New system of international relations. European system of international relations: basic components and sources of dynamics

The international political development of Europe over the past two decades demonstrates very stable dynamics, both intraregional and systemic. international relations generally. Moreover, European development leads to an adjustment of the very structure of the modern world system.
Dynamics of European political and economic processes Due to a number of circumstances, which primarily include the maximum maturity of the European system and most of its regional and subregional components, it is not momentary, but strategic in nature.
The interconnected logic of various trends in European development can be clearly seen from the very beginning of the 1990s, where the Paris Charter for new Europe.
The stage of European development that began two decades ago organically accumulated changes that took place in several important dimensions of the continental structure. The evolution of these dimensions, ultimately leading to the overcoming of their original characteristics, represents the essence of the dynamics of the European system.
The Yalta-Potsdam, or historical and legal, dimension. It was in the geographical zones and functional areas of greatest localization of the decisions of Yalta and Potsdam that the most significant changes. The breakdown of “border” agreements as a result of the unification of Germany, the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia; erosion has long been decorative, associated with the early post-war period the phenomenon of European neutrality; the beginning of convergence, and then the self-liquidation of one of the two socio-economic systems - all this led to the marginalization of the original Yalta-Potsdam dimension by the beginning of the 1990s.
Let’s make a reservation about what the Yalta-Potsdam dimension brought to the treasury European politics, at least three elements that persist to this day. Often they are understood as those values ​​that Russia supposedly does not share, although surprisingly it took an active part in their formation.
The first is the inevitability of punishment of the military aggressor, including through positive collusion of the most powerful participants in the system, and the rejection of large-scale military actions in Europe. That is why the bombing of Belgrade or the events of 2008 in Transcaucasia caused such a serious resonance.
Secondly, Yalta gave birth to Helsinki and the pan-European process, one of the key elements of which was the voluntary consent of the former victors, who had reached a dead end in bipolar confrontation, to democratize the system of multilateral relations in Europe. Democracy, as far as possible, outside the nation-state has become a characteristic feature of the European system. Many European institutions are representative in form and often in essence.
Third, the international legal doctrine and historical and political logic of the Yalta-Potsdam regulations became guarantors of stability even for those borders that they did not directly affect. This concerns, first of all, state-territorial demarcation in post-Soviet space, boundaries between former proto-sovereign entities that were part of the Soviet state.
The next background dimension at the time of the adoption of the Charter of Paris existed as one of the successful paradigms, but had a significantly greater variability of competing alternatives. It's about about Western European (at that time) integration, which later became one of the central and even dominant directions of continental development. Compared to today, the then twelve-nation European Communities look like a geopolitical dwarf.
At the same time, it was the Communities that were the very phenomenon that emphasized the special identity of the European system in world economic relations. It was the existence of the EU that made possible the emergence of the phenomenon of centro-power relations in the Western world and pluralistic multipolarity in the post-confrontational world.
Over the past two decades, political ambitions European Union have gone beyond their original geographical and conceptual limits, thanks both to their own efforts and to a supportive international context.
The third dimension of the European situation is related to US policy in Europe and Euro-Atlantic relations, the core element of which was, and partly remains, NATO. The maturity of the European system, combined with more or less regular manifestations of opposition from European partner-competitors; liquidation European theater as the main arena of potential military confrontation; involvement in new geographical and functional spheres of world politics and economics - all this reduced the role of the United States on the continent. This trend strengthened in subsequent years. Deviations from it in the form of ad hoc intervention in European affairs (attempts to Americanize the elites of small post-socialist countries, Kosovo, “color revolutions”, missile defense) cannot be underestimated. However, they cannot be compared with the level of extremely close and attentive US supervision over European politics that was characteristic of several post-war European decades. Without equating the US and NATO, we can state that it is largely due to changes in US policy that the loss of NATO’s clear identity and the permanent search for the Alliance’s place in modern world have become so obvious.
The institutional landscape of modern Europe, especially “greater” Europe, which includes part of geographical Asia, is extremely mosaic, absorbing multidirectional trends, as well as giving rise to many proposals for their systematization. One of these proposals was the well-known Russian initiative on a new European security architecture.
In the series of European security institutions, the OSCE still nominally occupies first place. This is partly a tribute to tradition, and partly the result of the intensification of this direction, the manifestation of which was primarily the Corfu process and the summit in Astana. The OSCE faces two fundamental tasks. The first is internal consolidation. The second is a significant update of the content of traditional “baskets”. Thus, if the humanitarian “basket” demonstrates enviable dynamics, then the problems that fall into the first and second “baskets” run up against the procedural and legal ineffectiveness of the OSCE and often the lack of political will of the leading players in the European system.
At the same time, issues such as conflict management, peacebuilding, and the problems of the emergence of new state or quasi-state entities in the post-Soviet space are associated with these areas.
The third “basket” largely contains potential related to issues of economic security and its energy segment. In other words, the OSCE, from an organization with de facto reduced functions, can, if desired, turn into a full-fledged dialogue mechanism on its own wide range stories.
Regardless of subjective desires, it is the OSCE that remains the structure of the most complete European participation.
The Atlantic dimension of European politics, symbolized by NATO, has in the last two years demonstrated increasing pragmatism and a tendency towards self-criticism regarding extensive expansion, including into the “new Eastern Europe”. This was confirmed by the adoption of the new strategic concept of the Alliance and the Russia-NATO summit in Lisbon.
In the meantime, the bid for a de facto expansion of NATO's responsibility faces an extremely difficult situation in Afghanistan and throughout the political area at the junction of Central and South Asia. NATO's activity in other segments of the “greater” Middle East is limited by the difference in approaches and real interests of the Alliance member countries. Complexes and prejudices that have accumulated over decades hinder the Alliance’s interaction both with Russia and with other significant regional actors, including institutional ones - the SCO, the CSTO.
Improving the general political climate so far has little added value in the practical dimension of relations between Russia and the Alliance. Obvious, but constantly postponed “for later” topics here are the issues of the European segment of missile defense, conventional weapons and armed forces, a coordinated understanding of military-strategic threats, legal registration of mutual interests of the Alliance and post-Soviet structures security.
The logic of the development of the European Union and the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty position the EU in a completely different way in the new security architecture. Already, EU activities almost completely fill the “soft security” niche. The EU’s activity provokes discussions about security in the “common neighborhood”/“Eastern Partnership” space and the nature of relations with Russia.
It is in relations with the European Union that Russia and its neighbors in the CIS may be able to find a consensus on energy aspects of security, on the movement of citizens, and issues related to the reliability and at the same time transparency of borders will be resolved. Russia's accession to the WTO has actually brought our country closer to the scenario of economic functioning of the European Union.
Most EU states do not feel the need to abandon a system of stability and security that relies exclusively on the growing capabilities of the European Union in the field of foreign policy and defense and on the traditional resources of NATO. However, we must remember that modern “greater” Europe is wider than the western part of the continent. In case of dissatisfaction of countries, for one reason or another, not associated with the EU and NATO, with the parameters current situation we need to look for options for mutual adaptation of interests and institutions.
The European security system, which is not comprehensive, becomes a palliative that tends to provoke political tension when trying to solve real problems with its help both in its own geographical area and in neighboring regions - in the Greater Middle East or South Asia.
It is in this regard that Europeans are faced with the task of collecting, creating an “intermodal” scheme of institutions of a large European space. This scheme should include various regional and subregional structures (from the “classical” European and Euro-Atlantic - EU, CE, NATO to the “big” CIS, EurAsEC/Customs Union, CSTO) with the necessary support for niche structures like the BSEC, CBSS, long-term contact mechanisms.
Obviously, one can only dream of complete institutional harmony, but some kind of revision and coordination of actions, at a minimum, can lead to a reduction in cross-waste of time, diplomatic and material resources.
The understanding of European stability and security has traditionally included issues of military security, control over arms and armed forces. Many people think that this is a problem of yesterday. But unsolved problem has a chance to “shoot” at the most inopportune moment. This is exactly the situation with the CFE Treaty. It is paradoxical, but on the continent, which is still the most militarized, and at the level of the highest technological standards, there have been no modern regulatory rules for more than a decade military activities.
Additional elements of stability of the European system are various stable, both bilateral and multilateral configurations of interstate relations. These include the traditional axes: Moscow-Paris, Moscow-Berlin, Moscow-Rome. Apparently, the Moscow-Warsaw dialogue channel was starting to work. Traditional are the Franco-German tandem and the slightly less stable Franco-British tandem, which have given rise to a significant number of initiatives in the field of European integration, foreign policy and security of the EU. The Visegrad Group (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary), which once had its own integration prospects, has become a mechanism for coordinating the interests of CEE countries, and the Weimar Triangle (Poland, Germany, France) helps coordinate the positions of the Franco-German engine of Europe with the largest country in Eastern Europe.

