Nauki Społeczno-Humanistyczne Соціально-Гуманітарні Науки Social and Human Sciences

 

Khyzhnyak, Igor, 2015. REVOLVING SYSTEMIC SUBJECTIVITY OVER HISTORIC CATEGORY OF THE WORLD WAR I (AN INTRODUCTION ITS PARAMETERS INTO SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE). Social and Human Sciences. Polish-Ukrainian scientific journal, 02 (06), pp.40-53




 

Khyzhnyak, Igor, 2015. REVOLVING SYSTEMIC SUBJECTIVITY OVER HISTORIC CATEGORY OF THE WORLD WAR I (AN INTRODUCTION ITS PARAMETERS INTO SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE). Social and Human Sciences. Polish-Ukrainian scientific journal, 02 (06), pp.40-53.


REVOLVING SYSTEMIC SUBJECTIVITY OVER HISTORIC CATEGORY OF THE WORLD WAR I

(AN INTRODUCTION ITS PARAMETERS INTO SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE)

Khyzhnyak, Igor,
Doctor Habil. (world history, international relations), professor; Doctor Habil. (political science), professor, academician of the Ukrainian Academy of Political Science;
National Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Ukraine, Kyiv),
Institute of the World History,
chief scientific researcher,
Mariupol State University (Ukraine, Mariupol),
Departments of the International Relations and Foreign Policy and of International Information,
Professor,
Mylko_v@ukr.net

SUMMARY
An author’s determining of «The Transit To The First Global Conflict Of Early The Twentieth Century» system’s essential characteristics as a systemic subjectivity of the World War I historical category is primarely presented for overall scientific discourse. Systemic structuring over the whole number of combinations of interstate links in Europe is a basic purpose for its undertaking. It pertained the period on the eve of and correspondingly the posterior temporal segment within the total duration of the World War I.
Reflecting a system of «The Transit To The First Global Conflicts Of Early The Twentieth Century» as an innovative systemic category belongs to the update attempts to introduce an innovative approach into the evaluation of all recognized systems of international relations. Our case study is critically depending on forming a peculiar situation that existed late the nineteenth century. It did not have any previous historical analogue before. The latter was characterized by balance of forces among the major superpowers, the availability of universally recognized borders among the European states along with signed and sealed interstate treaties, the existence of the two political and military alignments that were withstanding one another (the Triple Alliance and the Russian-French Alliance). It was that one that drastically differed an asserted case study segment from such previously recognized systems as Westfalen and Viennese ones (to the point as another systemic and historical subjectivity was firstly formulated and determined by the author this innovative «splendidly isolated» formation of interstate relations in Europe was called by him as «The Continental System Of The European Equilibrium»).
It also obviously came up that up to now submitted historical subjectivity named «The Transit To The First Global Conflicts Of Early the Twentieth Century» as a systemic innovation had not even been defined before with the respect to the place and the time of its emergence. It was also left with the lack of assertion to the proper scheme of classification.
As to conceptual basis for the submitted systems their detailed composition is rendered in the two author’s scientific publications in the Ukrainian and the Russian languages. Both are dedicated to the systems of international relations in the period of Modern history. Concerning the parameters of «The Transit To The First Global Conflicts Of Early The Twentieth Century» system itself they contain the concrete components that originated from the historical analysis endeavour on occurrences and events assumed as basic systemic traits in the theoretical background of international relations. The latters consequently acquire features of ostensible systemic and historical analysis. These are assigned entities that truly encourage revising the entire dynamics of international relations development rather than only emulate mechanism of its functioning. Likewise it was brought out and analyzed not as simply chronologically scrutinized and authentically expounded the total sum of diplomatic history facts. Moreover one was due to concentrate over the issues and the logic of motive forces endeavour in their not always oblivious and often indirect dependence. It is that approach to define the total spectrum of actions and influences over the foreign policy issues that entail the most outstanding processes to be basic in forming an author’s understanding the connotation of the term «the international relations».
Keywords: a new transitional system of «The Continental European Equilibrium», the cumulative effect, politicization of ethnicity and establishing a modern nation, «The European Choice» subsystem, equilibrium of the balance of power, types of international relations, the variability of the composition of military and political alliances, structural levels of the international system, a multipolar world order.

