ACCORDING TO US OFFICIALS, the United States is committed to the principle of multilateralism in foreign policy. With the arrival of a new administration in the White House, it would be useful to recall the approaches of the previous administration. President George W. Bush Jr. said that solving problems together with strong partners would best promote American interests. The US sees multilateral diplomacy as essential to these efforts. Whether it's the UN, the Organization of American States, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, or one of the many other international organizations that the United States is a member of, American diplomats work vigorously in them.

The United States National Security Strategy of 2002 stated: “The United States is guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer and better world alone” and proceeds from the fact that “alliances and multilateral institutions can increase the influence of freedom-loving countries. The United States is committed to strong institutions such as the UN, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, NATO, and other longstanding alliances."

The 2006 National Security Strategy outlined the White House's position on multilateral diplomacy: U.S. relations with the major centers of world power should be "supported by appropriate institutions, regional and global, aimed at longer-term, effective, and comprehensive cooperation. Where existing institutions can reform, make them capable of solving new problems, we must reform them together with our partners. Where the necessary institutions do not exist, we must create them together with our partners." The document also stated that "the United States supports the reform of the UN in order to increase the effectiveness of its peacekeeping operations, as well as to strengthen accountability, internal oversight and a greater focus on results of management."

Representatives of the administration of George W. Bush Jr. have regularly stated that the US is actively committed to the United Nations and the ideals on which it was founded. The same was stated by American official documents. "The United States is one of the founding members of the UN. We want the UN to be effective, respected and successful," President George W. Bush said speaking at the 57th session of the UN General Assembly in 2002.

The United States has been the leading financial contributor to the UN budget since its inception. In 2005 and 2006 they allocated $5.3 billion each to the UN system. Because of this, the United States considers itself entitled to expect from the Organization that these funds will be spent efficiently. Deputy Secretary of State for International Organizations K. Silverberg said in September 2006 that "the United States spends more than 5 billion dollars a year in the UN" and "wants to be sure that their taxpayers' money is spent wisely and goes to improve the situation in developing countries for people suffering from human rights violations and the spread of dangerous diseases."

The position of the leading financial donor allows the United States to expect that the actions of the UN will not, in the main, conflict with US interests. Thus, the United States voted only for those peacekeeping operations that met their national interests and supported them financially, while the share of the US military in the number of UN blue helmets is 1/7 of 1%.

In the administration of George W. Bush Jr. recognized that membership in the United Nations is in the national interest of the United States. During her tenure, the long-standing debate in the United States over the costs and benefits of United Nations membership intensified. So far in the United States, there are such arguments against participation in the UN as undermining the national sovereignty of the United States and violating the powers of Congress in relation to the budget. However, awareness of the benefits has increased over time. One of the main advantages of UN membership for the United States is the ability to influence decision-making in the World Organization and thus promote the goals of its foreign policy. In addition, the indisputable benefits, according to the United States, include: coordination of actions to maintain international peace and security, development of friendly ties between peoples, development of international cooperation to resolve economic, social and humanitarian problems, spreading respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Also, according to the United States, without collective action within the framework of the UN, there would not have been a truce in Korea in 1953 or a peaceful resolution of crises in El Salvador, Mozambique, Bosnia, East Timor. The benefits of membership in the United States include the cooperation of states in the fight against infectious diseases through the World Health Organization, the fight against hunger through the World Food Program, efforts to combat illiteracy through special UN programs, the coordination of aviation, postal transportation and telecommunications.

The United States is pursuing a broad agenda at the UN that reflects the global issues facing foreign policy and diplomacy—preventing HIV/AIDS, fighting hunger, providing humanitarian assistance to those in need, maintaining peace in Africa, the problems of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Palestinian-Israeli settlement , problems of WMD non-proliferation (nuclear problems of Iran and North Korea), the fight against international terrorism, arms control and disarmament, the problems of climate change on the planet.

Under President Bush Jr. The United States returned to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), from which it left in 1984, believing that it was wasting American funds. In 2003, the United States returned to UNESCO because it believed it had made significant financial and administrative reforms and renewed efforts to strengthen its founding principles. In addition, the full participation of the United States in UNESCO is important for them from the point of view of national interests, and they could not remain on the sidelines for a long time. For example, UNESCO's Education for All program, designed to make universal basic education available to all, has helped advance US educational goals.