Lecture 4. Systems of international relations within IN Estphalian model: " E European Concert" and the interwar system

1. "E" European Concert" as a system of international relations

In the XVII - XVIII centuries A common practice among the absolutist states of Europe was a kind of interstate “mergers and acquisitions” - redistribution of territories to resolve conflicts and maintain a changing balance of power. The natural state of relations between states was indeed a “war of all against all,” where each tried to improve its position at the expense of others . At the same time, ambitious goals often did not correspond to real resources: wars were fought with the help of expensive mercenary professional armies, as a result, victory often depended on the amount of money in the treasury and the ability to collect taxes. The model of behavior for states at that time was not maintaining a balance of power, but endless revision of the existing order, desire for hegemony, those. superiority in influence.The situation changed after the Napoleonic Wars.

Congress of Vienna 1815 laid the foundation for a system of international relations called"European Concert"(another name is the Vienna System of International Relations). By “concert” we mean concerted actions, because in English the term concerttranslated as “agreement, coherence, harmony in plans and actions.” If applied to the analysis of the “European Concert” historical approach, then we will be interested in facts about signed agreements and secret agreements, territorial redistributions, armed conflicts, but theoretical analysis also requires research into the structure and environment of the system.

After the victory over Napoleon at the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), the main European powers discussed what the future would look like political map Europe. Agreements signed in 1815 regulated territorial issues. The main violins played in the “European Concert” Russia, Austria(later— Austria-Hungary), UK, Prussia(later - Germany) And France. The Vienna system of international relations is called system collective security, because agreements between the great powers were aimed at maintaining the status quo and preventing conflicts in Europe.

The “Concert” of the Five Powers can be compared to the modern “Group seven ”, which is also not an international organization, but is a forum of great powers. An important criterion for membership in “ Seven ”, and in the “Five” - the development of the economy, and Russia’s lag behind its partners in terms of the level of industrial development is characteristic of both the 19th century and the modern stage.

To discuss emerging changes in the balance of power, powers periodically gathered at international conferences : St. Petersburg (1825), Paris (1856), London (1871), Berlin (1878) and others. During the era of the Concert of Europe, the foundations of humanitarian law were laid, i.e. laws of war: in 1864 signs Geneva Convention on improving the lot of the sick and wounded in active armies , at the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 were conventions on the laws and customs of war were adopted. At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, for the first time there was a unified system of seniority for diplomatic ranks was agreed upon , which streamlined diplomatic relations between states.