 

 

ПЕРЕОСМИСЛЕННЯ СИСТЕМНОЇ СУБ’ЄКТНОСТІ ІСТОРИЧНОЇ КАТЕГОРІЇ ПЕРША СВІТОВА ВІЙНА (ВВЕДЕННЯ НОВИХ ЇЇ ПАРАМЕТРІВ У НАУКОВИЙ ДИСКУРС)

Хижняк, Ігор,
доктор історичних наук, професор; доктор політичних наук, професор політології;
академік Української Академії політичних наук,
Інститут всесвітньої історії НАН України (Україна, Київ), головний науковий співробітник, Маріупольський державний університет (Україна, Маріуполь),
професор кафедр міжнародних відносин та зовнішньої політики, а також міжнародної інформації,
Mylko_v@ukr.net

АНОТАЦІЯ
Визначення суттєвих характеристик системи «Транзиту до першого глобального конфлікту початку ХХ ст.» як системної суб’єктності історичної категорії Перша світова війна вперше презентована автором для наукового дискурсу. Базовою метою є системне структурування всієї сукупності міждержавних зв’язків в Європі як напередодні, так і власне в період Першої світової війни.
Заточення як на інноваційну системну категорію міжнародних відносин, так і як на саму запропоновану систему «Транзиту до першого глобального конфлікту ХХ ст.» було насамперед обумовлено складанням в кінці ХІХ ст. особливої ситуації, що не мала аналогів у попередній історії. Остання характеризувалась балансом сил головних держав, наявністю загальновизнаних та закріплених міжнародними договорами кордонів між європейськими державами, існуванням двох військово-політичних угруповань, що протистояли одне одному (Троїстий Союз та Російсько-французький союз). Саме це корінним чином відрізняло її від таких вже визнаних системних утворень як Вестфальська і Віденська (до речі як окрему системну і історичну суб’єктність вперше також було формалізовано автором ще одне утворення міждержавних відносин в Європі, яке було визначено ним як «Континентальна система Європейського еквілібріуму»).
Стало також очевидним, що до теперішнього часу саме представлена історична суб’єктність у вигляді інноваційної системної конструкції «Транзиту до першого глобального конфлікту ХХ ст.» так і не була раніше чітко окреслена щодо місця і часу її появи, а також залишалась без певної відповідної категоризації.
Відносно концептуалізації обох запропонованих систем, то їх детальний виклад міститься у двох авторських наукових виданнях як на українській, так і на російській мовах, що присвячені системам міжнародних відносин періоду Нового часу. Параметри ж самої системи «Транзиту до першого глобального конфлікту ХХ ст.» містять конкретні складові, що випливають з використання історичного аналізу подій і явищ з засадничими ознаками системності у теорії міжнародних відносин, і які набувають очевидних рис системно-історичного підходу. Тобто останні дійсно сприяють розкриттю саме всієї динаміки розвитку міжнародних відносин, а не тільки механізму його функціонування. Також виявлена і проаналізована не просто хронологічно вивірена та достовірно вкладена сума фактів дипломатичної історії, а й логіка рушійних сил в їх не завжди очевидній і часто непрямій залежності. Саме такий підхід для визначення всього спектра дій та впливу зовнішньої політики на найвизначніші загальносвітові процеси є засадничим у формуванні авторського розуміння терміна «система міжнародних відносин».
Ключові слова: нова перехідна «Континентальна система «Європейського еквілібріуму», кумулятивний ефект, політизація етносу і встановлення модернової нації, підсистема «Європейського вибору», рівновага системи балансу сил, види міжнародних відносин, змінність складу військово-політичних союзів, структурні рівні міжнародних систем, багатополярний міжнародний порядок.


«The Transit To The First Global Conflict Early The Twentieth Century» System For Conceptualization in International Relations: A Modern History Case Study [1].

