Spheres of Influence in International Relations

This article examines the emergence and transformation of Norway’s peace engagement in the context of changing international relations. Focusing on foreign policy discourses and practices, the article portrays peace engagement as a value-based effort to support resolution of distant intrastate conflicts, and a strategy to promote Norway’s interests and influence in international relations. The article also argues that changing international politics after the turn of the century has challenged and reoriented Norway’s peace engagement in a more realist direction. Foreign policy discourses and practices are increasingly based on a broad notion of interests that also include ideals of peace, democracy and development. This means that peace engagement can support a domestic political consensus on foreign policy, and simultaneously promote Norway’s standing, relevance and influence in international relations. Peace engagement has thus been institutionalized as a foreign policy that promotes peace while also addressing the challenges associated with smallness in international relations.

While the specifics of Europe's internal dimensions — its ultimate geographic boundaries and its future institutional design — have attracted much attention and caused considerable debate, the future role of the European Union in international relations by comparison has been neglected in terms of both public debate and scientific scrutiny. This is perhaps not surprising, given the massive enlargement of EU membership since the mid-1990s, which has absorbed much of Europe's political energies over the last years, and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the near future. At the same time, the European Union since 1990 has also seen its standing and its influence in international relations on balance increase rather substantially, even if this trend has been buffeted repeatedly by setbacks and crises. Indeed, it could be argued that European influence in international relations has grown not despite, but because of major crises which have forced the member states to focus on their shared interests and act accordingly. Whichever it may be, this trend has perhaps been most clearly observed from a distance: several prominent American observers even predicted that the twenty-first century would belong to the new superpower Europe (Kupchan, 2002; Rifkin, 2004).

The article notes that modern processes taking place in the world are causing the reformation of the system of international relations, forcing scientists to think about the conceptualization of the concept of "political influence". Any influence is a process whose goal is to change behavior, preferences, positions, feelings and emotions, beliefs, as well as group norms, mass attitudes, and social consciousness. Political influence is one of the varieties of social influence. Political influence is traditionally seen as a manifestation of power. In international relations, the concept of "political influence" is associated with the concepts of "state power", "state power". It is noted that influence in the international arena can be exercised using various means and mechanisms, in particular, using "hard" or "soft" power. At the same time, the same resources can act as "soft" or "hard" power, for example, economic, human, communication, etc. In the system of international relations, dialogic and authoritarian communication is used, which affects the results of influence. The article analyzes the means of influence, in particular, attention is paid to the classification of resources of political influence. It is noted that political influence in international relations depends on many factors: economic, social, informational. It is pointed out that there are various methods of political influence, the subjects of which are both individuals and large transnational corporations, international organizations and states. The effectiveness of political influence will depend on the specific characteristics of the subject and the object of influence, on their status in the international arena, prestige, will, etc., and the nature of the relationship between the participants. It is concluded that political influence in international relations is an integral part of them.

In recent years, both state and non-state religious actors have become important for understanding international outcomes in many parts of world. Fundamental norms of international relations were enshrined in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) - particularly the notion of state restraint in religious matters. This encouraged belief that international relations discourse is predominantly secular. Religion now influences international outcomes involving international society. All religious actors’ influence in international relations is linked to their ability to exercise ‘soft power’. The chapter examines the theory and practice of religion’s involvement in international relations.

Narratives as tools of sociological imagination: a reply to ‘From discourse to legitimacy: narratives as instruments of influence in international relations’ by Armağan Gözkaman

The concept of international relations is very broad. In its modern usage, it encompasses not only the relations between states but also includes the relations between states and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, and other actors. As a result of the scientific and technological advancements witnessed by humanity, along with the accompanying economic, social, and cultural developments, the state is no longer the sole actor in international relations. There are other international actors who have emerged successively, in harmony and accordance with these advancements. The international stage is no longer exclusive to the state alone. Alongside the state, international individuals have emerged who possess the ability to act, perform, and influence in international relations. The latest addition to these international actors is the individual international actor.

