Career

26.11.201927.05.2017

The problem of method is one of the most important problems of any science, since it teaches how to apply new knowledge in practical activities, how to distinguish different levels of analysis, distinguish the settings of individual paradigms from methodological principles and choose ways to process incoming information. At the same time, the procedure for applying research methods is based on knowledge of methods for obtaining information, and adherence to technology allows one to achieve the most accurate results.

Method(from ancient Greek. metodos - path of research or knowledge, theory, teaching) - a method of theoretical or practical research.

The method presupposes “a known sequence of actions based on a clearly understood, articulated and controlled ideal plan in a wide variety of types of cognitive and practical activities. Carrying out activities based on one method or another presupposes a conscious correlation of the methods of action of the subjects of this activity (in our case, actors in international relations. - Ed.)> with the real situation (international situation), assessment of their effectiveness, critical analysis and selection of various action alternatives” 1.

Methodological approaches to the analysis of modern international relations are built around three aspects:

separation of research position from moral value judgments or personal views;
the use of analytical techniques and procedures that are common to all social sciences;
systematization, development of general approaches and construction of models that facilitate the discovery of laws.

World science of international relations since the middle of the 20th century. masters the methods of sociology, psychology, formal logic, as well as natural and mathematical sciences. Analytical concepts and research are developed through comparison of data used to predict international relations. But this does not displace classical methods and concepts.

Applicationhistorical-sociological method to international relations and its predictive capabilities were demonstrated by R. Aron, who fundamentally identifies four levels of the study of international relations (Fig. 1.5).

Rice. 1.5.

Applying his approach to the study of the international system, R. Aron was able to predetermine a large number of future changes in world politics, starting with the collapse of communist ideology, the transition to a post-industrial society and ending with a change in the meaning of sovereignty in nation states. The predictive capabilities of this method have not yet been revised and lead to its use in the theoretical analysis of international realities.

New opportunities in the analysis of international relations are opened by the use of quantitative methods.

Quantitative methods include a set of mathematical and statistical techniques used to analyze data. Quantitative research methods are always based on rigorous statistical models and large samples are used. This allows you not just to get opinions and assumptions, but to find out the exact quantitative (numerical) values of the indicators being studied. Examples include national census data, election results(electoral activity of the population). According to certain statistical indicators(for example, GDP per capita, level of development of democracy, “indices of peace and belligerence”, etc.) countries of the world can be ranked and grouped. Analysis of the international situation using quantitative methods has features of objectivity and consistency.

However, G. Morgenthau, pointing out the insufficiency of quantitative methods, argues that they cannot claim universality. He clearly separates political action from other spheres of human life and concludes that morality is in conflict with the behavior of states on the world stage, and only a qualitative analysis is able to form a real idea of the nature of power relations 1 .

American scientist Charles McClelland (Charles McClelland) offered event analysis(from English, event - event) as a method of political research. The basic characteristics when grouping events in public life were the parameters of political action borrowed from the communication theory of G. Lasswell:

determination of the subject of the action (who is the initiator);
content of a political event;
object (to whom the action is directed);
time of the event.

Another qualitative method is intent-aialize(from English, intent - intention, goal) is a method of studying verbal information that makes it possible to reconstruct the intentions (intentions, goals, direction) of the speaker, allowing one to determine the hidden meaning and subtext of speeches that are inaccessible with other forms of analysis. This method acquires particular importance when analyzing public speeches, political statements, and discussions of political leaders of various states.

The most common method of obtaining primary information empirically is observation. In international research, two types of observation are implied - included(carried out by a direct participant in a certain international event) and instrumental(implemented through indirect observation of an event or object). Since the current representation of information in modern world increases exponentially, it can be difficult to track all events in the area under study even with the use of modern computer technologies, and the possibilities for participant observation are increasingly reduced. Therefore, in the arsenal of an international affairs researcher, the main way to obtain information is instrumental observation through television broadcasting, transmission of information via the Internet, both official and unofficial (an example is the WikiLeaks website ( WikiLeaks), publishing classified information of a diplomatic nature).

Method of studying documents- a type of instrumental observation method associated with a limited amount of information at the disposal of a specialist, since only part of the official materials is made available to the public. At the same time, the study of documents is a fundamentally important and, as a rule, a basic method for establishing the true intentions of international actors and existing trends. The capabilities of this method are expanding by improving private techniques, for example, in connection with the evolution of content analysis. There is an increase in the availability of classified information to the general public due to the spread of network technologies.

Content analysis(from English, content - content, content) - a type of document analysis method associated with the possibility of translating mass textual (qualitative) information into quantitative indicators with their subsequent statistical processing. The method of document analysis acquires particular importance when solving problems of collecting, processing and analyzing publications (reports) in the media on gem or other current problems international life. The emergence of such a type of document study as content analysis is associated with the name of the American political scientist Harold Dwight Lasswell ( Harold Dwight Lasswell)

who first used it in studying the speeches of political leaders, educational and scientific literature in Germany in the 1920s-1940s, and then Soviet Union.

Systems approach as a method of cognition was formed in the middle of the 20th century, when concepts such as “system”, “element”, “connections”, “structure”, “function”, “stability” and “environment” entered scientific circulation. The first most famous theorists to apply the systems approach were American scientists David Easton (David Easton) and Talcott Parsons (So Parsons).

The systems approach allows us to record changes in international relations and find connections with the evolution of the international system, and identify the determinants that influence the behavior of states. System modeling gives the science of international relations the opportunity for theoretical experimentation, as well as the comprehensive application of applied methods in their diverse combination to predict the development of international relations.

Within the framework of a systems approach, the dynamic dimension of international politics is an analysis of the decision-making process - a kind of “filter” through which the factors influencing foreign policy, are “screened” by the person(s) making the decision. It should be remembered that, despite the growing integrity and interdependence of the world, the increasing integration of states and cultures, international relations still remain a sphere of conflict and clash of interests of states. This has a significant impact on the decision-making process in global politics.

Foreign policy of the state is the activity of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (or the corresponding department) in order to realize the interests of the state in international relations.

The classic approach to analyzing the decision-making process includes:

1) identifying the problem;
2) defining the goal and selecting criteria, establishing the significance (“weight”) of the criteria;
3) selection of possible alternatives;
4) evaluation of alternatives according to the selected criterion;
5) choosing the best alternative.

Swiss scientist Philippe Bryar, summarizing methods for analyzing the decision-making process, identifies four main approaches:

1) rational choice model - the choice of solution is carried out by a single leader on the basis of national interest, while the leader:
- - acts taking into account the hierarchy of values;
- - tracks possible consequences your choice;
- - open to anyone new information, capable of influencing the decision;
2) fragmentary model- the decision is made under the influence of government structures acting in accordance with established procedures, - the decision is divided into separate fragments, and government structures, due to the peculiarities of their selection of information, the complexity of mutual relations with each other, differences in the degree of influence and authority, etc. ., often interfere with the decision-making process;
3) game model- the decision is considered as the result of bargaining (a complex game) between members of the bureaucratic hierarchy, government apparatus, etc. - each representative has his own interests, his own ideas about the priorities of the state’s foreign policy;
4) unstable choice model- the person(s) making the decision are in a complex environment and have incomplete, limited information - they are not able to assess the consequences of the choice.

System analysis contributes to the creation theoretical basis for a more adequate understanding of the processes occurring in the sphere of international relations, to establish the direction of its transformation under the influence of globalization processes. The results of the analysis contribute to the development of forecasts and scenarios for the development of international phenomena and processes, the determination of the most likely and optimal options for the foreign policy course of key subjects of international relations, which makes it possible to purposefully influence the transformation of their structure, updating the most preferred direction for the current subject. That is, knowledge and consideration of the patterns of functioning and development of international relations as a system makes it possible to most effectively direct and regulate these processes, ensuring their more harmonious combination.

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/

MATHEMATICAL METHODS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. MATHEMATICAL AND APPLIED CALCULATIONS OF REPEATING THE REVOLUTIONARY POSSIBILITIES OF “COLOR SCENARIOS” IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES

International relationships - component science, including diplomatic history, international law, world economics, 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 represented by theoretical schools polemicizing among themselves and constituting the subject field of a relatively autonomous discipline. In this sense, “international relations theory” 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 methods 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 observed phenomena, designed to identify the main determinants, explain behavior, and reveal what is typical and repeated in the interaction of international factors. Tsygankov P.A. Theory of international relations: textbook / P.A. Tsygankov. - 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Gardariki, 2007. - 557 p.

The sphere of international relations is mobile and constantly changing. Now, in the period of worldwide globalization, integration and, at the same time, regionalization, the number and diversity of participants in international relations has increased significantly. Transnational actors have emerged: intergovernmental organizations, transnational corporations, international non-governmental organizations, religious organizations and movements, domestic political regions, international criminal and terrorist organizations. As a result, international relations have become more complex, have become even more unpredictable, and it has become more difficult to determine the true, actual goals and interests of their participants, to develop a state strategy and to 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. To do this, you need to study international relations. Study methods, their advantages and disadvantages play a significant role in the learning process. Therefore, the topic “Mathematical methods in international relations. Mathematical and applied calculations of the revolutionary possibilities of the “color scenario” in the Commonwealth of Independent States” is relevant and modern.

In this work, a predictive method was used, which largely helped to build a chain of logically completed conclusions from a study of the likelihood of a repetition of “color revolutions” in the CIS countries. Therefore, it would be advisable to begin with by reviewing and defining the concept of this method.

