Читать статья по политологии: "Leadership and hegemony in geostrategy of informal neo-empires" Страница 2

(Назад) (Cкачать работу)

contemporary world. The importance of the transnational actors grows. However, the global geopolitical order undergoes significant destabilization not only because of the intensification of the terrorism, but also through the expansionism of some powerful actors who seek to expand its sphere of influence. Therefore there is a problem of qualifying the modem geostrategy and geopolitical status of actor such as Russia. At this stage we should expect changes in the US geostrategy in the global arena and in some regions. The imperial discourse still remains popular now in political science on international relations. The determination of the nature of leadership and hegemony in the international affairs serves as the relevant scientific- theoretical and applied problem.of the article - the identification the value of leadership and hegemony in the international relations in the context of the modern geopolitics of the informal neo-empires - the Western macro-empire and Russia.of the latest publications. The issues of leadership, hegemony and contemporary empires retains considerable popularity in the Western science. We can point out the works of such scholars as Z. Brzezinski, N. Ferguson, D. Friedheim, J. Ikenberry, R. Kagan, R. Keohane, J. Mearsheimer, H Munkler, D. Nexon, J. Nye, N. Parker, A. Wendt, J. Wiener and others. Among the Russian scientists should be mentioned the following researchers: E. Batalov, A. Bogaturov, A. Bogdanov, S. Kaspe, T. Shakleina, D. Temnikov and others. In Ukraine, the mentioned problems were investigated by M. Doroshko, E. Kaminski, B. Kantselyaruk, V. Kopiika, D. Lak- ishyk, E. Makarenko, I. Pogorska, M. Ryzhkov and others. Despite solid scientific achievements, the numerous theoretical and applied aspects remain controversial and insufficiently clarified.research results. The essence of leadership in the international relations has been and remains the subject of the lively debate in the scientific community. In the broader context this leadership in the international arena should serve as a legitimate mechanism for the regulation of relations among actors, based on the norms of international law. Ideally, leadership can be interpreted as a system of governance in international relations when a certain set of actors willingly give one of them the right to exercise certain powers on behalf of all them. The leader has the greatest potential, authority and applies mostly in its policy the tools of “soft power”. The rest of the mentioned actors voluntarily accept together the values, norms and rules proposed by the leader, recognize its authority to implement a policy of common goals. It is clear that a “democratic” leader should implement policies in the international arena, based on the norms of international law. Leadership can also be “collective”. Under the known approach of J. Ikenberry “leadership is the use of power” and means the ability of one actor directly or indirectly shape the interests and influence upon the other [Ikenberry, 1996: 388]. Thus, leadership can be undemocratic (even authoritarian) when a powerful actor, based on an authority and potential imposes its norms and values on other actors.has a long history in the international relations. The hegemon traditionally had overwhelming power, which allowed him to dominate over other actors. This hegemony of the powerful actor could promote almost independent, peaceful and stable development of the dependent countries which maintained loyalty to the hegemon and if necessary took part in its projects, such as aggressive campaigns. Hegemony in the historical past was one of the most effective means of ensuring stability in the international arena. It is clear that the institution of the hegemony has never been perfect, and stability is relative.power of the hegemon can manifest itself in political dictatorship, economic domination, planting in dependent countries its political and cultural values etc. In most cases it is confirmed that “hegemony is necessarily coercive and based on the exercise of power” [Lake, 1993: 469]. At the hegemonic system the state-hegemon has enough power and will to protect the basic rules governing the international relations [Keohane, Nye, 1989: 44]. Ideally a certain balance between the responsibility of the hegemon and the consent of other actors with its political supremacy are achieved, and this could lead to the stabilization of the international system as a whole. This conception of “hegemonic stability” justified the hegemonic policy and gave to hegemon carte blanche to use force for the “common good”.

“Coercive” hegemony in international relations causes a well-deserved criticism in many cases. In return, “benevolent” and “liberal” hegemony provides weaker actors with stronger protection of their safety and often brings them the economic benefits. The hegemon, in exchange for political loyalty from its dependent countries do not interfere in their internal affairs without a pressing need. The concept of “institutional hegemony”, known since the 1980s, has not lost its relevance and provides, in particular, a significant strengthening of the role of institutions of international cooperation. In regional studies scientists productively use for analytical and predictive intelligence the concepts of “consensual” and “cooperative” hegemony.and leadership have much in common, which is reflected in the works of G. Ar- righi, Z. Brzezinski, Ch. Krauthammer and others. For example, hegemony can be positioned as a “system leadership” in which the predominant group expresses the common interests of participants in the system [Arrighi, Silver, 1999: 26]. The conception of “hegemonic leadership” served for a long time to justify the expansionist geostrategy of powerful states on the world stage. It contained even justification of imperial policy of state-leader [Wiener, 1995: 233].applied research of