A. D. VOSKRESENSKY ¹

The analysis of new trends related to the regionalization and macroregionalization of the modern world space in the context of globalization makes it possible to discuss the transformations of the concept of regionalism and regional complexes in a debatable way, as well as to justify in detail the applied value of analyzing world political dynamics from the perspective of regional and macroregional levels.

Key words: world politics, international relations, region, regional subsystem, macroregion, regionalism, regional complex.

1. THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ASPECTS OF THE REGIONAL DIMENSION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: PROBLEM STATEMENT

Of all the variety of theoretical approaches to international relations research, one of the most productive "macro approaches" in the analysis of regional dimensions is the system approach, which, due to its complexity, makes it possible to theoretically distinguish the regional level and regional subsystems (actually "regional subsystems" and "regional complexes"). as independent analytical objects of research. This approach allows us to solve, along with theoretical and quite practical, applied tasks: to isolate and compare key macro-regions of the world and already at the regional level analyze how general (global) patterns are modified in relation to macro-regional and regional geographical/historical/historical-cultural / civilizational entities, regional organizations of various types, countries themselves, cross-border regions, as well as in relation to intra-country regions. The isolation of the regional level of analysis as a theoretical and practical problem at the same time allows a more adequate and correct approach to the problem of country specifics, since it puts it in the context of regional (i.e., regional) problems. In this case, it is necessary to use a set of laws that are modified in relation to a specific group of objects connected by certain common grounds, rather than intuitive non-formalized historiosophical conclusions of a country-specific nature.

Questions about regional and sub-regional subsystems related to the latest trends in modern international relations-globalization, regionalization and fragmentation, as well as the very concept of a region and, in this regard, the specific regional division of the world, are the subject of discussion. However, the results of these discussions are quite useful - the problems of the regional level are directly related to the practice of international relations and diplomacy.

¹ With the participation of S. I. Lunev, E. V. Koldunova and E. A. Pronin.

In the conditions of a bipolar world and the interaction of two centers and two types of peripheries, the subordinate nature of the problems of regional and sub-regional subsystems was not in doubt, since it was explained by the logic of a systemic bipolar confrontation. After the collapse of the bipolar structure of relations, the situation has become more complicated and many questions have arisen that are still unanswered: if the bipolar system has disappeared and a polycentric world has replaced it, is it correct to say that the world has broken up into relatively compact territorial and economic regions and sub-regions that "correspond" to one or another center of the international system, that is, geographically, economically, culturally and historically "tied" to it, which means that there are no general/global patterns, but only a combination of regional and sub-regional levels of interaction? If this is not the case, then we can talk about a fundamentally new quality of influence of regional processes on the global level of relations and a new reality of global governance? More specific questions arise in this regard: how can the boundaries between a region (and a regional subsystem) and sub-regions (sub-regional subsystems) be methodologically correctly defined? Do the borders of macroregions and regional subsystems coincide? What is the relationship between globalization and regionalization?

The systematic approach, combined with other approaches, provides researchers with rich theoretical and methodological tools for finding adequate answers to these questions. This approach has become the property of the science of international relations since the mid-1950s. It is also obvious that many of the provisions of the theory of international relations that relate to the system approach were developed earlier. However, systemic ideas became particularly widespread after the publication of the works of the classics of political science T. Parsons and D. Kropotkin. In these studies, the political system was considered as a certain system set of relations that is in continuous interaction with its external environment through the mechanisms of "inputs" and "outputs" in accordance with the basic ideas of cybernetics (Parsons, 1997; Easton, 2000). At the same time, researchers have determined that international relations have their own specifics, first of all, by their nature they are social relations, which means that international systems and subsystems belong to the type of social systems. This means that they should be considered as complex adaptive systems, which should not be analyzed by analogy with the analysis of models of mechanical systems. These systems, as a rule, belong to the type of open and poorly organized, i.e. in such systems it is difficult to draw a clear boundary, and therefore to analyze the system in isolation from the environment, and vice versa. The spatial boundaries of such systems are conditional. Although subsystems differ in the nature of their relations with the environment, they not only exist in reality, but also have some spatial boundaries, although these boundaries often change, overlap, and are conditional in nature. This is more or less true for all regional international (AML)systems. They represent not just some analytical objects, but concrete, in reality-very complex complex connections-between existing social communities, the interaction of which has certain features of a system-spatial organization.

