Types of international conflicts. International conflicts

International conflict is one of the types of political conflicts. Political conflicts are caused by a divergence of interests, values ​​or identifications of political subjects; accordingly, conflicts of interest, value conflicts and self-identification conflicts are distinguished. According to the most common view, an international conflict can be defined as an open political clash between two or more states (or other international actors) based on the discrepancy or contradiction of their interests. The interests of states may collide due to the ownership of a particular territory, due to the location of the state border line. Interests can be of an economic nature, which is associated with access to the use of any resources or control over them. Practice international relations knows the different types and types international conflicts. The most common classification of international conflicts is their division into symmetrical and asymmetrical. Symmetrical conflicts include those conflicts that are characterized by approximately equal strength of the parties involved. Asymmetric conflicts are conflicts with a sharp difference in the potential of the conflicting parties. International conflict is the basis of international relations in traditional geopolitics. There are military-political, economic, national, civilizational, confessional and other conflicts.

In the modern world, the threat of potential conflicts is increasing due to the increase in the number and diversity of participants in international relations. An international conflict is considered as a special political relationship between two or several parties - peoples, states or a group of states - which concentratedly reproduces, in the form of indirect or direct clashes, economic, social class, political, territorial, national, religious or other interests in nature and character. An international conflict arises in any case when one state or group of states seeks to impose its interests on others, declares and achieves their monopoly, infringing on or not taking other interests into account at all. International conflicts, therefore, are a type of international relations into which various states enter on the basis of conflicting interests. Subjects of international conflict: these include coalitions of states, individual states, as well as parties, organizations and movements fighting to prevent, end and resolve various types of conflicts related to the exercise of power.

Until recently, the attribute, the main characteristic of the subjects of conflict, was strength. It refers to the ability of one subject of the conflict to force or convince another subject of the conflict to do something that in another situation he would not do. The concept of state strength is not limited to its military strength. Perhaps, G. Morgenthau was the first to give a comprehensive description of force. He identified nine factors in this concept: geographical position; natural resources; industrial opportunities; military potential, national character, national morality, degree of popular support; quality of diplomacy; quality of government. The second attribute of the subject of the conflict is his position. This refers to the position of the subject of the conflict in the general system of relations. In conflicts, the support (direct or indirect) of the subjects of the conflict from other subjects of international relations, as well as the conditions for realizing the potential of the subjects of the conflict, plays a great role. Object of the conflict: it is understood as an interest contested by the subjects of the conflict, expressed in their justified or false right to something. Conflict relationships. By their nature, relations between political entities are divided into allied, partnership, adversarial and hostile. Conflict is characterized by relations of confrontation and hostility. Since the main subject of international conflicts are states, the following types of international conflicts are distinguished:

• 1. interstate conflicts (both opposing sides are represented by states or their coalitions);
• 2. national liberation wars (one of the parties is represented by the state): anti-colonial, wars of peoples, against racism, as well as against governments acting in contradiction with the principles of democracy;
• 3. internal internationalized conflicts (the state acts as an assistant to one of the parties in an internal conflict on the territory of another state).

Based on the interests defended in the conflict, the following international conflicts are distinguished:

• 1. conflict of ideologies (between states with different socio-political systems);
• 2. conflicts between states with the aim of political domination in the world or a particular region;
• 3. conflicts where the parties defend economic interests;
• 4. territorial conflicts based on territorial contradictions (seizure of others or liberation of one’s own territories);
• 5. religious conflicts; history knows many examples of interstate conflicts on this basis.

International conflicts can also vary in their spatiotemporal scale. In this case, we can highlight global conflicts that affect the interests of all participants in international relations; regional, local, which include a limited number of participants as parties to the conflict, bilateral. Depending on their duration, international conflicts can be protracted, medium-duration, or short-term. Depending on the means used, armed international conflicts and conflicts using only peaceful means are usually distinguished. Science has given the following definition of conflict: “Conflict - confrontation - opposition - a collision of indexically opposite goals, interests, motives, positions, opinions, plans, criteria or concepts of subjects - opponents in the process of communication - communication.” Today, the problem of conflict is dealt with by more than one area of ​​scientific research. knowledge. This includes sociology, history, pedagogy, military sciences, philosophy and, of course, psychology. Each area considers conflict from its own point of view and therefore there are many types of concepts: international conflict, regional, ethnic, military, pedagogical, conflict in a team, social, labor, conflict between spouses, conflict between fathers and children, etc. International political Conflicts are as inseparable from international relations as international relations are from human history. If they could ever exist without each other, it would have been for a very long time and not for long. However, the international political conflict, which has been recurring for many thousands of years on various civilizational, social, and geopolitical backgrounds, has not yet been fully studied. Not only the methodological, but also the political position of researchers forces them to respond differently to seemingly the most simple questions. Thus, scholars in the field of international relations note that “the concept of “conflict” is used in relation to situations in which one group of people (tribal, ethnic, linguistic or any other) is in conscious opposition to another group (or other groups), since all these groups pursue incompatible goals"

Accordingly, the concept of “international conflict” is derived either from social interaction unfolding in specific historical conditions or from the psychological state in groups. Moving in this direction, scientists are trying to compare and, if possible, combine some of the most successful definitions. It is important to emphasize that the concept of “power” is given a central place.

Over the past few decades, domestic studies of international conflict, its role and place in the system of international relations, have invariably emphasized its political nature. Moreover, any international conflict was defined as “a political relationship between two or more parties, reproducing in an acute form the contradictions of its participants that underlie this relationship.”

There are three main approaches, or, in other words, three main directions in the study of international conflicts: “strategic studies”, “conflict studies”, “peace studies”. The main thing that unites them is the desire to understand the role of this social phenomenon in the functioning of the international system, in the relations between its various components and formulate conclusions on this basis that have practical significance. At the same time, there are differences between them regarding the methodological foundations and substantive issues of research, the nature of their connection with the practice of international relations, etc. The famous American scientist L. Ozer defined social conflict as “a clash between collective actors over values, status, power or rare resources, in which the goals of each party are to neutralize, weaken or eliminate their rivals.” Agreeing with this understanding, one part of international relations researchers assumes that the conflict has an objective content. So, from the point of view of K. Olding, this is “a situation of rivalry in which the parties are aware of the incompatibility of possible positions and each side seeks to occupy a position incompatible with the one that the other wants to occupy.” In other words, we are talking about opposing interests, the simultaneous implementation of which by participants in international interaction is impossible precisely because of their objectivity.

On the contrary, from the point of view of J. Burton, “the conflict is mainly subjective in nature... A conflict that seems to affect “objective” differences of interests can be transformed into a conflict that has a positive outcome for both parties, provided that “ "reframing" their perceptions of each other, which will allow them to cooperate on the functional basis of sharing a contested resource"

The central task of strategic research is to try to determine what should be the most adequate behavior of a state in a conflict situation, capable of influencing the enemy, controlling him, and imposing its will. With the advent of nuclear weapons, specialists in the field of such research face a number of fundamentally new questions, the search for answers to which has given new impetus to strategic thought.

One of the priority problems of strategic research is the problem of war, its causes and consequences for a particular state, region and the international (interstate) system as a whole. Moreover, if previously war was considered as an extreme, but still “normal” means of achieving political goals, the enormous destructive power of nuclear weapons has given rise to a situation that is paradoxical, from the point of view of traditional approaches. On the one hand, the state that possesses it receives new opportunities to conduct its foreign policy and the ability to ensure its national security (in the military sense of this concept) that discourages any potential aggressor. On the other hand, the excess power that nuclear weapons provide makes any thoughts about their use, or the prospect of a direct clash between their owners, absurd.

The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the bipolar structure of the global international system mark a turn to a new phase in the development of “grand strategy”. The tasks of adequately responding to the challenges dictated by the spread of new types of conflicts in the world, generated by the growth of decentralized political violence, aggressive nationalism, international organized crime, etc., are coming to the fore. Moreover, the complexity of these tasks, which are becoming especially relevant in the context of the increasing availability of the latest types of weapons of mass destruction, both nuclear and “conventional” in nature, reduces the possibility of solving them on the path of strategic research from the traditional “point of view of a “soldier” trying to choose the best behavior in the face of an enemy who does not ask questions about the causes and ultimate goals of conflicts.” This is achieved by other approaches and, in particular, those that are used within the framework of such a direction as “conflict studies”.