In international relations, there are both relatively simple and more complex forecasting methods. The first group may include methods such as, for example, conclusions by analogy, the method of simple extrapolation, the Delphi method, scenario building, etc. The second - analysis of determinants and variables, systems approach, modeling, analysis of chronological series (ARIMA), spectral analysis, computer simulation, etc. The Delphi method involves a systematic and controlled discussion of the problem by several experts. Experts submit their assessments of a particular international event to a central body, which summarizes and systematizes them, and then returns them back to the experts. 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, experts either amend their initial assessments or become stronger in 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 focus attention on both the most (in the case of coincidence of expert assessments) and the least (in case of divergence) likely consequences of the development of the problem or situation being analyzed. In accordance with this, the final assessment and practical recommendations are developed. Scenario building - this method consists of constructing ideal (i.e. mental) models of the likely development of events. Based on the analysis of the existing situation, hypotheses are put forward - which are simple assumptions and are not subject to any testing in this case - about its further evolution and consequences. At the first stage, an analysis and selection of the main factors determining, in the opinion of the researcher, further development situations. The number of such factors should not be excessive (as a rule, no more than six elements are identified) in order to provide a holistic vision of the entire set of future options arising from them. At the second stage, hypotheses are put forward (based on simple “common sense”) about the expected phases of the evolution of selected factors over the next 10, 15 and 20 years. At the third stage, a comparison of the selected factors is carried out and, on their basis, a number of hypotheses (scenarios) corresponding to each of them are put forward and described in more or less detail. At the same time, the consequences of interactions between the identified factors and imaginary options for their development are taken into account. Finally, in the fourth stage, an attempt is made to create indicators of the relative likelihood of the scenarios described above, which for this purpose are classified (completely arbitrarily) by the degree of their likelihood.3. Khrustalev M.A. Systemic modeling of international relations. Abstract for the degree of Doctor of Political Science. - M., 1992, p. 8, 9. The concept of a system (system approach) is widely used by representatives of a variety of 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, by helping to find correlations between interacting elements, it helps to identify the “rules” of such interaction, or, in other words, the patterns of functioning of the international system. Based on a systematic approach, a number of authors distinguish international relations from international politics: if the components of international relations are represented by their participants (actors) and “factors” (“independent variables” or “resources”) that make up the “potential” of participants, then the elements of international politics are only actors. Modeling is a method 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's consider this type of this method as - complex modeling. Ibid. - the construction of a formalized theoretical model, which is a trinary synthesis of methodological (philosophical theory of consciousness), general scientific (general systems theory) and particular scientific (theory of international relations) approaches. The construction is carried out in three stages. At the first stage, “pre-model tasks” are formulated, combined into two blocks: “evaluative” and “operational”. In this regard, concepts such as “situations” and “processes” (and their types), as well as the level of information, are analyzed. On their basis, a matrix is built, which is a kind of “map” designed to provide the researcher with a choice of object, taking into account the level of information availability.

As for the operational block, the main thing here is to highlight, on the basis of the “general-specific-individual” triad, the nature (type) of models (conceptual, theoretical and concrete) and their forms (verbal or substantive, formalized and quantified). The selected models are also presented in the form of a matrix, which is a theoretical modeling model reflecting 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. Based on 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 the general framework of the study. Further, on the basis of identifying the above logical levels of study of any system, the noted concepts are subject to reduction, as a result of which “analytical” (essential, content-based, structural, behavioral) and “synthetic” (substrate, dynamic, spatial and temporal) characteristics of the object are identified. Based on the “system-oriented matrix configurator” structured in this way, the author traces 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. construction of its detailed model. Here the composition and structure (elements, subsystems, connections, processes), as well as the “programs” of the system of international relations (interests, resources, goals, course of action, balance of interests, balance of forces, relationships) are highlighted. Interests, resources, goals, and courses of action constitute the elements of the “program” of subsystems or elements. Resources, characterized as a “non-system-forming element,” are divided by the author into resources of means (material-energy and information) and resources of conditions (space and time).

The “program of the system of international relations” is derivative in relation to the “programs” of elements and subsystems. Its system-forming element is the “correlation of interests” of various elements and subsystems with each other. A non-system-forming element is the concept of “relationship of forces,” which could more accurately be expressed by the term “relationship of means” or “relationship of potentials.” The third derived element of this “program” is “attitude”, understood by the author as a kind of evaluative idea of the system about itself and about the environment.

At the same time, it would be wrong to exaggerate the importance of the systems approach and modeling for science, or to ignore their weaknesses and shortcomings. The main one is, paradoxical as it may seem, the fact that no model - even the most impeccable 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 constructing 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 one or another author and the actual sources of the conclusions that he formulates about the object under study. And the more abstract (that is, the more strictly logically justified) the model is, and the more adequate its author strives to make his conclusions to reality, the wider the indicated gap. 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, “ construction material"of this model, as well as others not related to it, including “intuitive-logical” methods. Hence a very unpleasant question 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 seems very justified.

As for the systems approach as a whole, its disadvantages are a continuation of its advantages. In fact, the advantages of the concept of “international system” are so obvious that it is used, with 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 really means. 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 a poorly defined political object. As a result, this concept has become oversaturated and devalued, making it difficult to use creatively.

Agreeing with the negative assessment of the arbitrary interpretation of the concept “system,” we emphasize once again that this does not at all mean that there is any doubt about the fruitfulness of applying both the systems approach and its specific incarnations—system theory and system analysis—to the study of international relations.

The role of predictive methods of international relations can hardly be overestimated: after all, in the final analysis, both analysis and explanation of facts are needed not in themselves, but for the sake of making forecasts of the possible development of events in the future. In turn, forecasts are compiled with the aim of making an adequate international political decision. An important role in this is played by the analysis of the partner’s (or opponent’s) decision-making process.

Thus, in my work, an analysis was made of the possibility of repeating the “color scenario” in the CIS countries by constructing a tabular matrix, which, in turn, presents the criteria for situations at the moment in a given CIS state. It should be noted that the score for assessing the criteria of situations was equal to 5, since in the countries of the former Soviet Union the tendency for comparison on a system above 5 points remains unchanged, and therefore, the author proposed a 5-point scale; about 100 were proposed as evaluators people, citizens of the CIS countries, who, according to the questionnaire and social survey system, answered the proposed questions (criteria) on the Internet (social networks: Facebook, Odnoklassniki, etc.).

The table presents 7 criteria that can most influence the likelihood of a repetition of revolutions in a given region: weakness of the state, weakness of law enforcement, split of elites, spread of anti-government utopia, external pressure, confrontational agitation and propaganda, and mass activity. Commonwealth members proposed Independent States Based on an individual basis, as well as on a regional basis, the average score of the highest probability of repetition was calculated.

As can be seen from the table, Ukraine has a score close to the maximum - 4, where to this day the situation with the problem of the weakness of the political system remains acute, as a result of which the ideas of an anti-government utopia are close to 4 points, which confirms the deplorable situation in this state. Speaking about external pressure, the participants in the social survey gave the maximum score - 5, which represents a complete lack of self-determination, dependence on external influence and the helplessness of a given state from foreign interference and infusions of financial investments. The split of the elites is also an important problem in this zone, since according to the schedule 5 points were noted, i.e. At the moment, Ukraine is divided into several parts, divided elites dictate their ideas for conducting politics, which undoubtedly puts the state in one of the poorest countries in the world today. The average score for the danger of a repetition of “color revolutions” was 4.

Next, we consider the problems of our country - Kyrgyzstan, which was given the maximum score by survey participants - 5 among all participants in the CIS countries. When compared with neighboring Tajikistan, our state has military-economic, political-economic weaknesses that prevent our country from being one step ahead neighboring republics. Despite being close to minimum score- 2 confrontational agitation and propaganda, the remaining criteria are mostly close to - 4, it turns out that at the moment the situation after two revolutions did not provide any lessons and the consequences were meaningless. The average score for the likelihood of a repetition of revolutions in our republic was 3.6.

However, paradoxically, the situation in Tajikistan remains not the best, when compared with Georgia, which also suffered two “color revolutions”, Tajikistan has socio-economic and political weaknesses, and an off-scale unemployment rate demoscope.ru/weekly /2015/0629/barom07.php in this country forces citizens to go to work in Russia (including the problem of drug trafficking, criminal activities of extremist groups, the danger of religious extremism, clanism). In Tajikistan the average score was 3.4.

Turkmenistan is one of the “closed” countries former USSR, is currently in last place, with an average “color script” repetition score of only 1.7. Does this result indicate that the state is secretive in its economic, political and military affairs, or in fact, this state is one of the prosperous ones in given time, everyone decides for themselves. Even when comparing the same Uzbekistan (3 points) on issues of external assistance, Turkmenistan has 2 points, confirming that this country exists to the greatest extent “on its own,” providing for its people and statehood through its efforts. Thus, ranking last on this list.

international color revolution state

The work will include a graph of the average repetition rate of “color revolutions” in the CIS countries on an individual basis, i.e. if the tabular matrix shows how the assessment work was carried out according to certain criteria, then the graph allows you to see the entire situation of a given issue, where there is the highest repetition rate of the “color scenario”, and where there is the smallest. From which it turns out that the highest probability of repetition (by individual basis) is in Ukraine - 4 points, and the lowest in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - about 2 points.

However, if Ukraine has the greatest danger of repeating revolutions (4 points), then when divided into regional characteristics, the countries of the so-called Transcaucasus (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia) have the highest average score - 2.9, compared with Eastern Europe, which has 2.8 points, central Asia has - 2.7 points, which puts our region in last place in terms of the possibility of repeating the “color scenario”, despite the difference of 0.1 points compared to other CIS regions.

The totality of economic (unemployment, low wage, low labor productivity, uncompetitiveness of the industry), socio-medical (disability, old age, high morbidity), demographic (single-parent families, large number of dependents in the family), educational and qualification (low level of education, insufficient professional training), political (military conflicts, forced migration), regional-geographical (uneven development of regions), religious-philosophical and psychological (asceticism as a way of life, foolishness) reasons force the countries of Transcaucasia to take first place in terms of the level of backwardness and poverty of the regions of the CIS countries, which certainly leads to the likelihood of a repetition of revolutionary situations in a given region. The discontent of civil society, despite the dictatorship of some states in the Central Asian region (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan), can spill out through careful external sponsorship and investment influences and specially prepared youth opposition, despite excessive democracy, according to the author, in countries such as Kyrgyzstan, In Ukraine, the likelihood of a repetition of revolutions is really high, since the consequences of the past “color revolutions” are not justified in any way and the results did not lead to any significant changes, except that only the “tops” of power have changed.

