scholarly journals Cultural paradiplomacy as a component of the «soft power» of subnational actors

2019 ◽  
pp. 41-49
Author(s):  
Ivan Holovko
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Interstate Relations ◽  
Basic Set ◽  
Cultural Component ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Political Economic

The article deals with the interpretation of cultural paradiplomacy as one of the key tools for deepening the interaction of regions and the interpretation of this type of paradiplomacy as a component of the «soft power» of subnational actors. This kind of paradiplomacy is realized in the instrumental and symbolic aspects. The main goal of these aspects is the new quality of interactions through motivation of actors for economic cooperation, support of ethnic diasporas abroad and thereby, building the stability of the international relations in perspective. It is substantiated that culture plays one of the most important roles of modern politics and creates a positive image abroad. The cultural component of subnational regions does not rank first in a number of priorities in international relations, but despite this, the establishment of cultural ties is extremely important for them. It has been established that culture as a strategic resource conceals a tremendous potential for long-term strengthening of its international positions without the use of violent methods or unconventional methods of pressure on social relations. It is proved that the factor of culture as a component of «soft power» in world politics has recently acquired a new meaning, its influence on world social and economic processes and interstate relations is seriously increasing. It is determined that, in general, regions that implement paradiplomacy have a basic set of motives for this activity, which are in political, economic and cultural contexts. Keywords: paradiplomacy, region, cultural diplomacy, «soft power», subnational actor, tourism, cultural paradiplomacy.

scholarly journals THE THIRD LEVEL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: CHARACTERISTICS OF SUB-STATE ACTORS

2016 ◽  
pp. 167-171
Author(s):  
S. P. Arteev
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Interstate Relations ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
International Activities

The article is in the genre of the review for textbook O. V. Plotnikova and O. Y. Dubrovina International relations of the regions States: characteristics and features (Moscow: Norma; INFRA-M, 2016. 192 p.). Textbook on international activities of sub-state/subnational actors in international relations. Under the sub-state/subnational actors refers to the regions of the States. The authors propose an along with interstate relations (first level) and supranational organizations (second level) to distinguish a third level of international relations - international relations of the regions in Federal and unitary States. The topic is very relevant due to the ongoing restructuring of the architecture of international relations and world politics. In addition, these processes lead to involvement in international relations new actors. The resulting configuration and the role of traditional players. In addition to long-term evolutionary processes, we should not forget about the position of Russia in the last few years. It is obvious that the current tensions around the Russian Federation may not be fully resolved with the old methods. At the same time, sub-state/ subnational actors as subjects of a combined nature, the role played by regions of the Russian Federation, able to combine harmoniously in its international activities as the techniques characteristic of the traditional actors - States and developments in the tools of non-traditional actors - international non-governmental and non-profit organizations etc. As a result of positive results can be achieved faster and at the interstate level. The review considers the subject and the relevance of the topic, presents the analysis of the content of the work. Marked strengths of the textbook, including those associated with the consideration of the diagonal ties and the political components in the international activities of the regions. In addition to the advantages, attention is paid to the analysis of controversial moments. Some authors benefits seem too rigid or insufficiently substantiated. Noted and some defects. The conclusion about the serious significance of this educational publication is not only for a student audience, but also for practitioners.

The Problem of Order

After Victory ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 3-20
Author(s):  
G. John Ikenberry
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Weak States ◽  
Interstate Relations ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
To Come ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
New Distribution

This introductory chapter provides an overview of how states build international order. The great moments of international order building have tended to come after major wars, as winning states have undertaken to reconstruct the postwar world. Certain years stand out as critical turning points: 1648, 1713, 1815, 1919, and 1945. At these junctures, newly powerful states have been given extraordinary opportunities to shape world politics. In the chaotic aftermath of war, leaders of these states have found themselves in unusually advantageous positions to put forward new rules and principles of international relations and by so doing remake international order. The most important characteristic of interstate relations after a major war is that a new distribution of power suddenly emerges, creating new asymmetries between powerful and weak states.