Central to this direction are precisely those questions that are not raised within the framework of “strategic research” - that is, questions related, first of all, to elucidating the origin and types of international conflicts. However, there are discrepancies for each of them.

Thus, on the issue of the origin of international conflicts, two positions can be distinguished. Within the framework of one of them, international conflicts are explained by reasons related to the nature of the structure of the international system. Supporters of the second tend to take them out of context, that is, the internal environment of the system of interstate relations.

J. Galtung, for example, who proposed the “structural theory of aggression”, considers the cause of international conflicts to be an imbalance of criteria that make it possible to judge the place that a given state occupies in the international system, when its high position in this system, in accordance with some criteria, is accompanied by insufficient or disproportionately inferior position in some other respect.

“The emergence of aggression,” states Galtung, “is most likely in a situation of structural imbalance.” This also applies to the global international system with the “structural oppression” observed within its framework, when industrialized states, by virtue of the very peculiarities of the functioning of their inherent type of economy, act as oppressors and exploiters of underdeveloped countries. However, the mere presence of structural imbalance does not mean that the conflicts arising from it will necessarily reach their highest level - military confrontation. The latter becomes most likely under two conditions: firstly, when violence becomes an integral and habitual feature of social life; secondly, when all other means of restoring the disturbed balance have been exhausted.

Another type of “structural” approach to the question of the origin of international conflict is the desire to combine the analysis of three levels proposed by K. Waltz - the individual, the state and the international system. At the first level, the study of the causes of international conflict involves the study of the natural nature of man and his psychology - primarily the characteristics of the psychological appearance of statesmen (reflected, for example, in theories of instincts, frustration, aggression, etc.). The second examines the determinants and factors associated with the geopolitical position of states, as well as the specifics of the prevailing political regimes and socio-economic structures in them. Structural ideas about the origin of international conflicts can also include the views on their character and nature that were dominant in Soviet literature. The origin of the conflicts was explained by the heterogeneity of the global international system with its inherent division into the world capitalist system, world socialism and developing countries, among which, in turn, processes of demarcation on a class basis were seen. The causes of conflicts, their main source, were derived from the aggressive nature of imperialism.

Essentially, within the framework of this area we are talking about a wide range of issues related to the search for a settlement of international conflicts. When studying modern international conflicts and ways to resolve them, it is necessary to take into account the processes occurring in the modern world. One such process is globalization, which undoubtedly has a huge impact on international conflicts and their nature. As Dovzhenko M.V. points out. After considering the process of globalization, several global trends“directly affecting the specifics of modern international conflicts” Firstly, one of these trends can be called the blurring of the boundaries between domestic and foreign policy. In relation to conflict, this may mean that today the boundaries between internal and international conflicts are largely blurred.

The reasons for this include the fact that the conflict in the modern world, having arisen as an internal conflict, becomes international as a result of its expansion. Other participants join in and it transcends national boundaries. But even if it doesn't come to that, internal conflict tends to impact neighboring countries, including through refugees crossing borders. In other cases, an internal conflict may, while remaining essentially internal, acquire an international dimension due to the participation of representatives of other countries in it. In addition, some internal conflicts turn into international ones as a result of the presence of foreign troops in the conflict country, and often their direct intervention. Moreover, in last years mediators from third countries and representatives of international organizations, which also gives internal conflicts international flavor

Secondly, democratization of both international relations and domestic political processes can be named as another global political trend. The influence of this trend on the specifics of modern conflicts can be expressed in the fact that today there are a number of countries with parliamentary forms of government, in which not only interethnic and territorial problems have not been resolved, but their actualization is also observed. In other words, a situation is being created where not all states affected by this trend are today able to solve the problem of the need to achieve national unity (including the issue of territorial borders) and national identity through negotiated (i.e., democratic) means. As Dovzhenko points out, in such cases, “special attention should be paid to the problem of the need to achieve national unity (including the issue of territorial borders) and national identity as a prerequisite for democratization. Obviously, this process is very difficult, so in reality we often witness the rise of nationalism and the activity of nationalist movements due to the presence of acute national differences and contradictions in different regions peace"

The trend of democratization today is also associated with such a phenomenon as world development and dissemination of the latest systems mass communication, and most importantly - their accessibility for any citizen of a modern democratic society. This leads to the fact that international relations and foreign policy cease to be the province of a narrow group of special government departments, becoming the property of a collection of a wide variety of institutions, both governmental and independent, of both a political and non-political nature.

As a result, the circle of direct participants in modern political relations today is significantly expanding. And this is often seen as another global political trend. The increased number of participants in international relations is becoming “a source of absolute randomness in this area.” What is observed in international relations today is a transition from a situation of risk characteristic of the Cold War period to a situation of doubt. Since often the behavior of new actors (such as religious movements, TNCs, political associations), capable of directly influencing the course of events without regard to national governments, is unpredictable and not always clear. As a result, great uncertainty has now been introduced into the IR system, generated by an extremely wide range of interests, aspirations and goals

Such active participation of non-state actors in modern conflicts reveals another feature of them. These conflicts pose particular difficulties in resolving them through traditional means of diplomacy, which include formal negotiations and mediation procedures.

Manoilo A.V.

flickr.com/charlesfred

In modern international relations, political conflicts play a special role, acting, at the same time, as a special form of political interaction between actors in international relations and world politics, as a way of resolving contradictions and as a system that protects international relations from overheating, a “release of steam” valve aimed at preserving the existing systems of international relations (IR).

Just listing these functions allows us to conclude that modern conflicts are built into the defense system, carry a significant functional load in it and create conditions not only for destruction, but also for the development of the defense system, including along the path of modernization and progress.

In the theory of international relations political conflict is defined as a clash of two or more divergent political forces regarding power and the implementation of political governance, due to the existence of objective contradictions in the development of the international relations system and caused by the presence of unresolved claims among the conflicting parties, mutually exclusive political interests and goals aimed at the sphere of international relations. Such conflicts are usually called international and separated from non-international (domestic political) conflicts, the goals, objects and subjects of which are completely limited by the framework political system one separate state.

Political conflicts affecting the basis of the world political system - nation states - are called political crises.Foreign political crises are caused by international contradictions and conflicts and affect several states at once, which remain the main participants in international relations and world politics in the modern world.

The object of political conflict, in the broadest sense, is power and power relations, in the nature of which lie the causes of political conflicts, including in the system of international relations. In a narrower sense, the object of political conflict can be both the system of political power (at the global, regional and national-state level), as well as its individual components and structures. At the international level, such a system is the system of international relations itself and its upper institutional superstructure, represented by international organizations (such as the UN) and military-political alliances at the global and regional levels.

The subject of political conflict in international relations is the contradictions that arise as a result of the exercise by various actors of international relations of the functions of political leadership of the system of international relations and management of the world political process.

For direct participants in a political conflict, these contradictions may lie in the plane of divergence of interests, values ​​or identification (associated with claims that arise when society is divided into “us” and “strangers” on a certain basis). According to this criterion, political conflicts are usually divided into “conflicts of interest”, “conflicts of values” and “conflicts of identification”.

In the system of international relations main purpose of political conflict is expressed in identifying and concretizing existing objective contradictions in the development of the system of international relations and the world political process at the present stage, attracting the attention of political forces to existing contradictions, as well as in developing effective ways, methods and tools for resolving these contradictions. All this is achieved as a result of coordinated interaction in the conflict of all parties involved in it, including external observers and mediators.

Moreover, each of the parties involved in an international conflict pursues its own goal: the warring parties - their own, mediators, arbitrators, agents international institutions and organizations - their own. Sometimes they coincide, often they diverge.

Political conflict is associated with the activities of institutionalized social groups aimed at the system of power relations. In the system of international relations, the role of such groups is played by states, their alliances and coalitions, as well as international organizations. In world politics, they are also supplemented by non-state actors in international relations, “actors outside of sovereignty”: transnational corporations, international non-governmental organizations and foundations, national and religious movements, cross-border political parties (such as the Comintern, BAath), etc. They act in international conflict in the role of subjects - an active party capable of creating a conflict situation and influencing the course and course of the international conflict depending on their interests.

The warring parties in an international conflict strive for the fullest possible realization of their own political interests and to acquire competitive advantages, using the opportunities provided by the very format of conflict interaction: the special nature of the processes of acquisition, redistribution and use of political power in the global political process; mastering leading (key) positions in international power structures and institutions; acquiring the right to influence or access to making international decisions on the redistribution of power and material resources on a global scale.