In the 21st century, the confrontation between the two ideological blocs and the threat of their direct collision with the use of nuclear weapons has been replaced by new challenges and threats: international terrorism, human trafficking, the spread of international drug networks, infectious diseases, poverty, and environmental degradation. In this regard, US President George W. Bush Jr. and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proclaimed a new diplomacy, "transformational diplomacy". The logic of the administration was that "non-viable states" cannot cope with these problems, and therefore measures are needed aimed at strengthening civil society, developing the rule of law and a culture of free elections, encouraging economic openness by reducing corruption, eliminating barriers to business, enhancing human capital through education. The new diplomacy is focused on responsible governance, economic reforms, and the development of strong regional and local organizations, both governmental and non-governmental.

In this regard, the interaction of the United States of America with the UN is determined by three principles.

The US, the White House said, wanted the UN to live up to its founders' vision of obliging all member states to contribute to international peace and security by guaranteeing their citizens freedom, health, and economic opportunity.

Further. The United States sought to ensure an effective multilateral approach. In their opinion, such diplomacy should not be limited to empty declarations, but to tangibly promote peace, freedom, sustainable development, health care and humanitarian assistance for the benefit of ordinary citizens on every continent. At the same time, if the UN does not fulfill its purpose, the United States considered itself obliged to declare it. Also, in their opinion, other countries should do the same.

Finally, the US is seeking sound management of UN resources. An effective UN must spend its resources wisely. Those who receive assistance under its programs should actually receive it. The United States was committed to working with other Member States to soundly manage and fund UN organizations and programs and to promote reforms that make the UN more capable and effective.

These three principles of US interaction with the UN, according to the White House, determined five American priorities:

To ensure the preservation of peace and the protection of civilians who are threatened by wars and tyranny;

Put multilateralism at the service of democracy, freedom and good governance. These goals were to determine almost all UN activities. The United States has made it a priority to create a situation where all members of the UN system recognize that the promotion of freedom, the rule of law, and good governance is part of their mission. Similarly, the United States felt it necessary to vigorously support UN efforts to organize assistance to emerging democracies in holding elections, training judges, strengthening the rule of law, and reducing corruption;

Help countries and individuals in dire need. The United States has frequently endorsed the UN's efforts to provide humanitarian assistance;

Promote results-oriented economic development. According to the US, sustainable development requires the market, economic freedom and the rule of law. In addition, foreign financial assistance can promote growth if, and only if, developing country governments first implement the necessary reforms at home;

Push for reform and budgetary discipline at the UN. Emphasis on core missions, achievement of set goals, and wise use of Member State contributions will not only improve the institutions of the United Nations, but also increase their credibility and support in the United States and elsewhere. The United States will join forces with other members to help the UN reform underperforming institutions and shut down ineffective and outdated programs. Moreover, the United States was determined to ensure that only countries that supported the founding ideals of the UN were given leadership positions.

Since the end of the Cold War, the UN has become an important foreign policy tool for the United States in its efforts to spread the values ​​that Americans believe in. The United States believes that, as the founding state, host country, and most influential member of the UN, it is essential to the success of the Organization. Hence, they believe, it is very important to maintain the leading role of the United States in the UN.

The United States believes that it must prioritize and lead the various activities of the UN, oppose initiatives that are contrary to American policy, and strive to achieve its goals at the lowest cost to American taxpayers. In their view, American leadership is essential to advance core American and UN principles and values.

The United States appreciates the activities of the UN as a peacekeeper, mediator and representative of the world community in Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Haiti, Lebanon, Syria, Western Sahara, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia. In addition, the UN, in their opinion, plays an important role in such issues as the fight against HIV / AIDS, the elimination of the consequences of the tsunami, the fight against illiteracy, the spread of democracy, the protection of human rights, the fight against the slave trade, freedom of the media, civil aviation, trade, development, refugee protection, food delivery, vaccination and immunization, election monitoring.

At the same time, the United States noted such shortcomings of the UN as the presence of programs that were started with the best of intentions, but over time became useless and absorbed a large amount of resources that could have been used more efficiently. Among the shortcomings, they rank excessive politicization of issues, in connection with which it is impossible to work out solutions on them; such situations in which states come to the lowest common denominator, thus reaching agreement for the sake of agreement; and a position where countries that violate the rights of their citizens, sponsor terrorism, and engage in WMD proliferation are allowed to determine the outcome of decisions.