Another feature of the international system of relations and its constituent regional subsystems is related to the fact that their main elements are represented by social communities (including individuals). They are social systems of a special type with a weak degree of integration of elements into the whole and with significant autonomy of elements. The third feature is related to the fact that international relations are primarily political relations, the main link of which is interstate relations. Even when zooming in

In terms of the number of actors, relations between them and the state continue to be mostly political in nature, and the state still remains out of competition in terms of the degree of influence on strategic issues compared to other actors. The question of the transformation of sovereignty and the associated shift in emphasis in international relations from Realpolitik approaches has only just begun to be discussed in intellectual discussions, and co-operative approaches in the world as a whole have not yet become prevalent.

In the social sciences, there are different approaches to international relations as a system (in this sense, we said that the system approach seems to "absorb" the main content of what can be interpreted differently in other approaches), of which the most famous are the traditional historical ones (the international system is diplomatic relations between states). historical-sociological (with the idea of social determinism of a particular historical system of international relations), structural-historical (historical systems of international relations based on differences in structure are distinguished), empirical-regional or, in other terminology, socio-natural (certain geographical regions as systems (subsystems)). international, economic, political, and other relations), structural-diplomatic (a system is the understanding, assumptions, learned skills, responses, rules, norms, and procedures that actors acquire and use to achieve their various individual goals in joint practical activities), and realistic (various models of the balance of power or balance of power, i.e. an international system without political subsystems, with two or five participants, as well as certain rules by which these participants play). Common and / or most important in all these approaches is the isolation of a general (global) system of international relations, a kind of self-sufficient system integrity that allows describing and analyzing international relations in general.

In the 1990s, international relations theorists spoke loudly about the urgent need to distinguish between general and particular problems of international relations systems and to distinguish the regional level of international relations as an independent level of analysis. This was due to the growing trends towards globalization, on the one hand, and regionalization and fragmentation, on the other. International relations theorists have begun to talk about the fact that a number of international interactions, in addition to those at the global level, have a certain autonomy that needs to be explained and conceptualized. They drew attention to the fact that there are particular patterns associated with certain specifics (primarily geographical, territorial-economic, civilizational, cultural, ethnopsychological, ethno-confessional, etc.) of the functioning of parts of the international system, i.e. subsystems of international relations. These narrower (particular) patterns describe the functioning of regional and sub-regional subsystems - a set of specific international interactions based on a common geographical, economic, cultural and civilizational, and political (spatial in a broad sense)interaction. affiliation. At the same time, the trends of recent decades suggest that:

- at present, a fundamentally new quality of influence of regional processes on the global level of international relations is emerging;

- the global agenda is reformatted and updated differently in different regional subsystems;

- regional processes (regional understanding of world processes) can be presented as global or alternative to global ones;

- regional processes can influence or reformat global ones;

- different hierarchies of global problems and threats are being built in different regional subsystems;

- different elements of the regional subsystem or different combinations of regional actors have different effects on the global level: they can support and strengthen the global order, contribute to its radical breakdown and overthrow or evolutionary transformation into a new quality;

- the relative isolation of the regional level of international relations (regionalization) allows us to raise the question of correcting existing theoretical approaches to international relations, "completing" the general theory taking into account the regional level, or (a more radical proposal) building a "non-Western" (more correctly, non - Western-centric) theory of international relations in accordance with the specifics of the largest segments of the macro-regional level (macro-regional complexes);

- the relative isolation of the regional level of international relations (regionalization) "rehabilitates" the category of space in international political and economic analysis and leads to the formation of sub-disciplinary fields "at the junctions" of international relations/world politics and political science (world/foreign comparative/complex regional studies, comparative macro-regional political analysis/cross-regional political analysis, regional political science, political economy). regional studies, political geography, and geopolitics), in which the category of space becomes central, or plays a pivotal role;

