The problem of the method in international studies. Tsygankov P. Political Sociology of International Relations. Other analytical methods

Having decided on the answer to the question of what the science of international relations studies, another one should be posed: how do we get knowledge? This question involves thinking about research methods. The problem of the method is one of the most important for any science, because we are talking about how to get new knowledge and how to apply it in practice .

In its most general meaning, a method can be defined as a way to achieve a goal(from the Greek "way to something"). Methods of scientific knowledge is a certain sequence of actions, operations, techniques, the implementation of which is necessary to solve cognitive, theoretical and practical problems in science; the application of methods leads either to the achievement of the set goal, or brings it closer to it. According to I.P. Pavlov, "the method holds the fate of the research in its hands," in other words, the results of scientific activity largely depend on how adequate the set of research methods will be.

The research method turns out to be fruitful - that is, contributing to the disclosure of the essential properties and regular connections of the object - only when it is adequate to the nature of the object under study and corresponds to a certain stage of its study. "Since the fruitfulness of the scientific method is determined by the extent to which it corresponds to the nature of the object, the researcher must have preliminary knowledge about the object, on the basis of which he will develop research methods and their system," they note Russian philosophers V.S. Stepin and A.N. Elsukov... - This means that the correct scientific method, being a necessary prerequisite for true knowledge, itself follows and is determined by the already existing knowledge about the object. Such knowledge must contain the essential characteristics of the object, and therefore it has the character of theoretical knowledge. Thus, a close relationship is established between theory and method. "In other words, the scientific method is the practical application of theory," theory in action. "

Methods can be classified on several grounds, for example, by levels of knowledge (methods of empirical and theoretical research); by the accuracy of predictions (deterministic and stochastic, or probabilistic-statistical); by the functions they perform in cognition (systematization, explanation and prediction); by subject area (methods used in physics, biology, sociology, political science, etc.).

Another possible option is classification of research methods by research levels to which they correspond. According to this classification, methods are divided into general, general scientific and private (specific scientific).

Highest level- general methods (level of methodology) - combines the general principles of cognition and the categorical structure of science as a whole. At this level, the general direction of research is set, the fundamental principles of approach to the object of study, "a system of guidelines for cognitive activity" ... These methods highlight universal principles and give knowledge about the universal laws of the development of nature, society and thinking, which are at the same time the laws of knowledge of the world.

In modern scientific knowledge, the so-called general scientific approaches , which set a certain focus scientific research, fix a certain aspect of it, although they do not strictly indicate the specifics of specific research tools. This allows us to consider them as "methodological orientation" and refer to this methodological level of scientific research tools.

As such an approach to the study of international relations should be attributed systemic , adopted by almost all, with a few exceptions, theoretical directions and schools in modern TMO. The systems approach is often considered as a concretization of the dialectical principle of universal connection. The systems approach is based on the study of objects as systems. It is characterized by a holistic consideration of a certain set of objects - material or ideal. In this case, the integrity of the object implies that the relationship between the set of objects under consideration and their interaction lead to the emergence of new integrative properties systems that are absent from its constituent objects. The specificity of the systems approach is the orientation towards the study of factors that ensure the integrity of the object as a system. ... The main problematic within the framework of the systemic approach is formed by the identification of the various so-called "system-forming" connections, which are primarily "responsible for the integrity of the studied phenomenon or object."

The use of a systematic approach contributes to the creation of such theoretical constructions, which can be, "on the one hand, so meaningful as to fully reflect reality, and on the other, so formal that when they are mutually correlated, general patterns can be found that allow not only to reflect that and to streamline the material under study and the process of research itself. "

The application of a systematic approach makes it possible to present the object of study in its unity and integrity... Its focus on identifying correlations (interdependence) between the interacting elements helps to find the "rules" of such interaction, or patterns of functioning of the system. This is the advantage of a systems approach. However, it should be borne in mind that any advantages can be continued in the form of disadvantages. With regard to the systematic approach, the latter include excessive formalization that can lead to an impoverishment of our understanding of international relations.

A systematic approach to research (and in particular the study of international relations) is implemented in several versions, among them: structural and functional, by the type of cybernetic model. As for the first , then he orients the researcher on the study of the internal structure of the system, on the identification of regularities in the processes of ordering elements in the system, on the analysis of the specifics and nature of the connections between the elements, on the one hand, and on the identification of the features of the functioning of systems, abstracting from their substrate-structural basis, on the other .

An approach according to the principle of the cybernetic model presupposes consideration of the system as a whole and its constituent elements as responsive to changes in the system under the influence of external or internal influences, or the environment of the system ... Moreover, the influence of the environment can be so significant that the evolution of the system is considered as co-evolution with the environment. This version of the systems approach emphasizes the stability of the system against external influences and its "behavior" in response to requirements or support from the environment. This approach is often identified with the "black box" technique, which abstracts from the content of the "black box", focusing on the problem of detecting functional dependencies between the input and output parameters of the system.

Specificity of general scientific methods, as well as general scientific categories on which they are based is determined "relative indifference to specific types of subject matter and, at the same time, an appeal to certain common features" ... In other words, they are independent of the type of scientific problems being solved and can be used in various subject areas. General scientific methods are developed within the framework of formal and dialectical logics. These include such as observation, experiment, modeling, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, analogy, comparison, etc. ...

At the level of general scientific methods the system approach is implemented in the form of general systems theory (OTS), which is the concretization and expression of the principles of the systems approach... One of the founders of general systems theory is considered Austrian theoretical biologist who immigrated to the United States, Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972). In the late 1940s. he put forward a program for the construction of a general theory of systems, providing for the formulation of general principles and laws of behavior of systems, regardless of their type and nature of their constituent elements and relations between them. The systems theory also performs the tasks of describing systems and its constituent elements, explaining the interaction between the system and the environment, as well as intrasystem processes, under the influence of which the system changes and / or destruction. Within the framework of the system theory, general scientific categories are developed, such as element, subsystem, structure, environment.

The elements - these are the smallest units within any system, from which, in turn, its individual parts can be formed (as a rule, in hierarchically organized systems - biological, social) - subsystems. The latter are relatively self-contained, smaller systems."Since they participate in the implementation of a single goal of the entire system, then their functioning and activities are subordinated to the tasks of the general system and are controlled by it." At the same time, subsystems carry out their special functions within the system and therefore have relative independence. The study of the elements of the system allows you to determine its structure. However, the more important category of systems analysis is the structure of the system. In the broadest sense, the latter is understood as connection and interrelation between elements, thanks to which new integrative properties of the system arise .

The third group of scientific methods are private (private) - methods of a particular science. Highlighting them assumes that their application is limited to only one area. Moreover, the presence of such methods is considered one of the conditions for recognizing the autonomy of a particular discipline. However, this requirement is far from always applicable to the social sciences. As a rule, social sciences do not have their own specific method, inherent only to them. They "borrow" the general scientific methods and methods of other sciences (both social and natural science), refracting them in relation to their object of research.

To assess how the discipline we are considering has developed, perhaps more important is another division of research methods - into "traditional" and "scientific". This juxtaposition emerged as a result of the "behaviorist revolution" of the 1950s. and was at the center of the second "big controversy" within the TMO. " The modernist "or" scientific "direction insisted on transferring the methods of the exact and natural sciences to social disciplines, emphasizing that only in this case, studies of the sphere of social relations can claim the status of" science. " "Scientific" methods formed an operational-applied, analytical-prognostic approach associated with "formalization, data calculation (quantification), verifiability (or falsifiability) of conclusions, etc." ... This approach, new to the discipline, was contrasted with "traditional" historical-descriptive, or intuitive-logical. The latter until the middle of the twentieth century. was the only basis for the study of international relations. The traditional approach was based largely on history, philosophy and law, with an emphasis on the singular, unique in the historical, and in particular political, process. Proponents of the traditional approach emphasized the inadequacy of "scientific" quantitative methods, the groundlessness of their claims to universality ... Thus, one of the most prominent representatives of the traditional approach and the founder of the school of political realism G. Morgenthau noted that such a phenomenon as power, so important for understanding the essence of international relations, "represents the quality of interpersonal relations, which can be checked, evaluated, guessed, but which cannot be measured quantitatively... Of course, it is possible and necessary to determine how many votes can be given to a politician, how many divisions or nuclear warheads the government has; but if I need to understand how much power a politician or government has, then I will have to put aside the computer and the calculating machine and start thinking about historical and, certainly, qualitative indicators. "

“The essence of political phenomena,” notes P.A. Tsygankov, “cannot be investigated in any way fully using only applied methods. In social relations in general, and in international relations in particular, stochastic processes dominate, which do not lend themselves to deterministic explanations. Therefore, the conclusions of the social sciences, including the science of international relations, can never be finally verified or falsified. In this regard, the methods of "high" theory, combining observation and reflection, comparison and intuition, knowledge of facts and imagination, are quite legitimate here. Their usefulness and effectiveness is confirmed by both modern research and fruitful intellectual traditions " ... In other words, the opposition "modernist" methods "traditional "wrong. The feeling of their dichotomy appeared due to the fact that they were introduced into the study of international relations historically consistently. However, it should be admitted that they complement each other and without such an integrated approach to the choice of research instruments, any of our theoretical constructions are doomed to failure. In this sense, one should probably consider the statements that the main drawback of our discipline is that the process of turning the science of international relations into an applied one should be considered too categorical. " The process of development of science is not linear, but rather reciprocal, writes P.A. Tsygankov. - There is no transformation of it from a historical-descriptive into an applied one, but the refinement and correction of theoretical positions through applied research (which, in fact, is possible only at a certain, rather high stage of its development) and the "return of debt" to "applied workers" in the form of a more durable and operational theoretical and methodological basis.

Implementation of "scientific" research into international relations methods represented "the assimilation of many relevant results and methods of sociology, psychology, formal logic, and natural and mathematical sciences." All this made the research toolkit much wider and gave rise to a kind of "methodological explosion" . At the same time, in the formation of modern ideas about the nature of international relations, an increasingly prominent role began to play applied projects. "The advancement of applied research" to the forefront "of the study of international relations, - notes K.P. Borishpolets, - caused a wide range of specialists to turn to special scientific tools focused on collecting empirical information, quantitative methods of processing it, preparing analytical conclusions in the form of prognostic assumptions ". The scientific turnover of international relations research organically includes interdisciplinary applied analysis techniques ... The latter presuppose, first of all, the sum of procedures for collecting and processing empirical material. In the analysis of international relations such methods of sociological and political science data collection, such as polling and interviewing; they took a fairly strong place methods of content analysis, event analysis and cognitive mapping .

First developments content analysis is associated with the name of G. Lasswell and the works of his school at Stanford University ... In its most general form, this technique is viewed as a systematic study of the content of the text, the identification and assessment of the characteristics of the text material "in order to answer the question of what the author wants to emphasize (hide)." There are several stages of application of this technique: text structuring, processing of the information array using matrix tables, quantification of information material. The most common way to assess the content of the text under study is calculation of the frequency of use of a semantic unit of analysis Is a quantitative, or frequency, version of content analysis. There is also a qualitative type of content analysis, which is focused not on the direct quantitative measurement of the semantic units of the information array, but on " taking into account the combination of qualitative and quantitative indicators ", characteristic of them.

Event Analysis , or event analysis, is one of the most common methods of applied analysis of international relations. It is based "on monitoring the course and intensity of events and the purpose of determining the main trends in the evolution of the situation in individual countries and in the international arena." The essence of the technique can be expressed by the formula: "who says or does what, in relation to whom and when." The application of the methodology includes: compiling an information databank, dividing this array into separate observation units and their coding, correlating the selected facts and phenomena with the sorting system adopted in connection with the project's tasks.

Cognitive mapping technique aims at analyzing the perception of the international situation by decision-makers. This technique originated in the framework of cognitive psychology, which concentrates its attention "on the peculiarities of the organization, dynamics and formation of a person's knowledge about the world around him." The central concept of cognitive psychology is a "scheme" (map), which is a "graphical representation of a plan (strategy) in the mind of a person for collecting, processing and storing information", which is the basis of his ideas about the past, present and probable future. The use of cognitive mapping techniques involves identification of the basic concepts used by the decision-maker; establishing causal relationships between them, as well as assessing the significance and "density" of these relationships " .