Militaristic, International and Nationalistic «PR».
The configuration of the new transitional System from «The Continental Of The European Equilibrium» [2] one to a transit construction, prior to the onset of the World War I, had a rather peculiar appearance. Its development was due to the design of a number obviously diverse trends too.
First of all, it was marked with the formation of two opposing factions whose interests extended to the whole world. Any conflict, wherever it would have taken place, threatened to destroy the existing balance that had been internationally established. The struggle of the leading world powers for colonial and territorial world division inevitably resulted in constant increase in international tension. Recurrent conflicts and regional wars continuosly originated ostensible exposures to the «outskirts» of the European continent. And finally, as it was rather paradoxical, the whole gamut of confrontational contention at that period still could neither disturb nor even seriously fluctuate the status quo in Europe. Futhermore, motley field of disagreements in intensive mode actually neutralized disintegration processes in the highest power state structures and impelled them to diligence and caution in making policy decisions. It was also supplemented with interstate, technological reasoning and cautioning on both of the Hague’s Conferences decisions as well as anti-war resolutions on Stuttgard and Copenhagen of II International Congress in the years of 1907 and 1910.
In addition, a definite role in stabilizing the functional dimension of international life in the areas of economic exchange among the major European actors entailed the construction of a pan-European railway network. It meant then reorientation of international political conformation in favor of normal functioning of the economic sphere in many countries and foremost entire non-acceptance of interstate long-term armed conflicts. Such sort of international order internationalization tended conductive expansion to the level of the borders transparency, making them more nominal then real. The cumulative effect after creation of such a general system of state interrelations provided critical promotion for a demand in international market of the ad hoc "rebranding" of initial connotation along with withdrawal from everyday life and in the lexicon of the European nations of the mere word "war".
One cannot help but categorically asserting that the design of such an international political mythologem was too utopian and illusory or so that has completely lost touch with reality. But in fact, all those who were fully in captivity of such erroneous views, though, proved inadequate in assessing the true of the real state of things. In the early twentieth century, Europe was the scene of a number of territorial and national character conflicts. "Parade" of interstate disputes headed French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine seized by Germany in 1871. Poland joined them even after had been finding herself under the scepter of the Russian monarchy more than a century. Mutinous national images raged among the peoples of Austria-Hungary, Russia and the countries of the Balkan region that still had been finding themselves under the yoke of the Ottoman Empire.
In fairness, it should be noted than a number of problems of revanchist character still to some extent started to have been losing sharpness of their actuality. This included the loss of their territories by France during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 as well as the Italian claims to the same France about alienation in the middle of the XIX century of Savoy and Nice etc. [3].
And yet, over a certain period there started to have been dominating a sort of multi-indicated national movement that primarely had been articulating their ethnic preferences of traditionally conservative character. It tended to be critically active in the continent of Europe in the second half of the XIX century. Its adherents have constantly resorted to the problem of "historic injustice" and infinitely insidious "abroad" which in its turn did not in the least intend to help anyone. The situation was heated by the fact that the basis for their nationalism and expansionist «PR» laid in not so much patriotic feeling as in abundantly xenophobic ones (hostile towards other nations) mood.
Ambiguity in the process of nationalist propagation component was determined by mainly two factors. First, superior athletic nationalist and interventionst emphasis was laid on replicating the indespensably ‘’vital’’ colonial and foreign expansion along with obligatory and mandatory seizure of ‘’free’’ lands. It is this slogan that has been started to be actively converting in Germany where in 1891 the Pan-German Union was created. Whereas the local elites were developing strategic plans to expand their colonial resources at the expense of altering of the geopolitical map of overseas takeovers exclusively in their favor. Furthermore, it was declared as apriority fact as to reunification of the German Empire with the German-speaking peoples in order to create a "The Middle Europe" with the obligatory center in Berlin [4]. They were trying to keep up with their German rivals and French nationalists. The latters were defending thesis about the inevitability of armed conflict between the two states because of the return of Alsace and Lorraine. Similar sentiments began to be spread in Russia and in the countries of the Balkan region where reguirements respectively were heard about annexation of the Bosporus and the Dardanells as well as the new redistribution of state borders that were going along with their national claims accordingly [5].
The other side of the foregoing problem was actual ignoring of critically significant the nationalist component in the vast majority of European countries by their own governmental structures. At the same time, political reorientation of official government courses was due to changes in their policy priorities in favor of a new model in which the national component becomes the basis of their initial home and foreign policy guidance.
Thus, in this particular case, the totality of the system of ideological and political ties and relations among the main actors of the European and world community began to operate in the mode of action within ideologically unifying factor (in the form of nationalism). It was actually materialized as liberation movements, movements for the ethnic rights revival, autonomist and separatist, anti-colonial’s the nativistic manifestations (originated from kinship, xenophobia, striving to preserve the unity in the fight against external expansion). A process of ethnical politicization and establishing a modern nation in different countries was associated with the formation of nation (as people and ethnicity) as well as politically raising requirements of proliferation of mass nationalist movement with the aim of a nation’s political constituting and the creation of a national state.
In general, over the period of XIX – XX centuries nationalism has become a unifying force for national liberation not only in Europe and consequently in Africa as well as along with Asia and Latin America.

