print

Humanitarization of World Politics

Lebedeva M.M.,

MGIMO University. Moscow, Russia, mmlebedeva@gmail.com

elibrary_id: 250953 | ORCID: 0000-0003-4162-0807 | RESEARCHER_ID: C-2309-2013

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.04.07

Rubric: Theme of the Issue: Reflections on Civilizations, Multipolarity, and World Order

For citation:

Lebedeva M.M. Humanitarization of World Politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No. 4. P. 76-87. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.04.07

Abstract

The article introduces the concept of humanitarization of world politics by analogy with the idea of securitization proposed by representatives of the Copenhagen School of International Relations at the end of the twentieth century for the security sphere. The humanitarization of world politics is understood as a process that has become characteristic since the second half of the twentieth century and, especially intensively began to develop and manifest itself at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The humanitarization of world politics consists, firstly, in the rapid development of the social and humanitarian component, including the emergence of new subject areas in world politics, for example, the world political aspects of higher education. Secondly, the social and humanitarian component penetrates virtually all spheres of world politics. The article shows that the peculiarity of the socio-humanitarian component of world politics in the XXI century was not just the support of military, economic and other spheres, as it was previously. Social and humanitarian components are beginning to be incorporated into all areas of international relations and world politics. As a result, it turns out that certain activities that are not directly related to the social and humanitarian sphere cannot be carried out without this component. At the same time, the social and humanitarian impact is carried out both with the help of soft power and with the help of manipulation technologies, propaganda, etc. It is emphasized that the concept of humanitarization” of world politics is not identical to the concept of “humanization” of world politics. The article discusses the reasons for the increasing importance of the social and humanitarian components of world politics. It is shown that this is due to a number of reasons, including the increase in the value of human life, despite the presence of examples of a directly opposite nature. In addition, the use of military and economic resources in the world of the XXI century has its limitations. Finally, today as a result of the complexity of the modern world, there is a significant penetration of various spheres into each other. In connection with these reasons, the humanitarization of world politics presupposes both the possibility of humane actions and the use of social and humanitarian components in political interests. The article makes the assumption that in the future the importance of the social and humanitarian component of world politics will rise, which means that its humanitarization will increase. 

Keywords

Copenhagen School of international relations, world politics, social and humanitarian component, social and humanitarian technologies, fake news, humanitarization of world politics, soft power, manipulation in world politics.

 Full Text 

Bouckaert G., Galli D., Kuhlmann S., Reiter R., Hecke S.V. 2020. European Coronationalism? A Hot Spot Governing a Pandemic Crisis. – Public Administration Review. Vol. 80. No. 5. Р. 765-773. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13242

Burton J. 1969. Conflict and Communication: The Use of Controlled Communication in International Relations. London: Alden Press. 246 p.

Elshtain J.B. 1995. Women and War. University of Chicago Press. 301 р.

Fisher R., Ury W. 1978. International Mediation: A Working Guide. Cambridge, Mass.: A Harvard Negotiation Project Publication. 160 p.

Gelfert A. 2018. Fake News: A Definition. Informal Logic. Vol. 38. No. 1. P. 84-117. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i1.5068

Ikle F.Ch. 1976. How Nations Negotiate. New York: Harper & Row. 274 p.

Kelman H. 1972. The Problem-Solving Workshop in Conflict Resolution. – Communication in International Politics. Ed. by R.L. Merritt. Urbana: University Press. P. 168-204.

Melissen J. 2005. The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice. – The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. Ed. by J. Melissen. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 3-27.

Nye J. 1990. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books. 307 p.

Nye J. 2011. The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs. 235 p.

Onuf N. 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. 341 p.

Sil R., Katzenstein P. 2010. Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions. – Perspectives on Politics. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001179

Snow N. 2010. Public Diplomacy: New Dimensions and Implications. – Global Communication: Theories, Stakeholders and Trends. Ed. by T.L. McPhail. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. P. 84-102.

Strange S. 1989. Toward a Theory of Transnational Empire. – Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990’s. Ed. by E.-O. Czempiel, J.N. Rosenau. Lexington Books.