All the methods discussed above are aimed at developing predictive capabilities in the framework of the science of international relations and thereby strengthening its applied nature. ... Often these techniques have an independent meaning, however, it is possible to combine them with various mathematical means and system modeling. The essence of the latter lies in the fact that it is a way of operating with an object, which consists in replacing the original with a model that is in a certain objective relationship with a directly cognizable object. ... Usually, three sequential stages of modeling are distinguished: logical-intuitive analysis, formalization and quantification. "Accordingly, three classes of models are distinguished: meaningful, formalized and quantified." The first stage of modeling is essentially a traditional research practice, when a scientist uses his knowledge, logic and intuition to create a model for studying an international phenomenon. At the second stage, the meaningful model is formalized - the transition from a predominantly descriptive to a predominantly matrix-graphic one. The solution to the problem of identifying trends in changing international situations is possible at the third stage of modeling - quantification.

Doubts about the possibility of strict formalization and quantification of the phenomena of international life have always existed. However, at the present stage of development of the science of international relations, the prospects for modeling are assessed "with moderate optimism." Perhaps now no one will categorically insist on the conclusion of N. Wiener that "the humanities are a wretched field for new mathematical methods." The use of mathematical tools in the applied analysis of international relations is an independent problem.

Consideration of applied methods of analysis of international relations pushes for the separation of research methods depending on at what stage of research they are used (methods of collecting material, processing and ordering, theoretical justification, proof, or otherwise, methods used at the stage of empirical, theoretical research and the stage of building a scientific theory).

Special attention should be paid to the decision method. , which presupposes the concentration of the researcher's attention on studying the process of making foreign policy decisions. Now this method, originally developed for the analysis of processes in foreign policy, is widely used in political science. As applied to the study of international relations, it is focused on studying the process of developing and implementing foreign policy decisions and is designed to help identify its essence. For any researcher, the starting point of analysis is a foreign policy decision, and it is important to determine which variables caused its adoption. The application of the decisional method can be compared to the "decomposition" of multi-stage situations that make up the decision-making process. In the process of implementing the method, the researcher must focus on four "key points": decision-making centers, decision-making process, the political decision itself, and, finally, its implementation. ... The application of the decisional method involves identifying the circle of key "players" or decision-makers, as well as assessing the role of each of them. If we are talking about important foreign policy decisions, then attention will be paid to the highest political leadership of the country. (the head of state and his advisers, ministers of foreign affairs, defense, etc.). It should also be borne in mind that each of the designated persons has his own staff of assistants involved in the process of receiving and processing information. The analysis of the circle of decision-makers also requires the researcher to pay attention to their personal and role characteristics.

Based on a common approach, several models for analyzing the process of making foreign policy decisions . The first model is based on rational choice - there is an understanding of the decision-making process as rational, i.e. assuming the maximization of goals while minimizing the funds spent. The model assumes that the process of foreign policy goal-setting is based on objective and unshakable national interests, and the decision-maker has all the necessary set of information to assess all possible alternatives of action and is able to choose the best option for action. In practice, the implementation of such a model is impossible.

In the "behavioral model "analysis of the process of making foreign policy decisions, the emphasis is on the individual characteristics of the cognitive process of decision-makers, it is emphasized that the behavior of politicians largely depends on their vision of reality. The results of such a study are used to predict the behavior of decision-makers in a given situation.

Another model assigns a key role to bureaucracy (the so-called bureaucratic model of politics ). Foreign policy decisions, according to this model, it is the result of bargaining and "confrontation" between various bureaucratic structures seeking to realize their interests. In this case, all other "players", including parliamentary institutions and the public, are nothing more than extras.

"Pluralistic model" proceeds from the fact that the decision-making process is largely chaotic. The public could have a much greater influence on him, but its influence is realized through the struggle of organized "interest groups". Society is heterogeneous, and a conflict of different interests within society is inevitable. At the same time, it is emphasized that only a small number of individuals and institutions are involved in the process of developing the most important decisions, while the public is for the most part an "outside observer". The final political decision is the result of a "struggle" between different "interest groups".

Organizational Behavior Model assumes that decisions are made by various government entities operating in accordance with their well-established decision-making routines (standard operating procedures). The latter include procedures for collecting, processing and transmitting information and allow you to standardize the solution of complex but repetitive routine issues. We can say that this allows you to cope with problems without making a decision in each specific single case - this decision is "programmed" by standard operating procedures. In other words, the life of each "organization" (government structure) has its own logic. The decision-making process turns out to be fragmented, and the final decision is the result of the interaction of structures of different possibilities to influence.

All of the above models focus on the internal state mechanism for making foreign policy decisions. However, we must not forget that the process of developing a foreign policy course is always "placed" in a certain external context, and the influence of external factors is just as strong. The "transnational model" of foreign policy analysis involves taking into account the influence of the external environment - the global economic, social and cultural context of the foreign policy of any state. Other models have also become widespread: such as, for example, model of elitism, democratic politics and etc. .

Another fairly common method of studying the decision-making process in the framework of the science of international relations is associated with game theory ... The latter is based on the theory of probability and extends the concept of "play" to all types of human activity. Game theory is the construction of models to analyze or predict various types of actor behavior. Canadian researcher J.-R. Derriennik considers game theory as "a theory of decision-making in a risky situation, or, in other words, as an area of ​​application of the model of subjectively rational action in a situation where all events are unpredictable" ... Within the framework of this model, the behavior of a decision-maker is analyzed in his relationship with other "players" pursuing the same goal. "Wherein the task is not in describing the behavior of players or their reaction to information about the behavior of the enemy, but in finding the best possible solution for each of them in the face of the predicted decision of the adversary " .

570 RUB

Description

The main purpose of the work is to study the basic mathematical methods used in international relations. ...

Introduction ………………………………………………………… .... ……… ....
Chapter 1. Possibilities of using mathematical methods in international relations ………
1.1. Examples of describing international relations …………………….
1.2. The principle of constructing a model of the dynamics of block structures in geopolitics ... .. ………
Chapter 2. Modeling and Operations Research - Basic Mathematical Methods Used in International Relations ……….
2.1. Types of operations and their mathematical models ……………………….
2.2. Mathematical methods of operations research …………………….
2.3. Examples of the use of mathematical tools in modeling military conflicts and the arms race (Richardson's model)….
2.4. Game models ………………………………………………………….
Chapter 3. Operations Research Based on Optimization Models ... ... ...
3.1. Linear programming ……………………………………….
3.2. Non-linear programming …………………………………….
3.3. Dynamic programming ………………………………… ..
3.4. Multi-criteria tasks ………………………………………….
3.5. Optimization problem under conditions of uncertainty ... ... ... ... ...
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..
Literature………………………………………………………………………..

Introduction

International relations have long occupied an essential place in the life of any state, society and individual person. The origin of nations, the formation of interstate borders, the formation and change of political regimes, the formation of various social institutions, the enrichment of cultures, the development of art, science, technological progress and an effective economy are closely related to trade, financial, cultural and other exchanges, interstate alliances, diplomatic contacts and other exchanges, interstate alliances, diplomatic contacts and military conflicts - or, in other words, with international relations.
Each state in the process of its functioning is continuously obliged to resolve issues related to the fundamental foundations of its existence, such as: economic, political, environmental, issues of international relations, etc. At the same time, it has long been impossible to imagine a situation where a state would be able to resolve these issues exclusively in isolation from other countries. Taking into account this circumstance, the relevant state bodies carry out forecasting of international relations. Most of such forecasts are based on a large historical experience, the intellectual potential of experts, various services and leaders, representing to a large extent the sphere of art and outstanding intuition. At the same time, there are many examples in history when predictions did not come true or did not succeed correctly ...............................

Fragment of work for review

Bibliography

1. Antyukhina-Moskovchenko V.I., Zlobin A.A., Khrustalev M.A. Fundamentals of the theory of international relations: Textbook. allowance. - M., 1980.
2. Wagner G. Fundamentals of Operations Research. In 3 volumes - T. 1. - M .: Mir, 1972.
3. Vorobiev N.N. Game theory for cybernetic economists. - M .: Nauka, 1985.
4. Geopolitics: theory and practice. Sat. articles ed. E.A. Pozdnyakova. - M., 2006.
5. Doronina N.I. International Conflict: On Bourgeois Theories of Conflict. Critical analysis of research methods. - M., 1981.
6. Makarenko A.S. On the possibility of a quantitative forecast of geopolitical scenarios // Proceedings of the conference "Geopolitical and geoeconomic problems of Russian-Ukrainian relations (estimates, forecasts, scenarios)". - M., 2014.
7. Modern bourgeois theories of international relations. Critical analysis. - M., 1976.
8. Smiryaev A.V. and others. Modeling: from biology to economics. - M., 2015.
9. Tsygankov P.A. International Relations: Textbook. - M .: New school, 2009.

Please, carefully study the content and fragments of the work. Money for the purchased finished work due to the non-compliance of this work with your requirements or its uniqueness will not be returned.

* The category of work is of an evaluative nature in accordance with the qualitative and quantitative parameters of the material provided. This material, neither in its entirety, nor any of its parts, is a finished scientific work, final qualifying work, scientific report or other work provided for by the state system of scientific certification or necessary for passing the intermediate or final certification. This material is a subjective result of processing, structuring and formatting the information collected by its author and is intended primarily for use as a source for self-preparation of work on this topic.

in economics, social psychology, sociology and demography.

Sociological theories of O. Comte and E. Durkheim, starting from XIX. in., nourished the idea of ​​transferring them from sociology to other social sciences. The decisive influence on the formation of new directions in the study of international relations was exerted by the almost coinciding in time and interconnected appearance of the general theory of systems, the principles of which were set forth in the 1930s by L. von Bertalanffy, and cybernetics.

They gave a powerful impetus to behavioristics (from the English word behavior or behavior) 36, i.e.

researching behavior at the individual, collective and social levels by measuring it. The prerequisites for the rapid development of behaviorism in the 50s, the so-called "behaviorist revolution" in the social sciences, were laid by American psychologists (C. Merriam, G. Lasswell) in the 1920s-30s, when they substantiated the idea

studying political behavior as the main subject of political research

science 37.

Based on general systems theory, information theory and cybernetics, the behaviorist direction

became dominant among the "modernist" in the study of international relations. And in the very

behaviorist direction can be conditionally distinguished groups of researchers: 1) operated

non-mathematical concepts, in particular, based on the theory of structural and functional analysis by T.

Parsons and D. Easton's method of systems analysis of politics; 2) who used quantitative methods and such

mathematical theories like J. von Neumann's game theory or N. Wiener's and W. Ross Ashby's information theory

(K. Deutsch, L. Singer, D. Modelsky, A. Rapoport).

We emphasize once again that one should beware of a rigid classification of `` modernist '' directions: it was a flow of various variations, a fusion of ideas and methods of exact and humanitarian knowledge, a shift of efforts from the development of a universal theory based on historical and philosophical knowledge to the theory of systems and at the same time to empirical research based on the measurement of observable data outside their ideological or philosophical significance.

However, the very rejection of philosophical views as a theoretical basis for the study of international relations, as many Soviet international experts believed, in fact could mean an appeal to the philosophy of “neopositivism”. One way or another, "modernism" was sharply different from traditional trends in its striving for accurate, empirical evidence.

One of the most prominent "modernists", who was the president of the American Political Science Association, K. Deutsch thus motivated the appeal to empirical methods: '"Modern methods of storing and returning information, electronic computers make it possible to handle a large amount of data if we know we want to do with them, and if we have an adequate political theory that can help formulate questions and interpret the findings. Computers cannot be used as a substitute for thinking, just as data cannot be used as a substitute for judgment. But computers can help us carry out the analysis that offers new thinking to the theory ... The availability of large masses of relevant data and computer-based methods for processing them open up broad and deeper foundations for political theory, at the same time it differs from theory in broader and more complex problems ”38 ...

Most of the supporters of traditional approaches led by G. Morgenthau rejected or skeptically

referred to the application of methods adopted from economics in the study of international relations,

sociology and psychology. Although earlier in the Soviet scientific literature, the difference in

methodology between American "traditionalists" and "modernists", it was essential and at the first

pores reflected opposite approaches.

In our opinion, M. Merle correctly spoke about the advantages and disadvantages of the new methods. Noting about the rejection of them by “political realists” that “it would be absurd to justify the intellectual tradition of the lack of research tools” that expands these methods, he expressed doubts about the possibility of quantifying data on international relations due to the lack of many statistical indicators or the unreliability of statistics in many countries of the immense scale and complexity of the international sphere39.