The European Union has become an important shaping factor in international relations, but how and under what conditions it can exercise influence and contribute constructively to global order are still not well analysed. In fact, the EU's contribution may resemble more that of a force in physics than of a great power in the traditional sense of international relations (which the EU is not, and will not become in the near future), and its influence depends probably more on what the EU represents and how well it manages its own realm, rather than on what it can do externally. In this sense, European influence in international relations presently benefits from past achievements, and may therefore have peaked if the twin challenges of enlargement and national structural deficiencies are not addressed effectively. But even if the European Union does master those challenges successfully, and thus manages to sustain and perhaps even enhance its influence as a force in international relations, it will still have to proceed cautiously and clearly focus its attempts on shaping its external environment and contributing to a ‘concrete’ or ‘civilized’ global order. In a global setting that, despite appearances to the contrary, seems characterized by a diffusion rather than a concentration of power and by strong tendencies towards entropy rather than order, the EU can and will probably not remain America's principal ally in sustaining Pax Americana. Nor does it seem likely to become an equal partner in a constructive, balanced transatlantic relationship, let alone a great power capable of challenging, perhaps together with others, America's apparent pre-eminence. The most plausible assumption for the EU's future role in the new balance of global order is that of a ‘civilian force’ with a regional focus. It may best be able to contribute to global order by managing its own realm well, promoting the normative and institutional infrastructure for civilized international relations, not least in the sense of functioning statehood, and working towards effective multilateralism.

Анотація. Процеси глобалізації у світовій економіці посилюють тенденції залежності бюджетних політики країн, у тому числі у сфері формування публічних видатків, від міжнародних відносин. У науковій літературі доволі ґрунтовно розкрито різноманітні механізми залежності публічних видатків від міжнародних відносин. Однак обґрунтовані наукові позиції щодо тих чи інших наслідків для видатків бюджетів різних країн не впорядковано в цілісну систему зовнішніх чинників. Метою статті є систематизація вчення про вплив міжнародних відносин, у яких бере участь країна, на видатки державного бюджету і розвиток теоретичних положень фінансової науки про зміни публічних видатків під впливом міжнародних відносин. Запропоновано згрупувати чинники, які впливають на публічні видатки, у чотири напрями: 1) геополітичні; 2) юридичні, 3) фінансово-кредитні; 4) інфраструктурні. Серед геополітичних чинників, які найбільше впливають на видатки держави, виокремлено військову агресію, ізоляцію, санкції, втручання у внутрішні справи країни тощо. Важливе значення для публічних видатків мають міжнародно-правові (юридичні) чинники, а саме: правові акти міжнародних інституцій, правомочність яких поширюється на державу; ухвали міжнародних судів; рішення міжнародних фінансових організацій. З-поміж чинників міжнародної фінансово-кредитної системи, від яких залежать видатки національних бюджетів, зазначено стан, динаміку, тенденції на міжнародних фінансових, валютних, кредитних ринках. Наслідки інфраструктурних чинників для публічних видатків проявляються через створення об’єктів глобальної інфраструктури, їхня модифікація і ліквідація. Одержані результати дають змогу чіткіше ідентифікувати міжнародні чинники, що впливають на публічні видатки, і більш ґрунтовно розуміти природу такого впливу. Ключові слова: публічні видатки, бюджет, бюджет держави, економічні санкції. Формул: 0; рис.: 1; табл.: 0; бібл.: 31.

The concept of international relations is very broad. In modern use it includes not only relations between States but also relations between States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations and other enterprises. As a result of the scientific and technological development of mankind and the accompanying economic, social and cultural developments, Is the only actor in international relations there are other international people have emerged to exist one by one in harmony with and consistent with these developments in humanity is no longer the international theater exclusive to the State alone, Lyon are better with the ability to work, performance and influence in international relations, the last of whom is an actor visible international individual.

Russia is an important case for understanding external perceptions of US hegemony, of the strengths and weaknesses of the USA in its international relations and the consequences of US decline for other actors. Despite membership of the BRICS, suggesting its position as an emerging power, on the basis of its undeniable historical influence in international relations, Russia is treated here as a re-emerging power and one with extensive first-hand knowledge of the USA. Notwithstanding its long-held view that unipolarity makes for instability, Russia's opposition to US hegemony was, for some time, relatively restrained. Differences were articulated but shared interests and concerns were the greater focus of diplomatic and political attention. By contrast, the more recent period has been characterised less by cooperation than conflict. Russia has been described variously in US quarters as resurgent, aggressive, a destabilising actor, a threat. Whatever the 'truth' of those perceptions, Russia has certainly challenged US influence in a range of spheres. This chapter comprises a brief discussion of hegemony, identifying the political and military arenas as the key sites of the Russian challenge. The analysis that follows identifies two longer-term strategies employed by the Kremlin. Its membership of key regional organisations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is one example of Russia's first strategy, balancing. The second strategy is one of delegitimising the US. This is clearly seen in relation to cyber activity. Finally, less strategy than opportunism, the chapter moves to consider how Russia and the US have collided over the Syrian space and what this portends for the order that will emerge and form the foundation for future international relations.