According to the United States, many of the problems of the UN are caused by the lack of democracy in member countries. Non-democratic states, according to Washington, do not follow the universal principles of the UN for the protection of human rights, moreover, due to the large number of such states, they have significant influence. As conceived by the United States, the United Nations, consisting of democracies, would not face the problem of the contradiction between state sovereignty and the universal principles of the Organization that undermines it (for example, the election of Libya as chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, and Syria, included in the United States to the list of countries supporting terrorism - to the Security Council).

The statements of the State Department noted that it is necessary to avoid blaming the failures of the entire Organization on its individual structures or on individual member states: the UN is only as effective as its members themselves want, but this does not mean that they are the source of all the troubles in the UN, because there are problems within its individual organs and structures.

Washington believed that the United Nations did not have undisputed authority and legitimacy and was not the only mechanism for making decisions about the use of force. "Those who think so are ignoring the obvious and misinterpreting the Charter of the Organization. The UN is a political association whose members protect their national interests," said US State Department Deputy Head for International Organizations C. Holmes. He also explained that the UN Security Council is not the only and not the main source of international law, even in cases relating to international peace and security. "We still live in a world organized in accordance with the Westphalian international order, where sovereign states conclude treaties. Following the terms of these treaties, including treaties within the UN itself, is an inalienable right of states and their peoples."

In 2007, Deputy Secretary of State K. Silverberg said that exclusion of the UN from the competitive process with other foreign policy instruments should be avoided. When the United States faces the problem of solving any foreign policy problem, it uses the instrument of foreign policy that it considers most suitable for itself. In this sense, for the United States, the UN system does not always have a priority: “In order to work effectively through the UN system, it is necessary to realistically assess its capabilities. Critics of the UN often do not perceive the value of multilateralism and universalism and ignore the enormous work of various UN structures. But a multilateral approach is effective only when practiced among relatively similar countries, such as in NATO. Add universal membership to this, and the difficulties increase. Add the wide scope of the bureaucracy, and it becomes even more difficult. "

In its approach to the United Nations, the administration of George W. Bush Jr. combined numerous assurances of commitment and support to the World Organization with the promotion of the view that the UN is not a key instrument for the collective regulation of international relations and the resolution of problems of international peace and security. The White House believed that the UN should be in a competitive process on a par with other foreign policy instruments, such as NATO, and when a foreign policy problem arises for the United States, they choose the tool that, in their opinion, will be most appropriate and effective for a particular situation.

Nevertheless, the United States has not abandoned multilateral diplomacy at the United Nations, which, through a network of specialized agencies, quite successfully deals with various problems. The UN is important to the United States for the realization of national interests, such as spreading its ideals and values ​​around the world. Of particular importance under President George W. Bush Jr. The United States has given the United Nations a role to play in supporting and developing democratic movements and institutions in all countries and building democratic states in accordance with its concept of "democracy of change." In their opinion, the activities of the UN are simply irreplaceable in such states as Burma, Sudan, Iran and North Korea.

It is worth noting that the Bush administration, in its approach, left to the United Nations the solution of problems mainly of a humanitarian, social and economic nature - such as the fight against hunger, poverty, illiteracy, infectious diseases, the elimination of the consequences of natural disasters, and the solution of sustainable development issues. The United States still retains the primary right to resolve issues of a military-political nature, arguing that "the success of a multilateral approach is measured not by following the process, but by achieving results" and that "it is important to consider the UN and other multilateral institutions as one option out of many." This approach prioritizes the achievement of the United States' own foreign policy goals to the detriment of the principles and norms of international law.

Diplomacy is traditionally regarded as the most important means of implementing the foreign policy of states. In the narrow sense of the word, diplomacy is understood as the art of negotiating and concluding agreements between states. In a broader sense, it is the activity of state bodies of foreign relations to represent the state abroad in order to achieve the goals of foreign policy and peacefully protect its rights and interests abroad.

In the Diplomatic Dictionary, published in the USSR in 1984, diplomacy included “the official activities of heads of state and government, foreign ministers, foreign affairs departments, diplomatic missions abroad, delegations at international conferences to implement the goals and objectives of the state’s foreign policy, protect rights and interests of the state, its institutions and citizens abroad.

