be leading members of the League of Nations, England and France regarded these actions as an act of aggression and were for exclusion of the USSR from the League. But then natural position of Sweden turned to be advantageous for avoiding of entry into the war against the USSR. Government of Sweden is known to have refused entering its territory any foreign troops. Morgengaw includes that this example, describing international policy of France and G.B., is a classical model of legalism in international relations when political as mechanisms a well as mechanisms of right are used.
So political realists defeat self-government of political sphere in estimating of international relations. They focus their attention on pluralistic shape of human being. A real human being means an “economical being”, “moral being”, “religious being”, “political being”, joined in one entity. Political realists consider also another spheres of social life but study them from the political point of view.
The next principle of Morgentaw’s conception includes the definition, that international policy is a struggle for spheres of power. International policy of someone state has also connections with a struggle for spheres of power. Here Morgentaws makes next conclusions.
1. Not anyone action of a state in the international arena is a political one. States have economical, cultural, legal, connections.
2. Different States in different historical periods are involved in international policy in a different way. For example, Spain which was one of a claimant on influence and international supremacy in the XVII-XVIII-th centuries how plays a secondary role in international relations. So, an attitude of states as to a participation in international policy is a dynamic category, dependent from internal situation in a state, cultural transformations which help a state to occupy an comfortable position on the international stage.
Morgentaw writes: “Political power is mutual relations of control and submission between persons who have social authority and power”. But political power is different from force in the meaning of physical violence. Threat of using of force in the shape of physical actions, using capital punishment or the beginning of a war – can be considered as character features of internal policy of any state.
The author differs economical policy from economical policy as a tool of international policy when economical aims are tasks of control and domination under another states. He considers such differentiation to have theoretical as well as practical sense.
So, when aims of different kind of public policy are directed at strengthening of places in the international arena at domination under another states it’s possible to talk about their submission of the internal policy of the state. It’s important to add that political power is a philological relations between them who have power and them who are submitted this power. Power means a control under activity by means of supremacy under mind and brain.
A struggle for power in the international arena is a historically transient one and it is connected with existence of autocratically governments. Speaking about international relations, based on the struggle for power, Morgentaw finds out 3 kinds of them.
“There are three basic patterns of policy of any state as well as internal, as external one.
1. Policy, oriented on preservation and conservation of power-presentation of Status Quo.
2. Policy, oriental on collection of authoritative, oriented on power strengthening of power.
3. Policy of demonstration of power.
These 3 kinds of public policy are inseparably linked in internal policy of any state.
The first type of internal policy is character for the states, which are seeking to save their hard-won positions to save Status Quo.
The second type – imperialist policy – are ordinary for the states, which are seeking to expand their influence of powers.
The third type is the policy of prestige. It is conducted by the states which are inclined to demonstrate their power and strength”.
Morgentaw doesn’t give his own definition of imperialism and he uses Marxism point of view. Morgentaw considers the end of the XIX-th – the beginning of the XX-th century to be the most convenient for spreading of the theory of economical interpretation of international relations. The author refers to Shumpleter who accepted economics of Marxist point of view.
Morgentaw finds out reasons for conducting of imperialist policy in the international arena.
When a state is in a state of war and especially in the condition of the winner his internal policy will be aimed at a changing of pre-war international relations. Even war which were firstly aimed as a defensive one, as one, started for preservation of sovereignty of a state and restoration of pre-war connections turned to be internal policy of the winner.
Wars of German imperialism in the period from 1935 till the end of the Second World War can serve as bright examples of a transformation of imperialism policy. Relations Status Quo in Europe after 1914 were characterized by the balance of such states as Austria, France, Germany, England, Italy and Russia.
After regarding