Mediators generally strive to direct an international conflict towards its peaceful settlement and resolution, using the possibilities of mediation and the international negotiation process. However, this does not exclude the pursuit by mediators in a conflict of their own goals, the search for benefits arising from the mediator’s ability to influence the warring parties and, thereby, control their political behavior.

Conflict in international relations has its own structure, which is understood as a set of stable connections of the conflict that ensure its integrity as a system of political interaction of the parties involved in it.

The structure of political conflict in the field of international relations includes: conflict relations; contradictions underlying the conflict; reasons for the conflict; participants in the conflict; object and subject of conflict.

Conflict relationships- this is the form and content of interaction between subjects, their actions aimed at further escalation or resolution of the political conflict, both by peaceful and military means. In international relations, interaction between conflicting parties can be built both within the framework of generally accepted international procedures, and in violation of them. In some cases - when international organizations performing peacekeeping functions intervene in a conflict - conflict interaction can develop in conditions of forcing the conflicting parties to a special format of relations associated with one of the four main types of UN peacekeeping operations.

Conflicts in international relations- these are the main points of disagreement between the subjects of an international conflict and the content of mutual claims against each other, reflecting the nature of the collision of their multidirectional political interests, aspirations, needs, and ambitions. In international conflicts, all of the above categories - interests, aspirations, ambitions, etc. - can become a concentrated expression of the will of both the state as a whole and its individual leaders, who, due to various circumstances, have received the right to individually decide the fate of the country. In this case, at certain periods of time, the private interests of individual leaders can replace the interests of the national state. A typical example of such a substitution of interests is the policy of N. Sarkozy and D. Cameron, who, thanks to their ambitions, pushed their countries into an armed conflict with Libya, which almost turned into a major military defeat for them. In world politics, these contradictions may be supplemented by the divergence of interests of non-state participants in international relations, which, as a rule, lie outside the framework of national states alone. Entering into conflicting relationships, these actors view sovereignty and territorial integrity as abstract and largely outdated concepts that are still retained in the sphere of world politics due to established traditions, which, nevertheless, still have to be taken into account.

Causes of the conflict in the field of international relations and world politics, these are the conditions that lead to the aggravation of existing political contradictions between participants in international relations (both state and non-state), to resolve which the parties are forced to enter into conflicting relations with each other. The causes of conflicts reveal themselves in specific conflict situations, the elimination of which is a necessary condition for resolving conflicts, including in the sphere of international relations and world politics. Participants in a conflict are often called parties or opposing forces. These are those subjects of the conflict who directly carry out active (offensive or defensive) actions against each other.

In international conflict warring parties- key link. Their set is not always constant and can change over the course of the conflict, both quantitatively and qualitatively: some of its participants may leave the conflict, satisfied with intermediate results, partial resolution of the initial contradictions and the achievement of important agreements and competitive advantages in relation to other participants in the global political process; others may continue to fight not independently, but as part of international alliances and coalitions; still others, clearly not calculating their strength, may leave the ranks of the participants, temporarily giving up the fight, etc. In addition to the actual warring parties - direct participants in the conflict - the so-called take part in an international conflict. indirect participants, the spectrum of which is quite wide: these include mediators, arbitrators, observers, agents, etc. Each of them performs its own function in an international conflict and pursues its own goals, sometimes coinciding with the general ones.

Based on the peculiarities of the emergence and dynamics of the development of a political conflict in the sphere of international relations and world politics, it is generally accepted to consider it consisting of five stages:

• the preliminary stage, during which the accumulation of contradictions occurs and the formation of the parties’ attitudes towards possible methods and means of resolving them;
• the preparatory stage, during which tensions increase and mutual relations become aggravated among potential participants, including those related to the subjects of dispute. At this stage, mutual claims are put forward, often of an ultimatum nature;
• initiation of a conflict, as a result of which the relations of the parties move into the format of conflict relations. To initiate a conflict, as a rule, a formal reason is required - an international incident;
• the stage of conflict interaction (the stage of the international conflict itself), during which the parties seek to resolve the contradictions that exist between them on their own terms, that is, to impose these conditions on their rivals by force;
• the stage of conflict resolution or resolution into which the conflict may move as a result of:
• finding a mutually acceptable resolution of existing contradictions;
• achieving a compromise that to a certain extent satisfies the interests of all conflicting parties;
• forceful suppression of the conflict carried out by the victorious side (if it achieves undisputed superiority over other parties to the conflict) or through the efforts of the international community (“peace enforcement”);
• the natural fading of the conflict, caused by its complete waste of its potential, as well as the finite resources of the conflicting parties and the inability on their part to continue further struggle. In this case, the conflict, without resolving the contradictions that became its cause, nevertheless passes into a state of temporary settlement - into a “frozen” phase;
• stage of post-conflict peacebuilding in which the relationship between former participants conflicts acquire a new character and content.

IN preliminary stage there is an accumulation of contradictions, clarification of the positions of the parties, consolidation of potential and existing allies, hidden accumulation of forces and resources necessary to participate in a future conflict. At this stage, intervention in the development of the conflict by external parties - mediators, negotiators, arbitrators, peacemakers - almost always allows a real conflict to be avoided.

It is in the preliminary stage that what can be characterized by the term “conflict situation” develops between future participants in an international conflict. A conflict situation is considered to be a set of circumstances that contains the prerequisites for the emergence of a conflict: these are accumulated contradictions associated with the activities of rival parties and create the ground for real confrontation in the sphere of international relations. A conflict situation can develop objectively, regardless of the will and desire of potential warring parties, or it can be caused or created by one or even several parties. Each situation has an objective content (it is determined by the international events that actually occur) and a subjective meaning (it depends on the interpretation of these events given by each side), in accordance with which the subject begins to take real actions in the conflict. A subjective reflection of a conflict situation does not necessarily correspond to the actual state of international relations or world political processes. Awareness of conflict always carries elements of subjectivity and is therefore distorted to a certain extent.

IN preparatory stage In the course of an international conflict, division (differentiation) and gradual polarization of the parties occur, contradictions intensify, and the parties cease to accept each other’s arguments. They are actively building up their power potential, searching for and attracting allies to their side, and neutralizing possible allies from their rivals. At this stage, the form of expression of contradictions between the conflicting parties takes the form of mutual claims, ultimatums, and threats. An “enemy image” and an attitude to fight it are formed. However, at this stage the conflict can still be avoided, since, even consciously going to aggravate the situation, neither side is yet ready to use force first. Therefore, even the most aggressive actions of the conflicting parties in the preparatory stage are mainly of a demonstrative nature, with the goal of intimidating rivals even before it begins and forcing them to accept the conditions put forward by the opposite side.

Initiation of conflict- this is a stage of its development during which there is a final loss of mutual understanding between the conflicting parties and, as a consequence, a conscious rejection of peaceful means of resolving existing contradictions, generally accepted international procedures for conflict resolution, mediation of international organizations, and a transition to methods of forceful coercion. Required condition The initiation of a conflict in the sphere of international relations is an international incident - a formal occasion that becomes a signal for all parties in the confrontation to begin military action. An incident can occur by accident, be the result of the natural course of events, or be provoked by the subject(s) of the conflict or a third party pursuing its own goals in the conflict.

During conflict interaction there is actually a clash between the conflicting parties regarding power and the implementation of political leadership in the system of international relations, which can acquire sharp forms(for example, a form of armed conflict), affect interests and involve new participants in the conflict. In an international conflict, there may be several such clashes, of varying intensity, with periods of relative calm and a temporary decline in the activity of the conflicting parties between them; Each of these clashes has a chance to lead the conflict to a political “denouement.”

The highest point of conflict escalation corresponds to its special state (phase), called climax. “At its climax, the conflict reaches such an intensity that it becomes clear to all its participants that it should no longer be continued. The culmination directly brings the parties to the realization of the need to interrupt both the further deterioration of relations and the intensification of hostile actions and look for a way out of the conflict.”