The formation of the modern model of diplomacy took place in the course of a long historical evolution. A detailed historical review of the emergence and main stages in the development of diplomacy from the ancient world to the 20th century is made in the fundamental multi-volume scientific work "History of Diplomacy". According to the authors of this work, "one can speak of diplomacy in the true sense of the word only with the development of the state."

Although the arsenal of forms and methods of diplomatic activity in the course of historical development was constantly replenished, however, bilateral relations between states remained the dominant form of diplomatic missions for many centuries.

Permanent diplomatic missions and resident ambassadors, special state departments involved in foreign policy, appeared in the Italian city-states from the 14th century. Gradually, these institutions were adopted by other states.

The multinational continental states that arose at the dawn of European history: the Ancient Roman Empire (I - IV centuries), the Frankish, Carolingian Empire (the first half of the IX century) and the German, or Holy; The Roman Empire - in some cases used the methods of multilateral diplomacy, but they were rather an exception; than the rule, and were not a necessary and integral part4 of the entire system of international relations.

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476, a medieval civilization began to form in Europe, one of the distinguishing features of which was the strengthening of the role of Christianity in the life of its peoples. .

The Holy Roman Empire was a conglomeration of feudal states and possessions. The main mission of uniting the disunited and chaotic Western world was undertaken by the only organized force of that time, the Christian Church of the Form of Diplomacy; including multilateral ones, turned out to be subordinated not to the interests of this or that. another state, but the tasks that the church as an institution solved.

The Holy See in medieval Europe began to make attempts to substantiate the supremacy of supra-secular spiritual power, to create a pan-European theocratic monarchy under the primacy of the papacy, and to induce all the Christian sovereigns of Europe to recognize themselves as its vassals. His diplomatic practice was also devoted to the solution of these problems. The Pope of Rome acted as the supreme arbiter of relations between medieval rulers, crowned the secular monarchs of Europe as emperors, convened church councils, which at that moment served as one of the most important forms of multilateral diplomacy of the church. In 1095, in Clermont, Pope Urban II convened a Church Council, at which he personally called for help to the Orthodox Byzantines. This event can be attributed to one of the forms of multilateral diplomacy of the Holy See.

In an effort to maintain and consolidate its positions in changing conditions, the Roman Catholic Church in the 15th century began to invite to the Ecumenical Councils, in addition to churchmen, representatives of the Catholic monarchs of Europe, the largest theologians and lawyers, who began to enjoy the same voting right when discussing the most important issues of European politics.

In the late 50s - early 60s. In the 15th century, Pope Pius II attempted to replace the ecumenical councils with a new form of multilateral diplomacy - a congress of all Christian sovereigns of Europe in order to unite them under his leadership in countering the advance of the "infidels" deep into the European continent. However, this initiative of Pius II did not meet with the support of the monarchs and was not implemented.

At the beginning of the XIV century, the strengthening of centralized monarchies based on secular principles in many countries of Western Europe led to the fall of the papal theocracy. The era of her diplomacy was coming to an end. The development of international relations in Europe during this period was greatly influenced by the political theory of balance or balance of power, in the interests of observing which states began to form various combinations of coalitions and alliances. This practice marked the beginning of a new stage in the development of multilateral diplomacy as an institution. The Hanseatic League of North German states, which became the prototype of future international organizations, made a significant contribution to the development of various forms of multilateral diplomacy.

The beginning of the process of formation of sovereign states in Europe turned out to be associated with the establishment of an absolutist form of government in many of them. The absolutist and dynastic nature of their new power structures introduced new elements into the means of multilateral diplomacy: in interstate relations, dynastic ties and marriages, as well as hereditary issues, became relatively more important.

The multilateral diplomacy of that time began to focus on efforts to create various coalitions and alliances of sovereign states, as well as to prepare and hold international congresses. As T.V. Zonov, “congresses assumed a purely political nature of the meeting, the purpose of which was, as a rule, to sign a peace treaty or to develop a new political and territorial structure. Participation in the congresses of the heads of state gave them a special solemnity.