To summarize, this section largely helped to reveal the essence of the topic “General and specific features of “color revolutions” in the CIS countries”; the method of applied and mathematical analysis led to the conclusion about the likelihood of a repetition of “color revolutions” if measures to prevent these conflicts are not applied situations and will not fundamentally change the issues of poverty in the Eastern part of Europe, will not regulate conflicts at the interethnic level in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia and will not stop the problem of clanism and nepotism in Central Asia.

Posted on Allbest.ru

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 techniques for studying international relations”

Introduction

International relations is an integral part of science, including diplomatic history, international law, world economics, military strategy and many other disciplines that study various aspects of a single object. Of particular importance for her is the “theory of international relations,” which, in this case, is understood as a set of multiple conceptual generalizations represented by theoretical schools polemicizing among themselves and constituting the subject field of a relatively autonomous discipline. In this sense, “international relations theory” 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 methods 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 observed phenomena, designed to identify the main determinants, explain behavior, and reveal what is typical and repeated 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 worldwide globalization, integration and, at the same time, regionalization, the number and diversity of participants in international relations has increased significantly. Transnational actors have emerged: intergovernmental organizations, transnational corporations, international non-governmental organizations, religious organizations and movements, domestic political regions, international criminal and terrorist organizations. As a result, international relations have become more complex, have become even more unpredictable, and it has become more difficult to determine the true, actual goals and interests of their participants, to develop a state strategy and to 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. To do this, you need to study international relations. Study methods, their advantages and disadvantages play a significant role in the learning process. Therefore, the topic “Methods and techniques for studying international relations” is relevant and modern.

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

1 . Meaning of the method problem

The problem of method is one of the most important problems of any science, since ultimately it is about teaching how to obtain new knowledge and how to apply it in practical activities. At the same time, this is one of the most difficult problems, which both precedes the study of its object by science and is the result of such study. It precedes the study of an object simply because the researcher from the very beginning must 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 concerns not only the object itself, but also the methods of its study, as well as the application of the results obtained in practical activities. Moreover, the researcher faces the problem of method already when analyzing the literature and the need to classify and evaluate it.

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

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 plays a decisive role in the establishment and subsequent consideration of facts;

3. The desire for systematization, or, in other words, for the development of general approaches and the construction of models that facilitate the discovery of “laws”.

And although it is emphasized that this remark does not mean the need to “completely expel” value judgments or personal positions of the researcher from science, nevertheless, he inevitably faces a broader problem - the problem of the relationship between science and ideology. In principle, one or another 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, to “de-ideologize” in this sense. Interpretation of facts, even the choice of “observation angle”, etc. inevitably determined by the researcher's point of view. Therefore, the objectivity of the study assumes that the researcher must constantly remember the “ideological presence” and strive to control it, see the relativity of any conclusions, taking into account such “presence”, and strive to avoid a one-sided vision. The most fruitful results in science can be achieved not by denying ideology (this is, at best, a delusion, and at worst, deliberate deceit), but under the condition of ideological tolerance, ideological pluralism and “ideological control” (but not in the sense that we are accustomed to recently the past of control of official political ideology in relation to science, but vice versa - in the sense of control of science over any ideology).

The above 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 approach, associated with the use of methods of the exact sciences, formalization, data calculation (quantification), verifiability (or falsifiability) of conclusions, etc. . In this regard, for example, it is argued that the main disadvantage of the science of international relations is the protracted process of its transformation into an applied science. Such statements suffer from excessive categoricalness. The process of development of science is not linear, but rather reciprocal: it is not transformed from historical-descriptive to applied, but the clarification and correction of theoretical positions through applied research (which, indeed, is possible only at a certain, fairly high stage of its development) and “repaying the debt” to “applied scientists” 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 early fifties of the 20th century, many relevant results and methods of sociology, psychology, formal logic, as well as natural and mathematical sciences have been assimilated. At the same time, the accelerated development of analytical concepts, models and methods begins, progress towards the comparative study of data, and the systematic use of the potential of electronic computing technology. All this contributed to significant progress in 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 did not at all lead to the displacement of previous, “classical” methods and concepts.

For example, the operationality 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 inadequacy of quantitative methods, wrote, not without reason, that they cannot claim universality. A phenomenon so important for understanding international relations, such as power, “is the quality of interpersonal relations that can be tested, assessed, guessed, but which cannot be measured quantitatively... Of course, it is possible and necessary to determine how many votes there can be given to the politician how many divisions or nuclear warheads the government has; but if I need to understand how much power a politician or a government has, then I will have to put aside the computer and the adding machine and start thinking about historical and, of course, qualitative indicators.”

Indeed, the essence of political phenomena cannot be studied as fully as possible using only applied methods. Social relations in general, and international relations in particular, are dominated by stochastic processes that cannot be explained by determinism. Therefore, the conclusions of 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 are confirmed by both modern research and fruitful intellectual traditions.

At the same time, as M. Merle correctly noted regarding 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 exact correlations between the collected facts are necessary. Everything that can be quantified must be quantified. We will return to the debate between “traditionalists” and “modernists” later. Here it is important to note the illegality of contrasting “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 “stand on an equal basis, 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 - although in different proportions - different methods: general scientific, analytical and specific empirical. However, the difference between them, especially between general scientific and analytical ones, is also quite arbitrary, so we must keep 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 have the greatest likelihood of helping to achieve the goal.

In this regard, based 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 basic driving forces 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, allowing one to find analogies and exceptions) and praxeology (analysis of the process of preparation, adoption and implementation of an international political decision). In applied terms, we are talking about the study of facts (analysis of the totality of available information); explaining the current situation (searching for reasons designed to avoid the undesirable and ensure the desired development of events); forecasting the further evolution of the situation (studying the likelihood of its possible consequences); preparing a decision (compiling a list of available means of influencing the situation, assessing various alternatives) and, finally, making a decision (which should also not exclude the need to immediately respond 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 international relations research. This is also true in the sense that in both cases, some of the methods used meet all the goals, while others are effective only for one or another of them. Let's take a closer look at some of the methods used at the applied level of International Relations.

2 . Methods of situation analysis

Analysis of the situation involves the use of a sum of interdisciplinary methods and procedures 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 such methods are known - from the simplest (for example, observation) to quite complex (such as 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 is known, the elements of this method are the subject of observation, the object and the means of observation. There are different types of observations. For example, direct observation, unlike indirect (instrumental), does not involve the use of any technical equipment or tools (television, radio, etc.). It can be external ( like that, which, for example, is conducted by parliamentary journalists, or special correspondents in foreign countries) and included (when the observer is a direct participant in a particular 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 mainly possible. Main disadvantage of this method of data collection - a large role of subjective factors associated with the activity of the subject, his (or primary observers) ideological preferences, imperfection or deformation of observation means. .

Studying documents

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

The most accessible are official documents:

1) Messages from the press services of diplomatic and military departments, information about visits of government officials,

2) Statutory documents 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 help increase information about events in international life: records of opinions of private individuals, family archives, unpublished diaries. The 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. So-called iconographic documents play a major role in data collection: paintings, photographs, films, exhibitions, slogans. Thus, in the conditions of the prevailing secrecy in the USSR, American Sovietologists paid important attention to the study of iconographic documents, for example, reports from festive demonstrations and parades. The features of the design of the columns, the content of slogans and posters, the number and personnel of officials were studied.

Comparison

This is a method that is common to many disciplines. According to B. Russet and H. Starr, it began to be used in the science of international relations 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 aims to search for something common that is repeated in the field of international relations. The need to compare states and their individual characteristics (territory, population, level economic development, military potential, length of borders, etc.) stimulated the development of quantitative methods in the science of international relations, and in particular measurement. Thus, if there is a hypothesis that large states are more prone to start a 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 according to what criteria. In addition to this “spatial” aspect of measurement, there is a need to measure “in time”, i.e. finding out in historical retrospect what size of the state increases its “propensity” for war.

Since these situations could not have developed 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 them are methods such as content analysis, event analysis, cognitive mapping method and their many varieties.

Content analysis

In political science, it was first used by the American researcher G. Lasswell and his colleagues when studying 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, recording the most frequently repeated phrases or plots in it. Next, 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 text under study. Describing this method, M.A. Khrustalev and K.P. Borishpolets distinguishes 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 its further analysis using electronic computing technology.

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

Inventory analysis

This method (also called event data analysis) aims to process public information showing “who says or does what, in relation to whom and when.” Systematization and processing of relevant data is carried out according to the following criteria: 1) initiating subject (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 requires the presence of a significant data bank. Scientific and applied projects using inventory analysis differ in the type of behavior being studied, the number of political figures under consideration, the time parameters being studied, the number of sources used, and the typology of matrix tables.

Cognitive mapping

This method is aimed at analyzing how a particular political figure perceives a certain political problem. American scientists R. Snyder, H. Brook and B. Sapin showed back in 1954 that the decision-making of political leaders can be based not only, and not even so much, on the reality that surrounds them, but on how they perceive it. In 1976, R. Jervis, in his work “Perception and Misperception in International Politics,” showed that in addition to emotional factors, cognitive factors influence the decision made by a leader. From this point of view, the information received by decision makers is assimilated and organized by them “adjusted” for their own views on the outside world. Hence the tendency to underestimate any information that contradicts their value system and the image of the enemy, or, on the contrary, to attach an exaggerated role to insignificant events. Analysis of cognitive factors makes it possible to understand, for example, that the relative constancy of a state’s foreign policy is explained, along with other reasons, by the constancy of the views of the relevant leaders.

