Abstract
The problem of political and economic regulation of contemporary global transformations, taken in the context of the New World Order discourse, attracts attention in Russia and abroad alike. Considering this problem, British analysts Ken Booth and Nickolas Wheeler underline three major approaches to security dilemma, namely, fatalist, mitigator, and transcender logics. Followers of the fatalist approach (neo-realists, globalists) believe that world order is a zero-sum game, where interstate interactions are mostly confrontational, and their pattern depends on the current balance of power. Mitigators (neo-liberals, functionalists, constructivists, etc.) insist that the emerging world order is a win-win game, where nations opt for investing some of their sovereignty into newly created international institutions (regimes and organizations), hoping that conventional rules adopted by them would help to decrease international uncertainty, which otherwise might lead to confrontation. Transcenders (neo-Marxists, feminists, anarchists, federalists, etc.) consider the existing world order an archaic one, calling for a new, fair and humane pattern of international relations. According to their logic, the new world order is the end of the game among sovereign states, because it derives from the idea of humankind not divided by national boundaries but united into a global transnational society.
Highlights
Followers of the fatalist approach believe that world order is a zero-sum game, where interstate interactions are mostly confrontational, and their pattern depends on the current balance of power
Mitigators insist that the emerging world order is a win-win game, where nations opt for investing some of their sovereignty into newly created international institutions, hoping that conventional rules adopted by them would help to decrease international uncertainty, which otherwise might lead to confrontation
The new world order is the end of the game among sovereign states, because it derives from the idea of humankind not divided by national boundaries but united into a global transnational society
Summary
Политико-экономический ракурс современных региональных и глобальных трансформаций приобретает для России особое значение в контексте представлений о формировании «нового мирового порядка»1, которые разделяет не только значительная часть военно-политического истеблишмента США, но и большинство западных политологов. Но каковы же в действительности базовые параметры «нового мирового порядка»? Уилер16) политологов и, суммируя многоообразие подходов к самому понятию мирового порядка, пытаюсь предложить единую концептуальную схему, позволяющую разграничить его различные теоретические трактовки в рамках именно научного, а не журналистского, идеологического или пропагандистского осмысления. Рассуждающих о сущности мирового порядка, Бут и Уилер выделяют три основных подхода к анализу современной мирополитической ситуации: фаталистский (fatalist), посреднический (mitigator) и трансцендентный (transcender)[17]. В рамках данной статьи я последовательно рассмотрю каждый из этих подходов, чтобы понять, насколько данная теоретическая схема применима к анализу глобальных политико-экономических изменений и какие практические выводы можно. Сделать на её основе для России на примере тех вызовов, которые возникают перед ней в процессе современных мирополитических трансформаций
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
