'. Moscow: Aspekt-Press. 318 p.

47. Lake D.A., Martin L.L., Risse Th. (2021). Challenges to the Liberal Order: Reflections on International Organization. International Organization. Vol. 75. No. 2. P. 225–257.

48. Lascurettes K.M., Poznansky M. (2021). International Order in Theory and Practice. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. URL: https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-673

49. Lebedeva M.M. (2020) Novyj mirovoj poryadok: parametry i vozmozhnye kontury [New World Order: parameters and possible contours]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 4. Р. 2–35.

50. Lebon G. (1995). Psikhologiia sotsializma [Psychology of Socialism]. Saint Petersburg: Maket. 541 p.

51. Mearsheimer J.J. (2019). Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order. International Security. Vol. 43. No. 4. P. 7–50.

52. Melnikova Yu. (2020). Introduktsiya v sovremeonnost’: Vzglyad iz SSHA [Introduction to the Modernity: View from the US]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 173–178.

53. Miller L. (1985). Global Order: Value and Power in International Politics. London Boulder Co.: Westview Press. 228 p.

54. Miller R. M. (1956). The Attitudes of the Major Protestant Churches in America Toward War and Peace, 1919–1929. The Historian. No 1. P. 13–38.

55. Mironov V.V. (2011). “Mezhdunarodnyj poryadok” Headley Bulla i anglijskaya shkola teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij [“International Order” of Headley Bull and English School of the Theory of International Relations]. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. No. 3. P. 108–114.

56. Morgenthau H.J. (1948a) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York, Alfred Knopf. 489 p.

57. Morgenthau H.J. (1948b) The Problem of Sovereignty Reconsidered. Columbia Law Review. Vol. 48. No. 3. P. 341–365.

58. Nefedov B. (2022). Kritika predstavlenij o Vestfal’skom mire [The Critique of the Westphalian Peace Narrative]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 6–27.

59. Nikonov V.A. (2002) Nazad, k kontsertu (Back to the concert). Rossiya v global'noj politike. No. 1. P. 78–99.

60. Nobel J.W. (1995). Morgenthau's Struggle with Power: The Theory of Power Politics and the Cold War. Review of International Studies. Vol. 21. No. 1. P. 61–86.

61. Onnekink D. (ed.) (2013). War and Religion after Westphalia 1648–1713. Ashgate Publishing. 290 p.

62. Organski A.F.K. (1958). World Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 461 p.

63. Osiander A. (2001). Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth. International Organization. Vol. 55. No 2. Р. 251–287.

64. Parsons T. (1951). The Social System. New York: The Free Press. 575 р.

65. Phillips A. (2010). War, religion and empire: The transformation of international orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 384 p.

66. Philpott D. (2010). Revolutions in sovereignty: How ideas shaped modern international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 362 p.

67. Primakov E.M. (1996). Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia nakanune XXI veka: problemy, perspektivy [International relations on the eve of the XXI century: problems, prospects]. Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn'. No. 10. P. 3–13.

68. Rice K. (2003). Polyus svobody i spravedlivosti [The Pole of Freedom and Justice]. Rossiya v global’noj politike. Vol. 1. No. 3. P. 74–79.

69. Rosecrance R.N. (1986). The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World. N.Y.: Basic Books. 258 p.

70. Shakleina T.A. (2012). Rossiya i SShA v mirovoi politike [Russia and the USA in world politics]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 270 p.

71. Shakleina T.A. (ed.) (2018). Vvedenie v prikladnoj analiz mezhdunarodnyh situacij [Introduction to the practical analysis of international relations]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 288 p.

72. Singer D.J. (1969). The Global System and its Sub-System. A Developmental View. In Rosenau J.N. (ed.) Linkage politics: Essays in national and international systems. New York: Free Press. P. 21–43.

73. Taylor A. (1958). Bor'ba za gospodstvo v Evrope 1848–1918 [The struggle for mastery in Europe. 1848–1918] Moscow: Izdatel'stvo inostrannoi literatury. 644 p.

74. Tsygankov A.P., Tsygankov P.A. (2005). Krizis idei “demokraticheskogo mira” [Crisis of the Idea of “Democratic Peace”]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 3. No. 3. P. 33–44.

75. Tsygankov P.A. (2018) Issledovaniya problem miroporyadka: teoreticheskie trudnosti, raskhozhdeniya traktovok [Studies of the problems of the world order: theoretical difficulties, divergences of interpretations] . Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sociologiya. Politologiya. No. 41. P. 194–202.

76. Tsygankov P.A. (1996). Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [International Relations]. Moscow: Novaya shkola. 317 p.

77. Tsygankov A.P., Tsygankov P.A. (2017) Prosveshchennoe derzhavnichestvo (A.D. Bogaturov i rossijskaya teoriya mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij). [Enlightened derzhavnichestvo (A.D. Bogaturov and the Russian Theory of International Relations)]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 4. P. 175–185.

78. Voskressenskii A. D. (2002) Regional'nye podsistemy mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii i regiony mira [Regional subsystems of international relations and regions of the world]. Vostok–Zapad–Rossiya. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia. P. 139–143.

79. Waltz K.N. (1959). Political Philosophy and the Study of International Relations. In Fox W.T.R. (ed.) Theoretical Aspects of International Relations. Notre Dame. 118 p.

80. Waltz K.N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. N.Y.: McGraw Hill. 251 p.

81. Waltz K.N. (1993). The Emerging Structure of International Politics. International Security. Vol. 18. No 2. P. 44–79.