Let us try to extract the most

significant arguments of both: (see Table 1) There is no doubt that the arguments of the supporters of the old and new

approaches on each side contained a grain of truth. But on the rejection of "modernism" by traditionalists

an important objective circumstance affected: the views of the "realists" who became the leading school

traditional directions, were confirmed by the practice of US foreign policy, because in essence their own views

she was inspired. Therefore, their reaction to the seemingly heavy heaps in the methodology

was quite understandable. Another thing is that this reaction contradicted the objective trend towards integration.

sciences, expanding the possibilities of humanitarian research by the achievements of natural sciences, their theories and

Arguments of the "traditionalists" Arguments of the ‘modernists"

1. Quantitative and other methods, taken mainly from economics, are alien to the science of international relations, in which there is no hierarchy and organization inherent in relations within the state (social

economic or political). 1. Traditional approaches have unreliable scientific instruments, assessment criteria are speculative, concepts and terms are vague.

2. In international relations, in addition to material, and non-material factors (national feelings, the will of political leaders) are manifested, which are difficult to systematize, their combination is unique and lends itself only to qualitative assessments 2. The analysis of modern international relations is based on outdated ideas.

3. The distinction between nations (national spirit, traditions, culture) is also qualitative in nature.

3. Inapplicability of the theories of traditionalists, in particular

"Realists" for quantification.

4. The foreign policy of the state acts as a historically conditioned integrity that cannot be quantified, just like strength (power). 4. Limited predictive power of the concepts of traditionalists, their generalizations are unverifiable.

So, let us trace briefly the most significant stages in the formation of American "modernism". Describing new, "modernist" approaches in the study of international relations, experts

it is often said that their essence is focused in the behaviouristic methods, which ”have already been mentioned and which meant the use of methods for analyzing empirical data, the construction of various models based on system concepts.

2. "FIELD THEORY" QUINCY Wright

One of the pioneers of “modernist” approaches was the renowned historian and sociologist Quincy Wright, who published the two-volume Study of War in 1942. Specializing in the study of war, K. Wright began with the systematization of all data on wars that occurred in the history of mankind. Then, based on the structural-functional method of analysis, he proposed an interdisciplinary approach to the study of international relations, which would combine the consideration of empirical data, their generalization and the development of a general theory, a model that can be verified by an application to reality. K. Wright was puzzled by the creation of a general theory of international relations. He listed 16 disciplines necessary from his point of view to create a scientific theory, the so-called "field theory" of international relations: 1) international politics, 2) military art, 3) the art of diplomacy, 4) foreign policy of the state, 5) colonial government , 6) international organizations, 7) international law, 8) world economy, 9) international communications, 10) international education, 11) political geography, 12) political demography, 13) technocracy, 14) sociology, 15) psychology, 16) ethics of international relations.

K. Wright considered one of the goals of such an “integrated” science to be the ability to foresee the future. He was a sincere pacifist, opposed the Cold War, criticized US foreign policy, in particular the Vietnam War.

3. SYSTEM APPROACH OF MORTON A. KAPLAN

The next notable milestone in the formation of "modernism" after the publication of K. Wright's book in 1955 was M. Kaplan's work "System and Process in International Politics" 40 (1957). It is believed that it was in this work that a systematic approach to the study of international

relations based on the general theory of systems, or rather - its version set out in the book

W. Ross Ashby's The Construction of the Brain 41 (1952). M. Kaplan's work has been widely known for a long time,

but the evolution that has been taking place in international relations since the late 1980s, all the more revives interest in his hypotheses, allowing them to test their predictive capabilities.

M. Kaplan's book is also remarkable in that it reveals the connection, continuity between the new approach and traditional "realism", since the author's initial concept is the fundamental concept

"Classical" theory - "balance of power". M. Kaplan suggested that from a certain historical time (approximately from the 18th century) in international relations, global systems were formed, which,

while changing, they retained their main quality - “ultrastability”. Using a concept from cybernetics (“input

Exit ”), he tried more accurately than the“ classics ”to define the basic rules for the optimal behavior of states (“ actors ”) in the“ balance of power ”system that existed since the 18th century. before World War II. He described six rules for the normal, from his point of view, functioning of the system, in which there should be at least 5

actors. So, each of them had to be guided by the following rules:

1) build up force, but, if possible, prefer negotiations to the conduct of hostilities;

2) it is better to go to war than to miss the chance to increase strength;

3) it is better to end the war than to exclude from the system the main national actor (against whom force was used),

4) obstruct any coalition or actor that seeks to occupy a dominant position in the international system;

5) deter actors who apply supranational principles of organization and behavior;

6) allow defeated or weakened primary actors to take their place in the system as partners and help secondary actors to raise their status.

The system that emerged as a result of World War II is the second global international system

v history, according to M. Kaplan, was defined by him as “free (or“ weakly connected ”) bipolar system”,

v which bipolarity was limited by the action of the UN and the power of actors who remained neutral. In addition to two real historical systems, M. Kaplan imagined 4 hypothetical ones that can

form from a “free bipolar system”:

1) a rigid bipolar system, where all actors are drawn into one or another block, and the neutral position is excluded (the system is less stable than “free bipolarity”);

2) the universal international system of the confederal type;

3) a hierarchical system dominated by one bloc, where nation states would find themselves in the position of autonomous,

4) a “veto” system or a multipolar system in which the number of powers with nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence is increasing.

Later M. Kaplan supplemented these models with 4 variations:

1) A very free bipolar system, where the degree of nuclear equilibrium would increase, the blocs weakened, and nuclear weapons partially spread.

2) A system of relaxed tension (or detente), which presupposed evolution in the superpowers (“liberalization” of the USSR and democratization of US foreign policy), which made it possible to limit arms to a minimum level.

3) An “unstable bloc system” where the arms race will continue and tensions will rise.

4) Incomplete nuclear proliferation system(15-20 countries). It is similar to the previous system, but in it the nuclear potentials of the superpowers do not reach the level of the ability to deliver the first crushing blow, and in it, coalitions between the superpowers and small nuclear countries are possible, which would further increase the likelihood of war.

“Realists” criticized M. Kaplan for the abstractness of his models. The Australian scientist H. Bull, who worked at the London Institute for Strategic Studies, reproached M. Kaplan for the fact that his models “are divorced from reality and are unable to develop any understanding of the dynamics of international politics or

moral dilemmas generated by these dynamics ”42.

While admitting some degree of fairness to such criticism, for the sake of fairness, we recall that

M. Kaplan himself did not at all pretend to be a biblical prophet and quite realistically considered

the possibilities of scientific foresight using system modeling. Emphasizing the failure of any

theory of international relations to predict the future in its specific manifestations, he limited

the predictive value of their hypothetical models by knowing: 1) the conditions for the invariability of the system, 2) the conditions

changes in the system, 3) the nature of these changes.

M. Kaplan's methodology still possessed a certain cognitive value, helping to imagine the likely evolution of international relations. And if none of his proposed 8 hypotheses (apart from the real free bipolar system) has not been fully realized, then some of them are still partially confirmed by the trends of modern development. In the Soviet scientific literature until the second half of the 80s, when the principles of “new thinking” were formulated, M. Kaplan's position on the evolution of the USSR was sharply criticized as “unacceptable”, as “completely contrary to reality” or “directed

between countries ”. The process of "perestroika" and the destruction of the USSR, however, prove that today it is impossible not to recognize the scientific significance of M. Kaplan's scenario forecasts.

4. CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF "MODERNIST" RESEARCH AT THE LATE 50s - 60s

Since the late 1950s, a real boom in international relations research began in the United States based on

new methods. Thousands of works have appeared, university schools have been formed, which are distinguished not only by methodological criteria, but also by research subjects. Several attempts at classifications have been made in the United States. The most detailed classification of works in English was proposed by the prominent American international specialist Bruce Russet, who compiled a sociometric table of the citation index of more than 70 authors. Having chosen for this publication 1968-1986, he conditionally divided all scientists into 12 groups according to the criteria of methodology or object of research, and of them 15 authors were simultaneously assigned to two groups, 9 - to three groups. The largest group was made up of scientists from Yale University or collaborators, mainly engaged in “international integration” (16 people) 43.

Another detailed classification was given by the American international expert F. Burgess, who singled out seven

directions ("cognitive rationalism", the study of behavior in terms of its goals, reasons, etc.)

etc.), “theory of strength”, the study of the decision-making process, theory of strategy, theory of communications, theory

fields (see above for a summary of the method proposed by K, Wright), systems theory (M. Kaplan and his followers) 44.

extremely time consuming. (This work was largely done in the already mentioned

innovations introduced into the science of international relations by "modernists", and then we will consider the main theoretical directions of "modernism" and present a number of specific examples of the application of these methods, in particular, in determining the power of states.

5. APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEM APPROACH

The application of the systemic approach meant a major shift in both theory and methodology of studying international relations - a departure from the "state-centric" views on international relations as the "sum" of foreign policies of states.

Another important merit of the "systemists" was that they expanded their ideas about the participants (actors) of the international system, considering as such, in addition to the main actors - states, international organizations, non-state political forces (for example, parties), religious organizations and economic forces, mainly, transnational corporations. David Singer of the University of Michigan put forward in 1961 in a well-known article the idea of ​​“levels of analysis” that unite two areas - international systems and the nation state. D. Singer singled out the main border in the search for phenomena that affect international politics: 1) internal phenomena occurring within the borders of the state, 2) external phenomena occurring outside the state border45.

The application of the principle of general systems theory not only expanded the concept of "actors"

international relations (and, in essence, changed the understanding of their structure), but also led international relations to

the formation of the concept of "environment". Let's reproduce the simplest scheme, which is given in many

foreign textbooks and monographs, graphically depicting a systematic approach to the study of political

a sphere that presupposes the existence of an “external environment” (Fig. l):

Picture 1

Often this approach to the analysis of political systems is called the method of D. Iston, which is described in his work "System Analysis of Political Life" *. When applied to international relations, the concept of “environment” becomes more complex. It seems to be quite simple for a state, rather specific for groups of states or coalitions; finally, one can imagine a more complex “external environment *” for the entire system of interstate relations, which can be considered international relations as a whole. But what is the “external environment” for the global system of international relations, if we accept the assumption of its existence? There is no unambiguous answer to this question in the scientific literature.

In the 60s, a number of works appeared in the United States aimed at studying the foreign policy of the state, considered "surrounded by the environment." Several interesting publications on this topic belong to the spouses G. and M. Spraugs *. They proposed the concept of "ecological triad" (the term "ecology" is used here in a broad sense): 1) personality of a certain character (statesman), 2) conditions that surround it (environment), 3) interaction of personality and conditions. G. and M. Sprout distinguish 3 types of interaction:

The first type is environmental possibilism, i.e. opportunities representing the conditions in which the decision-maker operates. These conditions change historically. For example, they say. Napoleon could not threaten Moscow with nuclear bombing (neither could the Germans in 1914, although they could reach Moscow faster with the help of railways than Napoleon could), the Romans could not move their legions from Italy to Britain within hours or even days, Theodore Roosevelt in 1905 could not raise American prestige by sending a man to the moon (he decided to send the American flag on a trip around the world), the Persian king Darius could not use the phone to clarify disagreements with Alexander before the Macedonian campaign in Asia; the Spaniards in the Middle Ages could not rely on the resources of the New World to repel the Islamic invasion of the Iberian Peninsula, etc.

The main idea of ​​G. and M. Spraugov is that the decision-makers are limited by the opportunities provided by the world around them.

The second type of interaction is environmental probabilism, i.e. the probability with which this or that event will occur. In other words, assuming that states interact, the authors focus on the likelihood that an individual will act in a certain way in a “certain environment”. For example, what was the likelihood that the United States and the USSR would become rivals as two superpowers after World War II? Or what is the possibility of interaction between Burma and Bolivia, small states in different regions of the world, separated by thousands of miles?

The third type of interaction is cognitive behavio sm, i.e. behavior of a person making a decision based on knowledge of the environment. Such a person interacts with the surrounding world through the images of this surrounding world. She acts on the basis of how she perceives this world. This perception can be very different from reality.