«The Continental Of «The European Choice» Subsystem»
The development of this subsystem was taking place in the mode of creation in different autonomous sorts of international relations with their inherent spheres of social life and the mere content of relations in (economic, political, military and strategic, cultural, ideological) areas as well as those ones coming from the community of interacting subjects (interstate, inter-party relation, relations among organizations); generality of their geopolitical criteria-global, regional and local; on the basis of the development degree and intensity (high, medium and low the levels of development; in terms of tension intensity – stable and unstable relations; the degree of competition (level of hostility, conflict, a state of war).
It was under the limits of this scheme when all the events unfolded stated to be actually composing historical and political basis of the subsystem. From the point of view of the definite sort of relations based on interacting subjects in the period of the late XIX-early XX centuries Russia and Austria-Hungary were building their relationship to the plane of maintaining peace and stability in the Balkans. In September 1903 it was even signed an agreement on the reforms project in the three vilayets of Turkey in Europe. This was the document that bore the resemblance of the obligation or a certain kind of instruction either to the Russian or Austria-Hungarian Ambassadors to Turkey on cooperation of both countries in terms of being residents in this country. In this matter both empires have also entered into a secret declaration "on mutual neutrality" in case of an attack on them by a third party.
But afterwards, within the framework of taken on autonomous sort of international relations and on the basis of certain areas of public life along with the content of the countries’ interrelations the actual economic sector has become to be the scene of serious contradictions between the two states. An agreement between Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire with respect to the construction of the railway from the city of Sarajevo (the latter was under the jurisdiction of Vienna through Novy and Pazarsky Sandzak in Thessaloniki, a city in northern Greece, being under control of Turkey) began to negatively affect the strategic status quo in the Balkans. Putting this project into practice it was visibly changing the situation in the whole region and evidently not in Russia’s favor. Besides, the obvious division of Europe into two antagonistic groups whose interests extended to the whole world, threatened to undermine a delicate balance that had internationally arisen. As the first test for this entire framework a number of coterminous events emerged to be actual in the Balkan region. There occurred a serious destabilization of the current situation as a result of the Young Turk revolution which began on July 3, 1908. Its basic purpose was to overthrow the oppressive regime of Sultan Abdul Hamid II. But Austria-Hungary immediately took advantage of this and resorted to the attempts to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina which had been occupied in 1978. Consequently, the existed sort of international relations, formed on the basis of interstate interacting objects followed the path of increasing tension and instability. Such an audacious step while being brightly-colored with an open anti-Russian mode was aimed at to oust Russia from the Balkans. Russia which was not able to somehow differently influence on the situation resorted to the diplomatic maneuvers. Aiming at to find at least a certain mutual understanding the Russian Foreign Minister Izvolskiy met his Austrian counterpart Aehrenthal at Buhlau in the castle in the Czech Republic. As a result of the meeting held on September 16, 1908 a silent Agreement was reached in accordance with which Austria-Hungary was obliged to consent to the change of the mode of operation in the Black Sea straits to grant Russian warships going through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Russia also undertook an obligation to agree to join the Austro-Hungarian Empire occupied provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Apart from other things, it was also agreed to grant full independence of Bulgaria from the Ottoman Empire. And in addition to all Izvolskiy took the initiative to convene an international conference for the final solution of the Balkan problem. Caused no doubt that the Minister put forward all these requirements as prerequisites to his consent to the Bosnia and Herzegovina annexation. [6]
