Упрощенная HTML-версия
Электронное приложение к журналу «
Международная жизнь
»
Author : E. Solovyev
Sector Head, Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Candidate of Science (Political Sciences)
THROUGHOUT the last three decades, the system of interna-
tional relations has changed beyond recognition. Classical bipolarity
has become a fact of history while the world has become aware of
paradoxes of globalization and transformation of world politics.
On the one hand, the human community has become an indivisible
and interconnected whole. Globalization suggests cooperation in
the face of common problems; adoption of common norms and
rules of conduct in world politics; improvement of the old and
creation of new efficient international institutions.
In the course of bipolar confrontation, the United States was ac-
tively involved in building up a system of international norms best
suited to its interests and values. By the times the Berlin Wall col-
lapsed, the U.S. had already scored incredible victories: it legitimized and institutionalized its
claims to power and domination mainly by demonstrating the viability of its political and eco-
nomic model.
At all times, the dominating countries invariably insisted that the world needed a set of values
and norms of conduct. An explanation is simple: any leading power with inadequate legitimacy
invariably runs into active or passive opposition.
The United States and its closest allies have armed themselves with double standards; they act
ad hoc or by precedence in certain contexts as part of their world regulation model. It should
be said in all justice that they were the sole beneficiaries of the universal legal vagueness.
We can hardly expect that the Unites States and its political elite are or will be ready for rational
self-limitation and well-substantiated cooperative strategy.
Serious systemic risks are not far away. This explains why experts concentrate at discussions of
new interpretations of the concepts of sovereignty and new norms like the responsibility to pro-
tect.
The humanistic message of the "responsibility to protect" concept is obvious; its hidden political
motive is likewise clear. At the turn of the 21st century, the United States displayed a lot of en-
thusiasm since this concept offered a clear ethical and political justification of Washington's in-
terventionist practices in all corners of the world.
In the 21st century, however, when the gigantic scope of the coming changes in the system of
international relations has become clear, the abstract idea of sovereignty will remain a lodestar
in the world of politics for billions of people and a large number of politicians; this does not
mean that they have moved to "the wrong side of history."
Sovereignty Within the Polycentric World Order