The cognitive mapping method solves the problem of identifying the main concepts with which a politician operates and finding the cause-and-effect relationships between them. “As a result, the researcher receives a map-scheme, which, based on the study of the speeches and speeches of a politician, reflects his perception of the political situation or individual problems in it.”

In applying the described methods, which have a number of undoubted advantages - the possibility of obtaining new information based on the systematization of already known documents and facts, increasing the level of objectivity, and the ability to measure - the researcher also faces serious problems. This is a problem of information sources and its reliability, the availability and completeness of databases, etc. But the main problem- this is the problem of the costs required to conduct research using content analysis, inventory analysis and the cognitive mapping method. Compiling a database, encoding it, and programming it takes considerable time, requires expensive equipment, and necessitates the involvement of appropriate specialists, which ultimately results in 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 as key (the most characteristic). There are only four such indicators: the method of diplomatic representation, economic transactions, interstate visits and agreements (treaties). These indicators are systematized according to their type (for example, agreements may be diplomatic, military, cultural or economic) and 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 we are talking about direct representation or through the mediation of another country (resident or non-resident). The combination of these data can be presented as follows:

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

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

Resident diplomatic mission

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

Non-resident diplomatic mission……..2

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

Based on such data, conclusions are drawn regarding the mode of behavior of an international actor in time and space: with whom he maintains the most intense interactions, in what period and in what area they occur.

Using this methodology, B. Korani established that almost all the military-political relations that Algeria had, for example, in the 70s were supported by it 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 “major imperialist power.” As B. Korani writes: “Such a conclusion contradicts “ common sense"and first impressions - (let us recall that Algeria belonged in these years to the countries of "socialist orientation", adhering to the course of "anti-imperialist struggle and all-round cooperation with socialist countries") - could not be made, and it could not be believed in without the use of strict methodology supported by data systematization.” This may be a slightly exaggerated estimate. But in any case, this technique is quite effective, quite evidence-based and not too expensive.

Such methods and techniques are much more useful at the level of description rather than explanation. They give me a photograph, as it were, general form situations show what is happening without making it clear why. But this is precisely their purpose - to perform 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 is subject to further processing.

Experiment

The experimental method as the creation of an artificial situation in order to test theoretical hypotheses, conclusions and provisions is one of the main ones in the natural sciences. IN social sciences The most widespread type of it is simulation games, which are a type of laboratory experiment (as opposed to a field experiment). There are two types of simulation games: without the use of electronic computer technology 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, political figures or international organizations) in accordance with a predetermined scenario. At the same time, participants must strictly observe the formal conditions of the game, controlled by its leaders: for example, in the case of simulating 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 ruling regime. Otherwise, such a game can turn into mere entertainment and a waste of time in terms of cognitive results. Simulation games using computer technology offer much broader research perspectives. Based on 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., they then examine how it fits into previously selected historical examples. Through trial and error, changing the parameters of the original model, adding variables previously missed in it, taking into account cultural and historical values, shifts in the prevailing mentality, one can gradually move towards achieving its greater compliance with the reproduced model of diplomatic history, and based on a comparison of these two models, put forward reasonable hypotheses regarding the possible development of current events in the future. In other words, experiment refers not only to explanatory, but also to predictive methods.

4 . Prognostic methods

In International Relations, there are both relatively simple and more complex forecasting methods. The first group may include methods such as, for example, conclusions by analogy, the method of simple extrapolation, the Delphi method, scenario building, etc. The second includes 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.

Delphi method

We are talking about a systematic and controlled discussion of the problem by several experts. Experts submit their assessments of a particular international event to a central body, which summarizes and systematizes them, and then returns them back to the experts. 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, experts either amend their initial assessments or become stronger in 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 focus attention on both the most (in the case of coincidence of expert assessments) and the least (in case of divergence) likely consequences of the development of the problem or situation being analyzed. In accordance with this, the final assessment and practical recommendations are developed.

Building scenarios

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

Systems approach

The concept of a system is widely used by representatives of a variety of 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, by helping to find correlations between interacting elements, it helps to identify "rules" of such interaction, or, in other words, the patterns of functioning of the international system. Based on a systems approach, a number of authors distinguish international relations from international politics: if the components of international relations are represented by their participants (actors) and "factors" ("independent variables" or “resources”) that make up the “potential” of 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. System 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 intra-system processes, under the influence of which the system changes and/or collapses. As for system analysis, it solves more specific problems, representing a set of practical methods, 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 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 identifies international relations with world politics. However, limiting, in essence, international relations to a system of interstate interactions, R. Aron, at the same time, not only paid great attention to the assessment of resources and the potential of states that determine 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 a totality consisting of its geographical environment, material and human resources and the ability of collective action. Thus, based on a systems approach, Aron outlines essentially 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, such as complex modeling, using the example of the work of M.A. Khrustalev “System modeling of international relations.”

The author sets as his task the construction of a formalized theoretical model, which is a trinary synthesis of methodological (philosophical theory of consciousness), general scientific (general systems theory) and special scientific (theory of international relations) approaches. The construction is carried out in three stages. At the first stage, “pre-model tasks” are formulated, combined into two blocks: “evaluative” and “operational”. In this regard, the author analyzes such concepts 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 a choice of object, taking into account the level of information availability.

At the second stage, we are talking about building a meaningful conceptual model as the starting point for solving the general research problem. Based on 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 the general framework of the study. Further, on the basis of identifying the above logical levels of study of any system, the noted concepts are subject to reduction, as a result of which “analytical” (essential, content-based, structural, behavioral) and “synthetic” (substrate, dynamic, spatial and temporal) characteristics of the object are identified. Based 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.

Based on the theoretical model constructed in this way, M.A. Khrustalev analyzes real processes characteristic of modern stage 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 20th century. prerequisites arise for the system to transition to a different qualitative state. It is characterized not only by the breakdown of the global confrontational axis, but also by the gradual formation of stable axes of comprehensive cooperation between the developed countries 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 is the “seven” of leading developed countries, which objectively turned into a control center regulating the process of development of the system of international relations. The fundamental difference between such a “control center” from the League of Nations or the UN is that it is the result of self-organization, and not a product of “social engineering” with its characteristic static completeness and poor adequacy to dynamic changes in the environment. How the “seven” control center decides two important tasks functioning of the system of international relations: firstly, the elimination of existing and prevention of the emergence in the future of regional confrontational military-political axes; secondly, stimulating the democratization of countries with authoritarian regimes (creation of a single world political space). Highlighting, taking into account the model he proposes, also other trends in the development of the system of international relations, M.A. Khrustalev considers the emergence and consolidation of the concept “ global community” and highlighting the idea of a “new world order”, 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 consideration of the system modeling method as applied to the analysis of international relations allows us to see both the advantages and disadvantages of both this method itself and the systems approach as a whole. The advantages include the generalizing, synthesizing nature of the systems approach already noted above. It makes it possible to detect both the integrity of the object being studied and the diversity of its constituent elements (subsystems), which can be participants in international interactions, relationships between them, spatiotemporal factors, political, economic, social or religious characteristics, etc. The systems approach makes it possible not only to record certain changes in the functioning of international relations, but also to discover the causal connections of such changes with the evolution of the international system, and to identify the determinants that influence the behavior of states. System modeling gives the science of international relations those opportunities for theoretical experimentation that, in its absence, it is practically deprived of. It also makes it possible to comprehensively apply applied methods and techniques of analysis in a wide variety of combinations, thereby expanding the prospects for research and its practical usefulness for explaining and predicting 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, or to ignore their weaknesses and shortcomings. The main one is, paradoxical as it may seem, the fact that no model - even the most impeccable 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 constructing 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 one or another author and the actual sources of the conclusions that he formulates about the object under study. And the more abstract (that is, the more strictly logically justified) the model is, and the more adequate its author strives to make his conclusions to reality, the wider the indicated gap. In other words, there is a serious suspicion that when formulating conclusions, the author relies not so much on the model structure he has built, but on the initial premises, the “building material” of this model, as well as on others not related to it, including “intuitive logical" methods. Hence a very unpleasant question 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 seems very justified. As B. Russet and H. Starr emphasize in this connection: “To a certain extent, the specific weight of each contribution can be determined using methods of data collection and analysis typical of modern social sciences. But in all other respects we remain in the realm of guesswork, intuition and informed wisdom."

Systems analysis and modeling are the most common of analytical methods, representing a set of complex research techniques, procedures and techniques of an interdisciplinary nature associated with the processing, classification, interpretation and description of data. It was 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 discussed above).

The role of prognostic methods in International Relations can hardly be overestimated: after all, in the final analysis, both analysis and explanation of facts are needed not in themselves, but for the sake of making forecasts of the possible development of events in the future. In turn, forecasts are compiled with the aim of making an adequate international political decision. An important role in this is played by the analysis of the partner’s (or opponent’s) decision-making process.

Conclusion

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

Firstly, 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 “interdisciplinary” methods and study procedures common to other sciences of 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 (system theory and system analysis), and modeling. Applied interdisciplinary methods developed on the basis of general scientific approaches (content analysis, inventory analysis, etc.), as well as private methods of collecting and primary data processing, are widely used. 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, becoming established as “their own” methods of this discipline. Let us note in passing that the difference between the methods discussed above is quite relative: the same methods can act both as general scientific approaches and as specific techniques (for example, observation).

Thirdly, like any other discipline, International Relations in its entirety, as a certain body of theoretical knowledge, simultaneously acts as a method of understanding its object. Hence the attention paid in this work to the basic concepts of this discipline: each of them, reflecting one or another aspect of international realities, epistemologically carries a methodological load, or, in other words, serves as a guide 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 its specification in relation to the needs of practice.

Finally, it should be emphasized once again that best result is achieved through the integrated use of various research methods and techniques. Only in this case can the researcher hope to detect 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 additional - 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.