From Buhlau Izvolskiy went on tour over Europe with a view to obtain from other states similar agreement to change the mode of operation of the straits which he had just gained off Aehrenthal. On September 26, 1908 he met in Berhensgarden with a state officer (e-Secretary) of the German Ministry for Foreign Affairs Shen. The latter in a few obliging expressions made it clear to the Russian Minister that Germany would not oppose the opening of the Straits but in its turn will require some compensation for it.
From Berhtensgadena Izvolskiy bent his steps towards Desio. There he met with Italian Foreign Minister Tittoni. In relation to Russian plans as to the straits the latter also spoke positively but with the condition that Russia, in turn, would agree to the seizure of Tripoli by Italy. As a result there a collusion took place among imperialistic states against the Young Turkish state with a view to its partial distribution.
From Desio Izvolskiy went to France. Strolling along the way at one of the stations after buying some newspapers with the breaking news he found out with great surprise about the intentions of Austria-Hungary to officially announce the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It became clear that Aehrenthal had passed him over. It was also evident that Austria-Hungary would never have resorted to such an adventurous step if he was not sure of support of Germany. The fact that Russia was forced to retreat and accept the annexation of two South Slavic states made Germany to accelerate events not waiting for the moment when the Entente would turn into a block that could effectively resist German expansion [7].
And indeed the Aehrenthal’s demarche echoed the similar reaction from Russia – a verbal agreement in Buhlau was canceled. Then the protest from the Ottoman Empire’s government analogously followed the actions undertaken by the Austro-Hungarian counterpart. It was complemented with the protests of Serbia that was having its own claims to these provinces. So there emerged a peculiar sort of international relations where the level of tension has entered a state of conflict which in its turn grew into an international crisis. As a sustainable development it was receiving not somewhere on the periphery – its hearth originated from the very center of the European continent and as the Russian and Austria-Hungary Empires came up to be the main leading actors there.
As a result such an independent structure of international relations as «The Continental Subsystem Of "The European Choice"» began to be formed. It similarly contained its own structure and components where the interaction with the elements of the autonomously existed sort of interstate relations with own varieties of levels and asserted directions were clearly observed. At the initial stage, it happened at the level of the two states, where there had already started the struggle for the definition of a "center of power" or an individual state. This had also started to obtain a dominant influence on one or another particular subsystem. And within the scope of «The Continental Of "The European Choice" Subsystem» there was received "carte blanche" to identify other types of states interrelations. The first of these should include the Ottoman Empire’s refusal of its souvereign rights to Bosnia and Herzegovina and having received for it a compensation of 2.5 million pounds. Within the limits of activity over such sort of international relations as «The Continental Subsystem Of "The European Choice"» one Serbia began to show extraordinary moves: it put forward demands for autonomy for Bosnia and Herzegovina with the aim to put a barrier to the further expansion of Austria-Hungary in the Balkans. There have been also furnished the addresses to Russia which in turn started again raising the question of transmission of Bosnia and Herzegovina problem to consideration of the Special Conference of States Participants on the Berlin Congress in 1878. Within the second sort of interstate relationships that proposal was rejected not only by Austria-Hungary and Germany, and even France which at that time was connected with Russia with quite warm relations. Germany in this case has taken a step in the application for a certain claim to the positions of the "Center of Power" in Europe. The state went to the revelation through the brutal blackmail in relation to Russia putting the requirement of immediate recognition and its annexation of the two South Slavic states. Moreover, in case of failure to do so the government of Germany did not exclude the possibility of the outbreak of Austria-Hungary’s hostilities against Serbia. And Russia had no other alternative but to agree to such "power style" proposals. Serbia had also been forced to gravitate towards such a furious pressure. The indignation of the Russian public, though, had no limits. Izvolskiy was entirely put the blame for the existed situation on. And as a result, as a "scapegoat", he was dismissed.