scholarly journals Multipolar model of international system: stability and conflict

2016 ◽  
pp. 234-248
Author(s):  
Volodymyr Rozumyuk
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
World Politics ◽  
System Stability ◽  
Berlin Crisis ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
Basic Approaches ◽  
The Stability ◽  
The Cold War

It is researched a theoretical model of a multipolar system of international relations at the article. Interest to this themes is caused by needs of Ukrainian political science and diplomacy in schemes of understanding and mechanisms of an adaptation to demands of the modern system of international relations. The aim of the article is to determine factors of a stability and conflicts of a multipolar model of a system of international relations. It is studied basic approaches of designing multipolar model, defined the main factors of its stability and conflicts, highlighted an interdependence of the world politics and knowledge about it. Because of an availability of opposing viewpoints from leading scholars about the stability and conflicts in unipolar, bipolar and multipolar systems, the author concludes that these indicators are important parameters of the real historical system of international relations, but not its abstract model. It is alleged that researchers, which emphasized at more stability of a multipolar system, their theoretical arguments had selected under the direct influence of acute bipolar confrontation during the “Cold War” from the mid-40s to mid-60s of the twentieth century (the Berlin Crisis, the Korean War, the Caribbean Crisis), opposing the “nuclear madness” of a constraint an idealized picture of European “concert of nations” at the first half of the nineteenth century. Instead, cooperation between East and West during the Brezhnev’s «discharging» and Gorbachev’s «new 248 thinking» gave serious reasons for a perception and appraisal by politologists of a bipolar system as stable and without conflicts. Accordingly, the number of poles of a theoretical model of the international system says about its stability not more than a form a glass about a quality of a poured wine.

scholarly journals Lebanon: An Ordinary “Consociational Democracy” in the Regional Context

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. V. Sarabiev
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
World Politics ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Consociational Democracy ◽  
Direct Pressure ◽  
Democratic Systems ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Economic Ties

Lebanon has a number of features that determine its special position in the region and its importance in the system of relations between the Middle East states. An important role in this is played by the ideological and strategic aspects of world politics in the region in which Lebanon is organically inscribed in both the historical and geopolitical plans. The stability of a country that has passed through a long civil war makes it stand out from a number of states in the region. The author's hypothesis is that the reason for the extraordinary stability — of Lebanese society, the system of state power, political elites, economic ties and foreign policy contacts, despite all the negative regional factors — can be rooted in the consociational principle of making key decisions based, paradoxically, on the notorious political confessionalism. The peculiarities of the Lebanese political model (although they are subject to well-deserved criticism) distinguish it from the multitude of “customary” democracies, bringing together with examples of the unique democratic systems of Europe and other continents. The motley confessional composition of society, along with the historically determined foreign policy guidelines of individual communities, suggested a special informal decision-making mechanism throughout the country — not on the basis of majority power, but on a contractual, compromise principle. Leading theorists of consociationalism often had in mind the Lebanese pattern of democracy in their political studies, and many of their developments are still well applicable for analyzing the functioning of the main state institutions of Lebanon. A theoretical study, along with an analysis of the current regional situation, convince the author of the correctness of the hypothesis put forward. Both in Lebanese history and now, it is the inveterate forms of external influences that forced Lebanese society to balance on the verge of aggravated intercommunal clashes. The combination of external factors served as the beginning and further warmed up the civil war. Heightened relations with Syria by 2005, the Israeli attack in 2006, the gravest threat from jihadi-caliphatists – all these factors have negatively affected intra-civil and inter-group relations. Stereotypical forms of use of religious communities (Shiites, Sunnis, Christians of different denominations, etc.) from the outside and even direct pressure from abroad continue to confront them, imposing ideas on social relations and political participation that are alien to Lebanese. Diversification of political and business contacts of Russia with representatives of different Lebanese communities can serve as a good example of Lebanon’s perception of all the features of its political system as a full subject of international relations.