Tsygankov P. Political sociology of international relations

Chapter IV. The problem of method in the sociology of international relations

The main purpose of this chapter is to introduce the most widely used methods, techniques and techniques for studying international relations and foreign policy. It does not pose such a rather complex and independent task of how to teach how to use them. However, its solution would be impossible, since this requires, firstly, a detailed description of technical or other methods, illustrated with examples of their specific application in research work when analyzing a specific object of international relations, and, secondly (and this is the main thing) ), practical participation in one or another scientific-theoretical or scientific-applied project, since, as you know, you cannot learn to swim without going into the water.

It should be borne in mind that each researcher (or research team) usually uses his own favorite method (or group of them), adjusted, supplemented and enriched taking into account existing conditions and tools. It is also important to keep in mind that the use of a particular method depends on the object and objectives of the study, as well as (which is very important) on the available material resources.

Unfortunately, we have to note the fact that special literature devoted to the problem of methods and especially applied techniques for analyzing international relations is very scarce (especially in Russian) and therefore difficult to access.

1. Significance of the method problem

The problem of method is one of the most important problems of science, since ultimately it is about teaching, obtaining new knowledge, and how to apply it in practical activities. At the same time, this is one of the most difficult problems, which both precedes the study of its object by science and is the result of such study. It precedes the study of an object because the researcher from the very beginning must 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 concerns not only the object itself, but also the methods of its study, as well as the application of the results obtained in practical activities. Moreover, the researcher faces the problem of method already when analyzing the literature and the need to classify and evaluate it.

The common belief that each science has its own method is only partly true: most social sciences do not have their own specific method, unique to them. Therefore, in one way or another they refract general scientific methods and methods of other (both social and natural science) disciplines in relation to their object. In this regard, it is generally accepted that the methodological approaches of political science (including political sociology of international relations) are built around three aspects: the strictest possible separation of the research position from moral value judgments or personal views; the use of analytical techniques and procedures that are common to all social sciences, which plays a decisive role in the establishment and subsequent consideration of facts; the desire for systematization, or, in other words, for the development of general approaches and the construction of models that facilitate the discovery of “laws” 1.

And although it is emphasized that what has been said does not mean the need to “completely expel” value judgments or personal positions of the researcher from science, nevertheless, he inevitably faces a broader problem - the problem of the relationship between science and ideology. In principle, one or another ideologist, 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, to “de-ideologize” in this sense. Interpretation of facts, even the choice of “observation angle”, etc. inevitably determined by the point of view of the researcher. Therefore, the objectivity of research suggests that the researcher must constantly remember the “ideological presence” and strive to control it, see the relativity of any conclusions, taking into account such “presence,” and strive to avoid one-sided vision. The most fruitful results in science can be achieved not by denying ideology (this is at best a delusion, and at worst a deliberate deceit), but under the condition of ideological tolerance, ideological pluralism and “ideological control” (but not in the sense of the official control we are accustomed to in the recent past). political ideology in relation to science, but vice versa in the sense of control of science over any ideology). As for the problem of values, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the difficulties that Russian sociology is experiencing today are connected precisely with the deficit of the value principle. The climate of severe political pressure that prevailed in the country for many years led to the fact that Soviet sociology of the herd developed within the framework of the American behavioral tradition, giving preference to operational, instrumental approaches and methods. This allowed her to, as it were, “get rid” of ideology: Soviet sociologists were among the first among domestic social scientists who stopped believing ideological myths. But, on the other hand, having not adopted the traditions of theoretical sociology at one time, for example, French school with its Durktheimian traditions, or the German phenomenological sociology of Max Scheller, etc., Soviet (and the post-Soviet sociology that inherited it) has not yet been able to adapt to the new, post-non-classical trend in the world social (including sociological, and political, and any other ) science, where there is a renaissance of values, anthropological approach, attention to sociocultural specifics, etc.

The above also applies to the so-called methodological dichotomy, which, however, is often observed not only in domestic, but also in Western science of 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, calculation of data (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 2 . Such statements suffer from excessive categoricalness. The process of development of science is not linear, but rather reciprocal: there is not a transformation of it from historical descriptive to applied, but a clarification and correction of theoretical positions through applied research (which, indeed, is possible only at a certain, fairly high stage of its development) and the “return debt" to "applied scientists" 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 50s of the 20th century, many relevant results and methods of sociology, psychology, formal logic, as well as natural and mathematical sciences have been mastered. At the same time, the accelerated development of analytical concepts, models and methods begins, progress towards the comparative study of data, and the systematic use of the potential of electronic computing technology. All this contributed to significant progress in 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 did not at all lead to the displacement of previous, “classical” methods and concepts.

Indeed, the essence of political phenomena cannot be studied to any extent using only applied methods. Social relations in general, and international relations in particular, are dominated by stochastic processes that cannot be explained by determinism. Therefore, the conclusions of 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 are confirmed by both modern research and fruitful intellectual traditions.

Here it is important to note the illegality of contrasting “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 “stand on equal grounds, and the analysis of the same problem is carried out independently of each other by different researchers” (see note 4, p. 8). Moreover, within the framework of both approaches, the same discipline can use, although in different proportions, different methods: general scientific, analytical and specific empirical (however, the difference between them, especially between general scientific and analytical, is also quite arbitrary). In this regard, the political sociology of international relations is no exception. Moving on to a more detailed consideration of these methods, it is worth once again emphasizing the conventionality, the relativity of the boundaries between them, their ability to “flow” into each other.

2. General scientific methods

General scientific methods constitute the starting point, the foundation of any discipline, no matter how far it is from high theory. However, when considering the use of general scientific methods in the sociology of international relations, there is no point in dwelling on the description of such theoretical and philosophical methods as historical and logical, analysis and synthesis, the principle of turn-taking, ascent from the abstract to the concrete, etc. All of them have their place, but seeking and demonstrating their application in this discipline, as the experience already available in this regard5 shows, is an unfruitful activity. But the task of considering those methods that, despite the variety of methodological approaches, are used most often in the science of international relations and produce specific research results seems to be much more productive. In this sense, the sociology of international relations in its object is characterized by a generalization and systematization of facts based on the study of historical, analytical and other documents, strict scientific observations and comparative analysis. This presupposes a refusal to be confined to the boundaries of a particular discipline, an attempt to comprehend the object of study in its integrity and, as far as possible, in unity, opening up the prospect of discovering trends and patterns of its functioning and evolution. Hence the importance that is attached to the systems approach and the closely related modeling method in the study of international relations. Let's consider these methods in more detail.

Systems approach

The concept of a system (it will be discussed in more detail below) is widely used by representatives of a variety of 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, by helping to find correlations between interacting elements, it helps to identify the “rules” of such interaction, or, in other words, the patterns of functioning of the international system. Based on a systematic approach, a number of authors distinguish international relations from international politics: if the components of international relations are represented by their participants (authors) and “factors” (“independent variables” or “resources”) that make up the “potential” of participants, then the elements of international politics Only authors 6,7,8 speak.

The systems approach must be distinguished from its specific incarnations of systems theory and systems analysis. System 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 intra-system processes, under the influence of which the system changes and/or collapses 9 . As for system analysis, it solves more specific problems; representing a set of practical methods, techniques, methods, procedures, thanks to which a certain ordering is introduced into the study of an object (in this case, international relations) (see: note 9, p. 17; note 10, p. 100).

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” 11. 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 identifies international relations with world politics. However, essentially limiting international relations to a system of interstate interactions, R. Aron at the same time not only paid great attention to the assessment of resources and the potential of states that determine their actions in the international arena, but also considered such an assessment to be the main task and content of the sociology of international relations. At the same time, he represented the potential (or power) of the state as a totality consisting of the geographical environment, material and human resources and the ability of collective action (see note 11, p. 65). Thus, starting from the systems approach, Aron outlines essentially 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).

D. Rosenau proposed in 1971 another scheme, including six levels of analysis: 1) individual “creators” of policy and their characteristics; 2) the positions they occupy and the roles they perform; 3) the structure of the government in which they operate; 4) the society in which they live and govern; 5) the system of relations between the national state and other participants in international relations; 6) world system 12. Characterizing the systematic approach represented by various levels of analysis, B. Russett and H. Starr emphasize that the choice of one or another level is determined by the availability of data and the theoretical approach, but not by the whim of the researcher. Therefore, in each case of application of this method, it is necessary to find and determine several different levels. Moreover, explanations at different levels do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive; they can be complementary, thereby deepening our understanding.

Serious attention is paid to the systems approach in the domestic science of international relations. Works published by researchers from IMEMO, MGIMO, ISKAN, IVAN and other academic and university centers indicate significant progress in Russian science in the field of both system theory 13,14 and system analysis 15,16. Yes, the authors teaching aid“Fundamentals of the Theory of International Relations” believes that “the method of the theory of international relations is a systematic analysis of the movement and development of international events, processes, problems, situations, carried out with the help of existing knowledge, foreign policy data and information, special methods and techniques of research” (see note 15, p.68). The starting point for such an analysis are, from their point of view, three levels of study of any system: 1) the level of composition - the set of elements that form it; 2) the level of internal structure - a set of natural relationships between elements; 3) the level of external structure - the totality of the relationship of the system as a whole with the environment (note 15, p. 70).

Let us consider the method of system analysis in its static and dynamic dimensions in relation to the study of state foreign policy.

Static measurement involves the analysis of "determinants", "factors" and "variables".

One of Aron’s followers, R. Bosc, in his work “Sociology of the World,” presents the potential of the state as a set of resources that it has to achieve its goals, consisting of two types of factors: physical and spiritual.

Physical (or directly tangible) factors include the following elements:

1.1 Space (geographical location, its advantages and benefits).

1.2 Population (demographic power).

1.3 Economy in such its manifestations as: a) economic resources; b) industrial and agricultural potential: c) military power.

