LONG-TERM FORECASTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONS BETWEEN LOCAL HUMAN CIVILIZATIONS: CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS
https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2016-4-49-209-217
Abstract
The article is the form of scientific report on the results of three year long project on methodology of long term forecasting the development of the system of international relations. The methodology is based on the following assumptions: input information is accurate and complete; international relations constitute a system, scenarios for different levels of international relations development are hierarchically interdependent; the speed of development is different on various levels of international relations; various national capabilities affect the development; elites affect international relations; civil society affect international relations. Based on this assumption the author builds the most probable scenario of intercivilizational relations which is military coercive interaction. The role of soft power will increase its share in the toolkit of the confrontational politics. To win in this confrontation it is necessary to review the current practices of strategic forecasting and planning and to rebuild the entire military organization of the Russian army. The principal condition for the victory is development of national human capital, as well as the formation of the national ideology.
About the Author
A. I. Podberezkin
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of Economics, professor of world and national history, director of the Center for Military and Political Studies of the Russian Foreign Ministry,
76 Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454
References
1. Zinoviev E.S. Rossiiskie interesy v sfere upravleniia internetom [Russia's interests in the field of Internet governance]. International processes. 2009. Vol. 7. No. 19. Pp. 101-108.
2. Korotkov A.V., Zinoviev E.S. Bezopasnost' kriticheskikh informatsionnykh infrastruktur v mezhdunarodnom gumanitarnom prave [Safety critical information infrastructures in international humanitarian law]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2011. No 4. Pp. 154-162.
3. Baumgartner J. C., Francia P. L., Morris J. S. A clash of civilizations? The influence of religion on public opinion of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Political Research Quarterly. Jun., 2008. Vol. 61, No. 2. Pp. 171-179.
4. Bettiza G. Civilizational Analysis in International Relations: Mapping the Field and Advancing a “Civilizational Politics” Line of Research. International Studies Review. 2014. Vol. 16. Pp. 1–28.
5. Casanova J. Cosmopolitanism, the clash of civilizations and multiple modernities. Current Sociology. 2011. Vol. 59. No. 2. Pp. 252-267.
6. Choucri N., Robinson T. W. (ed.). Forecasting in international relations: Theory, methods, problems, prospects. San Francisco : WH Freeman, 1978. 468 p.
7. Díez-Nicolás J. Two contradictory hypotheses on globalization: Societal convergence or civilization differentiation and clash. Comparative Sociology. 2002. Vol. 1. No. 3-4. Pp. 465-493.
8. Henderson E. A., Tucker R. Clear and present strangers: the clash of civilizations and international conflict. International Studies Quarterly. 2001. Vol. 45. No. 2. Pp. 317-338.
9. Inglehart R., Norris P. The true clash of civilizations. Foreign policy. November 4, 2009. Pp. 63-70.
10. Singer J. D. The level-of-analysis problem in international relations. World Politics. 1961. Vol. 14. №. 01. Pp. 77-92
Review
For citations:
Podberezkin A.I. LONG-TERM FORECASTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONS BETWEEN LOCAL HUMAN CIVILIZATIONS: CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2016;(4(49)):209-217. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2016-4-49-209-217
Views:
1134
Email this article 