- in recent decades, the global system of international relations is undergoing transformation, in which the processes of redistribution of regional influence and regional power, new configurations of macro-regional unions and blocs, which will ultimately determine the configuration of new regional orders in the second quarter of the XXI century, play a significant, if not decisive role.;

- today's debates on the ideological and philosophical foundations of the modern world order are directly related to regional issues (the rise of new world powers in the non-Western world, the rise of Asia, the discussion about the role of the West and the place of the East, the "reinterpretation" of the foundations of Western civilization, the consequences of redistributing influence between regions of the world, the essential content of (non-Western-centric) theory of explaining the existing order, the ways of its evolutionary development, the role of Islamic and Chinese factors in world politics, the role of the BRIC countries, etc.);

- incorrect / inadequate analysis of global and regional trends and projects, a rough understanding of the algorithm of interaction between global and regional levels of relations, their mutual influences, inability to adequately conceptualize a competitive regional model of modernization and development adjusted in accordance with global laws, but successfully adapted to regional specifics, increases the price of foreign policy mistakes, accelerates the lag of countries and regions, It leads to the fragmentation of a part of the world space and the formation of" failed"," underperforming", stagnating or autarkic states and depressed regions, and the way out of this state through a strategy of catch-up development becomes more and more difficult.

2. THE PROBLEM OF" MULTI-LAYERED " SPACE IN MODERN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND WORLD POLITICS

The modern world in the discourse of international studies can be described as multi-level ("multi-storey") a system consisting of many actors of different sizes, their relationships and subsystems that organize these relationships, and at the same time as a complex system, where the interactions of elements inside and outside the structure with the environment of the system are differentiated, functionally ordered, variable and have a space-time dimension.

The spatial dimension of the modern world as a system is not included in the subject field of classical theoretical studies in the field of international relations and world politics, and if it is included, it is not a structure-forming one for them. Therefore, it turns out to be a paradox: not being the subject of study or not being a structure-forming concept, the spatial dimension is simultaneously inherent in any international research in the applied perspective within the subject field of almost any humanitarian and social discipline. According to these views, there is a fairly widespread radical point of view about the "disappearance of space" in the "flat" global world and about the "liberation" of humanity from spatial differentiation (A. A. Friedmann's theory of the "flat world" [Friedmann, 1922]). More "moderate" international researchers are critical of this radical thesis, but also emphasize that the differentiation of space, which includes such categories as" geographical location"," geographical proximity/remoteness", loses its significance as the process of globalization increases. This point of view is not without serious grounds if we mean by "space" a still rather limited urbanized part of the modern world, called post-industrial or developed, or consider this part and urbanized points of non-urbanized space and limit research. If we consider the post-industrial part of the world as a material for constructing theories and concepts, considering that it is the main one, then in this speculative paradigm, the "periphery" will either remain a periphery forever due to the centered nature of the world system, or it will gradually be transformed and become part of the urbanized world space.

However, along with the" flat "modern part of the world, there is still the traditional" spherical "part, although thanks to globalization, the" spherical "part of the world is rapidly but unevenly" flattened " and shrinking. Life is filled with contrasts between the "flat" and "spherical" parts of the world (urban macroagglomerations of New York, London, Moscow, Tokyo, New Delhi, Mumbai, Shanghai, Chongqing and their suburbs or / and places of residence of tribal social organizations in Afghanistan, Africa or Australia, etc.), and the transition from one the transition from one part to another is fraught with difficulties. When traveling by high-speed transport (airplane, shinkansen/TGV/peregrine falcon) at a speed of 300-900 km / h to another urbanized point in the country or world, you move further at a maximum speed of 5-90 km / h, and this movement may be limited and / or difficult "geographically". Mobile phones and the Internet shorten the distance and "flatten" the world, but they cannot yet physically transport an individual anywhere in the world, and the use of these technologies may also be limited. In other words, in real life, these two types of space (each of them corresponds to its own type of time - linear or cyclic) coexist and overlap, creating a single and at the same time structurally differentiated" multi-layered " space-time field of international relations and world politics, although their ratio does not change in favor of the "spherical"one. At the same time, it would seem that local problems characteristic of the "spherical" part of the world space can go global,

although sometimes in a very bizarre way ², creating a false idea of the possibility of the final" revenge " of the spherical world. In particular, the concepts of conglomerate societies "fused" from "traditional" (spherical world) and "modern" (discworld), and "enclave development"³ are based on the idea of co-existence of different types of space-time organization.

Recognizing the significant contrasts between the two types of spaces, optimists assume that it is the "flat" world that is the inevitable prospect for the development of the "spherical"world. Such a statement of the question means the transformation of spatiality (compression/flattening-stretching of space) as a factor of international relations and limits its analysis within the framework of the political and economic concepts of regionalization and regionalism embedded in the system of global world politics as primarily and mostly economic processes of world management (integration/regional integration/regionalism/regionalization/transregionalism). A number of skeptical theorists, however, doubt the irreversibility of the process of "compression-stretching" of the world space into a plane, line, point, and continue to analyze spatial factors in world politics as structure-forming (theories of the center/periphery, world systems, and different types of civilizations). According to representatives of the second point of view, structural inequality and functional differentiation of the elements of the world system and their interrelations are the key to its development. At the same time, some quite "respectable" researchers talk about the possibility of conceptualizing such a point of view up to the creation of a "non-Western (more precisely, non-Western-centric) theory of international relations" [Non Western..., 2010], as well as about building a comprehensive understanding of the interconnected world (M. A. Cheshkov's concept of world integrity ⁴).

Regional-level theories fill in the "gaps" in concepts based on the prevalence of the "flat world", and in some of the most advanced ones, an attempt is made to present a "non-Western" (non-Western-centric) vision (a vision not from the center of the world system, "from another regional pole", from the point of view of the logic of another regional complex, or a "synthetic", complex vision) of the entire world process. Accordingly, representatives of these views believe that in research it is possible to abstract from the continuing division of the world into "flat" and "spherical", to focus only on one or only on another object, but it is also possible to consider the problem, in particular, from the point of view of ways to transform one and the other object into a new quality of each of them. as a problem of "merging" into specific conglomerates or "synthesizing" into a new complex theoretical vision. This formulation of the problem gives an additional impetus to the discussion about the possibility of building a "non-Western theory of international relations", based, in particular, on the idea of different types of influence of different segments of the regional level on the global one and analyzing this process from an applied point of view.

The differentiation of space, whose external component is the contrast of different parts of the world, would not be relevant in scientific discussions if it were not reflected in short-and long-term political processes that need to be analyzed by practitioners of international relations - diplomats

² Tajikistan, Rwanda and Darfur, Xinjiang, Tibet, Chechnya, piracy off the coast of Somalia, problems in Afghanistan and Iraq, China's environmental problems for its neighbors, permanent political regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, etc.

³ Concepts of N. A. Simoniya and A. D. Bogaturov, devoted to the issues of international cooperation in the field of transition to the information society, changing the role of diplomacy in connection with the development of ICT, overcoming information inequality.

⁴ The main intention of M. A. Cheshkov's constructions is determined by the desire to form a single semantic basis for the entire variety of understandings and definitions of globalization as a condition for correct (scientific) knowledge of globality [Cheshkov, 1999].

and political analysts. And there are more and more such practical tasks. Eg: how to assess the rise of China, the long-term nature and consequences of this rise; what will be the institutional consequences of the EU crisis; how to analyze the rise of Asia, the role of "emerging states" and what will be the consequences of this process for international relations; what is the role and prospects of the BRIC countries, the role of new formal and informal regional entities and organizations, which for more than a dozen years ⁵. How can we predict the role and significance of the political component of regional processes in the economy, the role and significance of economic impulses for formatting the supranational political component of regional processes, etc.?

