Models of Global Order and Contribution of Regional Players

This paper deals with theoretical approaches to understanding of the contemporary world order. In particular, three approaches are analysed: confrontational fatalist, cooperative mitigationist, and consensual radical, each one with its own logic. The fatalist approach, inherited from the past, is rooted in  the  logic  of  confrontation.  According  to  this  logic,  mutual  distrust  among  states  leads  to  power balancing and inevitable wars, which make the core of the contemporary world order. The mitigator approach derives from the logic of cooperation among states, which resort to international institutions to mitigate the fear of one another. According to this logic, mutual participation in international regimes and organizations helps to reduce uncertainty in interstate relations. The third approach, aimed to the future, involves the logic of consensus. According to this logic, mutual distrust between nation-states can be transcended by eradication of the nation-state as such. Taken non-Western societies for example, the paper demonstrates how political, economic, social, and cultural challenges transform the contemporary system of international relations, eroding the notion of state sovereignty. At the same time, many countries actively resist these processes by diplomatic means, trying to rescue the Westphalian world order. However, the author suggests that diplomacy may suspend but not reverse the natural process of the Modern world order erosion, which gives way to a new, post-Modern one. The new world order will be based on interdependence, that means nation-states loosing their sovereignty in favour of international institutions. The need of the new world order is proved by global challenges like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, poverty, hunger, epidemics, forced and illegal migration, trade in people, child labour, sex industry, gender discrimination, which no state (including the USA and their close allies) is able to resist on its own.

1. Arbatov A.G., Dvorkin V.Z. (eds) (2005). Yadernoe sderzhivanie i nerasprostranenie [Nuclear Deterrence and Non-proliferation]. Moscow: Moscow Carnegie Centre. 83 p.

2. Batalov E.Ya. (2003). «Novyi mirovoi poryadok»: k metodologii analiza [New World Order: Towards a Methodology of Analysis]. Polis : Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 5. P. 25–37.

3. Batalov E.Ya. (2009). K ponimaniyu miroporyadka: evolyutsiya kontseptsii [Towards Understanging of the World Order: Evolution of Concepts]. Prognozy i strategii. No. 1. P. 22–29.

4. Batyuk V.I. (2010). Postbipolyarnaya retrospektiva mirovogo poryadka [Post-Bipolar Retrospect of World Order]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 80–88.

5. Bogaturov A. (2003) Sovremennyi mezhdunarodnyi poryadok [Contemporary World Order]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 6–23.

6. Booth K., Wheeler N.J. (2008) The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation, and Trust in World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 364 p.

7. Bull H. (2002). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. 3-rd edition. New York: Columbia University Press. 329 p.

8. Degterev D.A. (2017). Teoretiko-igrovoi analiz mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii. [Game Theory Analysis of International Relations]. M.: Aspekt Press, 2017. 352 p.

9. Efremova K.A. (2001). Kitai i Indiya v XXI veke: prognozy indiiskikh politologov [China and India in the 21st century: Prognoses of Indian Political Scientists]. Problemy Dal'nego Vostoka. No. 4. P. 36–49.

10. Efremova K.A. (2016). Formirovanie «novogo mirovogo poryadka»: teoreticheskie interpretatsii i prakticheskaya realizatsiya [Towards the New World Order: Theoretical Interpretations and Practical Implementations]. Sravnitel'naya politika. No. 2. P. 5–13.

11. Gilpin R. (1988). The Theory of Hegemonic War. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18. № 4. P. 591–613.

12. Guzikova M.O., Pobedash D.I. (2015). «World Order», «miroporyadok» i «European Disorder»: konkurentsiya kontseptov [«World Order», «miroporyadok» and «European Disorder»: Competition of Concepts]. Izvestiya Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya «Politologiya. Religiovedenie». Vol. 13. P. 35–43.