The tools of multilateral diplomacy were very successfully used by the France of Emperor Napoleon I in the fight against the Holy Roman Empire. The Confederation of the Rhine, created by it in 1806 from 16 German states, broke with the empire and liquidated all its institutions on its territory on the left bank of the Rhine. As a result, in the same year, the end of the empire was officially announced. The first international organization, the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine, emerged in 1804 on the basis of an agreement between Germany and France and was caused by the need to regulate and ensure unhindered navigation on the Rhine. It was officially established by the Congress of Vienna on June 9, 1815.

At the beginning of the 20th century, everything: a wider application1 receives such a form of multilateral diplomacy as a diplomatic conference. Such conferences were held, among others, in London and Bucharest in 1912 with the aim of ending the Balkan Wars. In general, the conference XIX - early XX centuries. focused their work on specific issues or became preparatory stages for the convening of congresses. .

The development of the practice of multilateral diplomacy has become an important indicator of the growing need of states to jointly solve certain problems that affect their common interests. The activation of multilateral diplomacy testified to the beginning of the process of deepening the interdependence of states. There was a need to create permanent international institutions as specific mechanisms, multilateral diplomacy that could regulate certain areas of relations between sovereign states and act on an ongoing basis.

The emergence in the 19th century of such institutions of multilateral diplomacy as international organizations was facilitated by the fact that by the time they appeared, a number of norms and institutions of international law, necessary for their activities, had already taken shape. During this period, the main features of international organizations began to be affirmed: their legal nature, the permanent nature of work, the structure and basic principles of activity. .

In the 20th century, the organizational structure of multilateral diplomacy became much more complicated. Its highest form is international organizations that have their own charter, budget, headquarters and secretariat. Service in them began to be called the international civil service and subject to special regulatory regulation

Within the framework of multilateral diplomacy, meetings can be held between representatives of various groupings of states united according to geographical, ethnic, military-economic and other principles, which is called parity diplomacy. The practice of holding preparatory conferences at the level of experts or high diplomatic officials has received some development. Such actions" took place in the process of discussing the proposal to convene a pan-European meeting.

The activity of international organizations and conferences provides for the holding of plenary meetings, meetings of commissions, committees, subcommissions, working groups with carefully developed voting procedures (simple, qualified, absolute majority, consensus). .

Executive secretariats of conferences held by international organizations are being created. They are presented with letters of credence from the heads of delegations. Persons or delegations sent by states to participate in such conferences belong to the category of special missions (ad hoc), the status of which is regulated by the 1969 Convention on Special Missions (entered into force on June 21, 1985).

Conferences, as a rule, elect a chairman, his deputy, determine the order of speeches, voting and other procedural issues. The final documents of conferences are often signed by the chairman of the conference and the chairmen of the conference committees. During the discussion of the idea of ​​a pan-European conference on security and cooperation in Europe, as well as during the preparatory work for its convocation, both traditional and new forms of multilateral diplomacy were used, the essence of which will be discussed in the next section of the work.


INTRODUCTION

Significant changes have taken place on the world stage in recent years. The growing processes of globalization, despite their contradictory consequences, lead to a more even distribution of resources of influence and economic growth, laying the objective foundation for a multipolar structure of international relations. The strengthening of collective and legal principles in international relations continues on the basis of the recognition of the indivisibility of security in the modern world. In world politics, the importance of the energy factor and, in general, access to resources has increased. The international position of Russia has been considerably strengthened. A stronger, more self-confident Russia has become an important component of positive changes in the world.

As a result, the balance and competitive environment that were lost with the end of the Cold War are gradually being restored. The subject of competition, which acquires a civilizational dimension, are value orientations and models of development. With the universal recognition of the fundamental importance of democracy and the market as the foundations of social structure and economic life, their implementation takes various forms depending on the history, national characteristics and the level of socio-economic development of states.

Along with positive changes, negative trends persist: the expansion of the conflict space in world politics, the dropping of disarmament and arms control issues from the global agenda. Under the flag of combating new challenges and threats, attempts continue to create a “unipolar world”, to impose on other countries their political systems and development models while ignoring the historical, cultural, religious and other features of the development of the rest of the world, arbitrary application and interpretation of the norms and principles of international law.

The events of recent years also testify to the imposition on the world - contrary to the objective trend of modern world development - of the hypertrophied importance of the factor of force in international relations to solve certain problems based on political expediency, bypassing all legal norms. The lack of interest of individual states to bind themselves with new international legal obligations in the field of security and disarmament is becoming obvious, as a result of which the disarmament process is hampered, and those countries that feel militarily vulnerable become more inclined to possess weapons of mass destruction as a guarantee of their own security.