Within the frames of the further developments of «The Continental Subsystem Of "The European Choice"» commitments the Bulgarian Prince of Coburg’s, in agreement with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, declared in 1908, October 5, Bulgaria as an independent state. This way there was put an end to the country’s subordination to the Ottoman Empire.
The situation on the Balkan Peninsula was named the Bosnian crises. It became an important stage in the development of international relations over early the twentieth. In chronological terms it was primarely the first truly of the European scale crisis for many years in which within a systematic format there have been actively involved such functional components as the principles of actor’s interaction as well as regulatory mechanisms of actions and their motivation. From the point of view of the interaction principles it was actually defined watershed not only between the two opposing groups and especially among those who were correspondingly defending their interests. And therefore the balance of power took the shift form towards those who emerged victorious from the conflict and those who became the losers. Thus it was the start of a dangerous trend of constant changes in the conditions of the political game which was commenced at the diplomatic level by the counties of Europe. The degree of regulatory mechanisms involvement tended to producing more and more space for implementation: the countries-opponents resorted to increasingly use of coercive methods to meet their claims, shifting the focus from the recognition of the relative equilibrium on permanent extensions of more stringent conditions. That’s the way, the motivation of actions turned into a diplomatic game whose ultimate goal was the imperative of "who will win?" Although even then, it was not indicated on the immediate prerequisites for the start of the World War I.
And the Bosnian crisis itself came up as a certain kind of catalyst for the process of selection among European countries preferences – either to keep to a definite equilibrium observance "of the balance of power" where several large states reach approximately equal influence on the course of events or keep on at dangerous practice of permanent raising of rates and military blackmail.
Meanwhile the international tension reflected its quick growing. The year of 1911 was marked with a number of serious incidents. Before a conflict around Morocco erupted again the latter had been entitled with the name the Second Moroccan Crisis. France that had been putting a claim on that country for a long time to turn it into its sphere of influence resorted to taking decisive actions: under the pretext of protection its citizens from unrest and turmoil which earlier began in the Moroccan capital it brought troops into the town of Fez and established over it actual protectorate. Being aware of the fact that Germany had an interest in this country France from a preventive perspective offered her a part of its holding in Congo. However having left this gesture without attention to the Moroccan port of Agad’s River on the Atlantic coast the commander of the German government gave order to the "Panther" gunboat to make for it. The point of distination was reached on July 1, 1917. This action was fully in line with the implementation of the system of specific principles of interaction where the preferences favored for rigid methods of psychological influence on his opponent. This German diplomatic demarche received wide press and became to be called "A Panther’s leap" [8].
As a result of the Agad’s crisis (another name of the Second Moroccan Crisis) there appeared a threat of military conflict between France and Germany. However, within the principles of systemic interaction the preferences were eventually given to the benefit of the balance of power. Moreover, Britain came up as an important moderator in setting up situation in which similarly to the period of the First Moroccan Crisis she has joined France’s commitments. As a result in 1911, November 4 the Franco-German agreement was signed according to which Germany recognized France’s pre-emptive rights to Morocco in exchange for German’s presence in Congo in Equatorial Africa. It was also recorded on the consent regime for "open doors" in Morocco for 30 years. In addition, there was given another "carte blanche" for the joint Franco-German exploitation of the natural resources of the African continent. When institutionalizing this process, it was formalized in the form of the creation of a joint company with the participation of capital and mutual support of the governments of the both countries which was to deploy a large-scale exploitation of raw materials in the colonies of Equatorial Africa. The events under consideration were only encouraging and stimulating Germany’s urging her leadership that just such a system of cooperation as severe pressure on their opponents proved to be quite effective.