In progress settlement or resolution of an international conflict the completion of its open phase - the direct collision of MO actors - occurs. The conflict can move into this stage naturally - if the conflicting parties have resolved existing contradictions or come to a compromise that suits all parties to the conflict - or it can be forced to this by external or internal circumstances. External circumstances here include the intervention of a third party, for example, peacekeepers who separated the conflicting parties and forced them to peace, or the forceful intervention in the conflict of a new international actor who managed to subordinate other parties to the conflict to his interests. Internal reasons include the unconditional victory in the conflict of one of the parties, turning from a rival into a dictator, or the extinction of an international conflict associated with the depletion of all its participants of the forces and resources necessary to continue it.

There are also mixed reasons that combine internal and external factors: Thus, in 1991, during Operation Desert Storm, the United States was forced to stop the offensive on Baghdad and temporarily abandon the destruction of the Saddam Hussein regime due to the fact that a Shiite uprising broke out in Iraq, which threatened to sweep away the political regime of the Sunni minority and take power into your own hands. For the United States, this outcome did not bode well: the Shiites coming to power in Iraq automatically made the country an ally of Iran. That is why Operation Desert Storm was never completed with the final defeat of Saddam Hussein’s military power and the overthrow of the dictatorial regime: the United States withdrew its troops, giving Saddam Hussein the opportunity to brutally suppress the Shiite uprising.

Political conflicts in the sphere of international relations and world politics vary markedly in scale and intensity. The most significant and dangerous of them are conflicts that cover all levels of the system of international relations and affect the fundamental foundations of international security. At the same time, one can also observe conflicts that do not disrupt the natural process of international integration and contain positive development potential. They can be seen as signals indicating the need to improve or change the world political system.
From here follow two most important constructive functions of international conflict in the global political process: signaling and modernization.

Signal function allows you to promptly identify and specify contradictions in the development of the system of international relations and during the global political process, which, in turn, makes it possible to quickly respond to them, promptly eliminate or resolve them.

Upgrade function international conflicts is that it is during the most acute and intense conflict interaction that new norms of political behavior are developed, which not only allow these conflicts to be avoided in the future, but also significantly change the existing ideas about the system of international relations and the role of international institutions in it, about its structure and functions; new political concepts born in conflicts become the basis for the development of political development paradigms and tools for the political modernization of the international community itself and its political superstructure.

This emphasizes the fact that political conflict in international relations and world politics not only has a destructive function, it also contains a mechanism for stabilizing the existing system of international relations. Contradictions and conflicts act as the driving force of world development. Therefore, conflict relations in international relations and world politics themselves cannot be considered as an exclusively negative phenomenon. The starting point for such a change in views on conflict was L. Coser’s classic work “Functions of Social Conflict”, in which he identified the constructive functions of social conflict, which manifest themselves, among other things, in international relations.

On the contrary, the negative functions and manifestations of conflict include:

• destabilization and chaos of the system of international relations;
• discrediting political opponents (states and their leaders);
• destruction and devaluation of values, moral and moral foundations of society;
• destruction of the foundations of the existing world order.

Political conflicts of low intensity play a positive role in the system of international relations, performing a feedback function, since their very occurrence means for decision-making centers a signal about an urgent problem that requires an appropriate international response. At the same time, “with insufficient attention to the regulation of low-intensity conflicts, escalation of conflicts can occur, growing to a scale that can cause political destabilization.”

One of the key and fundamental issues in the classification of modern political conflicts is their fundamental division into international And non-international(domestic political). Despite the apparent simplicity of the task, a unified approach to dividing political conflicts into the two indicated categories has not yet been developed.

Modern ideas about political conflict in international relations and world politics are the result of a long evolution of ideas and ideas about conflicts in various spheres of activity of the individual and society. General conflictology is based on two premises about the nature of conflicts occurring in society:

• the theory of “initial conflict” (M. Weber, R. Dahrendorf), which believes that conflicts are inherent, inevitable, immanent in society, they cannot be prevented, their negative consequences can only be mitigated;
• the theory of “derived conflict” (T. Parsons, E. Durheim) supporters of the systems approach, who believe that conflicts in society, including in the international community, arise as a result of uncoordinated actions of its participants.

According to one of the founders of the theory of “initial conflict” R. Dahrendorf, who developed "conflict model of society", conflict is omnipresent and permeates all spheres of society. The main structural changes in society occur under the influence of conflicts that arise due to the inequality of people's social positions in relation to power. L. Coser, the author of the concept of positive functional conflict, believed that society is always characterized by inequality and psychological dissatisfaction of its members. This leads to tension that results in conflict. In his opinion, conflicts (including international ones) are a product of internal changes in society, the result of the interaction of various elements of the world social system. According to the author of the “general theory of conflict” K. Boulding, international conflict is inseparable from social life: the desire to fight against one’s own kind, to escalate violence lies in human nature, the essence of the conflict lies in its stereotypical reactions. In this regard, Boulding believes that conflict can be overcome and resolved by manipulating the values, drives, and reactions of individuals, without resorting to a radical change in the existing social system.

In contrast to the supporters of the theory of “initial conflict”, in order to maintain stability in the world community, supporters of the “theory of derivative conflict” and the Chicago and industrial schools of sociology close to it proposed to establish mutual understanding and cooperation between various elements of society, harmonize the relations of social groups, and also develop methods collision resolution. In their opinion, the integrity of society is determined by the agreement of the majority of its members to follow a single system of values, a common mentality, and the function of social integration is embodied in legal institutions, customs and religion.

Various researchers identify typologies of international conflicts depending on what is taken as the basis for classification. There are typologies of conflict that base their classification on the causes of conflict (typologies of role conflicts), focusing on the individual psychological characteristics of the behavior of its participants; typologies based on differentiation of the consequences of conflict, distinguishing “integrative” (constructive) and “destructive” (destructive) types (M. Deutsch); typologies based on the nature of conflict interaction, etc. There are also typologies of conflict based on the levels of analysis of conflict phenomena, put forward as general methodological grounds for the study of conflict phenomena: socio-psychological, sociological, semantic (J. Bernard); types of struggle, games, debates (A. Rappoport), completely unstructured, partially structured, fully structured (normative) and revolutionary conflicts (F. Brickman).

The most common method of conflict typology in political sociology and political psychology is based on the criteria "participant type"(individuals, groups) and "type of structural relations"(belonging of a conflict participant to a particular political system or his relative independence from it). The most compact typology of conflict according to the criteria of “type of participant” and “type of structural relations” was proposed by J. Galtung: intrapersonal, interpersonal, intranational and international. The most accurate typology of this kind was given by M. Deutsch, who distinguished the participants according to the level of structure - individual, group and nation; by type of relationship - intra- and intersystem levels. In his view, the typology of conflicts should include: intra- and interpersonal (individual psychological level), intra- and intergroup (socio-psychological level), intranational and international (social and political level) types of conflicts.

From the point of view of conflict resolution, their typology is important depending on the structure of interests of the parties: whether they are practically opposite (zero-sum conflicts) or mixed (non-zero-sum conflicts).

Widespread in the West methodology of level analysis of political conflicts by K. Waltz, in which it is given great importance personal, subjective psychological factor. According to K. Waltz, all the diversity of ideas about their causes can be reduced to three levels:

• the causes of political conflicts of the first level lie in human nature and behavior;
• the causes of political conflicts of the second level are related to the internal nature of states;
• The causes of third-level political conflicts are related to the behavior and policies of other states.

However, modern conflicts often do not fit into known typologies, since the same conflicts are “multidimensional and contain not one, but several crises and contradictions, unique in nature.” That is why in most modern conflicts there is a combination of not one, but several types at once, which makes their resolution even more difficult.

The most general approach to dividing conflicts into international and non-international is based on the following assumption: it is considered that a conflict is international if at least two actors of international relations are present among its participants. In this approach, the composition of the parties to the conflict is chosen as the criterion for separation.

Another approach allows for the possibility that a conflict becomes international if its escalation poses a threat to international security and stability of the entire world community as a whole or a significant part of it. In this case, the level of international danger of the conflict or the degree of potential threat to the vital interests of the world community is chosen as the criterion for separation.

Finally, the third approach proceeds from the fact that a conflict can be considered international if its object is the system of international relations itself, and the actions of the participants in the conflict are aimed at changing it by force, bypassing existing international procedures and customs.

It should be noted that none of the above approaches is not universal and does not give obviously reliable results. Thus, when dividing conflicts into international and domestic political ones according to the composition of the participants, the question remains open of how to deal with “rebellious provinces” in the conditions civil war- in the event that the conflict develops between the state and one of its subjects, which raises an anti-government armed rebellion. In practice, the task of determining the status of a conflict and classifying it into one of two categories is solved not on the basis of various criteria, but as a result of an agreement between the world's leading actors pursuing their own interests in the conflict.