6. USE OF CYBERNETIC CIRCUITS IN A SYSTEM APPROACH

A powerful impetus to the systems approach is given by the theory of communication and the means of cybernetics. As a result of their application, the concept of states, nations, political regimes has been formed as cybernetic systems with “input” and “output”, controlled by a feedback mechanism (“stimulus” - “reaction”). The pioneer and largest representative of the “cybernetic” approach was the patriarch of American political science K. Deutsch.

Subsequently, American colleagues, French international experts, recognizing the positive use of cybernetic tools for analyzing such a complex system as the state, criticized K. Deutsch, believing that his methodology overestimates the rational nature of decision-making by the center of the political system and that it is closer to physics than social sciences.

K. Deutsch, explaining the "cybernetic approach" to foreign policy, compared the decision-making process with playing electric billiards. The player sets the initial speed to the ball, it moves, colliding with obstacles that change the trajectory of its movement. The point of falling or stopping depends simultaneously on the initial impulse, subsequent maneuvers of the player and the impact of obstacles.

Criticizing K. Loich, the French internationalists P.-F. Gonidek and R. Sharven draw attention to the fact that

v Unlike physics, obstacles in the international sphere represent not only explicit, but also hidden influences, intersections of interests * (ie, “obstacles” themselves in motion). Therefore, K. Deutsch's "cybernetic" method is more suitable for the analysis of military strategies than politics, since in the military field the behavior of states is more rigid and mutually determined.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that computers have dramatically expanded the use of mathematical tools in the study of international relations, making it possible to go, in addition to the already used methods of mathematical statistics, algebraic and differential equations, to new methods: computer modeling, solving information-logical problems. But first of all, the capabilities of computers stimulated research on proven methods in mathematical statistics aimed at formalizing qualitative characteristics, attempts to measure “strength *”, “power,” “solidarity,” “integration,” “aggressiveness,” and so on. Let us clarify that, although a number of methods were specially developed by him for the study of international relations, their development for political science as a whole was of more significant importance.

V monographs by S. V. Melikhov contain significant reference data on the use of quantitative methods in American political science, mainly factor analysis (as well as multivariate correlation, regression, analysis of variance and time series analysis) * ”.

Famous international scholars who used mathematical methods in the 50s - 60s * in the United States were A. Rapoport, K. Deutsch, D. Singer, G. Getzkov, O. Holsti, B. Russet, R. Rammel, D. Tsinnes and others. But the extreme popularity of mathematics at that time involved in the so-called * quantitative ”research

v social sciences of many amateurs who did not have a professional mathematics, flaunting some separately "snatched" methods and concepts from the mathematical arsenal.

from about the 70s, when the great, or better to say, exaggerated hopes were not justified. Soviet international experts from the NMEMO expressed the following opinion on this score: “On the whole, the scarcity of the results of the application of mathematics in the“ interdisciplinary ”study of international relations is associated with the underdevelopment of mathematics itself, which may be suitable for this specificity. Apparently, the branch of mathematics that would correspond to the subject of research under consideration has not yet been developed. Attempts to borrow mathematical tools from other branches of science, which were created specifically for the needs of these branches, turned out to be unsuccessful. ”

7. DIFFICULTIES OF APPLICATION OF MATHEMATICAL KINDIES IN POLITICAL SCIENCE

In our opinion, some of the difficulties in the reliable application of mathematical methods in the study of politics and history at a theoretical level are as follows:

1. It is difficult to quantify the spiritual sphere, consciousness, the movement of ideas and attitudes, the individual qualities of those who make decisions. With logical thinking, a person is subject to

and the sphere of subconscious drives, emotions, passions affecting rational thinking, which in the behavior of state and political leaders often makes decisions difficult to predict.

Although theoretically the system or “environment” should impose restrictions on their deviation from the most rational choice, history shows that the role of the state leader often turns out to be decisive, while he himself, making a decision, becomes immune to objective information, and acts on the basis of the subjective , to a large extent intuitively, understanding the political process and the intentions of opponents and other actors. As an example, let us recall the behavior of J. Stalin on the eve of Hitler's aggression against the USSR.

2. The second difficulty is related to the first one, but it encompasses the social sphere as a whole, where many influences, interests, factors intersect, and it seems impossible to establish and measure them relative to each other. Again, history shows that an insignificant, according to visible signs, or large, but formerly unchanged parameter can dramatically change its value and have a decisive impact.

An example from the relatively recent past is the four to fivefold rise in the price of oil in 1973, which caused the global energy crisis in the short term and, in the long term, caused the restructuring of the world economy. The same factor in the short term had a beneficial effect on the foreign trade of the USSR, and in the long term contributed to * the maturing crisis of the Soviet economy and the decline of the Soviet system as a whole. Meanwhile, the most significant change in the international economic system of the 70s. was not predicted in the models. So, in the well-known forecast of world development "Goal 2000", published on the eve of the 1973-1974 energy crisis. by the famous American futurologist G. Kahn, the oil factor did not figure among the variables at all ”*. those. many large, but suddenly developed processes in the economic, social and political spheres turn out to be unpredictable, which, of course, is not an indisputable proof of their unpredictability.

3. Finally, some processes seem to be random, stochastic, because the causes that cause them are invisible (at a given time). If we figuratively compare the social sphere with a bioslope organism, then the reasons for this are similar to a virus that does not show activity for a long time. due to the lack of favorable environmental conditions or their unknown internal "clockwork". With regard to international relations, it is important not to lose sight of the historical aspect, since the origins of some processes not observed by contemporaries are fixed in national traditions and national consciousness. Unlike the evolution of nature (excluding anthropogenic impact and cataclysms), in which the length of time on the scale of human history is minimal, in the world social sphere the complexity of systems in space is interconnected with strong, historically accelerating mutations.

As if summing up the results of behavioral studies of international relations in the 50s and 60s, the English internationalist L. Reynalls spoke about the revealed methodological difficulties: “We are talking about the problems of inadequacy of intellectual tools. The human mind is completely incapable of creating a system that includes the entire ensemble of constituent elements and interactions on a worldwide scale. Such a system should be simplified.

But as soon as simplification is allowed, reality is immediately falsified, and simplification is nothing more than an abstraction of reality '' **.

One of the leading American behaviorists D. Singer argued the opposite point of view: “We cannot build a global system as a complex of very flexible, mobile co-optations, territorial

and others, including smaller formations, which can now be linked not only through governments, but be internal or extra-national as well as national as in the sphere

In this dispute, the skepticism of traditionalists is understandable, but he can hardly convince a serious researcher that the methods of the exact sciences are a priori unsuitable for the study of international relations. Naturally, these methods first began to be used in demography, economics, which on the subject of research

are, as it were, intermediate between the exact and “purely” humanitarian sciences, where with the expansion of such a subject of research as the sphere of consciousness, the most adequate forms of cognition (figurative-metaphorical thinking, intuitive-experiential assessments, etc.) also expand. It is no coincidence that the qualitative and other methods of mathematics, biology, physics, transferred through the `` intermediate '' sciences to political science, international relations, by the way, gave the most noticeable results in those studies, the subject of which also turned out to be closer to physics or cybernetics than to purely humanitarian sciences ...

8. EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION OF MATHEMATICAL MEANS IN MODELING MILITARY CONFLICTS AND ARMS RACE (L. RICHARDSON'S MODEL)

These examples primarily relate to the military-strategic area, where the criteria for the behavior of states, as well as the behavior itself, are tightened, and the significance of various influences and interests is assessed in a single dimension of the balance of forces and potentials, i.e. one way or another, the number of factors that are subject to quantification decreases.

Back in the 1930s, the Scottish mathematician L. Richardson began to create a mathematical model of war and international conflict. According to A. Rapoport, L. Richardson viewed international relations as a “physical system”. In the 50s, his method attracted the attention of American authors, but L. Richardson, improving it, retained the priority and achieved widespread acceptance in the West of his model as a classic in the field of military-strategic research using mathematics, which can be seen from its citation index in foreign countries. literature. L. Richardson proposed a system of differential equations:

where x and y are the levels of armaments of the two countries, k and l are the “defense coefficients” (the government's idea of ​​the enemy's strategy); α and β - coefficients of the "cost" of military efforts; g and h - coefficients of "aggressiveness" 262 (the degree of militarism or peacefulness of foreign policy).

Another quantitative analysis technique that has found widespread use in

foreign studies, contained in the project "Correlation of War", developed

under the leadership of D. Singer *. It is based on the paired correction technique. D. Singer set the task of establishing, on the one hand, the correlation between the number of wars and the military potential of European states from the Congress of Vienna 1815 to 1965, on the other hand, between several parameters of wars (occurrence, intensity, duration)

and parameters characterizing the international system (the number and strength of alliances, the number

international organizations).

In the project, using factor analysis, six indicators of military strength were identified: 1) the total population, 2) the population in cities over 20,000 thousand inhabitants; 3) the amount of energy consumed; 4) production of steel and iron;

5) the level of military spending; 6) the size of the armed forces. One project output

states that long-term equilibrium in the European system of the XIX century. hindered the intensity of wars and, conversely, wars of the XX century. caused by changes in the balance of power in favor of one power or coalition. Another less obvious conclusion is

the fact that the intensification of the process of the formation of unions in the XIX century. increased the likelihood

the emergence of wars, while in the international system of 1900-1945. strengthening alliances

game models (G. Gettskov, R. Brody). Game theory originated in the 40s. Since the late 1950s, games in the field of international relations have been simulated without and with the help of computers (O-Benson, J. Crand). The Soviet international experts who analyzed them believe that the use of logical and mathematical methods and computer modeling opened up a promising direction, but were restrained by "the insufficiency of the existing mathematical tools themselves, and, above all, game theory".

By analogy with war games, “hard” imitations are distinguished, where certain conditions of behavior are set, and “free” ones. The former, as a rule, were used in attempts to model at the global level, the latter - for specific problems (most often for modeling conflicts). It seems that the experience of these models deserves more careful analysis by mathematicians for the possible use of valuable elements. Note that game, simulation models, as well as correlation, static ones, also concerned mainly the military-strategic area.

MAIN THEORETICAL DIRECTIONS OF "MODERNIST" RESEARCH

The conventionality of dividing the directions of "modernist" (behavioristic) studies of international relations according to two criteria - methodology and theory - is quite obvious. The existing theory itself is the methodological basis of cognition. For example, studies of the process of making foreign policy decisions can be viewed as a methodological principle in the analysis of foreign policy and, at the same time, as a theoretical direction. Nevertheless, theoretical constructions differ from methodology in that they have a specific subject of research. The "classical" approach to the study of international relations in American and Western European science was focused on a universal general theory. And since many “modernist” approaches proceeded from opposite, empirical attitudes, their result was a rejection of the search for a global theory and the formation of a number of private theories of international relations.

Abroad, there are many private theories and methods in the study of international relations. According to some estimates, only by the beginning of the 60s there were up to three dozen of them. However, several main ones stand out among them: the theory of international conflicts, the theory of integration, the theory of making foreign policy decisions, and in a broader sense - the theory of foreign policy. Finally, there is such a separate direction as the study of peace problems (Peace research), which stood out from the study of international conflicts.

So, let's look at a number of examples of the characteristic features of particular theories of international relations.

1. GENERAL THEORY OF CONFLICT

The largest of these in terms of the number of studies and publications was the theory of international conflicts. Actually, conflict management is a broader branch of international research that considers conflict as a social phenomenon and behavior in all social spheres. In the United States and other Western countries, there is the so-called “general theory of conflict”, the dominant methodology of which is the systemic, structural-functional approaches in combination with behavioral-cybernetic techniques. The behavioral trend was reflected in the publications of the American magazine "The Journal of Conflict Resolution" founded in 1957. International conflicts turned out to be the central topic on the pages of the journal, which in fact has become a priority scientific publication not only in the field of the study of conflicts, but to a large extent in the study of international relations in the United States as a whole. One of its most famous representatives is the conflict expert Kenneth Boulding.

The behavior of participants in an international conflict is considered by behaviorists approximately according to the scheme that is presented in the well-known work on quantitative methods, published under the editorship of D. Singer (see Fig. 2).

Picture 2

S - incentives caused by the behavior of states R - behavior of each state

r - stimulus score

s - intentions expressed depending on perception.