It is clear that the category of time-space does not cease to influence international and domestic political phenomena and transforms general global trends into specific (regional and local), i.e., into practically popular issues that are dealt with by practitioners in security, diplomacy, economics and politics. The differentiation of space is a real phenomenon, which means that the analysis of the spatial dimension can be and is essential for applied, including predictive research, which no one is going to neglect in real life.

Thus, globalization, regardless of its definition, is identified through the property of spatiality, in particular, through the process of regionalization in the case of international relations. Accordingly, globalization can be perceived as a challenge or threat, because it is interpreted as synonymous with unipolarity and materializes differently at the local, regional and global levels. The "rejection" of globalization is due to a lack of deep understanding of this process, the inability to find its adequate macro-regional form, as well as due to the fact that one of the regional forms of globalization can be presented as its only role model without taking into account regional specifics. In addition, most of the problems considered global (global warming, transnational crime, international terrorism) are of a regional (geographical) nature and are inextricably linked to territorial (spatial) dynamics, i.e. they have a territorial base.

With the regional level of conceptualization, the study of regionalization, the situation is much more complicated due to the fact that regionalization can not necessarily be understood as the opposite of globalization. Regionalization can also act as the opposite of globalization, and strengthen the fragmentation of the world as a kind of tool for managing globalization. Regionalization turns out to be a somewhat more definite concept than globalization, since its "main difference" is the concept of a region, one of the taxa of hierarchical differentiation of space, while at the same time the concept of a region itself is ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways in international relations.

"Globalization can be understood as a process (or a set of processes) that embodies the transformation of the spatial organization of social relations and interactions, measured by indicators such as their distribution and distribution.

⁵ For example: the EU, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the South American Common Market (MERCOSUR) and its sub-variants (UNASUR), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the League of Arab States( LAS), the Arab Socio-Economic Council (APEC), the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), United Gulf Council, Maghreb Arab Union, Arab Economic Cooperation Council, ASEAN, ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), BIMSTEC (India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand), India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum, EurAsEC, East Asia Summit, Economic Cooperation of the Pacific Region (ARES), Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PEC), Economic Council of the Pacific Countries (PEC), Pacific Trade and Cooperation (PAFTAD), Cooperation and Protection Council of the Asia-Pacific Region (PAFTAD), CIS, etc.

extent, intensity, speed, and interaction, and generating inter-continental and inter-regional flows and patterns of activity, interactions, and manifestations of power. Regionalization can be defined as the association of states or societies that are linked together functionally or geographically into a single group, while internationalization refers to models of interaction and interrelationships between two or more national states, regardless of their geographical location" [Held, Goldblatt, McGrew, Perraton, 2004, p.19].

Thus, we can define globalization as the emergence of a new system of world economy, which consists in the merger of national economies into a single global system based on a new stage of freedom of movement of goods and capital, a new information openness of the world, a technological revolution, telecommunications convergence of countries and regions, the emergence of interethnic social movements, the internationalization of education, governance, political interests, culture and values, information and communication flows, and is expressed in parallel processes of regionalization. With this understanding of globalization, regionalization will appear as an association of States or societies that are functionally and/or geographically connected.

Defining the concept of regionalization requires presenting the concept of regionalism as the interdependence of countries and the extension of the interests of national actors beyond their borders, but within the national framework or ("economized" definition) as the formation of economic communities of closely located states through preferential trade agreements.

Classifications and typologies represent "horizontal" and "vertical" ways of differentiating a space / territory according to quantitative and qualitative criteria, respectively. Classifications (as a conventionally "horizontal" way of classifying territory) and typologies (as a conventionally "vertical" way) in international studies are mainly related to the differentiation of States - the main subjects of the international political process - by spatial-geographical / civilizational-geographical feature or some criterion. ⁶ Democratic states with a developed market economic system, new industrial states, super-large industrial states with developing or transitional economies, "failed" states, rogue states, or "vertical" groupings belonging to the "first"," second", or" third " world / tier development issues can be considered with different content in each of these categories. The boundaries between categories in such classifications and typologies are rather blurred and sometimes, despite the presence of quantitative characteristics, they are subjective, although typologies, for example, may be based on the use of mathematical methods for analyzing qualitative criteria (see, for example: [Political Atlas..., 2007]). As a rule, typologies and classifications pay the most attention to the geographical / historical proximity or severity of the selected criterion within the existing state borders. Among the obvious examples of classifications, we can distinguish the differentiation of states (as well as existing political and administrative units within them) and international regions (by the level of economic development, for example, by GDP per capita; in accordance with the level of political development, the analysis of which is based on quantitative and/or qualitative characteristics). In addition to typologies and classifications of states, we can also distinguish typologies related not only to the main criterion, but also to taxonomies,

