Лабораторная работа по информатике МГИМО

Оглавление

Московский Государственный  Институт Международных отношений (университет)

Лабораторная работа №1 по курсу информатики

Текстовый процессор Word

Студента 1-го курса МО 3-й академической

Проверил:

 

 

 

Оглавление

Критерии1

 Классификация2

Закономерности 3

Positivist theories4

Further information: liberal internationalism5

Further information: complex interdependence6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-я глава.

_М

еждунаро́дные отноше́ния — это особый вид общественных отношений, выходящих за рамки внутриобщественных отношений и территориальных образований.

§1.Критерии

Специфика участников. По мнению известного французского философа и социолога  Р. Арона, «международные отношения — это отношения между политическими единицами». Таким образом, для него международные отношения — это, в первую очередь, взаимодействие между государствами или «дипломатом» и «солдатом». По мнению же американского политолога Дж. Розенау, символическими субъектами международных отношений являются турист и террорист.

Особая природа. Международные отношения имеют анархический характер и отличаются большой неопределённостью. В результате каждый участник МО вынужден предпринимать шаги, исходя из непредсказуемости поведения других участников.

Критерий локализации. По мнению французского исследователя М.Мерля, международные  отношения — это «совокупность соглашений и потоков, которые пересекают границы, или же имеют тенденцию к пересечению границ».

МО — объективно-субъективная реальность, зависящая от человеческого сознания.

§2.Классификация

на основе классового критерия

-отношения господства и подчинения (отношения в эпоху феодализма  и капитализма)

-отношения сотрудничества и взаимопомощи (теория социалистического мира)

-переходные отношения (отношения  между развивающимися странами, освободившимися от колониальной зависимости)

на основе общецивилизационного критерия

-МО, основанные на балансе сил

-МО, основанные на балансе интересов

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-по сферам общественной жизни

-экономические

-политические

-военно-стратегические

-культурные

-идеологические

на основе взаимодействующих участников

-межгосударственные отношения

-межпартийные отношения

-отношения между международными организациями, ТНК, частными лицами

по степени развития и интенсивности

-отношения высокого уровня

-отношения среднего уровня

-отношения низкого уровня

на основе геополитического критерия

-глобальные/общепланетные

-региональные

-субрегиональные

по степени напряжённости

-отношения стабильности и нестабильности

-отношения доверия и вражды

-отношения сотрудничества и конфликта

-отношения мира и войны

§§Закономерности

Главным действующим лицом МО является государство. Основная форма его деятельности — дипломатия. В последнее время набирают популярность идеи транснационалистов, считающих, что в современных условиях роль государства падает, при этом роль других акторов (ТНК, международные правительственные и неправительственные организации) возрастает.

Государственная политика существует в двух измерениях — внутреннем (внутренняя политика, являющаяся предметом политологии) и внешнем (внешняя политика, являющаяся предметом международных отношений).

Основа всех международных действий государств коренится в их национальных интересах (прежде всего, стремлении государств обеспечить безопасность, суверенитет и выживание).

Международные отношения — это силовое взаимодействие государств (баланс сил), в котором преимуществом обладают наиболее мощные державы.

Баланс сил может принимать различные формы — однополярную, биполярную, трёхполярную, мультиполярную конфигурацию.

Универсальность закономерностей МО заключается в том, что:

Действие универсальных международных  закономерностей касается не отдельных регионов, а всей мировой системы в целом.

Закономерности МО наблюдаются  в исторической перспективе, в наблюдаемый период и в будущем.

Закономерности МО охватывают всех участников МО и все сферы общественных отношений.

 

Поскольку предметная область теории международных отношений – это сфера политики, постольку данная наука относится к области политического знания. Более того, до не давнего времени она рассматривалась, как один из разделов политической науки. На начальном этапе развития современной политологии, не уделялось внимание международным отношениям. Первая мировая война изменила ситуацию. Многие государственные деятели находились в плену устаревших представлений и суждений и не до конца предвидели последствия принимаемых ими решений. Итоги войны подтолкнули научное сообщество внимательнее подойти к теме международных отношений. По окончанию второй мировой войны созданная в рамках системы ООН, спец организация по вопросам культуры и образования – ЮНЕСКО – провела ряд мероприятий по конституированию политологии в качестве международной, признанной научной дисциплиной. Структура политической науки:

   1) Политическая теория

   2) Теория политических институтов

   3) Изучение партий, групп,  общественного мнения

   4) Теория международных отношений

 

 

 

Политическая теория	Теория политических институтов	Изучение партий, групп, общественного мнения	Теория международных отношений

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2-я глава.

