Читать статья по политологии: "Leadership and hegemony in geostrategy of informal neo-empires" Страница 7

назад (Назад)скачать (Cкачать работу)

Функция "чтения" служит для ознакомления с работой. Разметка, таблицы и картинки документа могут отображаться неверно или не в полном объёме!

and territories.. Legitimate leadership in international affairs is essential for their progressive development. However, leadership of powerful actors often means their covert hegemony in the international arena. Informal neo-empires may appear as the main actors of the future world order.of neo-empires actually aims to expand or maintain their spheres of influence. It is of differentiated character and can provide gaining of leadership or hegemony in respect of certain countries or regions. The neo-empires use a wide variety of “hard power” and “soft power” means. Contemporary neo-imperial geostrategy also involves creating of alliances and ensuring their efficient operation.Western macro-empire (led by the US) remains a leader for many countries of the modern world. Leadership of the West is a political, economic, ideological, moral and cultural, but in all these spheres leadership is often a covert hegemony. In the short term the US will remain the main leader of the world and its geostrategy is aimed at ensuring hegemony in the regions, where it has “vital interests”. Today the Western macro-empire has been consolidating by the fight against terrorism and confrontation with Russia.the global level, Russia seeks to play the role of one of several leaders - the “poles” of the world. Russia’s geostrategy in the post-Soviet space aims to achieve its informal hegemony with respect to the partner countries. Contemporary geostrategy of Russia involves the application of the imperial means, become clearly evident in its expansionism of 2014-2016 years. References1. National Security Strategy. The White House, Washington. February 2015,

. Arrighi G., Silver B. (1999) Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.

3. Brzezinski Z. (1997) The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York : Basic Books.

4. Castells M. (2011) ‘A Network Theory of Power’, International Journal of Communication 5 : 773-787.

5. Doyle M. W. (1986) Empires. Ithaca, London : Cornell University Press.

. Haass R. N. (2014) ‘The Unraveling. How to Respond to a Disordered World’, Foreign Affairs. November/December,

. Ikenberry G. J. (1996) ‘The Future of International Leadership’, Political Science Quarterly 111 (3) : 385-402.

8. Keohane R. O., Nye J. S. (1989) Power and Interdependence. Second ed. Glenview : Little Brown.

. Lake D. (1993) ‘Leadership, Hegemony, and the International Economy: Naked Emperor or Tattered Monarch with Potential?’, International Studies Quarterly, 37 : 459-489.

. Lundestad G. (1990) The American ‘Empire’ and Other Studies of US Foreign Polict in Comparative Perspective. Oxford, Oslo : Oxford University Press.

11. Manners I. (2002) ‘Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms?’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40/2 : 235-238.

12. Mearsheimer J. J., Walt S. M. (2016) ‘The Case for Offshore Balancing’, Foreign Affairs July/August,

. Nye J. S. (2015) ‘American Hegemony or American Primacy’, Project Syndicate March 9,

14. Obama B. (2007) ‘Renewing American Leadership’, Foreign Affairs July/August,

15. Wendt A., Friedheim D. (1995) ‘Hierarchy Under Anarchy: Informal Empiere and the East German State’, International Organization 49/4 : 689-721.

. Wiener J. (1995) ’’Hegemonic’ Leadership: Naked Emperor or the Worship of False Gods?’, Journal of International Relations 2 : 219-243.

. Zielonka J. (2008) ‘Europe as a global actor: empire by example?’, International Affairs 84/3 : 471-484.

18. Концепция внешней политики Российской Федерации. 12 февраля 2013 г. [The Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. February 12, 2013],

. Дорошко М. С. (2012) ‘Вплив ‘перезавантаження’ американсько-російських відносин на зовнішню політику держав пострадянського простору’ [The impact of ‘reset’ of US- Russian relations on the foreign policies of states of the post-Soviet space], Актуальні проблеми міжнародних відносин 107/1 : 97-102.

20. Каспэ С. И. (2007) Центры и иерархии: пространственные метафоры власти и западная политическая форма [Centers and hierarchy. Spatial metaphors of power and Western political form]. Москва : Московская школа политических исследований.

21. Копійка В. В. (2015) ‘Зовнішньополітичні стратегії США у глобальному світі: тенденції і перспективи’ [The foreign policy strategies of US in the global world: trends and prospects], Міжнародні відносини. Серія ‘Політичнінауки’5,

. Макаренко Є. А. (2015) ‘Геополітичний вимір президентських послань Конгресу США: 2012-2015 роки’ [The geopolitical dimension of presidential messages to Congress: 2012-2015 years], Міжнародні відносини. Серія ‘Політичні науки’ 5,

. Рижков М. М. (2011) ‘Стратегії стримування у зовнішній та безпековій політиці США’ [Strategies of containment in the foreign and security policy of the USA], Актуальні проблеми міжнародних відносин 102/1 : 5-21.

. Чубайс А. ‘Россия как либеральная империя’ [Russia as a liberal empire],


Интересная статья: Основы написания курсовой работы