Tickner J.A. 1997. You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists. – International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 41. No. 4. Р. 611-632. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2478.00060

Waever O. 1995. Securitization and Desecuritization. – On Security. Ed. by R.D. Lipschutz. New York: Columbia University Press. P. 46-86.

Zaharna R.S. 2007. The Soft Power Differential: Network Communication and Mass Communication in Public Diplomacy. Hague Journal of Public Diplomacy. Р. 213-228.

Zartman I.W., Berman M.R. 1982. The Practical Negotiator. New Haven: Yale University Press. 250 p.

Alekseeva T.A. 2019. Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii kak politicheskaya filosofiya i nauka [The Theory of International Relations as Political Philosophy and Science]. Moscow: Aspeсt Press. 608 p. (In Russ.)

Bardin A.L., Sigachev M.I. 2019. Discourses of Development: Social and Humanitarian Aspects. – Analysis & Forecasting. Journal of IMEMO. No. 4. P. 24-41. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/afij-2019-4-24-41

Borovskii Yu.V. 2008. Politicization of the Global Energy Sector. – International Trends. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 19-28. (In Russ.)

Dolinskii A. 2011. A Discourse on Public Diplomacy. – International Trends. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 63-73. (in Russ.).

Dynkin A.A., Telegina E.A. 2020. The Shock of the Pandemic and the Post-Crisis World. – World Economy and International Relations. Vol. 64. No. 8. P. 5-16. (In Russ.)

Glagolev V.S. 2015. Nematerial’nye faktory v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh [Immaterial Factors in International Relations]. – Sovremennaya nauka o mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh za rubezhom [Modern

Science of International Relations Abroad]. Vol. 3. Ed. by I.S. Ivanov. Moscow: RSMD. P. 10-18. (In Russ.)

Gromoglasova E.S. 2017. Humanitarian Crisis in the “Northern Triangle”. – Latin America. No. 12. P. 43-54. (In Russ.)

Gromoglasova E.S. 2018. The Humanitarian Component of the State’s Foreign Policy. – The Humanitarian Component of the State’s Foreign Policy. No. 1. P. 77-91. (In Russ.)

Lebedeva M.M. 2017. International-Political Processes of Integration of Education. – Integration of Education. Vol. 21. No. 3. P. 385-394. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.088.021.201703

Lebedeva M.M. 2020. International Negotiations as a Social and Humanitarian Resource of World Politics. – Political Science (RU). No. 3. P. 98-113. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2020.03.05

Lebedeva M.M., Rustamova L.R. 2018. Transformation of the Social and Humanitarian Sphere of World Politics: Consequences for Russia. – MGIMO Review of International Relations. No. 5. P. 114-130. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2018-5-62-114-130

Lebedeva M.M., Ustinova M.I. 2020. Humanitarian and Social Issues in the UN Security Council. – International Organizations Research Journal. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 135-154. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2020-01-06

“Myagkii put’” vkhozhdeniya rossiiskikh vuzov v Bolonskii protsess [The “Soft Path” for Russian Universities To Enter the Bologna Process]. 2005. Ed. by A.Yu. Melville et al. Moscow: Olma-Press. 368 p. (In Russ.)

Piketty T. 2015. Le capital au XXIe siecle. (Russ. ed.: Piketty T. Kapital v XXI veke. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press. 592 p.)

Podberezkin A.I., Zhukov A.V. 2015. Public Diplomacy in the Power Confrontation of Civilizations. – MGIMO Review of International Relations. No. 6. P. 106-116. (In Russ.)

Tsvetkova N.A., Yarygin O.G. 2013. The Politicization of “Digital Diplomacy”: the Public Diplomacy of Germany, Iran, the United States, and Russia. – Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. Series 6. No. 1. P. 119-124. (in Russ.)

Tsvyk V.A., Tsvyk I.V. 2020. Social Assessment of Technology and Humanitarization of Activity in the Information Society. – RUDN Journal of Sociology. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 471-486. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2020-20-3-471-486

Zavyalova E.B. 2018. Corporate Social Responsibility: The Evolution of Approaches and Ideas. – Financial Business. No. 2. P. 26-31. (In Russ.) 

See also: