диссертация (1169608), страница 5
Текст из файла (страница 5)
The essential contradiction faced by both an IR18scholar and a state leader is that the human nature of power itself impedes “deeprationalization, generates moral dilemmas, political risks and intellectual surprises”63.However, the subjective factor can and should be minimized. The instructive functionof interest lies precisely in excluding a speculative approach to pursuing a foreignpolicy.
Without assuming a clear algorithm of actions, national interests delineate theframework that separates what is possible from what is desired, thereby emphasizingefficiency and impartiality in public administration.In order to take a closer look at the second function as a starting point, it isnecessary to turn to the point of view shared by the Russian scientist V. Pastukhov, whois the author of the expression: “The state and the nation are not two social subjects, butone”64. According to his works, these concepts are next to identical, since there is nomodern state without a nation, as there is in fact no modern nation without a state.
Thestate today is merely an organizational design for a specific period of a historicalnation’s life. It is worth noting that the concept of “nation” is treated in a fairly broadsense of supra-ethnicity. The state and the nation are not only complementary. Theyfirmly relate to each other as “form and content”.Furthemore, just like state and national interests (or sometimes we tend to look atthe them as one and the same – state/national interests), the state and the nation areessentially products of historical development, influenced by a variety of ideologies,schools of thought, civil society institutionspolitical parties and authoritativepersonalities. E.
Pozdniakov also associates the notion of “national interests” with theinternal social consensus, “uniting in a single whole a completely diverse people andmaking possible the existence of peoples, nations, states as distinct entities”65.With a sufficient degree of development of civil society institutions that reducethe distance between society and power, a balanced “nation-state” system arises, inwhich mechanisms are developed for balancing public and state interests. Thus, theformational function of national interests harmonizes relations between the state and63Кулаков, А.В.
Геополитика и актуальные проблемы национальных интересов России нагосударственной границе // А.В. Кулаков. – М.: МИФ, 2004. – С. 172.64Пастухов, В.Б. Национальный и государственный интересы России: игра слов или игра в слова? // В.Б.Пастухов. – М.: Полис, 2000. – С. 92.65Поздняков, Э.А. Философия политики: В 2 ч. Ч. 2. // Э.А. Поздняков. – М.: Махаон, 2004.
– С. 81.19society, directly contributing to internal, society-wide communication, therebystrengthening the country from within. Correctly understood “national interest” impliesrecognition of the rights and respecting the interests of all interacting societal units.It is necessary to underline that the category of “national interest” is mainly usedwithin the school of political realism, in large part because this concept was widelyemployed in the works of realist theorists such as H.
Morgenthau66 and R. Aron67. Atthe same time, supporters of the realistic paradigm do not have a monopoly on thisresearch concept, even though they have made the category of "national interest" thestarting point of all their analysis. The states remain the main players in the internationalarena, the conflicts between them continue to be at the top of the agenda, the diplomaticand strategic behavior of the powers remains a fact of world politics. These theses gobeyond inter-paradigmatic rivalry within IR and have universal applicability.What is more, the importance of national interests for the historical destiny of thecountry, as well as the people, allows us to consider any threat to the integrity of theprocess of national interests formulation as a threat to national security. According toW.
Lippmann, “A nation has security when it does not have to sacrifice its legitimateinterests to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by war”68. Accordingto D. Collins, national security is “a measure that any country or coalition takes toprotect itself against any adverse effects, both external and internal”69. The problems ofinterrelation and interpenetration of these two categories remain important, and thenumber of references to national interests as part and parcel of the nationalinterpretation of security, is growing.1.2.The Problem of "Security" in International Relations, its Content and TypesThe concept of security in political discourse is inextricably linked with thecategory of national interests, with the former being derived from the latter.
The66Morgenthau, H. Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace / H. Morgenthau. – New York:STFU, 1955. – 156 p.67Aron R. République impériale: Les Etats-Unisdans le monde, 1945-1972 // R. Аron. – Lanham: UniversityPress of France, 1973. – 274 p.68Lippmann W. U.S.
foreign policy. – N.Y.: McGrow-Hiil, 1953. – 177 p.69Collins J. U.S. defence planning. A critique. - Colorado: West-view Press, 1982. – 309 p.20primary meaning of the national security of any sovereign state is ensuring theguarantee of the inviolability of the vital interests of the state, namely: nationalsovereignty, territorial integrity of the state, inviolability of its ideational politicaldomain, including the country-specific political regime, protection of its population.
Toensure theses interests a state is likely to enter an open armed conflict. It follows thatnational security strategy should be understood as a strategy aimed at ensuring the vitalinterests of the nation-state70.A similar approach to understanding the problem of security in internationalrelations is suggested by theorists of political realism. From the point of view of thetheory of political realism, the category of security is decisive, since internationalrelations exist “in the shadow of war”, as R. Aron, one of the founders of the theory,defined them71.Neo-realisms in their interpretation of the reality of international relations rely onthe notion of “mature anarchy”, which a priori focuses on the state's ability to a morerational approach on the foreign policy track, thus balancing the consequences of theclash of national interests.In other words, neo-realists partially rescue international relations from the“shadow of war”72, arguing that the concepts of “interests” and “security” cannot befully attributed only to the state level of analysis, because today they are most directlyrelated to the structure of the international system.
According to the theories of realismand neo-realism, the attitude to state power remains unchanged, which continues to bethe main means of achieving and protecting national security. Power, defined primarilythrough its military and political components, is the main operational tool in the arsenalof players in the international arena, while the balance of power acts as the mainstructural driver of the international architecture that determines the conditions andparameters of the international security environment73.70Mangold P. National Security and International Relations // Routledge.
– 1990. – 117p.Hoffmann S. Raymond Aron and the Theory of International Relations //International Studies Quarterly, No.1. – 1985. – p. 13-27.72Waltz K. Theory of International Politics. – Addison-Wesley, 1979. – P.9173Ibid.7121One of the key features of the classical understanding of security is built on thefact that security is primarily protective (or defensive): it is statically viewed as a statein the absence of threats74. According to the Russian scholar A. Voskresenskiy, in somecases, such interpretation of the concept of security leaves outside or even ignores itsdynamic significance as a set of measures to ensure such a state75.
Underestimatingsecurity as part of a more general “life-sustaining” grid of the state mechanism can, forexample, lead to the collapse of public, incl. higher, education as one of its maincornerstones76. Thus, the USSR paid priority attention to the development of its militarypotential and internal special services, nevertheless the state disintegration occurred notbecause of an attack by an external enemy and not due to the activities of internalopposition, but because of lack of the system's day-to-day viability – among otherthings, of course.From the standpoint of political realism, the main actor of national andinternational security is the state.
This is the main link, cause and effect, as well as themain source of threats. In this sense, it is precisely the concept of political realism thatis the basis for constructing security structures in the confrontation between poles,coalitions, blocs, spontaneous associations and individual powers, depending on thetype of the functioning security model77.It should be especially noted that the real-politik paradigm in understanding thesecurity of the Cold War period is not the only approach to this problem. Outside of thestrategic studies studying the relationship of the two opposing blocks, the preferencewas gradually given to a wider understanding of security. The search for alternativeviews on the security problem became necessary in connection with the emergence ofnew global challenges: the danger of a nuclear war, intensification of cross-borderissues (terrorism, smuggling, drug trafficking, etc.), rise of interconnectedness and74Pollack K.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