Within the framework of the “European Concert”, relations between states take on a new dimension with the advent of the firstinternational organizations. Already in 1815 was created Permanent Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine, in the second half of the 19th century. Other organizations began to appear: International Telegraph Union(later renamed the International Telecommunication Union) - in 1865 G., Universal Postal Union- V 1875 G., International Committee for the Suppression of the Slave Trade- V 1890 G., The Hague Conference on International Private Property Law- V 1893 d. According to the Union of International Associations, in 1909 there were 37 governmental and 176 non-governmental organizations. At the same time regulation initially occurs in non-political areas that states were ready to entrust to international organizations . The first international organization in the political sphere emerged only after the First World War - the League of Nations.

Emergence and development since 1830s technology for construction railways, steamships and telegraph had no less influence on international relations than the Internet at the end of the 20th century. From the end of the 16th century to early XVIII V. is happeningrevolution in military affairs, which creates the preconditions for European expansion into other regions of the world, and the development of transport made it possible to project military power over considerable distances and relatively quickly transfer troops to almost any geographical point . The superiority of the Europeans in military technology was so great that a detachment of several hundred people could defeat a native army of several tens of thousands of soldiers. At the end of the 19th century. Thanks to transport and military technologies, Europeans seize colonies in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America. If during the emergence of the Westphalian model conflicts occurred in Europe itself, then at the end of the 19th century. the arena of confrontation moved to the colonies.

It was during the period of rapid development of European empires on turn of XIX-XX bb. this direction of research is emerging , as geopolitics, which theoretically substantiates the need territorial expansion. German geographer Friedrich Ratzel(1844-1904) formulated in 1897 concept of "living space", it was later used by the Nazis to justify expansion. At the beginning of the 20th century. The concepts of the British geopolitician are becoming famous Harold Mackinder(1861-1947), who believed that the political power of a state directly depends on its geographical location . The world seemed to geopoliticians to be a single space where there was a struggle between imperialist powers for dominance at sea and on land. The term " Big game"and put forward already in the 20th century. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s concept of the “great chessboard” describes precisely the geopolitical confrontation between major powers, for which developing countries are just a platform for sorting out relations.

In the economic sphere at the end of the 17th century. politics is spreading protectionism — absolutist states protected their traders in order to levy more taxes on wars from increased incomes . Approximately until the middle of the 19th century. states tried to control industrial production and technology development, keeping them within national borders . For example, before the creationThe International Telegraph Union, which made it possible to establish uniform rules for regulating this area, duties were levied on telegrams at the border, and the text itself was transmitted orally across the border by customs officers, which, of course, led to significant distortions.

Significant growth interstate commerce and a decrease in the level of protectionism occurs in the second half of the 19th century, When states introduce most favored nation treatment . Industrialization, the development of transport, and colonial conquests contributed to the development of the export of raw materials from the colonies, which in turn purchased industrial goods from the metropolises. However, unlike the period after the Second World War, during the Concert of Europe era, an international trade regime did not yet exist.

The development of trade exchanges was facilitated by the establishment in 1878 gold standard which fixed the rates of major currencies in gold , Great Britain played a central role in this system. The emergence of centralized absolutist states leads to the emergence of common state currencies. By the 16th century in Europe is developingfinancial order in the form of an organized system of credit relations: states needed loans to finance wars, the development of trade created a demand for banking services , which made it possible to avoid the risks associated with transporting money across borders. In the second half of the 19th century. foreign investments and loans are growing . Industrialized European countries accumulated surplus savings, which were invested in foreign, usually infrastructure, high-yield projects in developing countries and colonies. Developing countries, on the contrary, did not have sufficient government savings and therefore willingly took out loans for industrial development.

At the end of the 19th century. the first majormultinational corporations, who carried out their activities in various countries , made foreign investments, but were mainly resource-oriented. Their predecessors are usually considered to be the East India Companies , through which trade was carried out between Europe and Asia. Such companies had significant power: they had their own currencies and even their own private armies of thousands. . However, these companies were engaged in trade, not production. By the end of the 19th century. transcontinental trading companies disappeared, and their functions were taken over by the governments of the metropolises, which by that time had strengthened their state power.

They played an important role in the era of the Concert of Europe migration processes. In the second half of the 19th century. a large-scale wave of migration from Europe to the American continent begins: according to various sources, Europe was left before the First World War about 50 million migrants. In many ways, the reason for migration was industrialization, which left rural residents without work, and they moved to those states where there was just not enough labor. Migration allowed Europe to get rid of the unemployed and low-income groups of the population who could organize social unrest and revolution. Generally 19th century migration occurred from North to South (from developed countries to developing ones ), while currently the opposite trend is observed.

In general, the “Concert of Europe” system was considered quite stable due, first of all, to the coordinated regulation of international processes and relations between the great powers XIX century

The reason for the agreement of the great powers is the homogeneity of their political systems and forms of state : they were all monarchies and empires . Fearing revolutions like the Great French, monarchies agreed on collective action to suppress possible revolutionary movements.

In the 19th century there is a confrontation between two forms of government and government — dynastic monarchies and republican democracies. Moreover, the vector of development of world political processes was not initially obvious.

IN first half of the 19th century V. the first ones begin to appeardemocratic states. IN Subsequently, democratization processes occurred in waves, as a result of which this phenomenon was called “waves of democratization” - this concept was proposed by the famous American political scientist Samuel Huntington.

Wave of democratizationis a group of transitions from non-democratic regimes to democratic ones, occurring in a certain period of time, the number of which significantly exceeds the number of transitions in the opposite direction in a given period.