A typical example of such a conflict, which carries within itself distinctive features and signs of both international and domestic political conflict are modern color revolutions. In world politics, the technology of color revolutions is one of the types of modern technologies for information and psychological management of international conflicts. For their successful implementation, the country must be in a state of political instability: there must be a crisis of power, even better if one or more local armed conflicts develop within the country or the country is drawn into one major international conflict. That is, there must be an object of influence - a political conflict in any phase of development. If the government is stable and there is no conflict as such, it must first be created.

Color revolutions is a technology for carrying out coups d'état and external control of the political situation in the country in conditions of artificially created political instability, involving the use of the youth protest movement as the main instrument of political blackmail of the current government.

Modern color revolutions are distinguished by a high degree of technology and an almost theatrical level of dramaturgy, the purpose of which is to pass off everything that happens as a spontaneous and spontaneous manifestation of the will of the people, who suddenly decided to regain the right to rule their own country. Despite the significant differences between the states in which they break out (in geopolitical, social, economic terms and international position), they all fit into the same organizational scheme, which involves organizing a youth protest movement according to the template, transforming it into a political crowd and the use of this force against the current government as an instrument of political blackmail.

Technologies of color revolutions are constantly evolving: so, if back in the early 2000s. the goal of color revolutions was to organize a coup d'etat in a single country (Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, etc.), but now the goal of color revolutions is to control political regimes on the scale of entire regions - the entire Middle East, all of Central Asia, all of North Africa and etc. The scale and danger of color revolution technologies is constantly increasing, new ways and techniques of influencing traditional societies East.

The latest example of an evolutionary breakthrough in Anglo-Saxon technologies for organizing color revolutions is color revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa (December 2010 - present), better known collectively as the “Arab Spring revolutions”, in which the classic technologies of “soft power” and the formation of a political crowd were supplemented with the technologies of “controlled chaos” - for the “atomization” of traditional Eastern societies in order to free their members from the protection provided by these societies and make them more susceptible to external control influences - and a special iterative scheme that allows for a rapid change of objects of influence (with the sequential repetition of the same patterns of revolutions in states belonging to the same cultural civilization community) to form an effective feedback mechanism designed to track errors, miscalculations and discrepancies and their timely elimination, making the technology itself more and more advanced during the transition from one color revolution to another. Having undergone such a run-in Arab countries Africa and the Middle East, especially in the context of the Syrian revolution, these technologies will reach a level of perfection that will allow them to be applied to the most complex and stable object - Iran.

The Western political tradition has its own classification of conflicts, based on the views of the leading schools of American political thought: realism (including its newest trends), liberalism (also including its newest trends) and constructivism. Representatives of all these schools agree that unresolved fundamental contradictions lie at the heart of conflicts, but at the same time they demonstrate significant differences in views on what exactly factors give rise to these contradictions.

Representatives of the school of political realism argue that conflicts are based on discrepancy between the national interests of its participants. The desire of various actors to build a system of national interests of other participants in international relations in accordance with their own foreign policy vector generates tension, which then results in a special form of conflict interaction, called “clash of interests.” Conflicts that arise as a result of such a clash of multidirectional political forces are called “conflicts of interest.”

Representatives of the school of political liberalism believe that the basis of modern political conflicts is the discrepancy between the values ​​borne by its participants. Differences in the value systems of the parties to the conflict, their sometimes complete incompatibility and the desire of individual actors to impose their political values ​​on other participants in international relations, mainly by force, give rise to a new form of conflict interaction, known as “clash of values.” Conflicts arising as a result of such a clash of political values ​​and ideologies, generated by fundamental differences in the worldview concepts and doctrines of various civilizations (Anglo-Saxon, Romano-Germanic, East Asian, Middle Eastern, etc.), are called “conflicts of interest.”

Representatives of the relatively young school of political constructivism agree with neoliberals that the basis of modern political conflicts is the discrepancy of values, but at the same time they argue that values ​​themselves are not something immutable and civilizationally given, but can be constructed from any ideological material, on the basis of any cultural and civilizational platform, including for solving specific foreign policy problems. As a result, in a real conflict, the determining factor for the positions of its participants is not adherence to certain sets of values, but with what values ​​a particular participant in the conflict relates (identifies) himself and his foreign policy at a given specific point in time. According to constructivists, there are a great many such sets of values ​​and various participants in conflicts can change or modify them depending on the specific political situation. Even ethnicity in constructivism is presented as “a process of social construction of imaginary communities based on the belief that they are united by natural and even natural ties, a single type of culture and the idea or myth of a common origin and a common history. The extent to which these characteristics are combined into a single whole, called ethnicity, depends on many social factors, and above all from the demand for ethnicity generated by the era and individuals.”

Differences in the self-identification of political actors give rise to claims related to the division of society into “us” and “strangers” on the basis of belonging to a particular ethnic group, clan, clan, diaspora, language group, religious denomination, etc., which, in the opinion of constructivists, the basis of modern political conflicts. Such conflicts are called “identification conflicts.”

Anglo-Saxon classification of political conflicts, dividing them into three main categories - conflicts of interests, values ​​and identification - at first glance, seems simplified and schematic. However, it really works and allows us to understand the nature of the processes underlying modern conflicts at various levels of their development.

Conflict management from the perspective of constructivism is nothing more than managing the group behavior of its participants, considering them as a social group in which the behavior of the members of this group is regulated by social laws. In modern sociology, group behavior is quite well studied: it is the inclusion (or getting) of an individual into a group that forces him to choose a certain role for himself, taking into account the roles of other members of this group, and then play it. Constructivists, with the provisions of their theory, emphasize that there is no difference in the laws of social role behavior in groups consisting of individual members of society, or in groups consisting of actors in international relations and world politics, even if these actors are nation-states: their role behavior in the composition of the group is determined by the well-known and well-studied laws of social interaction. The same applies to international conflicts: conflict interaction in them is built on the principles of intragroup social conflict. There is a clear transfer of schemes, theories, laws and practices of social interaction to the sphere of international relations.

Known various shapes role behavior in social groups: the role of a leader, the role of a subordinate, the role of an arbiter, etc.; the role of alpha, beta and gamma members of the community, etc. Despite the fact that the behavior of a free person outside the group can be anything or at least have many variations, within the group it always corresponds to one of the role schemes accepted in this group and cannot be arbitrary and variable: the number of such schemes is always finite, quantized, and represents a certain set. It is precisely this nature of social group behavior that allows these patterns (sets) to be so successfully isolated, defined and classified. Constructivists essentially take the same positions regarding the behavior of their actors: they call role patterns of social behavior in a group “cultures,” their theory of “cultural drift” (when an actor changes a pattern of role behavior, the actor chooses a new pattern from a finite set of already existing patterns of group behavior) is an interpretation of the social law of changing the role hierarchy of an individual within a social group, adapted to the field of international relations. At the same time, it is known that in social psychology all patterns of role behavior of individuals in a group, stratum or society are determined by cultural and civilizational affiliation.

Technologies psychological impact to conflicts, from the point of view of constructivists, these are technologies for managing the roles or role behavior of its participants within the group. Managing group behavior in international conflictology based on its social nature is certainly a progressive and innovative step that creates new opportunities for resolving existing and potential conflicts. Social technologies for managing the behavior of global political actors in a conflict environment open the way to the future; their importance in the formation of tools for peaceful conflict resolution is comparable only with the progress of technologies for managing the perception of conflicts - political marketing technologies.

American political constructivism in models of managing international conflicts, in fact, is a synthesis of neorealist and neoliberal approaches: leaning toward the idea of ​​the primacy of values ​​(liberal, democratic, etc.) promoted by liberals, it nevertheless allows for the construction of these values ​​based on a set of national interests that are prioritized by all representatives of the school of political realism.

The presence of two fundamental factors determining the foreign policy of a modern state - interests and values ​​- often leads to the fact that a conflict arises between adherents of realism and liberalism due to the fact that following only national interests or only values ​​in foreign policy presupposes two fundamentally different formats of its implementation. Thus, realists believe that foreign policy should be pragmatic and aimed at extracting specific benefits from interaction with other states, which must be taken into account only to the extent that it meets the national interests of one’s own country. For realists (including modern ones), the formula is true: “in foreign policy there are no allies and partners, there are only interests,” formulated by Winston Churchill.