This study attempts to answer the following question: to what extent the diplomacy of empathy and emotional dynamics has an impact on the negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme? It discusses that the failure or success of the policy of empathy, which means understanding the needs and interest of the other party, play an important role in increasing or decreasing the likelihood of reaching a diplomatic solution. It also argues that the complex emotional dynamics between the negotiating parties, particularly the United States and Iran, have contributed to the domination of the mistrust and hostile attitudes during the negotiations. This research was concluded that pursuing policy of isolation and sanctions is not likely to achieve the desired goals. Whereas, pursuing the policy of empathy has an important influence in international relations, especially in transforming conflicts and hostility to more cooperation and peace. It was also concluded that emotional beliefs such as hostility, fear, good and evil, trust, dignity, identity, etc., directly affect the behavior and policies of the negotiating parties, whether towards more conflict, hostility or more communication and cooperation.

The article presents the research findings on a set of challenges and threats to the national and international order that have arisen as a result of Brexit. As far as the author is concerned, Brexit has not only a significant conflict-generating impact on British realities but also causes tremendous challenges and threats to international security. The means of preventing and addressing these challenges are far from obvious and are yet to be fully developed. Most of the challenges, just like the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, have a negative impact on Ukraine’s international status and prospects in the global arena, particularly with regard to European integration and counter the Russian aggression. The regional, or all-European, implications of Brexit are manifested in rising Euroskepticism, pervasive disintegration (nationalist) sentiments in EU member states, heavy image losses of European integration in general and the EU in particular as its principal outcome, weakened abilities of the EU in the strategically important sphere of foreign and security policy, the slowdown in the fundamental process of EU enlargement, and a significant realignment of political forces in the union. The global implications of Brexit consist in the EU’s weakened international standing, the enhanced process of reviewing EU-US relations, a new, almost unprecedented, technological level of information propaganda, and a rapprochement of the EU and Russia. The historical and modern trends analysed permit a preliminary conclusion on who will ultimately benefit most from the completion of Brexit and the UK’s permanent withdrawal from the EU, which has become a part of the regional and global struggle for influence in international relations. Keywords: Brexit, Great Britain, European Union, European integration, conflict-generating potential, international relations.

Although the crime of aggression is expressly defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court through seven criminalized types of activities, it seems that a special form of aggression has begun to appear as a new instrument of influence in international relations. Namely, several states have been exercising a particular tool of aggression: causing a swift influx of migrants or refugees into neighboring countries, in order for the latter to be politically or economically destabilized. Even if “indirect” aggression, such as spy-flights over foreign territory, is a well-known, though illegal, practice in international relations, aggression by the means of using migrants contains a special new component—unarmed human beings (and with foreign nationality) being forced to cross national borders, unwillingly taking risks of being inhumanely treated or physically endangered by the other side as well. Also named “refugee aggression,” this type of illicit activity of a state or its agents can cause severe political and security effects by a mere threat that it will be carried out.

Regardless of the existing conflicts, the twenty-first century might be predominantly a century of soft power, most pronounced in Europe. Turkey, which geographically belongs to Europe and Asia, has been looking to achieve its foreign policy priorities and is changing its methodology of conducting foreign policy. The use of soft power based on national culture, political values, religion, economy, institutions, and international relations in the early 21st century represented a radical turn compared to earlier historical attempts. Throughout history, Turkey used hard power in the region, but it was mostly unsuccessful. Therefore, the nature of soft power represented an opportunity for strengthening Turkey as a regional power and a qualitative change of negative stereotypes about this country. However, it is evident that soft power in the changed regional security circumstances in the final years of the second decade in the 21st century is insufficient, so Turkey has started using hard power (military) again to strengthen its leadership position. This paper explains the soft power of the Republic of Turkey in the MENA region and the recent reorientation to the combination of military strength and diplomatic influence in international relations. How much that rearrangement in foreign policy will position Turkey in the new security and political circumstances at the beginning of the 21st century's third decade remains to be seen.

Religious governance influence in international relations is underresearched. Using reflexivity as primary governance indicator, this case study examines the external communicational sequences of the only multifaith summits (2005-2012) whose purpose is communication to, and dialogue with, G8 and G20 political leaders about global responsibilities to empirically discern, independent of religious leaders’ self-identification, whether the quality of dialogue is indicative of governance behavior or unreflexive acts of international value struggle. Reflexivity is operationalized as historically embedded in social relations using methodological cosmopolitanism. Findings indicate that religious leaders use cultural capital to blur (not reify) social boundaries that inhibit international collaboration, and offer no evidence of unreflexive dialogue. Leaders use social capital to socially (re)construct boundaries for cosmopolitan responsibility to include the interests of the vulnerable that are impacted by, but excluded from, G8 and G20 decisions. This work contributes to the “empirical mapping” of religious governance in international relations with implications for their consideration as dialogue partners for global governance.