The first long wave of democratizationdates from 1828–192 6 years, i.e. roughly coincides with the era of the Concert of Europe. Of course, democracy of the 19th century. are very different from modern ones, so researchers consider it a sufficient criterion for democracy that 50% of the adult male population have the right to vote, and the responsible head of the executive branch either retains the support of the majority in the elected parliament or is elected during periodic popular elections. The first wave of democratization begins with USA, by the end of the 19th century. the specified criteria are achieved Switzerland, France, Great Britain, overseas British dominions, at the beginning of the 20th century — Italy and Argentina. The phenomenon of emerging democracy was described by the French thinker in his study “Democracy in America” (1835-1840). Alexis de Tocqueville(1805-1859), where he also pointed out the problems generated by the new form of organization of society: the centralization of power and the dependence of the individual on the bureaucracy.

Confrontation between monarchies and republics also occurred at the level of ideologies . In the era of bourgeois revolutions and the emergence of nation-states secular ideologies emerge — liberalism, conservatism and socialism. The textbook “The World of Political Science,” edited by A. Yu. Melville, gives the following definition:ideology — a relatively systematized set of interrelated ideas, ideas, concepts and doctrines both about the structure and functioning of society, and about ways to achieve a state of society that meets the interests of the bearer of these ideas , which creates the basis for organized political activity, regardless of whether the goal of ideology is the preservation, transformation or destruction of political reality.

In early Marxism, ideology was considered “false consciousness” because it always represents reality in a distorted way; ideologists present an imaginary image of reality as reality itself. In more neutral definitionsideology — it is a belief system that explains and justifies a given society's preferred political order .

The foundation of classical liberalism is laid by the works John Locke and the Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith (1723–1790). Liberal ideology develops during the period of bourgeois revolutions and includes such components as individualism, the ideal of individual freedom in all spheres of public life - but freedom limited by legal and political equality (“equality of opportunity”), tolerance, pluralism, faith in progress, participation in politics through various forms of representation.

As a reaction to bourgeois revolutions and liberalism, the ideology of conservatism emerges, which calls for reliance on traditions rather than abstract ideals. Ideologists of conservatism are confident in the innate inequality of people, the imperfection of human nature, believing that the best form of organizing social life is hierarchy.

Another opponent of liberalism is socialism, which took shape as a political ideology in the 19th century. Instead of the principle of individualism, socialism proposes reliance on society, egalitarianism (“equality of results”), class approach and the ideal of public ownership instead of private ownership. The radical direction of socialism is the ideology of Marxism.

The ideology of Marxism should not be confused with Marxism as a theory. The German sociologist, philosopher and economist Karl Marx (1818-1883) created together with Friedrich Engels(1820-1895) philosophical theory historical materialism, according to which “it is not the consciousness of people that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness.” The material basis that has a decisive influence on all aspects of social life , Marx thought mode of production , which represents unity of productive forces(who produces material goods) and industrial relations(relations between those who produce and who consume goods). Marx highlighted five historical production methods(formations) - primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist. Among the shortcomings of Marxism, its Euro-centrism is often cited - the scientist failed to explain the “Asian” mode of production, which did not fit into his scientific constructs.

The main subjects in Marx's theory are not states or societies, but social classes- for example, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and they “have no fatherland”, i.e. These are international communities with shared interests, regardless of their country of residence. Exactly therefore, Marx viewed states in the international arena as secondary actors , and themselves international relations - only as a superstructure over the economic basis, which determines all relationships . The essence of both domestic and international relations lies in the struggle of the exploited proletariat against the imperialist bourgeoisie. Marx's theories were developed by V. I. Lenin (1870-1924), who considered the causes of wars and revolutions to be the harsh political confrontation between the imperialist colonial powers and the economic struggle between monopolies .

And although Marxism as a theory of international relations has never been popular, Marxism as a political ideology led to significant changes in international relations of the 20th century, laying the foundations for the largest social experiment to build socialism.

2. Interwar system of international O relations: the formation of “classical” theories

Relatively stable the multipolar system of the “European Concert” ceases to exist with the beginningFirst World War (1914-1918). The local war in the Balkans in 1914 quickly escalated into a global war due to the system of military alliances (the Entente, the Triple Alliance, and then the Quadruple Alliance), which ensured an almost automatic escalation of the conflict. Political alliances, in fact, devalued the emerging economic interdependence, which could have prevented an armed conflict. The First World War differed from the wars of previous centuries primarily in its geographical scope . Since colonial powers took part in the war, fighting took place not only in Europe, but also in Africa and the Middle East. One of the main geopolitical consequences of the war was the collapse of four empires — Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, German, and also Russian, instead of which the Soviet Union subsequently arises.

In 1919a decision is made to create the League of Nations - first world political organization(except USA and Saudi Arabia at one time or another, all the then existing states of the world were members of the League of Nations), whose goals were preventing conflicts and maintaining peace through the creation of a system of collective security . After the First World War, such a theoretical direction as liberalism (idealism), who tried to answer the question of the causes of war and peace and understand how to avoid a repetition of such a tragedy. The creator of the League of Nations became the spokesman for the ideas of liberalism American President USAWoodrow Wilson.

“Fourteen points” from the President’s message USA V Udro V Wilson to Congress on January 8, 1918.

(extraction)

Our program is a program of universal peace. This program is the only one possible program, the following:

1. Open peace treaties, openly discussed, after which there will be no secret international agreements of any kind, and diplomacy will always operate openly and in full view of everyone.<...>

1. The removal, as far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of equal conditions for trade of all nations who stand for peace and unite their efforts to maintain it.
2. Fair guarantees that national armaments will be reduced to the bare minimum consistent with national security.
3. A free, frank and absolutely impartial settlement of all colonial disputes, based on strict adherence to the principle that in the determination of all questions relating to sovereignty, the interests of the people should weigh equally against the just claims of the government whose rights are to be determined.

<...>

14. A general association of nations should be formed on the basis of special statutes for the purpose of creating a mutual guarantee of the political independence and territorial integrity of both large and small states.