In turn, spiritual (or moral, or social, not directly tangible) factors include:

2.1 Type of political regime and its ideology.

2.2 Level of general and technical education of the population.

2.3 “National morality”, the moral tone of society.

2.4 Strategic position in the international system (for example, within a community, union, etc.).

These factors constitute a set of independent variables that influence the foreign policy of states, by studying which it is possible to predict its changes 17 .

Graphically, this concept can be represented as the following diagram:

The diagram gives a clear idea of both the advantages and disadvantages of this concept. The advantages include its operationality, the possibility of further classification of factors taking into account the database, their measurement and analysis using computer technology. As for the shortcomings, apparently the most significant of them is the virtual absence in this scheme (with the exception of paragraph 2.4) of external environmental factors that have a significant (sometimes decisive) impact on the foreign policy of states.

In this regard, the concept of F. Briar and M.-R. Dzhalili 18 looks much more complete, which can also be presented in the form of a diagram (see Fig. 2).

Legend

Physical factors

A.1 – Geographical position
A.2 – Natural resources
A.3 – Demographic situation

Structural factors

B.1 – Political institutions
B.2 – Economic institutions
B.3 – Ability to use the physical and social environment; technological, economic and human potential
B.4 – Political parties
B.5 – Pressure groups
B.6 – Ethnic groups
B.7 – Confessional groups
B.8 – Language groups
B.9 – Social mobility
B.10 – Territorial structure; share of urban and rural population
B.11 – Level of national consent

Cultural and human factors

B.1 (Culture):
B.1.1 Value system
B.1.2 Language
B.1.3 Religion
B.2 (Ideology):
B.2.1 Self-assessment of the authorities’ role
B.2.2 Her self-perception
B.2.3 Her perception of the world
B.2.4 Main means of pressure
B.3 (Collective mentality):
B.3.1 Historical memory
B.3.2 The image of the “other”
B.3.3 Line of conduct in the field of international obligations
B.3.4 Special sensitivity to national security issues
B.3.5 Messianic traditions
B.4 Qualities of decision makers (decision makers):
B.4.1 Perception of one's surroundings
B.4.2 Perception of the world
B.4.3 Physical qualities
B. 4.4 Moral qualities

As can be seen from the diagram, this concept, having all the advantages of the previous one, overcomes its main drawback. Its main idea is the close relationship between internal and external factors, their mutual influence and interdependence in influencing the foreign policy of the state. In addition, within the framework of internal independent variables, these factors are presented here much more fully, which significantly reduces the possibility of missing any important nuance in analysis. At the same time, the diagram reveals that what has been said applies much less to external independent variables, which are only indicated on it, but are not structured in any way. This circumstance indicates that despite all the “equality” of internal and external factors, the authors still clearly give preference to the former.

It should be emphasized that in both cases the authors do not at all absolutize the importance of factors in influencing foreign policy. As R. Bosc shows, having entered the war against France in 1954, Algeria did not possess most of these factors, and yet it managed to achieve its goal.

Indeed, attempts at a naive deterministic description of the course of history in the spirit of the Laplace paradigm as a movement from the past through the present to a predetermined future reveal their inconsistency with particular force precisely in the sphere of international relations, where stochastic processes dominate. The above is especially characteristic of the current transitional stage in the evolution of the world order, characterized by increased instability and representing a kind of bifurcation point, containing many alternative paths of development and, therefore, not guaranteeing any predetermination.

This statement does not mean at all that any forecasts in the field of international relations are impossible in principle. The point is to see the limits, relativity, and ambivalence of the predictive capabilities of science. This also applies to such a specific process as the process of making foreign policy decisions.

Process Analysis decisions taken(PPR) represents dynamic measurement systemic analysis of international politics and at the same time one of the central problems of social science in general and the science of international relations in particular. Studying the determinants of foreign policy without taking into account this process may turn out to be either a waste of time, from the point of view of predictive capabilities, or a dangerous delusion, because this process represents the “filter” through which the totality of factors influencing foreign policy is “sifted” by the person(s) decision maker (DM).

The classical approach to the analysis of PPR, reflecting the “methodological individualism” characteristic of the Weberian tradition, includes two main stages of research 19 . At the first stage, the main decision makers are identified (for example, the head of state and his advisers, ministers: foreign affairs, defense, security, etc.), and the role of each of them is described. It is taken into account that each of them has a staff of advisers who have the authority to request any information they need from a particular government department.

At the next stage, an analysis of the political preferences of decision-makers is carried out, taking into account their worldview, optics, political views, leadership style, etc. The works of R. Snyder, X. played an important role in this regard. Brook 20, B. Sapan and R. Jervis.

F. Briar and M.R. Jalili, summarizing methods for analyzing SPR, identifies four main approaches.

The first of them can be called the rational choice model, within which the choice of decision is carried out by a single and rationally thinking leader on the basis of national interest. It is assumed that: a) the decision maker acts taking into account the integrity and hierarchy of values, about which he has a fairly stable idea; b) he systematically considers the possible consequences of his choice; c) The PPR is open to any new information that could influence the decision.

The second approach assumes that the decision is made under the influence of a set of government structures acting in accordance with established routine procedures. The decision turns out to be broken into separate fragments, and the fragmentation of government structures, the peculiarities of their selection of information, the complexity of mutual relations with each other, differences in the degree of influence and authority, etc. are an obstacle to PDP based on a systematic assessment of the consequences of a particular choice.

In the third model, the decision is viewed as the result of a complex bargaining game between members of the bureaucratic hierarchy, government apparatus, etc. each representative of which has his own interests, his own positions, his own ideas about the priorities of the state’s foreign policy.

Finally, the fourth approach draws attention to the fact that in many cases decision makers are in a complex environment and have incomplete, limited information. Besides. they are unable to assess the consequences of a particular choice. In such an environment, they must dissect problems by reducing the information they use to a small number of variables.

In the analysis of PPR, the researcher must avoid the temptation to use one or another of these approaches “in its pure form.” In real life, the processes they describe vary in a wide variety of combinations, the study of which should show which of them in each specific case should be relied upon and with which others it should be combined (see note 18, pp. 71-74).

Decision-making analysis is often used to predict the possible evolution of a particular international situation, such as an interstate conflict. In this case, not only factors related “directly” to the PDP are taken into account, but also the potential (totality of resources) available to the person or decision-making authority. An interesting technique in this regard, including elements of quantitative formalization and based on various PPR models. proposed in the article by Sh.Z.

Sultanov “Decision Analysis and Conceptual Forecasting Scheme” (see note 10, pp. 71-82).

Modeling

One of the common types of modeling that has become widespread in the science of international relations is associated with game theory. Game theory is a theory of decision making in a specific social context, where the concept of “game” extends to all types of human activity. It is based on probability theory and represents the construction of models for analyzing or predicting various types of behavior of actors in special situations. Classical game theory was developed by mathematician D. von Poymann and economist O. Morgenstern in their joint work Game Theory and Economic Behavior, published by Princeton University Press in 1947. In the analysis of the behavior of international actors, it found application in the classic works of A. Rapoport, who explored its epistemological possibilities 21, and T. Schelling, who extended it to the study of such international phenomena as conflicts, negotiations, arms control, deterrence strategy, etc. P. 22. Canadian specialist in the sociology of international relations J.-P. 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. If we are talking about a game with several players, then we are dealing with the theory of interdependent decisions, where the risky situation is common, and unpredictability follows for each player from the actions of the other. A risky situation finds its solution if its risky nature is eliminated. In a two-player game, when one player makes a bad decision, the other gets an extra win. If both play well (that is, act rationally), then neither has a chance to improve their winnings beyond what the rules of the game allow.

In game theory, therefore, the behavior of decision makers in their mutual relationships related to the pursuit of the same goal is analyzed. In this case, the task is not to describe the behavior of the players or their reaction to information about the behavior of the enemy, but to find the best possible solution for each of them in the face of the predicted decision of the opponent. Game theory shows that the number of types of situations in which players can find themselves is finite. Moreover, it can be reduced to a small number of game models that differ in the nature of the goals, the possibilities of mutual communication and the number of players.

There are games with different numbers of players: one, two or many. For example, the dilemma of whether or not to take an umbrella in unstable weather is a one-player game (for nature does not take into account human decisions), which will cease to be such when meteorology becomes an exact science (see note 23, p. thirty).

In a two-player game, such as the famous Prisoners' Dilemma, the players are unable to communicate with each other, so each makes a decision based on the other's perception of rational behavior. The rules of the game are likened to the rules of a situation in which two people (A and B), who committed a joint crime and fell into the hands of justice, receive from its representatives an offer of voluntary confession (that is, betrayal of their accomplice). In this case, everyone is warned about the following: I. If A confesses (P), B does not confess (N), then A receives freedom (C), B receives the maximum punishment (C); 2. If A does not confess (N), B confesses (P), then A receives the maximum punishment (B), B freedom (C); 3. If both A and B confess, then both receive a severe, although not maximum, punishment (T); 4. If both do not confess, then both receive the minimum punishment (U).

Graphically, the prisoners' dilemma is presented in the form of the following diagram (Fig. 3):

Ideally, for each of the accomplices, freedom is better than minimal punishment, minimal punishment is better than severe, and the latter is better than maximum: C>U>T>V. Therefore, for both, the most profitable option would be N,N. In fact, deprived of the opportunity to communicate with the other, not trusting him, everyone expects betrayal from an accomplice (for A this is: N, P) and, trying to avoid B, decides to betray, considering it the least risky. As a result, both choose betrayal ( P, P), and both receive severe punishment.

In terms of symbolic logic, the situation can be represented as follows:

1.( P(A)&P(B)) (C(A)&B(B))

2. ( P(A) & P(B)) ( B(A) & S(B))

3. ( P(A) & P(B)) (T(A)& T(B))

4. (P (A)&P(B)) (U(A)&U(B))

This model has been applied to the analysis of many international situations: for example, the foreign policy of Hitler's Germany, or the arms race of the 50-70s. In the latter case, the underlying situation for the two superpowers was the gravity of the mutual risk represented by nuclear weapons, and the desire of both to avoid mutual destruction. The result was an arms race that was not beneficial to either side.

