imiМеждународная аналитикаJournal of International Analytics2587-84762541-9633MGIMO University10.46272/2587-8476-2022-13-1-94-109imi-416Research ArticleИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЕ СТАТЬИRESEARCH ARTICLESПродвижение Европейским союзом концепции «глобального управления» в системе ООНEuropean Union in Promotion of Global Governance in the UN SystemБояшовА. С.BoyashovA. S.

Анатолий Сергеевич Бояшов, эксперт Центра международных исследований факультета международных отношений

220030, г. Минск, ул. Ленинградская, д. 20, к. 1109

Anatoly S. Boyashov, expert of the Center for International Studies of the Faculty of International Relations

220030, Minsk, Leningradskaya str. 20, 1109

anatoliy.boyashov@gmail.comБелорусский государственный университетБеларусьBelarusian State UniversityBelarus20222803202213194109Copyright © Бояшов А.С., 20222022Бояшов А.С.Boyashov A.S.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.interanalytics.org/jour/article/view/416

Проблема глобального управления, исследуемая с 1990-х гг., постепенно трансформировалась в политико-идеологическую концепцию, часто встречающуюся в программных документах стран и институтов ЕС, под которой сегодня понимают в основном «порядок, основанный на правилах». Отличительной характеристикой этой концепции является «размывание» межгосударственного взаимодействия на мировой арене в пользу негосударственного и супранационального. В соответствии с положениями глобального управления иерархия между государственными акторами и негосударственными или супрагосударственными участниками якобы отсутствует. В этой статье данное положение осмысливается критически при помощи социологической теории дифференциации. Согласно положениям теории дифференциации, государство не остается в стороне от «глобального управления», а занимает лидирующие позиции в иерархии уровней мировой политики. В заключительной части статьи рассмотрены принципы координации ЕС в системе ООН. Для продвижения идей глобального управления Евросоюз нацелен на масштабное реформирование ООН через переплетение межправительственного взаимодействия с неправительственным. Эта модель используется особенно часто при рассмотрении в том или ином органе ООН непрофильных вопросов (например, прав человека или климата в Совете Безопасности), что позволяет расширять состав участников переговоров, а в стратегической перспективе – пересматривать положения Устава ООН. Основной вывод статьи состоит в том, что действия ЕС в системе ООН опровергают положение глобального управления об отсутствии иерархии между межгосударственным и супрагосударственным уровнями мировой политики. Несмотря на активное продвижение государствами Евросоюза идей глобального управления, сам ЕС строится на межгосударственной координации и жесткой иерархии как между государствами, так и между государствами и неправительственными участниками.

Having evolved since the 1990s into a political and ideological concept, global governance has become one of the priorities of the program documents of EU states and institutions, today formulated as “rules-based order”. A distinctive feature of this concept is the “blurring” of interstate interaction on the world stage in favor of non-state and supranational interaction. Under global governance, there is allegedly no hierarchy between state actors and nonstate or supra-state actors. This article critically examines this thesis with the help of the sociological theory of diff erentiation. According to diff erentiation theory, the state does not remain on the sidelines of global governance but takes the lead in the hierarchy of levels of world politics. The fi nal part of the article deals with the principles of EU coordination in the UN system. To promote ideas of global governance, the EU aims at major reform of the UN through intertwining intergovernmental interaction with nongovernmental interaction. This model is used especially often when non-core issues (e.g., human rights or climate in the Security Council) are considered in a UN body, allowing for broader participation in negotiations and, from a strategic perspective, a revision of the UN Charter. The main conclusion of the article is that the EU’s actions in the UN system refute the position of global governance that there is no hierarchy between the interstate and supranational levels of world politics. Despite the active promotion of global governance by the EU states, the EU itself is based on interstate coordination and a rigid hierarchy among states, as well as between states and nongovernmental actors.