Interwar researchers (Pitman B. Potter, Al-Fred E. Zimmern, David Mitrany) were mainly concerned with describing the activities of the League of Nations and its potential for ensuring international security, as well as problems of collective governance and economic interdependence between states , laying the foundations for such areas as the study international organizations and integration.

The theoretical basis for interwar studies was primarily federalism, which later inspired the “fathers” of European integration. Representing more of a political program than a theory, federalism saw the ultimate goal of integration as the creation of a new unified federal state or supranational structures from once sovereign states . IN 1943 d. the work of David Mitrany appeared, in which the foundations of a competing theory were laid - functionalism.

According to the Federalists to create a new political community it is necessary to replace national governments with supranational institutions. According to functionalists, international organizations should be created to satisfy basic functional needs - the development of trade, transport networks, production and so on. Economy functionalists believed more important than politics , A the institutional form had to be determined by the functional content .

Federalists stood in opposite positions : form(federal super-state) more important than content , policy more important than the economy . At the same time there were These approaches have common features: their goal was to ensure peace , and the very existence of a national state was presented rather as an obstacle on this path ; the nation-state and connection to territory were perceived as a relic of the Westphalian world system, the very structure of which provoked wars and conflicts.

A significant factor in the interwar period was global economic crisis, which begins with the crash of the New York Stock Exchange in October 1929 This crisis, which is called Great Depression, led to an unprecedented economic recession in developed Western countries, throwing industrial production back to the level of the beginning of the 20th century. Most countries emerged from the crisis only by 1933. The Soviet Union, which by that time had closed itself off from the outside world, did not suffer from the economic crisis, and the famine of 1932-1933. was a consequence of internal reasons - the processes of collectivization and industrialization.

While there is no consensus among economists about the causes of the Great Depression, the consequences can be identified quite clearly. The first significant consequence of the recession- This breakdown of market mechanisms, collapse of the gold standard system, which was restored after the First World War only by 1925. States responded to the economic downturn by introducing protectionist measures, which led to a decrease in international trade volumes .

Existing economic theories could not offer a way out of the crisis. In 1936, the British economist John Maynard Keynes publishes work " General theory employment, interest and money", which had a huge impact on the development of economic thought, in particular laid the foundation for such a direction as macroeconomics . According to Keynes, The Great Depression showed , What self-regulation of the market does not allow us to get out of the crisis; accordingly, the state must assume responsibilities for regulating the economy. The state must ensure full employment of the population through public works paid for from the budget or government orders. Reduced unemployment and rising incomes, as well as the provision of cheap government loans will lead to increased demand and revitalization of the economy .

Keynes's ideas were actively used by states both to overcome the Great Depression and to overcome the economic consequences of World War II. In the 1970s there was a departure from the ideals of state regulation of economic processes , however financial crisis of the late 2000s made Keynesianism relevant again .

Sharp rise in unemployment and impoverishment of the population during the Great Depression led to the emergence of radical sentiments in society and the growing popularity of communist and Nazi ideologies : For example, in 1933 in the elections in Germany , where the increase in unemployment was the most significant among Western countries, The National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, wins.

In general, after the First World War, according to S. Huntington’s periodization, there is the first “rollback” in the spread of democracy(1922–1942), when some of the newly democratized states returned to undemocratic rule. The beginning of the first “rollback” is considered to be Mussolini's rise to power in Italy in 1922 In many states The military comes to power through coups and then establishes a dictatorship : this scenario was implemented in Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Estonia, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Greece , pro-fascist regimes are established in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. At first 1930s V Japan the military attempted coups, which, although unsuccessful, allowed the military to gain significant influence on government decision-making. The change of regimes was accompanied by the rise of fascism, Nazism and other militaristic ideologies .

After graduationFirst World Warwars several states still become democratic - those who gained independence Ireland and Iceland, in the early 1930s - Spain and Chile. However, there were more countries that made a turn towards authoritarianism in the interwar period; these were mainly countries where democracy was established relatively recently and did not have time to consolidate, i.e. strengthen.

Although the First World War directly or indirectly led to significant changes in many areas, European political thinking has failed to adapt to new realities : the processes of growing interdependence between regional subsystems were not reflected in the Eurocentric structure of the multipolar balance of power created after 1919, which tried to recreate the stability of the “Concert of Europe”. Non-participation of the United States in the League of Nations and exclusion of the Soviet Union from it could not but reduce the effectiveness of this organization. Exit future aggressors ( Japan, Germany, Italy) from the League of Nations transformed it from a global collective security organization into a similarity to the military-political alliances of previous eras, but with less strict obligations.

Due to the fact that the League of Nations, as a system of collective security, could not prevent the unleashing of Second World War(1939—1945), the dominant approach to the analysis of international relations in the interwar period was later called “ idealism ». The term was coined in 1939 British historian Edward X. Kapp,who was a representative of the theoretically opposite approach. This approach was calledreal-mom. Realists, of course, slightly simplifying the approaches of his opponents, criticized idealists for their utopian approach to international relations , the desire to establish, thanks to the activities of the League of Nations, almost eternal peace between states. These theoretical discussions were called the “first great controversy”, which was far from the last in the development of international relations as a scientific discipline.

After many regional and two world wars realists did not believe in the desire of states to resolve disputes by peaceful means, nor in the ability of international organizations such as the League of Nations to help maintain peace . Realists perceived the entire history of mankind as a series of wars, followed only by brief respites to prepare for the next conflicts. If the prerequisites for conflicts are different each time , That causes always the same , realists believe, because human nature is unchangeable and it is she who determines the laws by which society and the state live . Therefore, the philosophical and political theories of Ancient Greece or Ancient Chinaare still relevant. To prove this, realists began to look for the intellectual foundations of their approach in the history of political thought from Antiquity to the Renaissance and Enlightenment. , in the so-called "classical tradition".