Game theory allows you to find (or predict) a solution in some situations: that is, indicate the best of possible solutions for each participant, calculate the most rational way to behave in different types of circumstances. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to exaggerate its importance as a method for studying international relations, and even more so as a practical method for developing strategy and tactics of behavior on the world stage. As we have already seen, decisions made in international relations are not always rational in nature. In addition, for example, the Prisoners' Dilemma does not take into account that in the field of international relations there are mutual obligations and agreements, and the possibility of communication between participants even during periods of the most intense conflicts.

Let's consider another type of complex modeling using the example of the work of M.A. Khrustalev “System modeling of international relations” (see note 2).

The author sets the task of constructing a formalized theoretical model representing a trinary methodological (philosophical theory of consciousness), general scientific (general systems theory) and special scientific (theory of international relations) approaches. The construction is carried out in three stages. At the first stage, “pre-model tasks” are formulated, combined into two blocks: “evaluative” and “operational”. In this regard, the author analyzes such concepts 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 a choice of object, taking into account the level of information availability.

As for the operational block, the main thing here is to highlight, on the basis of the “general-specific-individual” triad, the nature (type) of models (conceptual, theoretical and concrete) and their forms (verbal or substantive, formalized into quantified). The selected models are also presented in the form of a matrix, which is a theoretical modeling model reflecting 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. Based on 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 construction configurator” is built, defining the general research framework. Further, on the basis of identifying the above logical levels of study of any system, the noted concepts are subject to reduction, as a result of which “analytical” (essential, content-based, structural, behavioral) and “synthetic” (substrate, dynamic, spatial and temporal) characteristics of the object are identified. Based 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, that is, the construction of its detailed model. Here the composition and structure (elements, subsystems, connections, processes), as well as the “programs” of the system of international relations (interests, resources, goals, course of action, balance of interests, balance of forces, relationships) are highlighted. Interests, resources, goals, and courses of action constitute the elements of the “program” of subsystems or elements. Resources, characterized as a “non-system-forming element,” are divided by the author into resources of means (material-energy and information) and resources of conditions (space and time).

The “program of the system of international relations” is derivative in relation to the “programs” of elements and subsystems. Its system-forming element is the “correlation of interests” of various elements and subsystems with each other. A non-system-forming element is the concept of “relationship of forces,” which could more accurately be expressed by the term “relationship of means” or “relationship of potentials.” The third derived element of this “program” is “attitude”, understood by the author as a certain evaluative idea 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 modern 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 20th century. prerequisites arise for the system to transition to a different qualitative state. It is characterized not only by the breakdown of the global confrontational axis, but also by the gradual formation of stable axes of comprehensive cooperation between the developed countries 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 is the “seven” leading developed countries, which have objectively turned into a control center regulating the process of development of the system of international relations. The fundamental difference between such a “control center” from the League of Nations or the UN is that it is the result of self-organization, and not a product of “social engineering” with its characteristic static completeness and poor adequacy to dynamic changes in the environment. As a control center, the G7 solves two important problems in the functioning of the system of international relations: first, the elimination of existing and the prevention of the emergence in the future of regional confrontational military-political axes; secondly, stimulating the democratization of countries with authoritarian regimes (creation of a single world political space). Highlighting, taking into account the model he proposes, 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 highlighting of 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 consideration of the system modeling method as applied to the analysis of international relations allows us to see both the advantages and disadvantages of both this method itself and the systems approach as a whole. The advantages include the above-mentioned generalizing, synthesizing nature of the systems approach. It makes it possible to detect both the integrity of the object being studied and the diversity of its constituent elements (subsystems), which can be participants in international interactions, the relationships between them, spatiotemporal factors, political, economic, religious characteristics, etc. The systems approach makes it possible not only to record certain changes in the functioning of international relations, but also to discover the causal connections of such changes with the evolution of the international system, and to identify the determinants that influence the behavior of states. System modeling gives the science of international relations those opportunities for theoretical experimentation that, in its absence, it is practically deprived of. It also makes it possible to comprehensively use applied methods and techniques of analysis in a wide variety of combinations, thereby expanding the prospects for research and their practical usefulness for explaining and predicting 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, or to ignore their weaknesses and shortcomings. The main one is, paradoxical as it may seem, the fact that no model, even the most impeccable 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 constructing an absolutely objective model of the system of international relations (see: note 2, p. 22). Let us add that there is always a certain gap between the model constructed by one or another author and the actual sources of the conclusions that he formulates about the object under study. And the more abstract (that is, the more strictly logically justified) the model is, and the more adequate its author strives to make his conclusions to reality, the wider the indicated gap. In other words, there is a serious suspicion that when formulating conclusions, the author relies not so much on the model structure he has built, but on the initial premises, the “building material” of this model, as well as on others not related to it, including “intuitive logical" methods. Hence a very unpleasant question 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 seems very justified. As B. Russett and H. Starr emphasize in this connection: “to a certain extent, the specific weight of each contribution can be determined using methods of data collection and analysis typical of modern social sciences. But in all other respects we remain in the realm of conjecture, intuition and informed wisdom” (see note 12, p. 37).

As for the systems approach as a whole, its disadvantages are a continuation of its advantages. In fact, the advantages of the concept of “international system” are so obvious that it is used, with 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 really means. 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 a poorly defined political object. As a result, this concept turned out to be oversaturated and devalued, which makes it difficult to use creatively 24 .

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 that there is any doubt about the fruitfulness of applying both the systems approach and its specific incarnations of systems theory and systems analysis to the study of international relations.

Systems analysis and modeling are the most common of analytical methods, representing a set of complex research techniques, procedures and techniques of an interdisciplinary nature associated with the processing, classification, interpretation and description of data. On their basis and with their use, many other analytical methods of a more specific nature appeared and became widespread, to which we will now proceed to consider.

3. Other analytical methods

The most common of them are content analysis, event analysis, the method of cognitive mapping and their many varieties (see: note 2; 10; 16).

Cotpent analysis in political science was first used by the American researcher G. Lasswell and his colleagues when studying the propaganda orientation of political texts and was described by them in 1949. 25. In its most general form, this method can be presented as a systematic study of the content of a written or oral text, recording the most frequently repeated phrases or plots in it. Next, 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 text under study. Describing this method, M.A. Xpy Stalev and K.P. Borishpolets distinguishes 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 its further analysis using electronic computing technology (see note 16, pp. 86-94).

Event analysis (or event data analysis) aims to process public information showing “who says or does what, to whom and when.” Systematization and processing of relevant data is carried out according to the following criteria: 1) initiating subject (who); 2) plot or “issue-area” (what); 3) the target subject (in relation to whom) and 4) the date of the event (when) (see note 8, pp. 260-261). Events systematized in this way are summarized in matrix tables, ranked and measured using a computer. The effectiveness of this method requires the presence of a significant data bank. Scientific and applied projects using event analysis differ in the type of behavior being studied, the number of political figures under consideration, the time parameters being studied, the number of sources used, the typology of matrix tables, etc.

As for the cognitive mapping method, it is aimed at analyzing how a particular political figure perceives a certain political problem.

American scientists R. Snyder, H. Brook and B. Sapin showed back in 1954 that the decision-making of political leaders can be based not only and not so much on the reality that surrounds them, but on how they perceive it. In 1976, R. Jervis, in his work “Perception and Misperception in International Politics,” showed that in addition to emotional factors, cognitive factors influence the decision made by a leader. From this point of view, the information received by decision makers is assimilated and organized by them “adjusted” for their own views on the outside world. Hence the tendency to underestimate any information that contradicts their value system and the image of the enemy, or, on the contrary, to attach an exaggerated role to minor events. Analysis of cognitive factors makes it possible to understand, for example, that the relative constancy of a state’s foreign policy is explained, along with other reasons, by the constancy of the views of the relevant leaders.

The cognitive mapping method solves the problem of identifying the main concepts with which a politician operates and finding the cause-and-effect relationships between them. “As a result, the researcher receives a map-scheme on which, based on the study of the speeches and performances of a politician, his perception of the political situation or individual problems in it is reflected” (see note 4, p. 6).

In the application of the described methods, which have a number of undoubted advantages: the possibility of obtaining new information based on the systematization of already known documents and facts, increasing the level of objectivity, the ability to measure, etc., the researcher faces serious problems. This is the problem of sources of information and its reliability , availability and completeness of databases, etc. But the main problem is the problem of the costs required to conduct research using content analysis, event analysis and the cognitive mapping method. Database creation, coding, programming, etc. take a significant amount of time, require expensive equipment, and require the involvement of appropriate specialists, which ultimately results in significant sums.

Taking into account these problems, Professor of the University of Montreal B. Korani proposed a methodology with a limited number of indicators of the behavior of an international author, which are considered as key (most characteristic) (see: note 8, p. 263265). There are only four such indicators: the method of diplomatic representation, economic transactions, interstate visits and agreements (treaties). These indicators are systematized according to their type (for example, agreements may be diplomatic, military, cultural or economic) and 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:

Based on such data, conclusions are drawn regarding the behavior of an international author in time and space: with whom he maintains the most intense interactions, in what period and in what area they occur, etc.

Using this methodology, B. Korani established that almost all the military-political relations that Algeria had, for example, in the 70s were supported by it 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 “major imperialist power.” As B. Korani writes, “such a conclusion, contrary to “common sense” and first impressions [recall that Algeria in these years belonged to the countries of “socialist orientation”, adhering to the course of “anti-imperialist struggle and comprehensive cooperation with socialist countries” P.Ts. ], could not be done, and it could not be believed without the use of a strict methodology, supported by the systematization of data” (see note 8, p. 264). This may be a somewhat exaggerated estimate. But in any case, this technique is quite effective, quite evidence-based and not too expensive.