⁶ For example, political, political-economic, economic, etc.

based primarily on the use of the taxon "region" [Voskresenskiy, 2007, p.29-37; Voskresenskiy, 2002, p. 139-143; World Development Report, 2009, p. 36; Gladkiy and Chistobaev, 2003, p. 147-166]. The simplest typologies based on binary oppositions have also become very important in international relations./ East (Voskresensky, 2007); North/South; and also on triads (Center/Semiperiphery/ Periphery) [Immanuel, 1974, p. 347-357].

3. MACROREGIONALIZATION AND PRACTICE OF WORLD POLITICAL INTERACTION

Regionalization in its current form is a relatively new phenomenon. It is no coincidence that the criteria and parameters of the concept of "region" have not yet been clearly developed, and there are countless options for the applied classification of the regional division of the world. This applies both to the scale of regions and to the belonging of specific countries to a particular geographical/political/civilizational region.

The concept of "region" is quite ambiguous. First, this term can refer to an intra-country division of space (an administrative and legal understanding of a region that is partially synonymous with the concept of "district"). [Dergachev and Vardomsky, 2004, p. 10], and to the division of the world space (foreign policy or international political understanding of the region) [Mir politicheskoi nauki, 2004, p.596; Sistema, struktura..., 1984, p. 363]. Secondly, a region can be defined by a group of attributes ⁷ or by the basic function that is the main one for a particular study (geographical, economic, geopolitical, socio-cultural regions) [Mir politicheskoi nauki, 2004, p. 596; Dergachev and Vardomsky, 2004, p.11-12]. Consequently, regional division as "a means of selecting and studying spatial combinations of complex complexes of phenomena "[Gladkiy and Chistobaev, 2002, p. 22] will usually depend on the research tasks set and have the character of a social construct [Spindler, 2005, p.100].

As an analytical construct, the regional division of the world has the features of figurative representation: a region can represent a political and geographical image of a certain territory and thereby demonstrate the characteristic features and patterns of its development.⁸ In Russian science, the analysis of the specifics of the regional level from the point of view of a systematic approach was expressed in the idea of an international political region, which was considered as "a relatively independent subsystem of interstate relations, united primarily by the commonality of certain political problems inherent in this particular region and their corresponding relations" [Sistema, struktura..., 1984, p.363]^.9 This definition is based, in turn, on the definition of political regionalism as the relationship of a geographical group of adjacent national States that share a number of common features, a high level of interaction and institutionalized cooperation carried out through a formal multilateral structure.

Attempts to analytically distinguish separate regional spaces/regions/ regional subsystems had several reasons. First, it was obvious that the analysis of a number of international processes from the point of view of the main conflict axis of bipolarity does not give a complete picture of them, and these processes themselves are either not generated by the interaction of superpowers, or they have the following characteristics:

⁷ For example, a landscape region that combines several factors: climatic, hydrographic, soil, etc.

⁸ On the structure of political and geographical images (see [Zamyatin, 2004, pp. 83-91]).

⁹ In this regard, an expanded interpretation of the international political region (see: [Voskresensky, 2006, p. 7]).

there is only an indirect relation to this interaction. Secondly, the analysis of interrelations within a particular region made it possible to expand the scope of classical area studies and get more opportunities for comparative analysis, including interregional, already in the framework of international relations, world politics, world integrated regional studies / foreign regional studies (global/world comprehensive regional studies), inter-regional political analysis. Third, the analysis of the correlation between global, regional and national-local levels provided new opportunities for considering a particular problem within the international system.