система ООНЕвропейский союзглобальное управлениеСовет по правам человекаВсемирная организация здравоохраненияФАОПарижское соглашениеUnited Nations systemEuropean Unionglobal governanceHuman Rights CouncilWorld Health OrganizationFood and Agriculture OrganizationParis AgreementReferencesБогатуров, А.Д., Косолапов, Н.А., Хрусталев, М.А. Очерки теории и методологии политического анализа международных отношений. – Москва: НОФМО. – 390 c.Bogaturov, A.D., Kosolapov, N.A., and M.A. Hrustalev. Ocherki teorii i metodologii politicheskogo analiza mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij. Moskva: NOFMO, 2002 [In Russian].Колобов, О.А., Сергунин, А.А., Корнилов, А.А., Макарычев, А.С. Процесс принятия внешнеполитических решений: исторический опыт США, Государства Израиль и стран Западной Европы. – Нижний Новгород. – 240 с.Kolobov, O.A., Sergunin, A.A., Kornilov, A.A., Makarychev, A.S. Process prinjatija vneshnepoliticheskih reshenij: istoricheskij opyt SShA, Gosudarstva Izrail’ i stran Zapadnoj Evropy. Nizhnij Novgorod, 1992 [In Russian].Конышев, В.Н., Сергунин, А.А. Теория международных отношений: Канун новых «великих дебатов»? // Полис. Политические исследования. – 2013. – № 2. – С. 66–78.Konyshev, V.N., Sergunin, A.A. “Teorija mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij: Kanun novyh “velikih debatov”?” // Polis. Political Studies, no. 2 (2013): 66–78 [In Russian].Ходынская-Голенищева, М.С. Работа Совета Безопасности ООН по сирийскому кризису в условиях трансформации системы международных отношений // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. – 2017. – № 6(57). – С. 161–173. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2017-6-57-161-173.Khodynskaya-Golenischeva, M. “The UN Security Council Councilating on Syria in the Context of Emerging Multipolarity of International Relations.” MGIMO Review of International Relations 57, no. 6 (2017): 161–173. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2017-6-57-161-173 [In Russian].Albert, M. Theory of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.Albert, M. Theory of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.Axelrod, R., and R. Keohane. “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions.” World Politics 38, no. 1 (1985): 226–254.Axelrod, R., and R. Keohane. “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions.” World Politics 38, no. 1 (1985): 226–254.Barnett, M., and R. Duvall “Power in International Politics.” International Organization 59, no. 1 (2005): 39–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818305050010.Barnett, M., and R. Duvall “Power in International Politics.” International Organization 59, no. 1 (2005): 39–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818305050010.Barnett, M., and M. Finnemore. “The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations.” International Organization 53, no. 4 (1999): 699–732.Barnett, M., and M. Finnemore. “The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations.” International Organization 53, no. 4 (1999): 699–732.Brand, U., Brunnengräber, A., Schrader, L., Stock, C., and P. Wahl. Global Governance. Alternative zur Neoliberalen Globalisierung? Münster: Wesfälisches Dampfboot, 2000.Brand, U., Brunnengräber, A., Schrader, L., Stock, C., and P. Wahl. Global Governance. Alternative zur Neoliberalen Globalisierung? Münster: Wesfälisches Dampfboot, 2000.Buzan, B., and M. Albert. “Diff erentiation: a Sociological Approach to International Relations Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 3 (2010): 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109350064.Buzan, B., and M. Albert. “Diff erentiation: a Sociological Approach to International Relations Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 3 (2010): 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109350064.Castells, M. “The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616 (2008): 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311877.Castells, M. “The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616 (2008): 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311877.Delreux, T., and St. Keukeleire “Informal Division of Labour in EU Foreign Policy-making.” Journal of European Public Policy 24, no. 10 (2017):1471–1490. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1216151.Delreux, T., and St. Keukeleire “Informal Division of Labour in EU Foreign Policy-making.” Journal of European Public Policy 24, no. 10 (2017):1471–1490. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1216151.Dingwerth, K., and P. Pattberg. “Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics.” Global Governance 12, no. 2 (2006): 185–203.Dingwerth, K., and P. Pattberg. “Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics.” Global Governance 12, no. 2 (2006): 185–203.Fuchs, D., and Fr. Kratochwil, eds. Transformative Change and Global Order: Refl ections on Theory and Practice. Munster: LIT Verlag, 2002.Fuchs, D., and Fr. Kratochwil, eds. Transformative Change and Global Order: Refl ections on Theory and Practice. Munster: LIT Verlag, 2002.Fukuyama, F. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press, 1992.Fukuyama, F. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press, 1992.Fumasoli, T., Stensaker, B., and M. Vukasovic. “Tackling the Multi-actor and Multi-level Complexity of European Governance of Knowledge: Transnational actors in focus.” European Educational Research Journal 17, no. 3 (2018): 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117742763.Fumasoli, T., Stensaker, B., and M. Vukasovic. “Tackling the Multi-actor and Multi-level Complexity of European Governance of Knowledge: Transnational actors in focus.” European Educational Research Journal 17, no. 3 (2018): 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117742763.Grieco, J. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42, no. 3 (1998): 485–507. Haas, E. The Uniting of Europe. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958.Grieco, J. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42, no. 3 (1998): 485–507. Haas, E. The Uniting of Europe. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958.Harteveld, E., Schaper, J., De Lange, S., and W. Van der Brug. “Blaming Brussels? The Impact of (News about) the Refugee Crisis on Attitudes towards the EU and National Politics.” Journal of Common Market Studies 56, no. 1 (2018):157–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12664.Harteveld, E., Schaper, J., De Lange, S., and W. Van der Brug. “Blaming Brussels? The Impact of (News about) the Refugee Crisis on Attitudes towards the EU and National Politics.” Journal of Common Market Studies 56, no. 1 (2018):157–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12664.Archibugi, D., and D. Held. Cosmopolitan Democracy. An Agenda for a New World Order. Massachusetts: Polity, 1995. Hoff mann, S. The European Sisyphus: Essays on Europe, 1964–1994. Boulder: Westview Press, 1995.Archibugi, D., and D. Held. Cosmopolitan Democracy. An Agenda for a New World Order. Massachusetts: Polity, 1995. Hoff mann, S. The European Sisyphus: Essays on Europe, 1964–1994. Boulder: Westview Press, 1995.Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance.” American Political Science Review 97, no. 2 (2003): 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649.Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance.” American Political Science Review 97, no. 2 (2003): 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649.Keohane, R., and J. Nye, eds. Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972. Keohane, R., and J. Nye. Power and Interdependence. World Politics in Transition. New York: Longman, 1997.Keohane, R., and J. Nye, eds. Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972. Keohane, R., and J. Nye. Power and Interdependence. World Politics in Transition. New York: Longman, 1997.Keohane, R. “International Institutions: Two Approaches.” International Studies Quarterly 32, no. 4 (1998): 379–396.Keohane, R. “International Institutions: Two Approaches.” International Studies Quarterly 32, no. 4 (1998): 379–396.Krasner, S. International Regimes. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press, 1983.Krasner, S. International Regimes. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press, 1983.Lindberg, L. The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963.Lindberg, L. The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963.Marks, G., Scharpf, F., Schmitter, P., and W. Streeck. Governance in the European Union. London: SAGE, 1996.Marks, G., Scharpf, F., Schmitter, P., and W. Streeck. Governance in the European Union. London: SAGE, 1996.Marks, G. “Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC.” In The State of the European Community, edited by Cafruny A., and G. Rosenthal, 391–410. New York: Lynne Rienne, 1993.Marks, G. “Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC.” In The State of the European Community, edited by Cafruny A., and G. Rosenthal, 391–410. New York: Lynne Rienne, 1993.Milward, A. The European Rescue of the Nation-State. London: Routledge, 1992.Milward, A. The European Rescue of the Nation-State. London: Routledge, 1992.Moravcsik, A. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press, 1998.Moravcsik, A. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press, 1998.Moravcsik, A. “In Defence of ‘the Democratic Defi cit’: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union.” Journal of Common Market Studies 40, no. 4 (2002): 603–624.Moravcsik, A. “In Defence of ‘the Democratic Defi cit’: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union.” Journal of Common Market Studies 40, no. 4 (2002): 603–624.Nugent, N. The Government and Politics of the European Union. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006.Nugent, N. The Government and Politics of the European Union. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006.Nye, J., and R. Keohane. “Transnational Relations and World Politics: An Introduction.” International Organization 25, no. 3 (1971): 329–349.Nye, J., and R. Keohane. “Transnational Relations and World Politics: An Introduction.” International Organization 25, no. 3 (1971): 329–349.Peters, G., and J. Pierre, eds. Politicians, Bureaucrats and Administrative Reform. London: Routledge, 2001.Peters, G., and J. Pierre, eds. Politicians, Bureaucrats and Administrative Reform. London: Routledge, 2001.Pugh, R. “Questioning the Implementation of Smart Specialisation: Regional Innovation Policy and Semiautonomous Regions.” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 36, no. 3 (2018): 530–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417717069.Pugh, R. “Questioning the Implementation of Smart Specialisation: Regional Innovation Policy and Semiautonomous Regions.” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 36, no. 3 (2018): 530–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417717069.Rosenau, J. “Governance, Order, and Change in World Politics.” In Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, edited by Rosenau J., and E. Czempiel. London: Cambridge University Press (1992): 1–29.Rosenau, J. “Governance, Order, and Change in World Politics.” In Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, edited by Rosenau J., and E. Czempiel. London: Cambridge University Press (1992): 1–29.Rosenau, J. “Governance in the Twenty-fi rst Century.” Global Governance 1, no. 1 (1995): 13–43.Rosenau, J. “Governance in the Twenty-fi rst Century.” Global Governance 1, no. 1 (1995): 13–43.Rosenau, J. “Toward an Ontology of Global Governance.” In Approaches to Global Governance Theory, edited by Hewson M., and Sinclair T, 287–302. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.Rosenau, J. “Toward an Ontology of Global Governance.” In Approaches to Global Governance Theory, edited by Hewson M., and Sinclair T, 287–302. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.Sabel, C., and J. Zeitlin. “Learning from Diff erence: the New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the EU.” European Law Journal 14, no. 3 (2008): 271–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2008.00415.x.Sabel, C., and J. Zeitlin. “Learning from Diff erence: the New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the EU.” European Law Journal 14, no. 3 (2008): 271–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2008.00415.x.Schmitter, P. “A Revised Theory of Regional Integration.” International Organization 24, no. 4 (1970): 836–868.Schmitter, P. “A Revised Theory of Regional Integration.” International Organization 24, no. 4 (1970): 836–868.Slaughter, A. “The Real New World Order.” Foreign Aff airs 76, no. 5 (1997): 183–197.Slaughter, A. “The Real New World Order.” Foreign Aff airs 76, no. 5 (1997): 183–197.Wallace, H., and W. Wallace. Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.Wallace, H., and W. Wallace. Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.Weiss, T. “Governance, Good Governance and Global Governance: Conceptual and Actual challenges.” Third World Quarterly 21, no. 5 (2000): 795–814.Weiss, T. “Governance, Good Governance and Global Governance: Conceptual and Actual challenges.” Third World Quarterly 21, no. 5 (2000): 795–814.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.