_P

ositivist theories

Realism

Realism focuses on state security and power above all else. Early realists such as E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau argued that states are self-interested, power-seeking rational actors, who seek to maximize their security and chances of survival. Cooperation between states is a way to maximize each individual state's security (as opposed to more idealistic reasons). Similarly, any act of war must be based on self-interest, rather than on idealism. Many realists saw World War II as the vindication of their theory.

 

It should be noted that classical writers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Theodore Roosevelt, are often cited as "founding fathers" of realism by contemporary self-described realists.[citation needed] However, while their work may support realist doctrine, it is not likely that they would have classified themselves as realists in this sense. Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. To improve society, it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, persons will challenge them only at the risk of failure. Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of politics, must also believe in the possibility of developing a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objective laws. It believes also, then, in the possibility of distinguishing in politics between truth and opinion-between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence and illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment, divorced from the facts as they are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking.

The placement of Realism under positivism is far from unproblematic however. E.H. Carr's 'What is History' was a deliberate critique of positivism, and Hans Morgenthau's aim in 'Scientific Man vs Power Politics' – as the title implies – was to demolish any conception that international politics/power politics can be studied scientifically.

Liberalism/idealism/liberal internationalism

 

Liberalism is the theoretical perspective based on the assumption of the innate goodness of the individual and the value of political institutions in promoting social progress.[6] According to liberalism individuals are basically good and capable of meaningful cooperation to promote positive change. Liberalism views states, nongovernmental organizations, and intergovernmental organizations as key actors in the international system. States have many interests and are not necessarily unitary and autonomous, although they remain sovereign. Liberal theory stresses the interdependence among states, multinational corporations, and international institutions. Theorists such as Hedley Bull have postulated an international society in which various actors communicate and recognize common rules, institutions, and interests. Liberals also view the international system as anarchic since there is no single overarching international authority and each individual state is left to act in its own-self interest. Liberalism is historically rooted in the liberal philosophical traditions associated with Adam Smith and Immanual Kant that posit that human nature is basically good and that individual self-interest can be harnessed by society to promote aggregate social welfare. Individuals form groups and later, states. States are generally cooperative and follow international norms and procedures that they agree upon.

Liberal international relations theory arose after World War I in response to the inability of states to control and limit war in their international relations. Early adherents include Woodrow Wilson and Norman Angell, who argued vigorously that states mutually gained from cooperation and that war was so destructive as to be essentially futile.

Liberalism was not recognized as a coherent theory as such until it was collectively and derisively termed idealism by E. H. Carr. A new version of "idealism" that focused on human rights as the basis of the legitimacy of international law was advanced by Hans Köchler.

Major theorists include Brede et de Montesquieu, Immanuel Kant, Robert Keohane, and John Mueller.

§1.Further information: liberal internationalism

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism seeks to update liberalism by accepting the neorealist presumption that states are the key actors in international relations, but still maintains that non-state actors (NSAs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) matter. Proponents such as Maria Chattha argue that states will cooperate irrespective of relative gains, and are thus concerned with absolute gains. This also means that nations are, in essence, free to make their own choices as to how they will go about conducting policy without any international organizations blocking a nation's right to sovereignty.

Neoliberalism also contains an economic theory that is based on the use of open and free markets with little, if any, government intervention to prevent monopolies and other conglomerates from forming. The growing interdependence throughout and after the Cold War through international institutions led to neo-liberalism being defined as institutionalism, this new part of the theory being fronted by Robert Keohane and also Joseph Nye.

§2.Further information: complex interdependence

Regime theory

Regime theory is derived from the liberal tradition that argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behavior of states (or other international actors). It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, indeed, regimes are by definition, instances of international cooperation.

While realism predicts that conflict should be the norm in international relations, regime theorists say that there is cooperation despite anarchy. Often they cite cooperation in trade, human rights and collective security among other issues. These instances of cooperation are regimes. The most commonly cited definition of regimes comes from Stephen Krasner. Krasner defines regimes as "institutions possessing norms, decision rules, and procedures which facilitate a convergence of expectations.

Not all approaches to regime theory, however are liberal or neoliberal; some realist scholars like Joseph Greico have developed hybrid theories which take a realist based approach to this fundamentally liberal theory. (Realists do not say cooperation never happens, just that it is not the norm; it is a difference of degree).