Regionalization implies the closest political, economic and cultural interdependence of neighboring countries. The term "regionalization" in literature and life refers to three phenomena that are different in content:

- resurgence/rise of regional powers (an informal understanding of regionalization in world politics);

- formation of regional integration groupings, including preferential ones (the classical political and economic definition of regionalization);

- the political basis, motives, impulses and driving forces of regionalism and / or regionalization in the first and second meanings of this concept (an emerging trend in international political economy, economic political science, and foreign complex regional studies).

Thus, the concepts of regionalism and regionalization can act as synonyms, emphasizing the interdependence of countries and the emergence of a number of country problems beyond the framework of national states, but at the regional level, or they can be different, only partially coinciding concepts (in particular, in the economic and international political fields). In this case, international regionalism ("macroregionalism "or" miniglobalization") acts as the realization of national interests at a new, higher level than the local or country level, but within the regional framework.

During the bipolar period, regional Powers emerged primarily in areas where conflict interdependence existed and integration was extremely slow (East Asia). The opposite picture was observed in regions where complementary interdependence significantly outweighed conflict. Active integration processes (Europe) began here, based on the following principles::

1) growing economic interdependence and convergence of economic interests;

2) the presence of a common foreign policy enemy;

3) the absence of a clear dominant center, or the presence of a dominant "core" consisting of two or three states.

After the collapse of the socialist system, the confrontation between the two regional processes became less obvious.

Thus, globalization and regionalization are interrelated and mutually complementary, but they can also become somewhat contradictory trends, since all countries are both objects and subjects of globalization and regionalization. Globalization processes are primarily caused by unlimited competition and require economic actors to increase the efficiency of all types of operations, and that is why it infringes on the interests of less developed countries. Actions within the framework of regionalization are more in line with the interests of individual countries, not only economic, but also political, social, historical, cultural, etc.-

therefore, a very likely variant of globalization is the consolidation of "old" regions into macro-regional complexes (macroregionalization), the initial stage of which is regional integration, first of all economic, and then political (in different forms, of different nature and to varying degrees). This process provides opportunities for different countries:

- participate in globalization in a gentle way, without experiencing pressure from the entire world economy;

- dramatically pull up the less developed states of the macro-region, providing them with preferences and investing in their economy;

- improve the position of businesses in more developed countries that receive a preferential extension of the geographical area of operation;

- strengthen geopolitical positions, as the scale of markets becomes much larger and the integration group is much better able to collectively protect its members from foreign competition.

In fact, taking into account the theory of the regional level, we can assume that the macro-regional complex (and not a separate state according to one of the classical and still most influential approaches in the theory of international relations-realism) is a prototype of one of the centers of the emerging polycentric world system. This path has already been taken by Europe, creating the European Union, and partly by the United States, creating the NAFTA grouping. China is trying to find the same path, forming the so-called Greater China on the basis of mass emigration and a new quality of economic and political dependence of the "peripheral space" on the "new metropolis", trying to become the only leading state in East Asia. Most likely, in connection with the global discussion about the rise of East Asia, it is legitimate to talk about the formation of a macro-region, or macro-regional complex "Greater East Asia" (North-East and South-East Asia, Central and South Asia), primarily from an economic, cultural and civilizational point of view. In the same vein, there are discussions about the" revival " of the CIS, the structuring of Central and Eastern Eurasia, etc.