The first representative of the "classical tradition" realists considered to have lived in the 5th century. BC. ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who in his Stories of the Peloponnesian War", analyzing the causes of wars, noted that human nature inevitably leads to violence, and law operates only when the opponents’ forces are equal, as a result, the main argument in any conflict is the force that is needed to defend the interests of the state and ensure its security .

One of the founders of the realist theoretical movement is the German-American researcher of international relations Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980), who in 1948 published a classic work " Political relations between nations: the struggle for power and peace", Where outlines six basic principles of political realism .

1. Politics and society as a whole are subordinated objective laws, which are due to the unchanging nature of man.
2. The key concept of realism is interest, defined in terms of power . international politics- this is a struggle for power. Political realism assumes that foreign policy should be rational from the point of view of moral principles and practical goals. At the same time, realists recognize that irrationality and chance can also influence foreign policy.
3. The state must always defend its national interests . Interest as a desire for power is an objective category, unchanged in all eras. However, the political and cultural environment can influence the specific content of this concept: power as the control of one person over another has different embodiments in different eras.
4. In man and state different approaches to morality : an individual can sacrifice himself to universal moral principles; the state does not have such a right, because it is responsible for the survival of the nation.
5. If we assume that all states pursue national interests defined in terms of power, then it turns out that we need to judge all states equally, without elevating the moral principles of one state above the principles of others. This approach makes it possible to pursue a policy that protects the interests of one’s own state, while respecting the interests of other states.
6. The political sphere needs to be analyzed separately from economics, law, morality , because when studying each of these aspects, a different approach is required: for example, for an economist, interest is defined in terms of wealth, for a lawyer, interest is the compliance of actions with the rules of law.

Generally supporters of realism consider only sovereign states as the main participant in international relations , whose behavior on the international stage can be depicted as a collision of billiard balls. States are analyzed as unitary (whole) actors , i.e. the state is perceived as a homogeneous organism, and not a set of institutions.

On international relations significant impact can only be provided by great powers; the rest are forced to adapt to their policies . In the absence of a supranational sovereignty, international relations are anarchic, resulting in a "help yourself" mentality for states. The goal of any state is to ensure its security, including at the expense of the security of other states . Since the interest of any state is to acquire power, the interests of players in the international arena come into conflict, which can only be resolved by force. Realist approach quite accurately reflected the behavior of the great powers after the Second World War, so it was he became the dominant paradigm in international relations until the end of the Cold War.

Literature

Nikitina Yu.A. International relations and world politics: Introduction to the specialty: Proc. manual for university students. - 3rd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Publishing house "Aspect Press", 2014. - P.60-74.

The victory of the Allied powers over Napoleonic France ended a turbulent period European history, which began with the French Revolution of the 18th century. Peace has come. The winners had to resolve many issues regarding the political structure of post-war Europe. To do this, they organized a large diplomatic congress (congress), which consolidated the new balance of power in Europe that had developed by that time.

Principles and objectives of the Congress of Vienna

This was the first international congress representatives of all European countries (except Turkey). It opened in September 1814 in the Austrian capital of Vienna.

The Congress of Vienna was guided by the principles of legitimacy and political balance. Legitimism (legality) meant restoration of rights legitimate dynasties overthrown by the French Revolution and Napoleon. It was also assumed that there would be at least a partial restoration of the previous positions of the nobility and feudal order. European balance meant preventing the strengthening of any one great power to the detriment of others.

Based on these principles, the congress solved specific problems: what borders to define for France; to whom and what lands to transfer; which dynasties to restore.

Conflicts between great powers

The main role in the negotiations was played by meetings of representatives of the four great victorious powers: England, Austria, Russia and Prussia. Later, a representative of France, also a great but defeated power, managed to enter this committee of four. A committee of five was formed - the leadership headquarters of the congress. The opinions of other state representatives did not matter much.

From the very beginning, many controversial issues arose. The most important of them is Polish-Saxon. Russia wanted almost everything Polish lands, and Prussia - all of Saxony. Austria, England and France strongly objected, citing a violation of the European balance in favor of Russia and Prussia. Disagreements between the powers became so acute that in January 1815 England, Austria and France entered into a secret treaty of alliance directed against Russia and Prussia. Therefore, the latter had to abandon their intentions and make concessions.

Final Act

On June 9, 1815, the main document was signed - the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, which consisted of 121 articles. This was the most extensive agreement of all international agreements that have been concluded so far.

It provided for the territorial redistribution of Europe in the interests of the victorious powers. Defeated France was deprived of all conquests and returned to the pre-war borders of 1792. Most of the Polish lands with Warsaw went to Russia. Prussia received the northern part of Saxony, the richest German regions - the Rhine Province and Westphalia, as well as Swedish Pomerania and western Polish lands with the city of Poznan.

North-Eastern Italy (Lombardy, Venice) was transferred to Austria. Sovereigns from the Austrian House of Habsburg were placed on the thrones of the small Italian duchies. The Duchy of Parma, for example, was given for life to the daughter of the Austrian emperor, Napoleon's second wife Maria Louise. Austria gained predominant influence in Italian affairs.
England received nothing on the European continent, but it retained the island of Malta and the recently captured possessions of other countries - the Cape Colony in southern Africa and the island of Ceylon.

In distributing lands and drawing new borders, the main participants in the Congress of Vienna paid no attention to religion, nationality, or the desires of peoples. The main thing for them was quantity square kilometers and residents. Catholic Belgium united with Protestant Holland into a single Kingdom of the Netherlands. Norway was taken from Denmark, which supported Napoleon, and given to Sweden. Contrary to the aspirations of the Germans and Italians for unification, the fragmentation of Germany and Italy was maintained. The non-German population of the multinational Austrian Empire (Hungarians, Slavs, Italians) found itself in an unequal position with the German one and was subjected to national oppression.