Post-positivist/reflectivist theories

International society theory

International society theory, also called the English School, focuses on the shared norms and values of states and how they regulate international relations. Examples of such norms include diplomacy, order, and international law. Unlike neo-realism, it is not necessarily positivist. Theorists have focused particularly on humanitarian intervention, and are subdivided between solidarists, who tend to advocate it more, and pluralists, who place greater value in order and sovereignty. Nicholas Wheeler is a prominent solidarist, while Hedley Bull and Robert H. Jackson are perhaps the best known pluralists.

Social constructivism

Social constructivism encompasses a broad range of theories that aim to address questions of ontology, such as the structure-and-agency debate, as well as questions of epistemology, such as the "material/ideational" debate that concerns the relative role of material forces versus ideas. Constructivism is not a theory of IR in the manner of neo-realism, but is instead a social theory which is used to better explain the actions taken by states and other major actors

Liberal internationalism

Post-positivist/reflectivist theories

Critical theory

Leadership theories

as well as the identities that guide these states and actors.

Constructivism in IR can be divided into what Hopf (1998) calls 'conventional' and 'critical' constructivism. Common to all varieties of constructivism is an interest in the role that ideational forces play. The most famous constructivist scholar, Alexander Wendt noted in a 1992 article in International Organization (later followed up by a book, Social Theory of International Politics (1999)), that "anarchy is what states make of it". By this he means that the anarchical structure that neo-realists claim governs state interaction is in fact a phenomenon that is socially constructed and reproduced by states.

For example, if the system is dominated by states that see anarchy as a life or death situation then the system will be characterised by warfare. If on the other hand anarchy is seen as restricted (a "Lockean" anarchy) then a more peaceful system will exist. Anarchy in this view is constituted by state interaction, rather than accepted as a natural and immutable feature of international life as viewed by neo-realist IR scholars..

Critical theory

Main article: Critical international relations theory

Critical international relations theory is the application of 'critical theory' to international relations. Proponents such as Andrew Linklater, Robert W. Cox and Ken Booth focus on the need for human emancipation from States. Hence, it is "critical" of mainstream IR theories that tend to be state-centric.

Marxism

Marxist and Neo-Marxist theories of IR reject the realist/liberal view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic and material aspects. It makes the assumption that the economy trumps other concerns; allowing for the elevation of class as the focus of study. Marxists view the international system as an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation. Thus, the period of colonialism brought in sources for raw materials and captive markets for exports, while decolonialization brought new opportunities in the form of dependence.

Linked in with Marxist theories is dependency theory and the Core-Periphery Model, which argue that developed countries, in their pursuit of power, appropriate developing states through international banking, security and trade agreements and unions on a formal level, and do so through the interaction of political & financial advisors, missionaries, relief aid workers, and multinational corporations on the informal level, in order to integrate them into the capitalist system, strategically appropriating under-valued natural resources and labor hours and fostering economic & political dependence.

Marxist theories receive little attention in the United States where no significant Socialist party has flourished. It is more common in parts of Europe and is one of the more important theoretic contributions of Latin American academia to the study of global networks.

Leadership theories

Interest group perspective

Interest Group theory posits that the driving force behind state behavior is sub-state interest groups. Examples of interest groups include political lobbyists, the military, and the corporate sector. Group theory argues that although these interest groups are constitutive of the state, they are also causal forces in the exercise of state power.

Strategic perspective

Strategic perspective is a theoretical approach that views individuals as choosing their actions by taking into account the anticipated actions and responses of others with the intention of maximizing their own welfare.

Inherent bad faith model in international relations and political psychology

Further information: Bad faith and inherent bad faith model

The "inherent bad faith model" of information processing is a theory in political psychology that was first put forth by Ole Holsti to explain the relationship between John Foster Dulles’  beliefs and his model of information processing. It is the most widely studied model of one's opponent. A state is presumed to be implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this are ignored. They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness. Examples are John Foster Dulles’ position regarding the Soviet Union, or Israel’s initial position on the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Название стиля	Заголовок 1	Заголовок 2
Форматирование символа
Гарнитура	Calibri	Calibri
Начертание символа	жирный	жирный
Размер символа	16	16
Интервал между символами	16 пт	16 пт
Форматирование абзаца
Уровень	1-й	2-й
Отступы	нет	нет
Первая строка	нет	нет
Интервал до	нет	нет
Интервал после	нет	нет
Межстрочный интервал	одинарный	одинарный
Выравнивание	По левому краю	По левому краю
Положение на странице	Запрет висячих строк. Не отрывать от следующих.	Запрет висячих строк. Не отрывать от следующих.