International conflicts is a topic that in the 70s and 80s, perhaps, became a priority for Soviet international scholars as well. In any case, in terms of the number of monographs in comparison with other subjects in the theory of international relations. The authors of foreign and domestic works emphasized that the main tendencies of development and contradictions of the international sphere are focused in international conflicts, and if we consider that the global problem of war was interpreted by many Western scholars as an integral part of conflict management, then it is logical to consider the theory of international conflicts in its approach to the level of general theory. international relations. It is the vastness and significance of the subject that explains why the main direction in research on the general theory of conflict has taken the study of international conflicts.

The study of international conflicts in most cases pursues applied goals. Therefore, in

foreign conflictology from an applied point of view most often at the beginning two levels of analysis were distinguished: 1) analysis of the causes, structure and dynamics of conflicts, 2) "therapy", i.e. development of methods for their settlement (UN, international court in The Hague, negotiations, application of international legal norms, force). Then the third level emerged - the prevention of international conflicts. In particular, the idea of ​​the possibility of conflict prevention and the need to develop appropriate means for this was formulated by the director of the Center for the Study of Conflicts at London University Cottage J. Burton.

2. THEORY OF INTEGRATION

Among the studies on the theory of international integration in Anglo-American literature, the works of K. Deutsch “Political community at the international level. Definition and Measurement Problems ”,“ Political Community and the North Atlantic Space. International Organization in the Light of a Historical Experiment ”, as well as“ Nationalism and Social Communication ”and a number of other works.

Considering that there can be no universal law according to which cooperation and integration processes develop, K. Deutsch named several conditions necessary for this. Among them, he first of all highlighted the commonality of political values ​​and such psychological factors as knowledge of partners, the development of trade, the intensity of cultural exchange and exchange of ideas. K. Deutsch put forward a hypothesis about the predominance of communication factors in the formation of political communities and in maintaining their internal unity, cohesion, considering linguistic communication primarily from the point of view of information exchange. Each nation, people has special communicative means, which are expressed in the consolidated collective memory, symbols, habits, traditions.

Two American authors, R. Cobb and C. Elder, conducted a study on the basis of correlation analysis in order to determine the factors that determine rapprochement and cooperation in international relations, comparing the relationship between the selected fifty states of the world and the relationship within the North Atlantic community. As a result, two factors turned out to be predominant: 1) previous cooperation, 2) economic power, which can be seen from the following diagram (the significance of a number of factors was not revealed) (see Table 2 in the Appendix).

If we take into account that “previous cooperation” is itself the result of the action of other factors, then there remain two leading factors in terms of the level of correlation (economic and military power).

Other authors emphasize the predominance of the factor of the leading political force, the "hotbed" of integration. From these positions, the history of the USA, Canada, Australia and South Africa was considered by the Belgian internationalist J. Barrea, who believes that integration tends to develop around the “core area”, representing one (possibly more) more powerful state, attracting into its orbit the surrounding area.

3. THEORY OF FOREIGN POLITICAL DECISION MAKING

Publications on this topic can be divided into “purely scientific”, in which real processes are analyzed, and scientific and applied, in which methods are developed to optimize decision-making. In Anglo-American studies, there are several approaches to assessing the process of foreign policy decisions.

One of the most popular in the 40-50s was the socio-psychological approach, in particular, the so-called "method of operational cipher" or "code". It was used by the sociologist N. Leits, who, on the basis of an analysis of Russian literature and the works of the Bolsheviks, tried to reconstruct the system of values ​​(beliefs) of Soviet leaders and open their perception of the outside world. His goal was to create a collective image of the “Bolshevik perception” of reality, in order to try to understand the behavior of leaders based on this. Modified, this approach then turned into a psychological test of 10 questions, asked in order to find out a politician's view of the world. Philosophical questions were also clarified, for example, "is the political universe in essence some kind of harmony or collision?", "Is the future in politics predictable?" In addition, the list includes "instrumental" questions that clarify someone's behavior in the world of politics: "What is the best way to choose, goals or objects of political action?"

By the mid-1950s, a socio-psychological interpretation of the motives for decision-making was given by R. Snyder based on the ideas of M. Weber and the structural and functional analysis of T. Parsons. His method assumed the greatest possible consideration of factors, but their consideration through the prism of perception by those who make decisions. (In the early 60s, R. Snyder took up the problem of rationalizing foreign policy decisions).

V further in the USA, as well as in the UK, two approaches were most widespread

To evaluating decision making: behavioral, combining socio-psychological aspects with cybernetic concepts; and rational decision theory based on game theory.

The behaviorist approach with the use of cybernetic means in the analysis of foreign policy decisions and actions of the state was one of the first applied by the professor of the University of Washington J. foreign policy decisions).

Let us reproduce the explanation of the decision-making process, which was developed by the American internationalist O. Holsti, who defended his dissertation on this topic at Stanford University. In his opinion, three phases should be distinguished in an ideal decision process. The first is a kind of push from the external environment. Perception of the impact of the external environment - the second phase, the process by which the decision maker selects, sorts, evaluates the information received regarding the surrounding world. Interpreting a deliberate "push" - the third phase. Both perception and interpretation depend on those images that already exist (are embedded) in the consciousness of the person making the decision. O. Holsty gave the following schematic description of perception and its relationship with images from the outside world and the system of values ​​of the person making the decision (Fig. 3):

Even if we accept Holst's scheme as adequately describing the behavior of a political leader intending to make a certain decision, it cannot reflect the real process of its adoption. As a rule, many factors operate in it, for example, the structure of power, within which decisions are made. In the 60s and 70s, the concept of a bureaucratic process of making foreign policy decisions (G. Allison, M. Halperin, and others), in which foreign policy actions are presented as a product of interaction between various state structures, a compromise of interests, became widespread in the United States. Emphasizing the special role of bureaucracy, the supporters of this concept chose the main object of the analysis of the decision-making process (and made the meaning of this object absolutized) those factors that are underestimated in the socio-psychological interpretation of O. Holsty.

A more complex model of the process of foreign policy decisions was developed by the English internationalist J. Burton, who is also a supporter of structural and functional analysis using the cybernetic stimulus-response scheme. The peculiarity of his approach lies in the development of the concept of “vectors of change”, acting from the outside on the state. J. Burton divides changes into primary and secondary. Primary factors are changes in the environment (geography, geology, biosphere), secondary factors are the result of social interaction of human societies. Let us present a diagram of the decision-making process according to J. Burton, given in his book "System, States, Diplomacy and Rules".

In addition to the ontological (identifying the essence, specificity and characteristics of its object) and epistemological (identifying the origins, conditions of development and functions of the theory itself), theory also plays a methodological role. Methodology is a set of techniques, methods and ways, in other words, methods of cognition. The theory of international relations uses a variety of methods - traditional and scientific, qualitative and quantitative, descriptive and analytical, formal and reflective, etc. The importance of the problem of methods is difficult to overestimate, because we are talking about the ways and procedures that are designed to lead to the most reliable knowledge of international relations. Therefore, one of the most important discussions ("big disputes"), which became a kind of stages in the development of the theory of international relations, concerned precisely the problem of methods.

The discussion unfolded in the 1960s. between supporters of traditional and scientific approaches. Supporters traditional or classical approach in the study of international relations (G. Morgenthau, R. Aron, M. White, H. Bull, etc.) relied on the achievements of philosophy, data from history and law, intuition and common sense, emphasizing the relativity and imperfection of our knowledge, which, according to their opinion, can not be considered otherwise as hypothetical and inconclusive.

Supporters scientific approach, or modernism(M. Kaplan, J. von Nyomen, J. Modelski, O. Morgenstern and others), insisted on the need to enrich the theory of international relations with provisions based on mathematical proofs, modeling, formalization. From their point of view, the study of international relations can only be considered scientific if it can be verified using rigorous empirical procedures. In other words, modernism as a positivist trend is associated with the desire to introduce into the social sciences, to which the theory of international relations belongs, the methods of natural and mathematical sciences.

Traditionalists gravitate towards qualitative, descriptive, intuitive methods and believe that there are no problems in TMT that cannot be solved (of course, within the framework of the relative validity and imperfection of the knowledge obtained) using classical approaches. Modernists prefer quantitative, analytical, formal methods and argue that traditionalism resorts to absurdly broad generalizations that can often be neither confirmed nor refuted by empirical data and therefore have nothing to do with science. In turn, traditionalists emphasize that the modernist criteria of empirical verification and rigorous proof not only bring nothing new in essence, but also limit the development of TMT, closing it into too narrow a framework that does not correspond to the complexity and richness of its object.

One of the most notable results of this discussion was the spread of a systematic approach to the study of international relations. It was on the basis of a systematic approach that analysis levels method. It refers mainly to qualitative methods and at the same time claims to be more strict than traditional ones.

For the first time the concept of “levels of analysis” was used in his work “Man, State and War” (1965) by the American international scientist K. Waltz. Studying international armed conflicts, he came to the conclusion that despite the complex, complex nature of the causes of conflicts, they should be sought in three main areas of the political, or at three levels: the level of decision-makers, or the level of the individual; the level of internal political factors, or the level of the state; the level of the interstate system. This approach made it possible to conceptually divide policy areas, each of which has a different impact on the behavior of states in the international arena. The methodological significance of this method lies in the fact that it allows the student of international relations to focus on one of the areas of politics, temporarily distracting from others. So, at the level of the individual, the role of the personal qualities of persons making international political decisions is investigated - the characteristics of their character, psychology, ideological attitudes, moral character, etc .; groups and coalitions of interests are analyzed at the state level; at the system level, the distribution of power among states and its impact on their internal regime and international behavior is assessed. At the same time, Waltz himself believed that the main reasons should be sought at the level of the interstate system, since, ultimately, the behavior of states in the international arena depends on its configuration and structure (whether it is bipolar, multipolar or unipolar).

The method of levels of analysis has such undoubted advantages as the ability to focus on one of the groups of reasons, to compare the results of studying different areas of the political process, to separate more important factors from less significant, etc. This attracted many supporters to it, who contributed to its improvement and development (M. Kaplan, D. Singer, S. Smith, B. Buzan, etc.). However, the use of this method raises a number of questions: is it necessary to single out only three levels of analysis, or can there be more or less of them? Which one should you start with in the study of international relations? How to determine where one of the levels ends and the other begins? What should be understood by the international system, its elements and structure? If we consider only states as such elements, there is a risk of reducing international relations to interstate relations, which clearly narrows, oversimplifies and unacceptably impoverishes the picture of modern international life. The expansion of these elements by including all new types of actors in the international system threatens to undermine the very essence of the system approach: it loses its heuristic value if the increase in the number and types of elements in the system exceeds certain limits. In addition, the method of levels of analysis is aimed at explaining international phenomena, events and processes, and explanation in this complex sphere of public life always remains incomplete and must be supplemented by understanding. Thus, given its certain merits, the method of levels of analysis cannot be considered as exhaustive and the only correct one. Its use does not obviate the need to appeal to intuition, historical analogies and other traditional methods. Simulation methods and quantitative analysis do not negate this need.

Modeling and formalization methods in the study of international relations became widespread in the 1950-1960s. A formal model is developed from a simple, abstract description of a specific aspect of the real world. A set of statements is logically derived from an abstract description. For example, simulation games using computer technology begin with the simplest and most plausible model for explaining current events - crises, conflicts, the creation of intergovernmental organizations, etc., and explore how this model fits with previously selected historical examples. Through trial and error, changing the parameters of the original model, adding previously overlooked factors, taking into account cultural and historical values, shifts in the dominant mentality, etc., are gradually moving towards achieving more and more compliance with this - already new - model of international relations. At the next stage, based on a comparison of these two models, they put forward reasonable hypotheses regarding the possible development of current events in the future, or, in other words, predict them.

Formal methods and modeling are deductive: they use logic to make judgments about certain specific international events or processes. Formal methods, even more than the systems approach, focus on explanation rather than understanding.

Quantitative methods are inductive in nature: starting with the analysis of the available data, using the rules of statistical inference, they offer statistical probabilities regarding the correlation of particular events. These methods provide information on the coincidences in the change of certain facts or in the sequence of events in international life, but they do not explain their causality, setting as their task forecasting.

