Transformation of the State-Centric Model of the International Order in the 21st Century

Authors

  • Borys Humeniuk National Pedagogical Dragomanov University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31861/mhpi2021.43.9-21

Keywords:

state, nation, sovereignty, desovereignization, system of international relations, world order, globalization, participants of international relations

Abstract

It is proved that state and non-state participants of international relations create regional and global networks of interaction, which are developing dynamically. However, the destruction of national sovereignty on a global scale cannot be stated nowadays. It has been stated that the strengthening of the sovereignty of the world's leading states and its weakening in the periphery. Sovereignty in the countries of the world periphery was transformed, and political power was reconfigured precisely because of the growing dependence of peripheral states on transnational participants in international relations, international organizations, institutions and leading countries of the world. In contrast to peripheral countries, the countries of the “centre” have strong legitimate control over what happens in their territories. However, there is an increase in the powers of institutions of international governance, requirements and obligations of international law. This is especially true in the EU, where sovereign power is divided between international, national and local authorities, while the same trend can be seen in the activities of intergovernmental organizations such as the WTO. Global financial and economic crises and pandemics are forcing states to resort to protectionist measures, which has sparked a scientific debate on strengthening sovereignty and strengthening state borders. These arguments strengthen the positions of the representatives of the realistic paradigm and weaken the positions of the representatives of the liberal-idealist paradigm. Keywords: state, nation, sovereignty, desovereignization, system of international relations, world order, globalization, participants of international relations.

Author Biography

Borys Humeniuk, National Pedagogical Dragomanov University

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Chair of Public Administration and International Relations, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary

References

Holdstoun, Dzhek. (2009). Hdie iskat istochniki ekonomichieskoho rosta v nashem izmenchivom mirie? [From Rus.:Where to look for sources of economic growth in our volatile world?] Miezhdunarodnaia konfierientsiia “Vozvrashchieniie politekonomii : k analizu vozmozhnykh paramietrov mira poslie krizisa” [From Rus.: International conference “The return of political economy: to the analysis of possible parameters of the world after the crisis”]. Moskva, 11–12 sientiabria 2009. Stienohrafichieeskii otchiet, http://www.inop.ru/files/polit_ teor_st_1.doc.

Kaminskyi, Evhen (2008) Svit peremozhtsiv i peremozhenykh. Mizhnarodni vidnosyny i ukrainska perspektyva na pochatku ХХІ st. [From Ukr.: The world of winners and losers. International relations and the Ukrainian perspective at the beginning. XXI century]. Кyiv : Tsentr vilnoi presy.

Koppel, Olena (2009). Kontseptsii orhanizatsii mizhnarodnykh system [from Ukr.: Concepts of organization of international systems], Journal of International Relations of KNU, 37 : 4‒8. http://journals.iir.kiev.ua/index.php/knu/article/view/1979.

Matvieieva, Olena. (2015). Vyklyky natsionalnii derzhavi v umovakh hlobalizatsii [From Ukr.: Challenges to the nation state in the context of globalization.]. Zovnishni spravy [From Ukr.: Foreign Affairs]. 15 : 54-56.

Waltz, Kenneth. (2002). Cheloviek, hosudarstvo i voina: teorietichieskii analiz tieorii miezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii. Khriestomatiia [From Rus.: Man, state and war: a theoretical analysis of the theory of international relations. Reader]. P. A. Cygankov (ed). Moskva: Gardariki, 2002.

Fesenko, Mykola. (2012). Transformatsiia suverenitetu v umovakh hlobalizatsii [From Ukr.:Transformation of sovereignty in the context of globalization.]. Doslidzhennia svitovoi polityky [From Ukr.: Study of World Politics]. 4 (61) : 80-92.

Sherhin, Serhii (2008) Paradoksy i problemy hlobalizatsii [From Ukr.: Paradoxes and problems of globalization. Foreign Affairs UA. 5 : 42–46.

Cox, Robert. (1996). Global “perestroika”. Approaches to world order.Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 296–313.

Giddens, Antony. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity.Cambridge : Polity, 188 pр.

Hirst, Paul & Tohmpson, Graham. (1995). Globalization and the future of the nation state. Economy and society. London. 24 (3) : 408–442.

Kiljunen, K. (1999). Global governance. Helsinki : Inst. Of development studies, 218 p.

Mackinder H. (1982). Geography as an Aid to Statecraft. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 295 p.

McGrew, Antony. (1997). The Transformation of Democracy? Globalization and Territorial Democracy. Cambridge : Polity Press. 254 p.

Messner, Dirk. (2001). World society: structures and trends. External Publications in: Paul Kennedy / Dirk Messner / Franz Nuscheler (ed.), Global Trends and Global Governance, London. 22-64.

Ohmae, Kenitchy (1995). The end of the nation state: the rise of regional economies. London : Harper Collins. 214 p.

Reinecke, W. (1997). Global Public Policy. Foreign Affairs. Nov.-Dec., 127–140.

Rosenau, James. (1997). Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier.Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Rosenau, James (2006). The Study of World Politics. Volume 1 : theoretical and methodological challenges. London – New York : Routledge. 301 р.

Waltz, Kenneth. (1979). The Theory of International Politics. New York : Addison-Wesley. 251 p.

Downloads

Published

2021-06-15

How to Cite

Humeniuk, B. (2021). Transformation of the State-Centric Model of the International Order in the 21st Century. Modern Historical and Political Issues, (43), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.31861/mhpi2021.43.9-21