scholarly journals LEADERSHIP AND HEGEMONY IN GEOSTRATEGY OF INFORMAL NEO-EMPIRES

2017 ◽  
pp. 39-49
Author(s):  
A. Goltsov
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
World Order ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Common Goals ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
The Relationship

The article analyzes the controversial issues of the relationship between leadership and hegemony in international relations, especially in the context of geostrategy of the informal neo-empires. Ideally, leadership of the certain actor means that other actors voluntarily accept its proposed values, norms and rules, recognize its authority to implement a policy for the realization of common goals. Hegemony is the dominance of a particular actor (hegemon) over other actors, establishing his controls over them, imposing its political, economic and cultural values. Hegemony in international relations is carried out usually covertly and often presented as a leadership. Leadership and hegemony are possible at various levels of the geopolitical organization in the world. We treat leadership and hegemony as mechanisms of implementation of a geostrategy of powerful actors of international relations, particularly of informal neo-empires. Each of the contemporary informal neo-empires develops and implements geostrategy, aimed at ensuring its hegemony, usually covert, within a certain geospace and realizes it as a means of a both “hard” and “soft” power. The USA, which is the main “center” of the Western macro-empire, trys to maintain its world leadership, and at the same time secure a covert hegemony over the strategically important regions of the world. The EU is a neo-imperial alliance and has geostrategy of “soft” hegemony. Russia opposes the hegemony of the West and advocates the formation of a multipolar world order with the “balance of power”. The RF carries in the international arena neo-imperial geostrategy in the international arena directed to increase its role in the world and ensure its hegemony in the post-Soviet space.

scholarly journals Faktor Kebudayaan dalam Teori Hubungan Internasional [The Cultural Factors in International Relations Theory]

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (17) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Umar Suryadi Bakry
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Cultural Factors ◽  
Important Variable ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Ir Studies ◽  
The Cold War

<p>This article tries to explain some thoughts on the importance of cultural factors in the study of International Relations (IR).  The mainstream theories of international relations since the end of the World War II have ignored the role of cultural factors in world politics. But, after the Cold War era in 1990s, culture began to enter the center of research on international relations.  After the Cold War ended, cultural factors become particularly prominent and began to gain more attention from the scholars of International Relations. There are at least three prominent theories which are increasingly taking into account the role of cultural factors in international relations, that is, Huntington’s “clash of civilization” theory, Nye’s “soft power” theory, and constructivism theory. In addition, since the 1990s, many studies conducted by IR scholars have focused on the relationship between culture and the foreign policy of a country. The emergence of international culturology as a sub-field of IR studies further confirms that culture is an important variable in international relations.</p>

Reciprocity, hierarchy, and obligation in world politics: From Kula to Potlatch

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
John G Oates ◽  
Eric Grynaviski
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Social Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Hierarchical Relations ◽  
The Gift ◽  
Generative Structure ◽  
Agent Structure ◽  
Structure Debate

The observation that agents and structures are co-constituted is now commonplace, yet scholars continue to struggle to incorporate this insight. Rationalists tend to overemphasize actors’ agency in the constitution of social order while constructivists tend to overstate the degree to which structures determine action. This article uses The Gift to rethink the agent–structure debate, arguing that the model of social relations Mauss outlines in this work sheds new light on basic concepts in international relations theory such as reciprocity, hierarchy, and obligation. Mauss’ social theory locates the generative structure of social order in diffuse exchange relations, what he terms gift exchange, and assumes that actors are both socially positioned within hierarchical relations of exchange and reflexive agents who are able to understand and strive to change those relations. In so doing, he avoids reducing social order to either deeply internalized social norms or instrumental interests, navigating between agents and structures to develop a more dynamic model of social relations. This model of social order permits a richer understanding of hierarchy in world politics that appreciates the experience of domination and the possibility of resistance. It also provides a distinct understanding of the nature of social obligation and the “compliance pull” of social norms, locating their force in the reflexive recognition by actors that they are dependent on shared social relations for meaningful social agency. This points toward an ethics of stewardship that opens up new perspectives on the duties that states and others owe to each other, a duty grounded in an acknowledgment of our mutual vulnerability as socially constituted agents.

scholarly journals Hungary’s and Romania’s exogenous influence on separatism processes in Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-104
Author(s):  
Ryabinin Yevgeny
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Preliminary Analysis ◽  
External Influence ◽  
National Minorities ◽  
Public Figures ◽  
Exogenous Factors ◽  
Factors Of Influence ◽  
Cultural Component ◽  
Do So

Abstract The author, on the basis of a preliminary analysis of the problem of the exogenous influence of the countries on the strengthening of separatism processes in Ukraine, expresses the view that separatism conflicts have not only internal causes for escalation, but also the external influence exerted by the main actors of international relations, solving their geopolitical task or countries bordering Ukraine. The author classifies the exogenous factors of influence, which are most often used by the main and influential actors of international relations to strengthen their positions in the region or in any state. The aim of the article is to analyze such components of the Hungarian and Romanian exogenous influence on Ukraine as cultural, educational, political, and diplomatic ones. These two countries consistently and persistently try to protect the rights and interests of Hungarian and Romanian national minorities in Ukraine, but every year they do so contrary to the interests and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Relations between the countries have worsened due to statements by political and public figures in Hungary and Romania after the adoption of the Law on Education by Ukraine in September 2017. The author comes to the conclusion that the cultural component of exogenous influence increases the factor of identity and can serve as an element of soft power and catalyze the ethnic/separatism conflict in the country.

Vicarious Identity in International Relations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher S. Browning ◽  
Pertti Joenniemi ◽  
Brent J. Steele
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Ontological Security ◽  
Interstate Relations ◽  
Self Identity ◽  
Social Settings ◽  
The Uk

This book theorizes and problematizes the politics of vicarious identity in international relations, where vicarious identity refers to processes of “living through the other.” While prevalent and recognized in family and social settings, the presence and significance of vicarious identification in international relations has been overlooked. Vicarious identification offers the prospect of bolstering narratives of self-identity and appropriating a sense of reflected glory and enhanced self-esteem, but insofar as it may mask and be a response to emergent anxieties, inadequacies, and weaknesses it also entails vulnerabilities. The book explores both its attraction and potential pitfalls, theorizing these in the context of emerging literatures on ontological security, status, and self-esteem, highlighting both its constitutive practices and normative limits and providing a methodological grounding for identifying and studying the phenomenon in world politics. Vicarious identification and vicarious identity promotion are shown to be politically salient and efficacious across a range of scales, from the international politics of the everyday evident, for instance, in practices associated with (militarized) nationalism, through to interstate relations. In regard to this latter the book provides case analyses of vicarious identification in relations between the United States and Israel, the UK–US special relationship, and between Denmark and the United States, and it develops a framework for anticipating the conditions under which states may be more or less tempted into vicarious identification with others.

Parties, Pavilions and Protests: The Heteronomous World Politics of the Russian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 29-61
Author(s):  
Julia Bethwaite ◽  
Anni Kangas
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Contemporary Art ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Cultural Diplomacy ◽  
World Politics ◽  
The State ◽  
Different Types ◽  
A Site ◽  
Venice Biennale

This paper focuses on the role of contemporary art in international relations and world politics. In IR, art is often examined within the framework of cultural diplomacy, country branding, and soft power, or approached as a site of resistance. We argue that the concept of heteronomy offers an alternative conceptual framework for analysing contemporary art in world politics. It highlights the interaction of various fields such as art, commerce, the state and media. We concretise this approach with an analysis of the Venice Biennale. We show that the Biennale is heteronomous in the sense of being an arena where actors from various fields struggle for power by accumulating different types of capital. We focus our analysis on the Russian national pavilion in 2011–2015 and show how the efforts of the country's elite to legitimise its position intertwined with the projects of the state, sponsors, artists, curators and art market actors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document