On the contrary, liberals argue that foreign policy should be aimed at bringing together the ideological positions of various actors, which is achieved by exporting liberal values. States that accept liberal values ​​automatically become allies, partners, and then satellites of the leaders of the liberal world. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to forget for a while about extracting specific short-term benefits and direct your efforts to reforming the political systems and regimes of future allies on the world stage according to your own model, in accordance with liberal values ​​and democratic institutions.

US foreign policy towards other countries has been built for a long time in accordance with two dominant ideological concepts: political realism and political liberalism. Both concepts, supporting and developing the idea of ​​the global historical mission of the United States, called upon to become the center for managing the resources of the entire democratic world, nevertheless, noticeably diverge in the choice of the political trajectory of the US movement towards this goal, as well as in the choice of specific means, methods and instruments, necessary to achieve it.

The main differences between the schools of political realism and liberalism (including their latest modifications and trends) lie in the ideas about what exactly factors determine the foreign policy of the state at its basic, fundamental level. If realists view everything that happens through the prism of national interests, the coincidence of which gives rise to cooperation, and the intersection or collision - conflicts, then liberals put values ​​at the basis of the foreign policy of any state, arguing that the stability and viability of a political system directly depends on the persuasiveness of its value system, and political influence - from the ability to carry (export) these values ​​to the world. In this regard, for liberals, foreign policy appears to be a tool for disseminating these values ​​to other actors in international relations, and the discrepancy between the values ​​of various actors is the true cause of international conflicts.

The fact that adherents of the ideology of political realism are mainly representatives of the Republican Party, and the bearers of the ideas of political liberalism are mainly Democrats, leads to the fact that in the United States, with frequent changes of parties in power, the content also often changes foreign policy: the US political course, aimed at protecting national interests, suddenly forgets about them and begins to spread universal values, export democracy, build a global society based on the democratic principles of Anglo-Saxon civilization, etc. As a result of such sharp and unexpected (primarily for potential US allies and partners) turns, US foreign policy not only loses its attractiveness, but also creates the impression of its own instability, changeability and tendency to spontaneous, irrational actions. This variability in US foreign policy has already become the reason for its general ineffectiveness in various regions of the world, where the Americans had excellent chances to gain a strong and permanent foothold, but were unable to do so. This is exactly the picture that has emerged with the US presence in Central Asia: while the Americans were choosing between “interests” and “values”, radically changing their political course every three to four years, abandoning and again returning to already well-trodden schemes, they were slowly ousted from almost all occupied positions China advancing on the region. In this regard, US policy in Afghanistan is another typical example of a conflict of interests and values, as well as the general inconsistency and confusion generated by this conflict, associated with constant fluctuations in the choice between “national interests” and “universal values”, between a rational, pragmatic approach to the problem Afghanistan, based on the exploitation of its strategic resources, and an irrational-idealistic approach, striving to create another democratic society in Afghanistan.

Conflict in international relations is the interaction of two or more entities that pursue mutually exclusive goals through direct or indirect coercive measures.

Types of conflicts depend on the international situation of the parties to the conflict: there may be internal, interstate and internal internationalized conflicts. Interstate (international) conflicts are possible, which can be armed or unarmed; bilateral and multilateral; short-term and long-term; global, regional and local; ideological, economic, territorial, religious, etc. Depending on the realization of the interests of the parties, conflicts with a zero sum are distinguished (when one participant receives exactly as much as the other loses); conflicts with a positive sum (when both remain winners, because as a result of the conflict they strive to obtain and receive different benefits); conflicts with a negative sum (when, as a result of the conflict, both participants not only gain nothing, but also lose). We can distinguish symmetrical and asymmetrical conflicts depending on the amount of power of the participants.

Source international conflict is considered:

• 1) changing the balance of power of world powers (global disequilibrium);
• 2) changing the balance of power in the region (regional disequilibrium);
• 3) a conscious action of one or another actor in world politics, aimed at achieving unilateral long-term advantages that create real or imaginary threats to the vital interests of other subjects of international relations. The actions of subjects have an objective and subjective side.

Objective

• - interests;
• - role function and international prestige;
• - block obligations.

Subjective component of a conflict action:

• - self-understanding of the participants in the conflict;
• - emotional component (psychological image of the counterparty; archetypal symbols);
• - cognitive component; misperception.

When describing an international conflict, researchers identify structural elements: the source of the conflict, the object of the conflict, the parties to the conflict. Nod object of conflict understand different material assets and symbolic capital: territory, natural and human resources, economic objects, power, authority, prestige, etc. The object of the conflict manifests itself as a goal towards which the conflicting parties strive.

A conflict arises between two or more parties, which are basic or direct participants in the conflict. Along with the main ones, there are also indirect participants who do not take direct action in the conflict itself, but in one way or another win over one of the parties through political, economic methods, the provision of military and non-military equipment, etc. The formulation of a claim by a participant and proposals for solving the problem constitutes participant's position. A position can be tough if it is presented in the form of final and unambiguous demands and ultimatums that do not allow the counterparty to do anything other than agree to them. The position will be recognized soft, if it does not exclude mutually acceptable concessions. The differences in the positions of the parties are explained by differences in interests of the parties(conditions of their survival and existence) and purposes(ideas about the desired international status of counterparties). Thus, behind the external manifestations of the conflict, as well as behind the positions of their participants, there are contradictions in their interests and values.

International conflicts are a consequence of a violation of the structural equilibrium (balance of power) in the international system. Conventionally, several groups of international conflicts are distinguished: the so-called classic conflicts (for example, national liberation wars); territorial(for example, separation or accession individual territories); ^territorial(socio-economic, ideological, ethnic, religious, etc.).

The development of the conflict has a certain sequence (conflict phases).

First phase international conflict is a fundamental political attitude formed on the basis of certain objective and subjective contradictions and the corresponding economic, ideological, international legal, military-strategic, diplomatic relations regarding these contradictions, expressed in a more or less acute conflict form.

Second phase international conflict - a subjective determination by the direct parties to the conflict of their interests, goals, strategies and forms of struggle to resolve objective or subjective contradictions, taking into account their potential and possibilities of using peaceful and military means, using international alliances and obligations, assessing the general domestic and international situation. At this phase, the parties determine or partially implement a system of mutual practical actions that are in the nature of struggle or cooperation, in order to resolve the contradiction in the interests of one party or another or on the basis of a compromise between them.

Third phase international conflict consists in the use by the parties (with the subsequent complication of the system of political relations and actions of all direct and indirect participants in this conflict) of a fairly wide range of economic, political, ideological, psychological, moral, international legal, diplomatic and even military means (without using them, however, in the form of direct armed violence). We are also talking about the involvement in one form or another of other states directly in the struggle by the conflicting parties (individually, through military-political alliances, treaties, through the UN). It is possible to identify a whole chain of sequentially developing actions - “pressure on the counterparty” (Table 12.1).

Table 12.1

Actions of states before the start of a military conflict

Name actions
Claims	Official statements of concern regarding actions; exchange of notes
Accusations	Exchange of notes; recall of the ambassador for consultations
	Decrease in the level of diplomatic representation; warning about the seriousness of intentions; hostile propaganda
Show of force	Threat or use of boycott and embargo; severance of diplomatic relations; prohibition of contacts; military preparations; blockade of the counterparty's territory

Fourth phase international conflict is associated with an increase in the struggle to the most acute political level - an international political crisis. It can cover the relations of direct participants, the states of a given region, a number of regions, major world powers, involve the UN, and in some cases - become a global crisis, which will give the conflict unprecedented severity and the likelihood that military force will be used by one or more parties.

Fifth phase - an international armed conflict that begins with a limited conflict (limitations include objectives, territories, scale and level of hostilities, military means used, the number of allies and their global status). Military actions are violent actions of states using regular or irregular troops or mercenaries (volunteers):

• a) limited use of force (local conflict of low intensity and transience);
• b) full-scale conflict - war- violent actions of states using regular troops, accompanied by irreversible international legal consequences.

Then, under certain circumstances, it develops to a higher level of armed struggle using modern weapons and the possible involvement of allies by one or both sides. If we consider this phase of the international conflict in dynamics, then it is possible to distinguish a number of subphases that signify the escalation of military actions. Escalation of the conflict - a consistent increase in the intensity of bilateral or unilateral actions of states in time and space. It varies: according to the means used, the number of subjects, duration, and territory coverage. Escalation reduces participants' freedom of action, leaving them with fewer and fewer behavioral options to choose from. The most dangerous result is that the parties fall into an “escalation trap”, i.e. a situation where only the possibility of further escalation of the conflict remains.

Sixth phase of an international conflict is a settlement phase that involves gradual de-escalation, a reduction in the level of intensity, the intensification of diplomatic means, the identification of possible compromises, and clarification of the position. In this case, the resolution of the conflict is initiated by the parties to the conflict or is the result of pressure from other international actors: a world power, an international organization or the world community represented by the UN. All this requires the availability of material, military and moral resources.

IN settlement and prevention international conflicts are distinguished by traditional methods: negotiations, the use of third party services, the creation of commissions of investigation and reconciliation, and institutional methods: with the help of intergovernmental organizations, both peacefully and using force. The main directions for preventing interstate conflicts are: internationalization of the ripening conflict by the world community; international arbitration; reduction in the level of military confrontation (arms reduction), the action of regional international organizations.

There are several options settlement conflict: fading of the conflict (loss of motivation, reorientation of motives, depletion of resources, strength and capabilities); resolution through the activity of both parties (cooperation, compromise, concessions); settlement with the help of a third party; escalating into another conflict; victory of one of the parties. Thus, they highlight main strategies way out of the conflict: competition (imposing your decision); compromise (partial concessions); cooperation (constructive discussion of the problem); avoidance (avoidance of solving a problem); adaptation (voluntary refusal to fight). Strictly speaking, the ways out of the conflict are force pressure(direct in the form of armed conflict, war, terror, etc.) and structural(infringement of basic human needs, limitation of information, destruction of life-supporting infrastructure, etc.) and negotiation. The main problem of conflict resolution is that many conflicts, at best, only succeed manage(i.e. de-escalate them), and for some time. If it is possible to eliminate the causes of the conflict, then we can talk about conflict resolution.

Negotiation are a way of non-violent conflict resolution/resolution. They can be bilateral or multilateral, direct or indirect (with the involvement of a third party). The following are the main negotiation strategies: hard pressure, when each side only wants to win; mutual compromises - possible concessions taking into account the opponent’s strong and weak positions; protracted negotiations and unfair games, when the parties delay negotiations in order to gain time and gain one-sided benefits. Stages of international negotiations: recognition of the existence of a conflict; approval of procedural rules and regulations; identification of the main controversial issues; researching possible solutions to problems; searching for agreements on each issue; documentation of all agreements reached; fulfillment of all accepted mutual obligations.

The most acceptable form of resolving an international conflict is to achieve a balance of interests of its parties, which makes it possible in the future to eliminate the very cause of the conflict. If such a balance cannot be achieved or the interests of one of the parties are infringed due to military defeat, the conflict goes into a latent form and can intensify under favorable domestic and international conditions. In the process of conflict resolution, it is necessary to take into account the socio-cultural environment of each of the parties, as well as the level and nature of development of the system of international relations.

At any of the considered first five phases of an international conflict, an alternative, not escalating, but de-escalating course of development may begin, embodied in preliminary contacts and suspension of hostilities, negotiations on weakening or limiting this conflict. With such an alternative development, a weakening, “freezing” or elimination of this crisis or even a conflict may occur on the basis of reaching a compromise between the parties regarding the underlying contradiction. At the same time, at this phase, under certain conditions, a new cycle of evolutionary or explosive development of the conflict is possible, for example, from the peaceful to the armed phase, if the specific contradiction underlying it is not eliminated completely and for a sufficiently long period. The possible development of an international conflict is very difficult not only to resolve, but also to predict.

Questions and tasks for self-control

• 1. Offer your own understanding of the term “international conflict”.
• 2. List the sources of international conflict.
• 3. Name the options for classifying international conflicts.
• 4. What are the objective and subjective components of the conflict?
• 5. What characterizes the object of an international conflict?
• 6. Draw diagrammatically the stages of the emergence and development of an international conflict.
• 7. List the types (variants) of international armed conflict known to you.
• 8. What is the difference between the approaches of the main schools of international relations theory to the classification of wars?
• 9. What is meant by the resolution of an international conflict?
• 10. List the methods and forms of resolving international conflicts. Which of them would you classify as traditional and which as innovative?

• See: Deriglazova L.V. Asymmetric conflicts: an equation with many unknowns. Tomsk: Tomsk University Publishing House, 2009. P. 5.
• See: Fundamentals of the general theory of international relations: textbook, manual / edited by A. S. Manykina. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 2009. P. 458.
• There are well-established classifications of wars, used mainly by Marxists, realists or political idealists (liberals). Axiological classification is widely used. Marxism uses ideas about just and unjust wars. Its refined version is inherent in liberals, who distinguish between legitimate wars - justified by international law, waged by conventional means against armed forces to punish and disarm the aggressor or to protect human rights, and illegitimate ones - aggressive or punitive. Realists distinguish: 1) politically expedient and not (“spasmodic”, out of political control and driven by irrational motivation); 2) interventions and non-contact wars; 3) local, regional and global; 4) conducted with non-lethal weapons, with conventional weapons and ABC-conflict.
• Given the material, military, and moral resources, a world power can implement an “engagement strategy,” the goal of which is to turn a defeated enemy into a partner or ally. It is based on the “6R” principle: Reparation, Reconstruction, Retribution, Restoration justice, Reconciliation, Resolution.

A conflict is a clash of parties, opinions, forces; This is an extreme form of exacerbation of contradictions.

An international conflict is an extreme form of manifestation of contradictions between participants in international relations; it is a clash between them over values, statuses (positions), power, possession of rare resources, as well as over the prospects for their development. The goals pursued by each of the parties to the conflicts is to eliminate or weaken the opponent.

It is important to understand that conflicts arise, exist and develop with the emergence, existence and development human society. Therefore, it is necessary and important to find out the causes of international conflicts.

Among the main reasons causing and aggravating international conflicts at present are the following:

1. inequality of participants in international relations (primarily states) in terms of possession of territorial, material, natural, human, scientific, technical, production and other potentials (resources);

2. changing the balance of power on the world stage;

3. the formation of a special “polarity” in the world community: one-, two-, multi-polar world;

4. the presence and formation of new ethnic, religious, ideological movements and organizations.

These and other reasons predetermine the classification of international conflicts. Taking into account various criteria, the following types of conflicts are distinguished:

Depending on the means used, conflicts are divided into:

– power conflicts;

– non-violent conflicts:

Depending on the degree of violence used:

– military conflicts;

– conflicts based on terrorism, hostage taking.

Depending on the scale of the conflicts:

– local conflicts(within the state);

– regional conflicts (in certain regions);

– global conflicts (world).

Depending on the motives of the conflict:

– territorial conflicts;

– non-territorial conflicts (ideological, economic, political).

Of all the listed categories of conflicts, wars and other violent conflicts are the most dangerous for humanity. Therefore, it is extremely important to find means of preventing or resolving international conflicts.

The most important means resolution of international conflicts are negotiations between warring (conflicting) subjects of international relations, which may be preceded by consultations and the work of mediation missions.

The role and importance of negotiations in the system of international relations and in resolving international conflicts is currently increasing in comparison with others. This is due to the fact that:

2) negotiations have become a permanent and universal instrument of international relations;

3) negotiations are the main form of interaction between states, since they are accompanied by mandatory joint decision-making and since they actively influence the further reduction of the role of force, especially military methods of resolving issues;

4) the volume and number of international negotiations is increasing. Their objects are becoming more and more new areas of international relations (including ecology, socio-political processes, scientific and technical cooperation, etc.);

5) the role of international organizations is increasing, incl. non-governmental, public, as well as specialists who do not have diplomatic experience, but have significant competence in various fields) complex scientific, technical, economic, environmental, etc.);

6) a new “negotiation strategy” is being developed, which provides for the classification of subjects of international relations in accordance with their responsibilities; increasing the coordinating role of diplomatic services; a clearer identification of categories of value for each side of international relations; analysis of the relationship between the goals that subjects of international relations want to achieve and the means that they have and can use in resolving conflicts.

As a result of the use of various means and methods of resolving international conflicts, certain international agreements are concluded. These agreements are classified into the following groups:

– agreements reached as a result of the coincidence of opinions of all participants in negotiations (or conflicts);

– agreements concluded in accordance with legislative or moral principles international relations;

– agreements that one party imposes on the other party;

– agreements that state that the conflict has lost its relevance and has resolved itself.

To conclude the study of this topic, you should first of all understand that:

1. The most significant characteristics of the system of international relations are cooperation and conflict. There is an inextricable connection and interconnection between them. This is reflected in the fact that the processes international cooperation include conflicting elements. And conflicts presuppose and require a certain amount of cooperation.

2. With the development of the world community and world civilization, the relationships and nature of connections between these categories of international relations change. The role and importance of cooperative relations and the negotiation system as a means of resolving conflicts is increasing.

International conflict– collisions of political subjects in their mutual desire to realize their interests and goals, associated, first of all, with the achievement of power or its redistribution, as well as with changes in their political status.

Stages of the conflict: contradictions, dispute, crisis, confrontation, settlement.

Types of conflicts:

– number of parties involved (bilateral and multilateral conflicts);

– international legal status of the parties. interstate, in which all participants are subjects international law, and internal, in which only one has the status of a subject

– territorial coverage (local, regional and global conflicts);

– subject of dispute (territory, resources, spheres of influence);

– the presence of an ideological side (ethnic, religious, ideological);

– balance of interests of the parties. zero-sum conflicts, in which the interests of the parties are completely opposite and the gain of one of them is exactly equal to the loss of the other, and non-zero-sum conflicts, which do not have such a clear relationship.

– legality: conflicts permitted by law (anti-colonial, national liberation, defensive) and prohibited by it (aggressive, preventive wars);

– degree of use of force (terrorist acts, use of conventional weapons, limited or global nuclear war);

– the nature of the course: low-intensity conflicts (taking place in the form of mass terrorism, guerrilla wars against the ruling political elite, separatist-type movements, border conflicts over disputed territories) and high intensity (war level);

– participation of great powers (peripheral, intra-bloc, regional, world wars).

Conflict functions:

Positive: preventing stagnation in international relations; stimulating creativity in search of ways out of difficult situations; determining the degree of mismatch between the interests and goals of states; preventing larger conflicts and ensuring stability through the institutionalization of low-intensity conflicts.

Negative: cause disorder, instability and violence; increase the stressful state of the psyche of the population in the participating countries; cause unfavorable demographic processes; give rise to the possibility of ineffective political decisions.

Features of modern conflicts: internationalization of local and regional conflicts; expanding the composition and increasing diversity of participants in international conflicts; inequality of forces of the parties involved in the conflicts; increasing the severity of the consequences of conflicts for civilians; increasing difficulty in resolving conflicts through traditional diplomatic means.

Within the framework of political methods of conflict prevention and resolution, a distinction is made between traditional and institutional methods.

Traditional methods. The most common methods of conflict resolution are negotiation, the use of third parties, and mediation to help the parties reach an agreement. Hague Conventions 1899. took a step forward in this regard by creating commissions of inquiry with the aim of establishing the facts that could lie at the heart of the interstate conflict and be its cause. The method of reconciliation is characterized by the fact that elements of the dispute become the subject of proceedings by a mixed commission chaired by a “third party.”

Institutional procedures. UN member countries are obliged to use only peaceful means of settlement before any use of force. In accordance with the UN Charter, conflicting parties must first resort to one of the traditional conflict resolution procedures. the use of institutional mechanisms made it possible to give such mechanisms a collective character. Now it is not a representative of a “third” state who is trying to separate opponents, but an intergovernmental organization.

Resolution mechanisms now. in the context of the decreasing role of the nation-state, there is a decrease in the effectiveness of diplomatic methods of conflict resolution, the role of economic mechanisms and financial resources. Humanitarian operations are playing an increasingly prominent role in conflict resolution mechanisms. The role of the information element is growing.

The role of the military element in preventing, resolving conflicts and exercising control over them by the international community (UN) remains undisputed. Firstly, this is participation in military operations. The second task is formulated as providing assistance to the local civil administration and includes ensuring law and order in the peacekeeping zone. The third task is to provide humanitarian assistance to the population during natural disasters and support NGOs. The fourth task is related to the rescue of forcibly detained personnel and the evacuation of civilians.

peacekeeping operations:

1. Actually peacemaking (or establishing peace)- diplomatic efforts related to the organization of mediation and/or negotiations.

2. Keeping the Peace- non-combat operations carried out with the consent of the parties in order to implement the agreements reached.

3. Peace enforcement- combat operations or the threat of use of force to coerce or deter warring parties.

4. World building- activities carried out after the end of hostilities and aimed at restoring the economy and political stability in the conflict regions.

Problems: Low effectiveness of international conflict regulation. The gap between the military side of the operation and the political settlement led to a delay in the post-conflict peacebuilding process. Failure to comply with the principle of impartiality in conflict resolution. There are no clear legal criteria for determining when force can be used to achieve peace. Thus, operations of international armed intervention with the aim of enforcing peace cannot but be considered only as a last resort.

Regionalization in Moscow region

It is necessary to distinguish regionalization from regionalism: if regionalism, as a special strategy of regional elites and political parties, speaks of the intention to redistribute power, then regionalization describes the real process of its redistribution.

Regionalization- the process of redistribution of power competencies from the national to the regional level, the emergence and development of new institutional forms that meet new role regions in the decision-making process at the national and supranational levels. A clear example the regionalization process is the European Union.

An important milestone on the path to improving mechanisms for coordinating regional policies was the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. The central point in this context was the creation of the Committee of the Regions. The Committee of the Regions is an advisory body of the European Union. It includes representatives of local and regional authorities. In 2007, the European Commission prepared White paper about good governance. Much attention is paid to the creation of so-called European groups for cross-border cooperation. The natural development of the regionalization process in the European Union led to the development of the concept of a “Europe of Regions”, reflecting the increased importance of regions and aiming to determine their place in the EU. In the second half of the 90s, the European Union began developing the INTERREG initiative in order to develop interregional cooperation and stimulate the full participation of border regions in the European economy.

Birmingham pioneered the new architecture of regional paradiplomacy in 1984. The municipal council of this city then decided to open its representative office in Brussels. In 1985, offices of the German federal states opened in Brussels.

The role of factors in international relations is gradually shifting to the regions, in particular through the conclusion of framework international agreements on cooperation. There is such a thing as international marketing of a region.

To recognize an organization as regional it is necessary: ​​spatial unity of the member states; spatial limitation of goals, objectives and actions.

One of the features of the OSCE is its complex composition. Along with European states, the United States of America and Canada participated in the formation of the CSCE. From the standpoint of regional regulation, the features of NATO are contradictory. Formed in 1949, the bloc united both states North America, and Western Europe; and then South-Eastern Europe. The fate of NATO is closely linked to the state of the OSCE.

regional integration is a positive-sum game. a regional association stands out from the rest of the world and is isolated from it. regional integration is a conscious and voluntary process. integration covers the domestic and foreign policies of member states. regional integration covers many areas of public life. Typically, a regional grouping has common bodies and a regulatory framework. regional integration is based on the idea of ​​a common future destiny of its participants.

The most common definition interprets integration as the gradual merging of national markets and the formation on the basis of this integral economic complex, and then political union. Supporters of federalism believe that integration should lead to the creation of a superstate. In communication theory, integration is seen as a cohesive and safe community that shares common values. Neo-functionalists believe that integration is the process of forming a new community, beneficial for its members, with central authorities. regional integration is a model of conscious and active participation of a group of countries in the process of global stratification of the world. Her main common goal- creating the most successful stratum.

By regional conflicts we will understand conflicts that arise on the basis of contradictions that arise between individual states, coalitions of states, and cover large geographical and social spaces. Regional conflicts are directly related to global ones. Regional conflicts are based on contradictions in the spheres of economics, politics, religion and ideology, and they, as a rule, occur in line with national-ethnic and religious clashes. Regional conflicts differ in the composition of the subjects, which are administrative-territorial entities or ethnic groups within the state. Regional conflicts also differ in their areas of distribution and influence. Regional conflicts are protracted.

Currently, a fundamentally new quality of influence of regional processes on the global level of international relations is emerging. Regional processes can be presented as global or alternative to global ones.