Positive factors contributing to the formation of macro-regions are:

1) full or partial economic complementarity in a macroregion, when complementary interdependence generally outweighs conflict, i.e. if there is economic interdependence and complementarity in the region and there is a significant convergence of economic interests;

2) the beginning and development of integration economic processes, when the share of trade turnover of countries with each other approaches half of the total trade turnover. All regional organizations (from the ASEAN-plus format to the East Asian Community) aim to gradually reduce tariffs in intraregional trade and remove import restrictions-up to the formation of a free trade zone (NAFTA and the EU have long formed single markets).;

3) movement towards monetary and financial integration (with NAFTA, the world currency is the dollar), the EU introduced a single regional currency-the euro; the issue of a single Asian currency based on the yen or yuan was also discussed, but it did not go into practice as insufficiently mature);

4) new forms of cooperation;

5) statements of major or major states of the macroregion for expanding economic cooperation within the macroregion (MERCOSUR, BRIC, GCC, SCO, ASEAN-plus, etc.);

6) a certain cultural and civilizational proximity of the countries of the region and their difference from other macroregions. The civilizational field on which socio-economic development is carried out in different regions is extensive - from individualism to socialism.-

from the modernity of Western society to the collectivism characteristic of traditional Eastern society, with a huge number of intermediate options;

7) theoretical justification of the specifics of the development of the states of the macroregion as a whole (the EU has a common economic policy, a common understanding of the basics of domestic policy and the formation of a common foreign and defense policy);

8) formation of regional identity (Europeans formed it long ago, in other macroregions it is at different stages of formation).

(Continued in the next issue)

list of literature

"Greater East Asia": World Politics and Regional Transformations, Moscow, 2010.

East/West. Regional subsystems and regional problems of International relations, Moscow, 2002.

Voskresensky A.D. "Big East Asia": World Politics and Energy Security, Moscow, 2006.

Voskresensky A.D. Political systems and Models of Democracy in the East, Moscow, 2007.

Voskresenskii A.D. Regional'nye podsistemy mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy i regiony mira [Regional subsystems of international relations and regions of the world].

Resurrection A. D. a Comparative analysis of political systems, political cultures and political processes in the East as part of global discourse comprehensive regionovedenie: General patterns and the specifics of their regional transformation // Political systems and political cultures of the East. M., 2006.

Gladkiy Yu. N., Chistobasv A. I. Regionovedenie: uchebnik [Regional Studies: textbook], Moscow, 2003.

Dergachsv V., Vardomsky L. Regionovedenie [Regional Studies], Moscow, 2004.

World Development Report 2009. A new Look at Economic Geography, Moscow, 2009.

Iston D. Kategorii sistemnogo analiza politiki [Categories of system analysis of politics]. Comp.: prof. M. A. Vasilik, assoc. M. S. Vershinin, Moscow, 2000.

Zamyatin D. Meta-geography: space of images and images of space, Moscow, 2004.

Koldunova E. V. Security in East Asia: New Challenges, Moscow, 2010.

Kulmatov K. N., Mitrofanova A.V. Regional aspects of international relations. Textbook, Moscow, 2010.

The world of political science. Book 1. Categories, Moscow, 2004.

Parsons T. Sistema sovremennykh obshchestv [The system of modern societies]. Moscow, 1997.

Political Atlas of Modernity: experience of multidimensional statistical analysis of political systems of modern states, Moscow, 2007.

System, structure and process of development of international relations. M., 1984.

Transnational Political Space: New Realities of International Development, Moscow, 2010.

Khsld D., Goldblatt D., McGrew E., Perraton D. Global Transformations, Moscow, 2004.

Cheshkov M. A. Ocherki teorii i metodologii mirotsslostnosti [Essays on the theory and methodology of the world of complexity]. Moscow, 1999.

Buzan В. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Friedmann A. Über die Krümmung des Raumes. Z. Phys. 10 (1922), S. 377-386.

Immanuel W. The Modern World System. Vol. 1. NY., 1974.

Non-Western International Relations Theory // Ed. by A. Acharya, B. Buzan. NY., 2010.

Spindler M. Regionalismus im Wandel. Die neue Logik der Region in einer globalen Ökonomie. Wiesbaden, 2005.

Voskressenski A. Regional Studies in Russia and Current Methodological Approaches for Social/Historical/ Ideological [Re]construction of International Relations and Regional Integration in Eastern Eurasia // Reconstruction and Interaction of Slavic Eurasia and Its Neighboring Worlds / Ed. by IEADA Osamu and UYAMA Tomohiko. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 2006.

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: