If a call not only for the realistic

If
confrontation of two super-states during an era of bipolarity undermined
principles of many provisions of a liberal and idealistic paradigm, then the
end of Cold War, on the contrary, became some kind of nutrient medium for its
revival. At the same time changes in the international system excluded simple
return to the former ideas. During integration processes in Europe, America and
Asia the countries of the New and Old World having the integral sign of the
state independence — sovereignty, show (though in different degree) readiness
unprecedented before to transfer a part – its to the sphere of joint structures
and institutes. There was obvious also another; to speak about dying off of
sovereignty and disappearance of the state obviously prematurely. Emergence on
the political map of the world of the new states is indisputable demonstrates
attractiveness of sovereignty and the state as political institute. New,
nonconventional threats to security became a call not only for the realistic of
theories, but also for many theoretical creation of the liberal sense.
Globalization of economic processes and distribution of pluralistic democracy
were followed not only (and it is possible, and not so much) distribution of
cooperativity as principle of the international relations, but also emergence
of new problems, collisions and the conflicts. The neo-liberalism seeking to
consider and reflect all these processes in the theories significantly differs
from an initial liberal and idealistic paradigm.

First, it
puts forward in the center of all the conceptual creation of a security
concern. Secondly, focuses attention on economic problems. Thirdly, actually
transfers the center of gravity to moral standards as the incentive force, a
basis and criterion of regulatory actions in international policy. At last, in
– the fourth, approaches on a number of positions neo-realism.

After the
ideological predecessors, supporters of neo-liberalism claim that the state —
not only, and sometimes and not the chief actor on the international stage
which becomes more and more available to transnational financial and industrial
groups, different non-governmental associations, the terrorist and criminal
organizations, professional associations and even certain individuals. Today
any of these new participants of the international relations can make serious
changes to them, compel the states for unforeseen actions and even to enter
with them direct rivalry.

The
difference of neoliberals is that they not only strengthen this situation, but
also do it by an initial basis for new, understanding of safety. The ends of
Cold War and falling of communism of a possibility of communication, exchanges,
movements, increases in level and quality of life of people connected with
distribution of democracy which increased later and also with new scientific,
technological, economic and social (first of all — in the field of freedoms and
human rights) achievements, are followed by the increasing dangers because of
loss former and lack of new levers of regulation of a world order. Among them
“chaos and the mentioning huge mass of people of disaster generated by
violent disintegration of the multinational states; a condition of a stress in
which there are traditional unions, followed by disagreements how to react to
disintegration of the states and how to include the former communistic states
in new structures of safety; international crime and terrorism; instability
which distribution of nuclear weapon can generate. Neoliberals, thus, in full
accordance with an initial liberal and idealistic paradigm find possible
international cooperation not only, but also necessary for achievement of
stability, social progress and a world order. The international relations in
general are a game with the positive sum. Contrary to opinion of supporters of
political realism, they develop. Such processes testify to it; as distribution
of the liberal democracy and individual freedom, interdependence, growth of
education and new technologies. However progress in development of the
international relations does not happen by itself. To it conducts expansion of
international cooperation. It is necessary not only as a way to stabilization
of the current situation and to safety of the world community, but also as
means of achievement and growth of economic wellbeing (is more detailed about
it see: Vennes-son. 1998. River 189). Expansion and deepening of international
cooperation, especially in economic area, allows each participant to receive
benefit from the international exchanges irrespective of the sizes and
proportions of such benefit.

The
liberalism could give a priority in assessment of character of the
international relations and in recommendations about their regulation to moral
standards and it is right and also to creation for this purpose the institutes
designed to carry out a role of guarantors of respect for the specified norms.
At the same time moral and legal principles were not opposed each other: the
right was considered as the arch of a number of the codified, formalized moral
principles and criterion for evaluation of the international events and as a
basis of regulation of interactions of the international actors.

Shift of
accents in the ratio of the right, institutes and morals became essential
important difference of neo-liberalism in this area. “… Activity of new
institutes often is fruitless and does not promote the solution of the imminent
problems… Their functions are often duplicated that conducts to excessive
expenses. The same treats existing rules and procedures” — the director of
SIPRI Adam Rotfeld writes (Rotfeljd. 1997. River 5). Need of regulation of the
international relations on the basis of the pragmatic decisions created by them
precedents and procedures is in this connection emphasized. Thus, the main
preference is given to the moral principles, and as the main criteria of
morality the liberal democracy and human rights move forward. The last
situation seems, at first sight, complete antithesis to what is approved by a
realistic paradigm which central theme is the state and its interests. However
in fact the contrast of neo-realism and neo-liberalism is not so obvious,
especially, at all if to remember that the neo-realism proceeds from decisive
influence on behavior of the states of structural opportunities of the
international system, and neoliberals even more often place emphasis on the
state. Of course, in the liberal paradigm as M. Doyle emphasizes, the states by
the nature initially represent unequal “units” which differ on their
attitude towards individual human rights. These distinctions anyway affect the
nature of international action. Besides, from the point of view of liberals,
the purposes of the state, as well as the purpose of the certain person, move
to the sphere of protection and ensuring the rights of the personality (see:
Doyle. 1997. River 117).

Both the
neo-realism, and neo-liberalism are quite often called rational approaches as
both that, and another put in the center of the consideration of the rational
politician who is guided not by emotions, and calculation in adoption of
political decisions. For neo-realists it is the calculation determined by
reasons of the power (first of all, balance of forces or threats). For neo-liberals
it is reasons of material well-being and safety. No other factors for
neoliberals and neo-realists, by and large, exist — there are only economic and
imperious interests. Fight for realization of these interests and, therefore,
for maximizing the power or wealth also defines the nature of international and
political processes. These interests are represented just and forever data (or,
at least, a little varying) and therefore the task of the researcher consists
only in defining which of actors is in the most advantageous position and is
capable to choose the most effective strategy for realization of the interests
(in the western literature devoted to comparison of these two approaches two
works are especially known: Keohane R. (ed.). 1986; Baldwin D. (ed.). 1993).

x

Hi!
I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out