On the whole, the inertia of a unilateral reaction, conceptually based on the "victory in the Cold War" syndrome, is affecting. Linked to this approach is a policy of preserving the dividing lines in world politics through the gradual expansion - through the co-optation of new members - of the sphere of Western influence. The choice in favor of re-ideologization and militarization of international relations creates the threat of a new split in the world, now along civilizational lines. The situation is complicated by the fact that this is happening against the backdrop of the fight against international terrorism, which requires a broad dialogue between cultures, confessions and civilizations, their counteraction to extremism in their own environment, decisive progress in solving problems, including regional conflicts, which constitute the breeding ground for terrorism.

Introduction 3
1. The essence of multilateral diplomacy 5
2. Multilateral diplomacy and international security 9
3. Multilateral diplomacy of the Russian Federation 13
4. Organization of multilateral interregional diplomacy of foreign countries on the example of Latin American states 19
Conclusion 25
References: 26

Introduction

Significant changes have taken place on the world stage in recent years. The growing processes of globalization, despite their contradictory consequences, lead to a more even distribution of resources of influence and economic growth, laying the objective foundation for a multipolar structure of international relations. The strengthening of collective and legal principles in international relations continues on the basis of the recognition of the indivisibility of security in the modern world. In world politics, the importance of the energy factor and, in general, access to resources has increased. The international position of Russia has been considerably strengthened. A stronger, more self-confident Russia has become an important component of positive changes in the world.
There are many definitions of diplomacy. Some of them are given, for example, in such well-known works as "Diplomacy" by G. Nicholson, "Guide to Diplomatic Practice" by E. Satow and others. Most of these definitions come from the direct connection between diplomacy and the negotiation process. So, G. Nicholson, based on the definition given in the Oxford Dictionary, writes that diplomacy is "the conduct of international relations through negotiations; the method by which these relations are regulated and conducted by ambassadors and envoys; the work or art of a diplomat." This definition then formed the basis of many studies on diplomacy and negotiation theory. However, one should immediately make a reservation that it would be wrong to reduce diplomacy to negotiations only. In this case, a significant part of consular work would be outside the sphere of diplomacy, as well as, for example, consultations (they do not imply the adoption of a joint decision, which negotiations are aimed at) and a number of other activities. Therefore, broader definitions of diplomacy are now increasingly being used, where negotiations are given key importance. A fairly broad definition is given in the book of the English researcher J. Berridge, who writes that "diplomacy is the conduct of international affairs rather through negotiations, as well as through other peaceful means (such as the collection of information, the manifestation of goodwill), directly or indirectly involving the conduct of negotiations than through the use of force, the use of propaganda, or recourse to legislation.
A number of the above-mentioned characteristics of the international system (growth of international organizations, globalization, the end of the Cold War, multipolarity) have contributed to the increasing role of multilateral diplomacy in world politics. Multilateral diplomacy differs from traditional bilateral diplomacy in the environment or arena in which it operates. IMPOs, INGOs, international conferences and high-level meetings (summits) perform in this arena.
Multilateral diplomacy is a form of diplomacy within the framework of international organizations, carried out through delegations and permanent missions of states to international organizations.

1. The essence of multilateral diplomacy

Multilateral diplomacy arose simultaneously with the Westphalian state-centric order. For most of its existence, multilateral diplomacy manifested itself mainly in forums related to the post-war peace settlement (the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Paris peace conferences of 1919-1920 and 1946). In the modern world, multilateral diplomatic activity takes place mainly within the framework of international organizations (IOs) (UN, NATO, WTO, etc.).
The Cold War had a significant impact on the development of multilateral diplomacy. This was due to the fact that the two rival superpowers changed allies, which led to the creation of new MOs. This is how NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO) came into being. During the Cold War, a large number of newly independent states appeared, joining the UN and other IOs.
Globalization has helped to increase the importance of multilateral diplomacy and, at the same time, to make it more complex. It turned out to be more suitable for resolving the problems generated by globalization than bilateral diplomacy. Many, if not all, serious international relations problems involve a large number of states and IIGOs.
The actors of multilateral diplomacy are not only representatives of states. Delegates from TNCs and INGOs compete for influence in the corridors of the UN and other IOs with professional diplomats, politicians and international officials. The role of non-state actors who are engaged in lobbying the interests of their organizations among governments, the press and international officials is increasing. Representatives of INGOs show greater competence than professional diplomats in dealing with special, very specific issues. The so-called "diplomatic counter-elite" is formed from among non-state actors, as if opposing professional diplomatic cadres. The German "Dictionary of International Politics" (1998) introduces the concept of "parallel elite in the diplomacy of the nation-state". He refers to it diplomats working in the field of multilateral diplomacy.
There are a number of differences between multilateral and bilateral diplomacy. The first concerns the base of knowledge and information that is required for this or that type of diplomacy. In traditional diplomacy, a diplomat representing his country in the capital of another state must have a good understanding of the national interests of both parties. He must know where these interests coincide and where they differ. He needs knowledge and understanding of the political system and political culture of the host country, acquaintance with its prominent people ..............

Conclusion

In the second half of the XX century. the forms of multilateral diplomacy have become more diverse. If in the past it was mainly reduced to the negotiation process within the framework of various congresses (for example, the Congress of Westphalia in 1648, the Congress of Karlovytsy in 1698-1699, the Congress of Vienna in 1914-1915, the Parisian in 1856, etc.), today it is multilateral diplomacy is carried out within the framework of:
- international universal (UN) and regional (OAU, OSCE, etc.) organizations; conferences, commissions, etc., convened or created to solve any problem (for example, the Paris Conference on Vietnam, the Joint Commission for the Resolution of the Conflict in South West Africa);
- multilateral summit meetings (for example, meetings of seven, and after the accession of Russia - eight leading states of the world).
- activities of embassies.
Multilateral diplomacy and multilateral negotiations give rise to a number of new aspects in diplomatic practice. Thus, an increase in the number of parties when discussing a problem leads to a complication of the overall structure of interests, the possibility of creating coalitions, as well as the emergence of a leading country in the negotiating forums. In addition, a large number of organizational, procedural and technical problems arise in multilateral negotiations, related, for example, to agreeing on the agenda, venue, developing and adopting decisions, chairing forums, accommodating delegations, providing them with the necessary conditions for working, providing copy and other equipment, vehicles, etc. All this, in turn, contributes to the bureaucratization of the negotiation processes, especially those conducted within the framework of international organizations.

Bibliography:

1. Bogaturov A.D. International order in the coming century // International processes, 2003, No. 1.
2. Groom D. The growing diversity of international actors // International relations: sociological approaches - M.: Gardarika, 2007.
3. Konarovsky M.A. Preventive diplomacy in Asia: problems and prospects // Northeast and Central Asia: dynamics of international and interregional interactions - M.: MGIMO-ROSSPEN, 2004. -
4. Lebedeva M. International processes // International relations: sociological approaches - M.: Gardarika, 2007.
5. McFarlane S. Neal. Multilateral interventions after the collapse of bipolarity // International processes, 2003, No. 1, P. 42.
6. Moiseev E.G. International legal bases of cooperation of the CIS countries. -M.: Lawyer, 1997.
7. Petrovsky V.E. Russia and transregional security regimes // Northeast and Central Asia: dynamics of international and interregional interactions - M.: MGIMO-ROSSPEN, 2004.
8. Snapkovsky V. International organizations in the system of international relations. // Belarusian Journal of International Law and International Relations, 2000, No. 3.
9. Tikner E. Rethinking security issues // Theory of international relations at the turn of the century / Ed. K. Busa and S. Smith - M.: Gardarika, 2002.

Question 2. Multilateral and conference diplomacy.

Multilateral diplomacy as a separate and peculiar type of diplomatic activity can be divided into the following main varieties:

Diplomacy of international congresses and conferences

Diplomacy in multilateral negotiation processes on specific international issues

Diplomatic activity within the framework of international organizations.

At the same time, each of the varieties of multilateral diplomacy includes bilateral diplomatic work and bears all the features of bilateral diplomacy.

An important distinguishing feature of multilateral diplomacy is the need to bring to a common denominator a large number of different positions, the interaction of which can give a completely unexpected result, when the point of view of a weak participant or a strong group of negotiators becomes dominant.

The difference between multilateral diplomacy lies in its greater openness - not at the request of the participants or due to the nature of the issues under consideration, but simply because with a large number of participants in the process, it is difficult to maintain the confidentiality of the discussion. Greater openness in the decision-making process leads to greater consideration of public opinion.

The cumbersomeness of multilateral diplomatic processes predetermines their long duration, and this entails a greater dependence on the real international situation in dynamics.

A variety of international conferences can be considered international organizations, most of which arose in the second half of the 20th century and which play a significant role in solving many issues of international relations. Their difference from conferences lies primarily in the presence of permanent delegations or representations. This leaves a special imprint on the relationship between diplomats of different countries, who interact with each other on an ongoing basis, and not from case to case, as happens at conferences.

Many scientists-researchers of diplomatic art note the special role of the personal qualities of a diplomat in multilateral diplomacy, and the more difficult the situation, the more important the personality of the negotiators, the higher the level of the meeting, the higher the rank of its participants, the more important the personality of the leaders of the delegation, their professionalism.

Multilateral diplomacy is a “multilayered” work. Before being submitted for consideration and approval at a high official level, any issue or document is carefully worked out and agreed upon by experts, and then at the working level.

As an independent and increasingly important type of multilateral diplomacy, one should single out multilateral negotiating mechanisms created to solve specific international problems. Among those that continue to operate today, the most "long-playing" is the negotiation process to resolve the Middle East conflict. At the same time, its participants do not raise the issue of curtailing the process, realizing that even though difficult, slow and ineffective negotiations are still better than a military confrontation. A well-known example of a multilateral negotiating mechanism for solving a specific international problem is the Six-Party Talks on the DPRK's nuclear program.

In the second half of the XX century. the forms of multilateral diplomacy have become more diverse. If in the past it was reduced mainly to the negotiation process within the framework of various congresses (for example, the Congress of Westphalia in 1648, the Congress of Karlovytsy in 1698-1699, the Congress of Vienna in 1914-1915, the Parisian in 1856, etc.), today multilateral diplomacy carried out within the framework of:

International universal (UN) and regional (OAU, OSCE, etc.) organizations;

Conferences, commissions, etc., convened or created to solve any problem (for example, the Paris Conference on Vietnam, the Joint Commission for the Settlement of the Conflict in South West Africa);

Multilateral summit meetings (for example, meetings of seven, and after the accession of Russia - eight leading states of the world) - the Big Eight. Now more and more meetings are being held in a more expanded format - in the G20 format.

The activities of embassies (for example, First Deputy Secretary of State S. Talbot notes that, for example, the American embassy in Beijing, together with Chinese and Japanese colleagues, directs a significant part of its efforts to find solutions to problems on the Korean Peninsula; similar actions are being taken in other regions - in Latin America, South Africa).

Multilateral diplomacy and multilateral negotiations give rise to a number of new aspects in diplomatic practice. Thus, an increase in the number of parties when discussing a problem leads to a complication of the overall structure of interests, the possibility of creating coalitions, as well as the emergence of a leading country in the negotiating forums. In addition, a large number of organizational, procedural and technical problems arise in multilateral negotiations, related, for example, to agreeing on the agenda, venue, developing and adopting decisions, chairing forums, accommodating delegations, providing them with the necessary conditions for working, providing copy and other equipment, vehicles, etc. All this, in turn, contributes to the bureaucratization of the negotiation processes, especially those conducted within the framework of international organizations.

International conferences classified in different ways:

Bilateral / multilateral

Special / Regular

Dedicated to one issue / dedicated to many issues

With / without special secretariat

For the exchange of information / for the development of contracts

According to the level of publicity: open (with the media) / semi-closed (1\2) / closed.

The agenda is developed in advance, the rules are approved at the beginning of the conference. Heads of delegations also have credentials (certify that they can speak on behalf of the state)

Rights of conference participants:

Each participant has the right to speak once

Has the right to respond to criticism

Right to procedural proposals (at the beginning)

Decisions are made on the basis of submitted proposals

Functions of the chairman of the conference:

procedural:

Opening, closing

Call to the podium

Interrupting a performance

Notes during the presentation

Ensuring the work of the conference

Regular:

Election of members to the new commission

Acting as a facilitator to achieve the purpose of the conference

To conduct the conference, secretariats are created that are responsible for:

Transport, accommodation, accommodation

Translation of reports into all languages ​​and printing of their copies.