13. Ivanov I.S. (2005). Sopernichayushchie modeli i stsenarii formirovaniya novogo miroporyadka: sut' i perspektivy realizatsii [Competing Models and Scenarios of the New World Order: Their Meaning and Prospects for Realisation]. Politiya: Analiz. Khronika. Prognoz (Zhurnal politicheskoi filosofii i sotsiologii politiki). No. 4. P. 5–14.

14. Izhikov M.Yu. (2012). Kul'turnyi relyativizm kak problema vzaimodeistviya mezhdunarodnogo i vnutrigosudarstvennogo prava v oblasti zashchity prav cheloveka [Cultural Relativism as a Problem of Interaction between International and Domestic Law on Human Rights]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki. No. 1. P.184–191.

15. Karaganov S.A., Barabanov O.N., Bordachev T.V. (2012) K Velikomu okeanu, ili novaya globalizatsiya Rossii [Towards the Great Ocean, or the New globalization of Russia]. Analiticheskiy doklad Mezhdunarodnogo diskussionnogo kluba “Valdai”. 80 p.

16. Keys D.F. (1973). The New Federalists. Worldview. March. P. 37–41.

17. Kortunov S. (2007). Krushenie Vestfal'skogo mira i stanovlenie novogo mirovogo poryadka [Perish of the Westphalian World and Formation of the New World Order]. Bezopasnost' Evrazii. No. 4. P. 230–260.

18. Lunev S.I. (2012). Indiya kak odin iz novykh tsentrov global'nogo vliyaniya [India as One of the New Centers of Global Influence]. Sravnitel'naya politika. No. 2(8). P. 90–104.

19. Neklessa A.I. (2000). Postsovremennyi mir v novoj sisteme koordinat [Post-Modern World in a New Frame of Reference]. In Global'noe soobshchestvo: novaya sistema koordinat (podkhody k probleme). St. Petersburg: Aleteiya. P. 11–78.

20. Nolte D. (2010). How to Compare Regional Powers: Analytical Concepts and Research Topics. Review of International Studies. Vol. 36. No. 4. P. 881–901.

21. Panchenko M.Yu. (2009). Realistskaya paradigma mezhdunarodnogo poryadka: proshloe i nastoyashchee [The Realist Paradigm of International Order: Past and Present]. Polis: Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 5. P. 6–17.

22. Sergeev V., Kazantsev A. (2008). Struktury mirovogo poryadka: istoricheskaya tipologiya [Structures of World Order: Historical Typology]. Kosmopolis. No. 1. P. 158–171.

23. Silaev N. Yu., Sushentsov A.A. (2018). Vozvrashchenie Starogo Sveta i budushchee mezhdunarodnogo poriadka v Evrazii [The Return of the Old World and the Future of International Order in Eurasia]. Analiticheskiy doklad Mezhdunarodnogo diskussionnogo kluba “Valdai”. 20 p.

24. Sirota N.M. (2013). Global'nyi miroporyadok: aktory i trendy stanovleniya [Global World Order: Actors and Formation Trends]. In Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki, kul'turologiya i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. T. 4, v 3 ch. Ch. I. P. 157–164.

25. Strel'tsov D.V. (2011) Problema global'nogo potepleniya: politika Yaponii [The Problem of Global Warming: Japanese Politics]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. No. 5. P. 55–62

26. Voskresenskii A. (2004). Kitai v kontekste global'nogo liderstva [China in the Context of Global Leadership]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 21–33.

27. Wallerstein I. (2001). Sotsial'nye nauki i kommunisticheskaya interlyudiya, ili interpretatsiya sovremennoi istorii [Social Sciences and Communist Interlude]. In Analiz mirovykh sistem i situatsiya v sovremennom mire. St. Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga. P. 371–386.

28. Wright R. (2003). Novyi mirovoi poryadok [New World Order]. Otechestvennye zapiski. No. 6. P. 8–29.

29. Zlokazova N.E. (2008). Reforma Soveta Bezopasnosti OON: osnovnye stsenarii i problemy [UN Security Council Reform: Basic Scenarios and Problems]. Vestnik VGNA Minfina. No. 2. P. 58–64.