The new international order established by the Vienna and some other agreements was called the “Vienna system”. This was the first attempt to establish peace in Europe on the basis of a collective agreement, the principles of legitimacy and balance.

Creation of the Holy Alliance

The "Vienna System" was supported by the act of creation Holy Alliance(1815-1833), signed in September 1815 by the Russian and Austrian emperors and Prussian king. Soon almost all the monarchs of Europe joined him. It was a semi-religious association of sovereigns who pledged to be guided in their relations with each other and with their people by the “commandments of love, truth and peace” and to establish true Christian brotherhood.

European sovereigns pursued very specific political goals: to provide each other with mutual assistance always and everywhere. What kind of help were you talking about? First of all, about the joint struggle against revolutions and any upheavals that could change the existing order of things. The main goal of the Holy Alliance is to preserve everything in Europe as it is and, above all, the thrones, to prevent significant changes in the internal life of states. Many European rulers were well aware that changes and reforms in economics and politics were inevitable and even desirable, but they wanted to reduce them to a minimum and carry them out with their own hands.

Thus, the “Viennese system” and the Holy Alliance gave Europe a completely new look. Its political map has changed. The nature of relations between states has changed. An attack began on the ideas and slogans of the French Revolution (freedom, equality, fraternity), on the Napoleonic bourgeois heritage.

In Europe, political reaction triumphed, openly manifested in the desire to forcibly return the old orders, morals and customs.

In the first years after Napoleon's defeat, the great powers acted in concert. For discussion acute problems Congresses of representatives of the participating countries of the Holy Alliance met several times. In accordance with their decisions in the early 20s. XIX century Austrian troops suppressed anti-absolutist uprisings in the Italian states of Naples and Piedmont, and the French army strangled the Spanish revolution. In Italy and Spain, absolutist orders were restored and measures were strengthened against supporters of constitutional government. In 1820, the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia signed a joint declaration on the right of sovereigns to armed intervention in the internal affairs of other countries without the consent of their governments to combat the revolutionary movement.

The aggravation of relations between the participants of the Holy Alliance in the 20-40s. XIX century
After the reprisal of the Italian and Spanish revolutions, relations between the great powers began to deteriorate. During this period, the eastern question intensified, that is, the question of the fate of the Balkan peoples who were under Turkish rule, and of control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, which connected the Black Sea with the Mediterranean and belonged to Turkey.

The struggle of the Greek people for independence inspired the work of many famous Europeans. In the painting by E. Delacroix " Greek revolt» Greece appears as a simple peasant girl, symbolizing freedom. In the background is an exotic figure of a Turk, representing centuries of enslavement

In 1821-1829. In the Balkans, a national liberation revolutionary uprising of the Greeks against Turkish rule took place. The rules of the "Vienna System" and the Holy Alliance required European monarchs to consider the uprising as a rebellion against the rightful sovereign. But each of the great powers sought to take advantage of the events in Greece primarily to strengthen their positions in the Middle East and weaken the influence of other countries there. Ultimately, an agreement was reached to recognize the independence of Greece, but a monarchical system was imposed on it.

In the early 30s. There was a new aggravation of the international situation in Europe in connection with the revolutions in France and Belgium, which was then part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Disagreements between European states did not allow organizing a joint action and maintaining the previous regimes and borders. The Holy Alliance actually disintegrated; it was impossible to convene new congresses. As a result of the revolution, Belgium became an independent kingdom. This meant that the system of boundaries established by the Congress of Vienna began to collapse.

The next blow to the “Viennese system” was dealt by the revolutions of 1848-1849. It was not possible to cope with them at the very beginning. Only at the final stage was Russia able to provide military assistance to the Austrian Habsburgs against the rebel Hungary, and France and Austria took part in the defeat of the revolution in Italy.

THIS IS INTERESTING TO KNOW

During the congress of representatives of Napoleon's victorious powers, Vienna became the main city of all monarchical Europe, to which the attention of all governments and the public was attracted. 2 emperors (Russian and Austrian), 4 kings, 2 crown princes and 3 grand duchesses gathered here. 450 diplomats and officials with numerous support staff arrived at the congress. The negotiations were accompanied by solemn and magnificent balls. Congress was jokingly called "dancing". At the same time, hard work was carried out, complex issues were resolved.

References:
V. S. Koshelev, I. V. Orzhekhovsky, V. I. Sinitsa / World History of Modern Times XIX - early. XX century, 1998.

The transition to absolutism - an order in which all
full power is concentrated in the hands of the monarch - outlined
in the 16th century In most European countries.

Reasons for the transition to absolutism in England and France.

REASONS FOR TRANSITION A TO
ABSOLUTISM IN ENGLAND
AND FRANCE.

1. The Roman Catholic Church has lost its ability to influence
on the policies of major powers.

2. The influence of the local feudal nobility was weakened by
that the heavy knightly cavalry it supplied
has lost its meaning. The basis of the new armies was
professional troops. Their maintenance was expensive and
only the royal court could afford.