Basic Parameters, Characteristic Features and Principal Actors of The Transit To The First Global Conflict Early The Twentieth Century" System.
Characteristic features and signs of «The Transit To The First Global Conflict Early The Twentieth Century" System:
Recurrent display of the motivation factor (an essential segment) of foreign policy interaction with the implementation of economic interests (construction a pan-European rail framework with the meaning of coterminous reorientation of international political configuration and aiming to normalize the functioning of economic sphere in many countries).
Formation of a dominant position and gaining the role of unifying factor within doctrinal expression in foreign policy along with national ideas and national interests in their strategic concepts (liberation movements, movements for ethnic rights, autonomist and separatist exposures, anti-colonial manifestations as well as other movements).
Emergence of «The Continental Of "the European Choice" Subsystem under the influence of various sorts of international relations which finally went down along the way of increasing tension and instability.
Activation of the principles of rates rising and military blackmail due to departure from the system of equilibrium and balance of powers (the Bosnian crisis).
Coming out to the foreground of a basic motivator for the conflict emergence and transition of crisis component as the principal element of a system on the level of practicable assistance to the commencement of the European coalitions withstanding (an attempt upon the life of a heir to the Austro-Hungarian imperial throne Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the conflict between Serbia and Austro-Hungary as one of the possible options in solving interstate conflicts).
Defining within a systematic measurement of the World War I phenomenon as one of the forms of the conflict among states as well as the extreme case of states behavior in which the use of violence is allowed as a legal situation with the high level of juridical equality of the parties.
Inevitable systemic transition of the initiatives in making decisions in international affairs from the political to the military sheres and as a result – the final change in setting up priorities within the regulatory mechanisms of action items aimed at implementation of law and traditions motives in favor of coercive and military induction which has become a dominant and a system guiding vector (German’s readiness for war mobilization along with the similar one of France, Austria-Hungary and Russia, the order of the Austrian emperor to declare war on Serbia, "Parade" of mutual-sized declarations for war among the leading European powers).
A clear manifestation of the variability in the composing of the military and political alliances confronting each other alongside with the dynamics of filling of both alliances, alignment and balance of forces that were highly mobile; invariance of the basic algorithm of confrontational relations – the withstanding of the Entente and the coalition of the Central Powers (the emergence with the beginning of war of the three fronts, the alternate entering into the war of Japan, Turkey, Italy etc., the existence of the three groups of countries of the Iberian Peninsular and the countries of the South and Eastern Europe that were keeping on with maintaining their neutrality, the creation of the Quadruple Alliance, the drawing of Greece into the war on the side of the Entente, victory in the struggle for the "neutral" countries of the Entente).
Defining of the goals in foreign policy through the concept of the national interest and the latter’s reinforcement with power (the book by F. Naumann "The Middle Europe", programmed purposes of Austria-Hungary’s foreign policy aimed at the practical destruction of all independence manifestations within the camp of the Balkan countries region, the French model of hopes and expectations rendering to return lost territories of Alsace and Lorraine in 1871 by means of force, the implementation of Russia’s foreign policy imperative to control the Black Sea straits, aggressive actions encouragement of her allies within the frames of both the military and political alliances (Turkey, Bulgaria and others, "the Sayks-Pico agreement").
Formation of true preconditions for a new structure creation within interstate relations where the balance of forces was centered around the two main political formations (the Entente and the Quadruple Alliance). Under the influence of World War I the superior force major vectors were distributed around the whole world and all over the entire geopolitical space. The latters had already been pointing out to laying either a true basis or creation of a fundamentally different structure of the world system of international relations – a multipolar the Versailles-Washington system (the US enter into "The Great War", the October Overturn in Russia, the signing of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, formulating of "The Woodwow Wilson’s 14 points", a paragraph on the establishment of the League of Nations, the withdrawal from the war of Bulgaria and Turkey, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, an altering of legitimate power in Germany, "the Compiegne Peace as a result of signing the armistices between the Allies and Germany).
Coming into existence in the East of the European continent of the new states meant laying foundation of a new type of states interrelations where there started to be determing not only regional but also group and bilateral aspects of interstate relations as merely structural levels of the newly emerging system of international relations (Russia’s interaction with the former subordinate territories, Russia’s relations with the Ukrainian Peoples Republic etc.).
War between the authorities in Ukraine and (forcibly upheavaled) power of the Soviets in Russia should be considered as an armed conflict among structural levels of the newly emerging interstate order.
From the view point of creation systemic prerequisities for the formation of a multipolar world order in the future actions of coterminous Ukrainian government could be viewed as the actions on the structural level in which each actor within its limits was seeking to increase one’s opportunities giving preferences to the methods of negotiations over the similars of war.

REFERENCES:
Essentials of the presented system design are introduced in the scientific literature for the first time. This publication contains only some components of a case study. The complete version of its architechtonics is included in the textbook prepared by the author. Khyzhnyak I.A. Systems of the International Relations in Modern History / Morion (I.A. Khyzhnyak). – K.: Osvita Ukrainy, 2011.
A stated system of international relations is introduced into scientific discourse by the author of this writing for the first time.
Documents diplomatiques francais (1871 - 1914). Ser. 1 (1871 - 1914). (1871 - 1900). Vol. 1-16. – P., 1929 – 1959.
The Russian-German relations. Secret documents 1873 – 1914. – M., 1972.
Sheremet V.I. Bosphorus: Russia and Turkey in the era of the First World War. – M., 1995.
International relations in the era of imperialism. Documents from the tzarist and Provisional Goverments’ archives. 1878 – 1917. Series 2. 1900 – 1913. Vol. 19. – L. 1931 – 1938.
Die Grosse Politik der Europäischen Kabinette. B. Teil 1. № 9055. S. 191 – 192. – Berlin, 1992 – 1927.
Die Grosse Politik der Europäischen Kabinette. B. XXIX. № 10598. S. 173. – Berlin, 1922 – 1927.



Создан 04 сен 2015