Both formal methods and quantitative analysis have a number of advantages: they test and sometimes refute intuitive feelings about the evolution or the degree of importance of certain international phenomena; allow for certain possibilities of foresight; empirically verifiable, etc. But their importance cannot be exaggerated. Thus, the American author T.J. McKyoen, using the theory of "democratic peace" as an example, shows the inadequacy of statistical methods and formalized models for final conclusions. Indeed, formal and quantitative methods do not answer questions such as: What is the degree of similarity between the model of reality itself? How many cases do you need to study to get really correct conclusions? These methods require simplification of the extremely complex phenomena of international life; they can overlook or ignore (in the worst cases, even "fit") hypotheses or data that do not fit into the initial premises.

• For more details on the "big disputes" in the TMO, see: P.A. Tsygankov. The theory of international relations. M., 2002.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Course work

"Methods and methods of studying international relations"

Introduction

International relations is an integral part of science, including diplomatic history, international law, world economy, military strategy and many other disciplines that study various aspects of a single object for them. Of particular importance for her is the "theory of international relations", which, in this case, is understood as a set of multiple conceptual generalizations presented by arguing theoretical schools and constituting the subject field of a relatively autonomous discipline. In this sense, the "theory of international relations" is both very old and very young. Already in ancient times, political philosophy and history raised questions about the causes of conflicts and wars, about the means and ways of achieving order and peace between peoples, about the rules of their interaction, etc. - and therefore it is old. But at the same time, it is also young - as a systematic study of the observed phenomena, designed to identify the main determinants, explain behavior, reveal the typical, recurring in the interaction of international factors.

The relevance of my topic lies in the fact that the sphere of international relations is mobile and constantly changing. Now, in the period of globalization, integration and, at the same time, regionalization, the number and variety of participants in international relations has increased significantly. Transnational actors have appeared: intergovernmental organizations, transnational corporations, international non-governmental organizations, religious organizations and movements, internal political regions, international criminal and terrorist organizations. As a result, international relations have become more complex, have become even more unpredictable, it has become more difficult to determine the true, real goals and interests of their participants, to develop a state strategy and formulate state interests. Therefore, at present it is important to be able to analyze and evaluate events in the field of international relations, see the goals of their participants, and set priorities. For this it is necessary to study international relations. In the process of studying, methods of study, their advantages and disadvantages, play a significant role. Therefore, the topic "Methods and methods of studying international relations" is relevant and modern.

Purpose of work: to study the most widely used methods, methods of studying international relations. It does not pose such a rather complex and independent task as teaching how to use them. However, its solution would be impossible, since this requires, firstly, a detailed description of certain methods, illustrated by examples of their specific application in research work in the analysis of a certain object of international relations, and secondly (and this is the main thing) , - practical participation in a particular scientific-theoretical or scientific-applied project. In my work, I will consider in detail several methods of studying international relations.

1 ... Method Problem Significance

The problem of the method is one of the most important problems of any science, since ultimately it is about teaching how to get new knowledge, how to apply it in practice. At the same time, this is one of the most difficult problems, which precedes the study of its object by science, and is the result of such a study. It precedes the study of an object because the researcher must from the very beginning possess a certain amount of techniques and means of achieving new knowledge. It is the result of the study, because the knowledge obtained as a result of it concerns not only the object itself, but also the methods of its study, as well as the application of the results obtained in practical activity. Moreover, the researcher is faced with the problem of the method already when analyzing the literature and the need for its classification and evaluation.

Hence the ambiguity in understanding the content of the term "method" itself. It means both the sum of techniques, means and procedures for the study of its subject by science, and the totality of already existing knowledge. This means that the problem of a method, while having an independent meaning, is at the same time closely related to the analytical and practical role of theory, which also plays the role of a method.

The widespread belief that each science has its own method is only partially true: most social sciences do not have their own specific, only inherent method. Therefore, in one way or another, they refract, in relation to their object, the general scientific methods and methods of other (both social and natural science) disciplines. In this regard, it is generally accepted that the methodological approaches of political science (including international relations) are built around three aspects:

1. The strictest possible separation of the research position from moral value judgments or personal views;

2. The use of analytical techniques and procedures that are common to all social sciences, which play a decisive role in establishing and subsequent consideration of facts;

3. The desire to systematize, or, in other words, to develop common approaches and build models that facilitate the discovery of "laws".

And although it is emphasized that this remark does not mean the need to "completely banish" value judgments or personal positions of the researcher from science, nevertheless, he inevitably faces a problem of a broader nature - the problem of the relationship between science and ideology. In principle, this or that ideology, understood in a broad sense - as a conscious or unconscious choice of a preferred point of view - always exists. It is impossible to avoid this, “deideologize” in this sense. Interpretation of facts, even the choice of "viewing angle", etc. are inevitably conditioned by the point of view of the researcher. Therefore, the objectivity of research assumes that the researcher must constantly remember about the "ideological presence" and strive to control it, see the relativity of any conclusions, given this "presence", try to avoid one-sided vision. The most fruitful results in science can be achieved not with the denial of ideology (this is, at best, delusion, and at worst, deliberate cunning), but under the condition of ideological tolerance, ideological pluralism and "ideological control" (but not in the sense of what we are accustomed to recently the past of the control of the official political ideology in relation to science, and vice versa - in the sense of the control of science over any ideology).

This also applies to the so-called methodological dichotomy, which is often observed in international relations. We are talking about the opposition of the so-called traditional historical-descriptive, or intuitive-logical approach to the operational-applied, or analytical-prognostic, associated with the use of methods of exact sciences, formalization, data calculation (quantification), verifiability (or falsifiability) of conclusions, etc. ... In this regard, for example, it is argued that the main drawback of the science of international relations is the protracted process of its transformation into an applied science. Such statements are too categorical. The process of the development of science is not linear, but rather reciprocal: it does not turn from a historical-descriptive to an applied one, but the refinement and correction of theoretical positions through applied research (which, indeed, are possible only at a certain, sufficiently high stage of its development) and "Debt repayment" to "applied specialists" in the form of a more solid and operational theoretical and methodological basis.

Indeed, in the world (primarily American) science of international relations since the beginning of the fifties of the XX century, the assimilation of many relevant results and methods of sociology, psychology, formal logic, as well as natural and mathematical sciences has been taking place. At the same time, the accelerated development of analytical concepts, models and methods, progress towards the comparative study of data, the systematic use of the potential of electronic computing technology begins. All this contributed to the significant progress of the science of international relations, bringing it closer to the needs of practical regulation and forecasting of world politics and international relations. At the same time, this by no means led to the displacement of the old, "classical" methods and concepts.

Thus, for example, the operational nature of the historical-sociological approach to international relations and its predictive capabilities were demonstrated by R. Aron. One of the most prominent representatives of the "traditional", "historical-descriptive" approach, G. Morgenthau, pointing out the insufficiency of quantitative methods, wrote not without reason that they could far from claim to be universal. Such an important phenomenon for understanding international relations as, for example, power - “represents the quality of interpersonal relations, which can be checked, evaluated, guessed, but which cannot be quantified ... Of course, it is possible and necessary to determine how many votes can be given over to politics, how many divisions or nuclear warheads the government has; but if I need to understand how much power a politician or government has, then I will have to put aside the computer and the calculating machine and start thinking about historical and, certainly, qualitative indicators. "

Indeed, the essence of political phenomena cannot be investigated, no matter how completely, using only applied methods. In social relations in general, and in international relations in particular, stochastic processes dominate, which do not lend themselves to deterministic explanations. Therefore, the conclusions of the social sciences, including the science of international relations, can never be finally verified or falsified. In this regard, the methods of "high" theory are quite legitimate here, combining observation and reflection, comparison and intuition, knowledge of facts and imagination. Their usefulness and effectiveness are confirmed by both modern research and fruitful intellectual traditions.

At the same time, as M. Merle correctly noted about the controversy between supporters of "traditional" and "modernist" approaches in the science of international relations, it would be absurd to insist on intellectual traditions where accurate correlations between collected facts are needed. Anything that can be quantified must be quantified. We will return to the controversy between "traditionalists" and "modernists" later. Here it is important to note the illegality of the opposition of "traditional" and "scientific" methods, the falsity of their dichotomy. In fact, they complement each other. Therefore, it is quite legitimate to conclude that both approaches "act on equal grounds, and the analysis of the same problem is carried out independently of each other by different researchers." Moreover, within the framework of both approaches, the same discipline can use - albeit in different proportions - different methods: general scientific, analytical and concrete-empirical. However, the difference between them, especially between general scientific and analytical ones, is also rather arbitrary, therefore, one must bear in mind the conventionality, the relativity of the boundaries between them, their ability to "flow" into each other. This statement is also true for International Relations. At the same time, we must not forget that the main purpose of science is to serve practice and, ultimately, to create the basis for making decisions that are most likely to contribute to the achievement of the goal.

In this regard, relying on the conclusions of R. Aron, we can say that, in fundamental terms, the study of international relations requires a combination of approaches that are based on theory (study of the essence, specificity and main driving forces of this special kind of social relations); sociology (search for determinants and patterns that determine its changes and evolution); history (the actual development of international relations in the process of changing eras and generations, which makes it possible to find analogies and exceptions) and praxeology (analysis of the process of preparing, making and implementing an international political decision). In applied terms, we are talking about the study of facts (analysis of the totality of available information); explanation of the current situation (search for reasons designed to avoid the undesirable and ensure the desired development of events); predicting the further evolution of the situation (studying the likelihood of its possible consequences); preparation of a decision (drawing up a list of available means of influencing the situation, assessing various alternatives) and, finally, making a decision (which should also not exclude the need for an immediate response to possible changes in the situation).

It is not difficult to notice the similarity of methodological approaches and even the intersection of methods inherent in both levels of the study of international relations. This is also true in the sense that in both cases, some of the methods used meet all the goals set, while others are effective only for one or another of them. Let us consider in some detail some of the methods used at the applied level of International Relations.

2 . Situation analysis methods

Situation analysis involves the use of a sum of methods and procedures of an interdisciplinary nature, used for the accumulation and primary systematization of empirical material ("data"). Therefore, the corresponding methods and techniques are sometimes also called "research techniques". To date, more than a thousand of such techniques are known - from the simplest (for example, observation) to quite complex (such as, for example, the formation of a data bank, the construction of multidimensional scales, the compilation of simple and complex indicators, the construction of typologies (factor analysis Q).

Let's consider the most common analytical techniques: observation, study of documents, comparison.

Observation

As you know, the elements of this method are the subject of observation, the object and the means of observation. There are different types of observations. So, for example, direct observation, as opposed to indirect (instrumental), does not imply the use of any technical equipment or tools (television, radio, etc.). It can be external (similar to that which, for example, are conducted by parliamentary journalists, or special correspondents in foreign countries) and included (when the observer is a direct participant in one or another international event: diplomatic negotiations, a joint project or an armed conflict). In turn, direct observation differs from indirect observation, which is carried out on the basis of information obtained through interviews, questionnaires, etc. In international relations, indirect and instrumental observation is generally possible. The main disadvantage of this method of data collection is the large role of subjective factors associated with the activity of the subject, his (or primary observers) ideological preferences, imperfection or deformation of the means of observation. ...

Examining documents

With regard to international relations, it has the peculiarity that the "unofficial" researcher often does not have free access to sources of objective information (unlike, for example, staff analysts, experts from international departments, or security officials). An important role in this is played by the notions of a particular regime about state secrets and security. In the USSR, for example, the volume of oil production, the level of industrial production, etc., remained the subject of state secrets for a long time; there was a huge array of documents and literature intended only "for official use", the ban on the free circulation of foreign publications remained, a huge number of institutions and institutions were closed to "outsiders."

There is another problem that complicates the use of this method, which is one of the initial, basic ones for any research in the field of social and political sciences: this is the problem of the financial resources necessary for the acquisition, processing and storage of documents, payment of labor costs associated with this, and so on. It is clear, therefore, that the more developed a state is and the more democratic its political regime is, the more favorable opportunities exist for research in the social and political sciences.

The most accessible are the official documents:

1) Messages from the press services of diplomatic and military departments, information on visits by statesmen,

2) Statutes and statements of the most influential intergovernmental organizations,

At the same time, unofficial written, audio and audiovisual sources are also widely used, which in one way or another can contribute to an increase in information about the events of international life: records of opinions of individuals, family archives, unpublished diaries. Memories of direct participants in certain international events - wars, diplomatic negotiations, official visits - can play an important role. This also applies to the forms of such memories - written or oral, direct or reconstructed, etc. An important role in data collection is played by the so-called iconographic documents: paintings, photographs, films, exhibitions, slogans. So, in the conditions of the closedness prevailing in the USSR, American Sovietologists paid great attention to the study of iconographic documents, for example, reports from holiday demonstrations and parades. The features of the design of the columns, the content of slogans and posters, the number and personal composition of officials were studied.

Comparison

This is a method that is common to many disciplines. According to B. Russet and H. Starr, in the science of international relations, it began to be used only in the mid-60s, when the continuous growth in the number of states and other international actors made it both possible and absolutely necessary. The main advantage of this method is that it focuses on the search for common things that are repeated in the field of international relations. The need to compare states and their individual characteristics (territory, population, level of economic development, military potential, length of borders, etc.) among themselves stimulated the development of quantitative methods in the science of international relations, and in particular measurements. So, if there is a hypothesis that large states are more inclined to unleash war than all others, then there is a need to measure the size of states in order to determine which of them is large and which is small, and by what criteria. In addition to this “spatial” aspect of measurement, there is a need to measure “in time”, i.e. elucidation in historical retrospective, what size of the state enhances its "inclination" to war.

At the same time, comparative analysis makes it possible to obtain scientifically significant conclusions on the basis of the dissimilarity of phenomena and the uniqueness of the situation. So, comparing iconographic documents (in particular, photo and newsreels), reflecting the dispatch of French soldiers to the active army in 1914 and 1939, M. Ferro discovered an impressive difference in their behavior. The smiles, dances, the atmosphere of general jubilation that prevailed at the Gare de l'Est in Paris in 1914 contrasted sharply with the picture of despondency, hopelessness, and a clear reluctance to go to the front, observed at the same station in 1939.

Since these situations could not develop under the influence of the pacifist movement (according to written sources, it was never as strong as on the eve of 1914 and, on the contrary, almost did not manifest itself at all before 1939), a hypothesis was put forward according to which One explanation for the contrast described above must be that in 1914, unlike in 1939, there was no doubt as to who the enemy was: the enemy was known and identified. The proof of this hypothesis became one of the ideas of a very interesting and original study devoted to understanding the First World War.

international explicative cognitive method

3 . Explicative methods

The most common of these are methods such as content analysis, event analysis, cognitive mapping, and their many varieties.

Content analysis

In political sciences, it was first applied by the American researcher G. Lasswell and his collaborators in the study of the propaganda orientation of political texts and was described by them in 1949. In its most general form, this method can be presented as a systematic study of the content of a written or oral text with the fixation of the most frequently repeated phrases or plots in it. Further, the frequency of these phrases or plots is compared with their frequency in other written or oral messages, known as neutral, on the basis of which a conclusion is made about the political orientation of the content of the studied text. Describing this method, M.A. Khrustalev and K.P. Borishpolets distinguish such stages of its application as: text structuring associated with the primary processing of information material; processing the information array using matrix tables; quantification of information material, allowing to continue its analysis using electronic computers.

The degree of rigor and operability of the method depends on the correctness of the selection of the primary units of analysis (terms, phrases, semantic blocks, topics, etc.) and units of measurement (for example, a word, phrase, section, page, etc.)

Inventory analysis

This method (otherwise called the method of analyzing event data) is aimed at processing public information, showing "who says or does what, in relation to whom and when." Systematization and processing of the relevant data is carried out according to the following criteria: 1) the initiator (who); 2) plot or "issue-area" (what); 3) the target subject (in relation to whom) and 4) the date of the event (when). Events systematized in this way are summarized in matrix tables, ranked and measured using a computer. The effectiveness of this method presupposes the presence of a significant data bank. Applied research projects using inventory analysis differ in the type of behavior studied, the number of politicians under consideration, the studied time parameters, the number of sources used, and the typology of matrix tables.

Cognitive mapping

This method is aimed at analyzing how a particular politician perceives a certain political problem. The American scientists R. Snyder, H. Brook and B. Sapin showed back in 1954 that decisions by political leaders can be based not only on, and not so much, the reality that surrounds them, but how they perceive it. In 1976, R. Jervis in his work "Perception and misperception (misperception) in international politics" showed that in addition to emotional factors, the decision taken by a leader is influenced by cognitive factors. From this point of view, the information received by the decision maker is assimilated and ordered by them "corrected" for their own views on the external world. Hence the tendency to underestimate any information that contradicts their value system and the image of the enemy, or, on the contrary, to give an exaggerated role to minor events. Analysis of cognitive factors makes it possible to understand, for example, that the relative constancy of the foreign policy of the state is explained, along with other reasons, and the constancy of the views of the respective leaders.

The cognitive mapping method solves the problem of identifying the basic concepts that the politician operates with and finding the causal relationships between them. "As a result, the researcher receives a schematic map on which, based on the study of speeches and speeches of a politician, his perception of the political situation or individual problems in it is reflected."

In the application of the described methods, which have a number of undoubted advantages - the ability to obtain new information based on the systematization of already known documents and facts, an increase in the level of objectivity, the ability to measure - the researcher also faces serious problems. This is the problem of sources of information and its reliability, the availability and completeness of databases, etc. But the main problem is the cost of research using content analysis, inventory analysis and cognitive mapping. Compilation of a database, their coding, and programming take considerable time, require expensive equipment, necessitate the involvement of appropriate specialists, which ultimately translates into significant sums.

Taking into account these problems, professor at the University of Montreal B. Corani proposed a methodology with a limited number of indicators of the behavior of an international actor, which are considered key (most characteristic). There are only four such indicators: the method of diplomatic representation, economic transactions, interstate visits and agreements (treaties). These indicators are categorized according to their type (for example, agreements can be diplomatic, military, cultural, or economic) and their level of significance. Then a matrix table is compiled, giving a visual representation of the object under study. So, the table reflecting the exchange of visits looks like this:

Head of State: King, President, Sheikh of the Emirate, First Secretary of the Communist Party, Chancellor …………………………… 3

Vice President: Prime Minister or Head of Government, Chairman of the Supreme Council …………………………… .2

Vice President: Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Defense, Minister of Economy …………………………………………… ..1

As for the methods of diplomatic representation, their classification is based on their level (ambassador level or lower level) and taking into account whether it is a direct representation or through the mediation of another country (resident or non-resident). The combination of this data can be represented as follows:

Resident Ambassador ………………………………………………………… 5

Non-resident ambassador ……………………………………………………… .4

Resident diplomatic mission

(on the level below the ambassador) ……………………………………………… ..3

Non-resident diplomatic mission …… ..2

Other diplomatic relations …………………………… ..1

On the basis of such data, conclusions are drawn regarding the way an international actor behaves in time and space: with whom he maintains the most intensive interactions, in what period and in what sphere they occur.

Using this technique, B. Korani established that almost all the military-political relations that, for example, Algeria had in the 70s, were maintained by him with the USSR, while the level of economic relations with the entire socialist camp was rather weak. In fact, most of Algeria's economic relations were aimed at cooperation with the West, and especially with the United States, the "main imperialist power." As B. Korani writes: "A similar conclusion, contrary to" common sense "and first impressions - (recall that Algeria belonged in those years to the countries of" socialist orientation "adhering to the course of" anti-imperialist struggle and all-round cooperation with the countries of socialism ") - could not be done and could not be believed without the use of a rigorous methodology supported by data systematization. " Perhaps this is a somewhat exaggerated estimate. But in any case, this technique is quite effective, sufficiently evidence-based and not too expensive.

Such methods and techniques are much more useful at the level of description rather than explanation. They give, as it were, a photograph, a general view of the situation, show what is happening, but without clarifying why. But this is precisely their purpose - to play a diagnostic role in the analysis of certain events, situations and problems of international relations. However, for this they need primary material, the availability of data that are subject to further processing.

Experiment

The experimental method as the creation of an artificial situation in order to test theoretical hypotheses, conclusions and statements, is one of the main in the natural sciences. In the social sciences, the most widespread form of it is imitation games, which are a kind of laboratory experiment (as opposed to a field experiment). There are two types of simulation games: without the use of electronic computers and with its use. In the first case, we are talking about individual or group actions associated with the performance of certain roles (for example, states, governments, politicians or international organizations) in accordance with a pre-drawn scenario. At the same time, the participants must strictly adhere to the formal conditions of the game, controlled by its leaders: for example, in the case of an imitation of an interstate conflict, all parameters of the state whose role is played by the participant must be taken into account - economic and military potential, participation in alliances, stability of the ruling regime. Otherwise, such a game can turn into simple entertainment and a waste of time in terms of cognitive results. Simulation games using computer technology offer much broader research perspectives. Based on the relevant databases, they make it possible, for example, to reproduce a model of diplomatic history. Starting with the simplest and most plausible model for explaining current events - crises, conflicts, the creation of intergovernmental organizations, etc., then we explore how it fits into previously selected historical examples. Through trial and error, changing the parameters of the original model, adding variables that were previously missed in it, taking into account cultural and historical values, shifts in the dominant mentality, one can gradually move towards achieving its more and more compliance with the reproduced model of diplomatic history, and based on a comparison of these two models, put forward sound hypotheses regarding the possible development of current events in the future. In other words, the experiment refers not only to explanatory, but also to predictive methods.

4 . Predictive methods

In international relations, there are both relatively simple and more complex predictive methods. The first group may include such methods as, for example, conclusions by analogy, the method of simple extrapolation, the Delphic method, the construction of scenarios, etc. The second - analysis of determinants and variables, systems approach, modeling, analysis of chronological series (ARIMA), spectral analysis, computer simulation, etc. Let us briefly consider some of them.

Delphic method

This is a systematic and controlled discussion of a problem by several experts. Experts submit their assessments of an international event to the central body, which summarizes and systematizes them, and then returns them to the experts again. Having been carried out several times, such an operation makes it possible to state more or less serious discrepancies in these estimates. Taking into account the generalization, the experts either amend their initial estimates, or strengthen their opinion and continue to insist on it. Studying the reasons for discrepancies in expert assessments allows us to identify previously unnoticed aspects of the problem and fix attention both on the most (in the case of coincidence of expert assessments) and the least (in case of discrepancy) likely consequences of the development of the analyzed problem or situation. In accordance with this, the final assessment and practical recommendations are developed.

Scripting

This method consists in constructing ideal (i.e. mental) models of the likely development of events. Based on analysis! " the existing situation, hypotheses are put forward - which are simple assumptions and are not subject to any verification in this case - about its further evolution and consequences. At the first stage, the analysis and selection of the main factors that determine, in the opinion of the researcher, the further development of the situation are carried out. The number of such factors should not be excessive (as a rule, no more than six elements are singled out) in order to provide a holistic vision of the whole multitude of future options arising from them. At the second stage, hypotheses are put forward (based on simple "common sense") about the supposed phases of evolution of the selected factors over the next 10, 15 and 20 years. At the third stage, the selected factors are compared and, on their basis, a number of hypotheses (scenarios) corresponding to each of them are advanced and described in more or less detail. This takes into account the consequences of interactions between the selected factors and the imaginary options for their development. Finally, at the fourth stage, an attempt is made to create indicators of the relative probability of the scenarios described above, which for this purpose are classified (quite arbitrarily) according to their degree, their probability.

Systems approach

The concept of a system is widely used by representatives of various theoretical directions and schools in the science of international "relations. Its generally recognized advantage is that it makes it possible to present the object of study in its unity and integrity, and, therefore, contributing to finding correlations between interacting elements, it helps to identify Of the “rules” of such interaction, or, in other words, the patterns of functioning of the international system. “Resources”), constituting the “potential” of the participants, then only actors act as elements of international politics.

The systems approach should be distinguished from its specific incarnations - systems theory and systems analysis. The systems theory performs the tasks of constructing, describing and explaining systems and their constituent elements, the interaction of the system and the environment, as well as intrasystem processes, under the influence of which there is a change and / or destruction of the system. As for system analysis, it solves more specific problems, representing a set of practical techniques, techniques, methods, procedures, thanks to which a certain ordering is introduced into the study of an object (in this case, international relations).

From the point of view of R. Aron, "The international system consists of political units that maintain regular relations with each other and which can be drawn into a general war." Since the main (and, in fact, the only) political units of interaction in the international system for Aron are states, at first glance one might get the impression that he equates international relations with world politics. However, essentially limiting international relations to the system of interstate interactions, R. Aron, at the same time, not only paid great attention to the assessment of resources, the potential of states, which determines their actions in the international arena, but also considered such an assessment to be the main task and content of the sociology of international relationships. At the same time, he represented the potential (or power) of the state as an aggregate consisting of its geographic environment, material and human resources, and the ability to collectively act. Thus, proceeding from a systematic approach, Aron outlines, in essence, three levels of consideration of international (interstate) relations: the level of the interstate system, the level of the state and the level of its power (potential).

Modeling

This method is associated with the construction of artificial, ideal, imaginary objects, situations, which are systems, the elements and relationships of which correspond to the elements and relationships of real international phenomena and processes.

Let us consider this type of this method as - complex modeling - on the example of the work of M.A. Khrustaleva "Systemic modeling of international relations".

The author sets as his task the construction of a formalized theoretical model, which is a trinar synthesis of methodological (philosophical theory of consciousness), general scientific (general theory of systems) and specific scientific (theory of international relations) approaches. The construction is carried out in three stages. At the first stage, “pre-model tasks” are formulated, which are combined into two blocks: “evaluative” and “operational”. In this regard, the author analyzes concepts such as "situations" and "processes" (and their types), as well as the level of information. On their basis, a matrix is ​​built, which is a kind of "map" designed to provide the researcher with the choice of an object, taking into account the level of information security.

As for the operational block, the main thing here is to single out the nature (type) of models (conceptual, theoretical and specific) and their forms (verbal or meaningful, formalized and quantified) on the basis of the triad "general-specific-individual". The selected models are also presented in the form of a matrix, which is a theoretical modeling model that reflects its main stages (form), stages (character) and their relationship.

At the second stage, we are talking about building a meaningful conceptual model as the starting point for solving the general research problem. On the basis of two groups of concepts - "analytical" (essence-phenomenon, content-form, quantity-quality) and "synthetic" (matter, movement, space, time), presented in the form of a matrix, a "universal cognitive structure - configurator" is built. setting a general framework for the study. Further, on the basis of identifying the above logical levels of research of any system, the noted concepts are reduced, as a result of which the “analytical” (essential, meaningful, structural, behavioral) and “synthetic” (substrate, dynamic, spatial and temporal) characteristics of the object are distinguished. Relying on the “system-oriented matrix configurator” structured in this way, the author traces the specific features and some trends in the evolution of the system of international relations.

At the third stage, a more detailed analysis of the composition and internal structure of international relations is carried out, i.e. building its expanded model. Here, the composition and structure (elements, subsystems, connections, processes), as well as the "programs" of the system of international relations (interests, resources, goals, mode of action, balance of interests, balance of forces, relations) are distinguished. Interests, resources, goals, mode of action constitute the elements of the "program" of subsystems or elements. Resources, characterized as a “non-system-forming element”, are subdivided by the author into resources of means (material-energy and informational) and resources of conditions (space and time).

The "program of the system of international relations" is a derivative in relation to the "programs" of elements and subsystems. Its backbone element is the "correlation of interests" of various elements and subsystems with each other. The non-system-forming element is the concept of "balance of forces", which could be more accurately expressed by the term "ratio of means" or "ratio of potentials". The third derivative element of the specified "program" is the "relation" understood by the author as a kind of evaluative representation of the system about itself and about the environment.

Based on the theoretical model constructed in this way, M.A. Khrustalev analyzes real processes characteristic of the current stage of world development. He notes that if the key factor that determined the evolution of the system of international relations throughout its history was interstate conflict interaction within the framework of stable confrontational axes, then by the 90s of the XX century. the prerequisites for the transition of the system to a different qualitative state arise. It is characterized not only by the breakdown of the global confrontational axis, but also by the gradual formation of stable axes of all-round cooperation between the developed states of the world. As a result, an informal subsystem of developed states appears in the form of a world economic complex, the core of which has become the “seven” of leading developed countries, which has objectively turned into a governing center that regulates the development of the system of international relations. The fundamental difference between such a "governing center" from the League of Nations or the UN is that it is the result of self-organization, and not the product of "social engineering" with its characteristic static completeness and weak adequacy to dynamic changes in the environment. As a governing center, the G7 solves two important problems of the functioning of the system of international relations: first, the elimination of the existing and prevention of the emergence in the future of regional confrontational military-political axes; secondly, stimulating the democratization of countries with authoritarian regimes (creating a single world political space). Highlighting, taking into account the model he proposed, also other trends in the development of the system of international relations, M.A. Khrustalev considers the emergence and consolidation of the concept of "world community" and the emphasis on the idea of ​​a "new world order" to be very symptomatic, emphasizing at the same time that the current state of the system of international relations as a whole does not yet correspond to the modern needs of the development of human civilization.

Such a detailed examination of the method of systemic modeling as applied to the analysis of international relations allows us to see both the advantages and disadvantages of both this method itself and the systemic approach as a whole. The advantages can be attributed to the already noted above generalizing, synthesizing nature of the system approach. It allows you to discover both the integrity of the object under study and the variety of its constituent elements (subsystems), which can be participants in international interactions, relations between them, space-time factors, political, economic, social or religious characteristics, etc. The systematic approach makes it possible not only to record certain changes in the functioning of international relations, but also to discover the causal links of such changes with the evolution of the international system, to identify determinants that affect the behavior of states. Systemic modeling gives the science of international relations those opportunities for theoretical experimentation, which in its absence it is practically deprived. It also makes it possible to comprehensively apply applied methods and techniques of analysis in their most diverse combination, thereby expanding the prospects for research and their practical use for explaining and forecasting international relations and world politics.

At the same time, it would be wrong to exaggerate the importance of the systems approach and modeling for science, to ignore their weaknesses and shortcomings. The main one is, paradoxical as it may seem, the fact that no model - even the most flawless in its logical foundations - gives confidence in the correctness of the conclusions drawn on its basis. This, however, is recognized by the author of the work discussed above when he speaks of the impossibility of building an absolutely objective model of the system of international relations. Let us add that there is always a certain gap between the model constructed by this or that author and the actual sources of those conclusions that he formulates about the object under study. And the more abstract (that is, the more strictly logically substantiated) the model is, and also the more adequate to reality its author strives to make his conclusions, the wider the gap is. In other words, there is a serious suspicion that when formulating conclusions, the author relies not so much on the model structure he built, but on the initial premises, the "building material" of this model, as well as on others not related to it, including the "intuitive logical "methods. Hence the question, which is very unpleasant for “uncompromising” supporters of formal methods: could those (or similar) conclusions that emerged as a result of a model study be formulated without a model? The significant discrepancy between the novelty of such results and the efforts made by researchers on the basis of system modeling makes us believe that an affirmative answer to this question looks very reasonable. As B. Russetg and H. Starr emphasize in this connection: “To a certain extent, the proportion of each contribution can be determined using the methods of data collection and analysis, typical for modern social sciences. But in all other respects we remain in the realm of guesswork, intuition and informed wisdom. "

As for the systems approach as a whole, its shortcomings are a continuation of its merits. Indeed, the advantages of the concept of "international system" are so obvious that it is used, with a few exceptions, by representatives of all theoretical directions and schools in the science of international relations. However, as the French political scientist M. Girard rightly noted, few people know exactly what it means in reality. It continues to retain a more or less strict meaning for functionalists, structuralists and systemists. For the rest, it is most often nothing more than a beautiful scientific epithet, convenient for decorating an ill-defined political object. As a result, this concept turned out to be oversaturated and devalued, which makes it difficult to use it creatively.

Agreeing with the negative assessment of the arbitrary interpretation of the concept of "system", we emphasize once again that this does not at all mean doubts about the fruitfulness of the application of both the systems approach and its specific incarnations - system theory and system analysis - to the study of international relations.

Systems analysis and modeling are the most common analytical methods, which are a collection of complex research techniques, procedures and interdisciplinary techniques related to the processing, classification, interpretation and description of data. It is on their basis and with their use that many other analytical methods of a more specific nature appeared and became widespread (some of them were considered above).

It is difficult to overestimate the role of predictive methods of international relations: after all, in the final analysis, both analysis and explanation of facts are needed not by themselves, but for the sake of making forecasts of the possible development of events in the future. In turn, forecasts are made in order to make an adequate international political decision. Analysis of the partner's (or adversary's) decision-making process is called upon to play an important role in this.

Conclusion

Concluding my examination of the methods used in the science of international relations, I will summarize the main conclusions concerning my topic.

First, the absence of "own" methods does not deprive international relations of the right to exist and is not a basis for pessimism: not only social, but also many "natural sciences" are successfully developing, using common with other sciences, "interdisciplinary" methods and procedures of study your object.

Moreover, interdisciplinarity is increasingly becoming one of the important conditions for scientific progress in any field of knowledge. Let us emphasize once again that each science uses general theoretical (characteristic of all sciences) and general scientific (characteristic of a group of sciences) methods of cognition.

Secondly, the most common in international relations are such general scientific methods as observation, study of documents, systems approach (systems theory and systems analysis), modeling. Applied interdisciplinary methods (content analysis, inventory analysis, etc.), as well as private methods for collecting and primary data processing, are widely used in it. At the same time, all of them are modified, taking into account the object and goals of the research, and here they acquire new specific features, consolidating themselves as “their own” methods of this discipline. Let us note in passing that the difference between the methods considered above is rather relative: the same methods can act both as general scientific approaches and as specific methods (for example, observation).

Thirdly, like any other discipline, International relations in its entirety, as a certain set of theoretical knowledge, acts simultaneously as a method of cognizing its object. Hence the attention that is given in this work to the basic concepts of this discipline: each of them, reflecting one or another side of international realities, in the epistemological plan carries a methodological load, or, in other words, serves as a guideline for further study of its content - and not only with from the point of view of deepening and expanding knowledge, but also from the point of view of their concretization in relation to the needs of practice.

Finally, it should be emphasized once again that the best result is achieved with the complex use of various research methods and techniques. Only in this case can a researcher hope to find repetitions in a chain of disparate facts, situations and events - i.e. a kind of regularity (and, accordingly, a deviant) of international relations.

Bibliography

1. Tsygankov P.A. Theory of international relations: textbook / P.A. Tsygankov. - 2nd ed., Rev. and add. - M .: Gardariki, 2007 .-- 557 p.

2. Braud Ph. La science politique. - Paris, 1992, p. 3.

3. Khrustalev M.A. Systemic modeling of international relations. Abstract for the degree of Doctor of Political Science. - M., 1992, p. 8, 9.

Similar documents

Types and types of international relations. Methods and ways of settling international disputes: the use of force and peaceful means. The main functions of the foreign policy of the state. Problems of international security and preservation of peace in the modern period.

abstract, added 02/07/2010


Analysis of the nature of international relations. Patterns of development of international relations. Promotion of the science of international relations in the knowledge of its object, its nature and laws. Opposing theoretical positions.

term paper, added 02/12/2007


Features of foreign policy of states and international relations. Methods and means of foreign policy. Ways of influence of the states of the world community on the internal political situation in other countries. Analysis of the main global problems of our time.

presentation added 03/18/2014


Aspects of studying modern international relations: concept, theory, subjects of international relations. Modern development trends. The essence of the transition to a multipolar world order. Globalization, democratization of international relations.

abstract added on 11/18/2007


Typology of international relations from the point of view of various schools. Modern concepts of human development. Conflict and cooperation in international politics. Integration in international relations. The most important institutions for the development of social relations.

presentation added 03/13/2016


The essence of the direct trading method. Sale of goods on consignment terms as one of the forms of contract. Countertrade as a type of international trade. Key features of barter transactions. Open and closed trades. Nomenclature of exchange commodities.

abstract, added on 12/09/2011


Law and regularity in the theory of international relations. The mechanism of international relations in the theories of neorealism, neoliberalism, neo-Marxism. The picture of modern international political science. Criticism of the state-centrist model of the world.

presentation added 09/04/2016


Object, subject, goals and objectives of scientific activity. International conference concept. Classification of international conferences. Scientific Conferences 2011. Pros and cons of international internships. International Week of Science and Peace. AIESEC internship.

term paper, added 12/10/2011


The essence and main problems of international trade as a form of international commodity-money relations. Modern theories of international trade. Participation of Ukraine in regional integration associations. Features of the formation of the labor market in Ukraine.

test, added 08/16/2010


The essence of the basic concepts of relationships between world civilizations. Factorial and content analysis of intercivilizational interaction. Analysis of international relations by the laws of dialectics and by subjects. The concept of local civilization, its role.