However, its limitations should also be emphasized, which, however, is common to all of the above methods. As its author himself admits, it cannot, (or can only partially) answer the question about the causes of certain phenomena. 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, showing what is happening, but without clarifying why. But this is precisely their purpose to perform 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 is subject to further processing and the accumulation of which is carried out on the basis of private methods.

4. Private methods

Particular methods are understood as the sum of interdisciplinary procedures used for the accumulation and primary systematization of empirical material (“data”). Therefore, they are sometimes also called “research techniques.” To date, more than a thousand such techniques are known, from the simplest (for example, observation) to quite complex (for example, situational games approaching one of the stages of system modeling). The most famous of them are questionnaires, interviews, expert surveys, and expert meetings. A variation of the latter is, for example, the “Delphic technique,” when independent experts submit their assessments of a particular international event to a central body, which generalizes and systematizes them, and then returns them to the experts. Taking into account the generalization, experts either amend their initial assessments or become stronger in their opinion and continue to insist on it. In accordance with this, the final assessment is developed and practical recommendations are given.

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

Observation

As is known, the elements of this method are the subject of observation, the object and the means of observation. There are different types of observations. For example, direct observation, unlike indirect (instrumental), does not involve the use of any technical equipment or tools (television, radio, etc.). It can be external (similar to that conducted, for example, by parliamentary journalists or special correspondents in foreign countries) and included (when the observer is a direct participant in a particular 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 the science of international relations, indirect and instrumental observation is mainly 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 observation means, etc. (see note 5, pp. 57-58).

Studying documents

In relation to international relations, it has the peculiarity that an “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). The ideas of a particular regime about state secrets and security play a big role in this. In the USSR, for example, the volume of oil production, the level of industrial production, etc., remained a subject of state secret for a long time; there was a huge array of documents and literature intended only “for official use”, a 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 associated labor costs, etc. It is clear, therefore, that the more developed a state is and the more democratic its political regime, the more favorable opportunities exist for research in the field of social and political sciences. Unfortunately for modern Russia Both of these problems are very relevant. And the worsening economic crisis, combined with a turn in the value priorities of mass consciousness towards mercantilism, associated with the loss of many spiritual guidelines, unusually aggravates the difficulties research work in general and in the field of international relations in particular.

The most accessible are official documents: press reports from diplomatic and military departments, information about visits of government officials, statutory documents and statements of the most influential intergovernmental organizations, declarations and messages from government agencies, political parties and public associations, etc. At the same time, unofficial written, audio and audiovisual sources are also widely used, which in one way or another can help increase information about events in international life: records of the opinions of private individuals, family archives, unpublished diaries. The memories of direct participants in certain international events, wars, diplomatic negotiations, and official visits can be important. This also applies to the forms of such memories, written or oral, direct or reconstructed, etc. So-called iconographic documents play a major role in data collection: paintings, photographs, films, exhibitions, slogans. Thus, in the conditions of closedness, increased secrecy and, consequently, the practical inaccessibility of unofficial information that prevailed 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 personnel of officials present at the podium, and, of course, the types of military equipment and weapons on display were studied 26 .

Comparison

It is also a method that is common to many disciplines. According to B. Russet and H. Starr, it began to be used in the science of international relations 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 (see note 12, p. 46). The main advantage of this method is that it aims to search for something common that is 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.) stimulated the development of quantitative methods in the science of international relations and, in particular, measurement. Thus, if there is a hypothesis that large states are more prone to start a 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,” that is, to clarify in historical retrospect what size of the state increases its “propensity” for war (see note 12, p. 4748).

At the same time, comparative analysis makes it possible to obtain scientifically significant conclusions based on the dissimilarity of phenomena and the uniqueness of the situation. Thus, comparing iconographic documents (in particular, photographs and newsreels) reflecting the departure of French soldiers to the active army in 1914 and 1939, M. Ferro discovered an impressive difference in their behavior. The smiles, dancing, and atmosphere of general jubilation that reigned at the Paris East Station in 1914 contrasted sharply with the picture of despondency, hopelessness, and obvious reluctance to go to the front observed at the same station in 1939. Since these situations could not have developed 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 The 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 27.

Experiment

The experimental method as the creation of an artificial situation in order to test theoretical hypotheses, conclusions and positions is one of the main ones in the natural sciences. In the social sciences, the most widespread type is simulation games, which are a type of laboratory experiment (as opposed to a field experiment). There are two types of simulation games: without the use of electronic computer technology 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, political figures or international organizations) in accordance with a predetermined scenario. At the same time, participants must strictly observe the formal conditions of the game, controlled by its leaders: for example, in the case of simulating 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, etc. 8 Otherwise, such a game can turn into mere entertainment and a waste of time in terms of cognitive results. Simulation games using computer technology offer much broader research perspectives. Based on 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., they then examine how it fits into previously selected historical examples. Through trial and error, changing the parameters of the original model, adding variables previously missed in it, taking into account cultural and historical values, shifts in the prevailing mentality, etc., one can gradually move towards achieving greater compliance with the reproduced model of diplomatic history and based on comparison These two models put forward informed hypotheses regarding the possible development of current events in the future.

Concluding our consideration of the methods used in the science of international relations, let us summarize the main conclusions concerning our discipline.

Firstly, the absence of “own” methods in the sociology of international relations does not deprive it of the right to exist and is not a basis for pessimism: not only social, but also many “natural sciences” are successfully developing, using “interdisciplinary” methods common to other sciences and procedures for studying 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 the sociology of international relations are such general scientific methods as observation, study of documents, systems approach (system theory and system analysis), and modeling. Applied interdisciplinary methods developed on the basis of general scientific approaches (content analysis, event analysis, etc.), as well as private methods of collecting and primary data processing, are widely used. At the same time, all of them are modified taking into account the object and goals of the research and acquire new specific features here, becoming established as “their own” methods of this discipline. Let us note in passing that the difference between analytical, applied and particular methods is quite relative: the same methods can act both as general scientific approaches and as specific techniques (for example, observation).

Thirdly, like any other discipline, the sociology of international relations in its entirety, as a certain body of theoretical knowledge, simultaneously acts as a method of understanding its object. Hence the attention paid in this work to the basic concepts of this discipline: each of them, reflecting one or another side of international realities, epistemologically carries a methodological load, or, in other words, serves as a guide for further study of its content, and from the point of view only deepening and expanding knowledge, but to its specification in relation to the needs of practice.

Finally, it should be emphasized once again that the best results are achieved through the integrated use of various research methods and techniques. Only in this case can the researcher hope to discover repetitions in a chain of disparate facts, situations and events, that is, a kind of pattern (and, accordingly, deviant) of international relations.

Notes

Braud Ph. La science politique. Paris, 1992, p.3.
Khrustalev M.A.. Systemic modeling of international relations Abstract for the degree of Doctor of Political Sciences M., 1992, p.89.
Tsygankov A.P.. Hans Morgenthau: a view of foreign policy // Power and Democracy. Digest of articles. Ed. P.A. Tsygankov A. M., 1992, p. 171.
Lebedeva M.M.., Tyulin I.G. Applied interdisciplinary political science: opportunities and prospects // Systematic approach: analysis and forecasting of international relations (applied research experience). Collection of scientific papers. Ed. Doctor of Political Sciences I.G. Tyulin. M., 1991.
Doll E. Problems of the theory of international relations (translated from Polish). M., 1980, pp. 52-56; 60-61.
Hoffmann S. Theorie et relations intenationales. Paris, 1965, p.428.
Merle M. Les acteurs dans les relations internationales. Paris, 1986.
Korany B. et colL Analyze des relations internationales. Approaches, concepts et donnees. Montreal. 1987.
Braillard Ph. Philosophy et relations internationales. Paris, 1965.
IN AND. Lenin and the dialectics of modern international relations. Collection of scientific papers. Ed. Ashina G.K., Tyulina I.G. M., 1982.
Aaron R. Paix et Guerre entre les nations., p., 1984, p.l03.
RassettB., Starr H. World Politics. Menu for Choice. San Francisco, 1981.
Pozdnyakov E.A.. System approach and international relations. M., 1976.
System, structure and process of development of international relations / Responsible. ed. V.I. Gantman. M., 1984.
Antiukhina-Moskovchenko V.I.., Zlobin A.A., Khrustalev M.A. Fundamentals of the theory of international relations. M., 1988.
Analytical methods in the study of international relations. Collection of scientific papers. Ed. Tyulina I.G., Kozhemtsova A.S., Khrusgaleva M.A. M., 1982.
Bosc R. Sociologie de la paix. Paris, 1965, p.47-48.
Braillard Ph., Djalili M.-R. Les relations mternationales. Paris, 1988, p.65-71.
Senarclens P.de. La politiqoe intemationale. Paris, 1992, p.44-47.
Rapoport A. N-Person Game T h e o r i e, Concepts and Applications. Un. of Michigan Press, 1970.
SnyderR.C. , Bruck H. W., Sapin B. Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics. 1954.
SchellingT. The Strategy of Conflict Oxford, 1971.
Derriennic J.-P. Esquisse de problematique pour un e sociologie des relations Internationales. Grenoble. 1977, p.29-33.
Girard M. Turbulence dans la theory politique intemationale ou James Rosenau inventeur // Revue francaise de science politique. Vol. 42, no. 4, out 1992, p.642.
LasswellH. & Leites N. The Language of Politics: Studies in Quantitative Semantics. N.Y., 1949.
Batalov E.A.. What is applied political science // Conflicts and consensus. 1991. WE.

Ferro M. Penser la Premiere Guerre Mondiale. In: Penser le XX -e siècle. Bruxelles, 1990.

Applied quantitative analysis and modeling of international relations. Mathematical methods in international relations

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

Similar documents

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

Similar documents

Tsygankov P. Political sociology of international relations