3.
Feudal lords, merchants, industrialists are interested in a strong
central government to seize new lands and markets.

4.
The trade and business elite began to play more
significant role in economic sphere. She demanded:
abolition of customs duties and introduction of additional
taxes that restrict trade.
carrying out mercantilist policies (taking measures to
protection of the internal market)
monopolies (exclusive rights to trade in certain or
other goods)

The theory of mercantilism in the 16th – 17th centuries. William Stafford and Thomas Men

MERCANTILISM THEORY
XVI – XVII centuries.
U I L Y M S T A F O R D I T O M A S M E N
first political economic doctrine
argued that for the prosperity of the state
it is necessary to constantly increase his finances:
buy as cheap as possible, sell as expensive as possible

The emergence of absolutism

BECOMING
ABSOLUTISM
in England and France

Higher officials
rank, responsible
before the king
Been busy with business
high treason and
rooted out the opposition
local feudal nobility

French
King
(Francis I)
Big
royal
advice
General
states
Never convened

English
King
(Henry VII)
Parliament
No longer played in the life of the country
as significant as
before, role
Royal
yard
Influenced the composition
parliament and
the laws he passes

religious wars
(1562-1594)
between Catholics
Feudal
know
Absolutism

Religious wars

RELIGIOUS WARS
Between Catholics, supporters of the Counter-Reformation, and
adherents of Calvinism (Huguenots)
Bartholomew's Night - a massacre committed by Catholics in
Paris, when about 2 thousand Hugents died
Formation of the Huguenot Confederation and the Catholic
League almost led to the split of France. Only accepted into
In 1598, the Edict of Nantes guaranteed the protection of rights and
Catholics and Protestants.

Elizabeth I
Mary Stuart
(Queen of Scots)
Philip II
(King of Spain)

The aggravation of contradictions in Europe at the beginning of the 17th century.

EXacERBATION OF CONTRADICTIONS IN
E V R O P E V AT THE BEGINNING XV I I CENTURY.
The end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century was marked by
worsening contradictions between
leading countries in Europe.
The first group of contradictions
led to the struggle for
hegemony (dominance) in the European
continent to which I aspired
Habsburg dynasty.

The second group of contradictions was generated by the conflict between
Catholic Poland, Protestant Sweden and Orthodox
Russia.
The third, most important group of contradictions was generated by
religious conflicts. With the development of the Counter-Reformation
the religious peace concluded in the empire in 1555 began to be violated.
With the support of the Habsburgs in many imperial cities and counties
power passed to Catholics, who began to persecute Protestants.

Completion

COMPLETION
Conflict between German Catholic and
Protestant princes caused a split in 1608
Reichstag. Protestant lands created their own union, the Evangelical Union. Catholics formed
Catholic League.

Thirty Years' War (1618-1648)

THREE-YEAR-OLD
WAR(1618-1648)
In 1618 the emperor
Holy Roman Empire
of the German nation Ferdinad II
Habsburg abolished privileges
which were used
Protestants in the Czech Republic. It has become
the cause of the uprising in the Czech Republic and
cause of war between her and
empire.

Progress of the war.

PROGRESS OF THE WAR.
In 1625, Protestant Denmark entered the Habsburg War. Danish king
Christian IV feared that the wave of the Counter-Reformation would reach his lands.
The Catholic League fielded a mercenary army of 100,000 led by
talented commander Albercht Wallenstein.
In 1629 Denmark was defeated and left the war.
The sharp strengthening of the Habsburgs alarmed the French. They convinced the Swedish
King Gustav II made peace with Poland and provided him with subsidies for
waging war in Germany.
The years 1630-1635 went down in the history of the war as the Swedish period. Swedish army
defeated the troops of the league and the emperor. Then she invaded Bavaria,
one of the strongholds of Catholicism in Germany.

The final stage of the war was the most destructive.
The troops of the opposing coalitions took turns devastating
German lands whose population during the war years
decreased by 60-75%, about 15 million people died. From
2.5 inhabitants of the Czech Republic left about 700 thousand alive.

Results of the war and conclusion

RESULTS OF THE WAR AND CONCLUSION
The main result of the Thirty Years' War was the sharp
weakening the influence of religious factors on life
states of Europe. Their foreign policy is now
was based on economic, dynastic and
political interests. The Westphalian system emerged
international relations, which was built on
the principle of state sovereignty.

Purpose of the lesson: studying the formation, features, contradictions and growing crisis of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century.

Knowledge and skills acquired by the student as a result of mastering the topic, developed competencies or parts thereof:

Know:

- basic historical information on individual problems of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century;

Techniques for compiling reviews and bibliographies on individual problems of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century;

Be able to:

Understand, critically analyze and use basic historical information on selected issues of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century;

Compile reviews and bibliographies on specific issues of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century;

Own:

Ability to understand, critically analyze and use basic historical information on selected issues of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century.

The ability to compile reviews and bibliographies on selected problems of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century.

Relevance of the topic

In the period from the end of the XVIII - beginning of the XIX centuries. profound changes are taking place in the forms and methods of noble-dynastic diplomacy of European states. Diplomacy of absolute monarchies of the 18th century. underwent changes under the influence of the American bourgeois revolution and the War of Independence of 1775-1783. and finally received a crushing blow from the Great French Revolution of 1789-1794.

The emerging bourgeoisie put forward as a basic principle the principle of the supremacy or sovereignty of the nation, which was first proclaimed in the field of diplomacy in the United States of America during the struggle for independence, and was further developed within the framework of French diplomacy during the French Revolution of the late 18th century. In the struggle against the feudal-monarchical forces, the French bourgeoisie proclaimed the slogans of the equality of peoples, their freedom and brotherhood. She demonstratively rejected the policy of conquest and secret treaties. However, the new foreign policy proclaimed in this way was not always implemented in practice and often remained within the framework of verbal declarations, not counting individual attempts to apply it in France in the period before the Thermidorian coup on July 27, 1794.

The leadership of foreign policy was affected by the strengthening of the parliamentary system (primarily in Great Britain) and bourgeois-democratic freedoms in the advanced countries of Europe. Political parties and the press are beginning to have a certain influence on the formation of the foreign policy course of their country. More transparency is being introduced into diplomatic relations. The activities of foreign ministers and ambassadors are beginning to be subject to control. Communication means are being improved, which has an impact on the organization of foreign policy management: greater speed of communication contributes to greater centralization and efficiency of diplomatic leadership.

New methods of diplomacy are also emerging, differing from the period of diplomacy of absolute monarchies. Thus, exchanges of territories between dynasties are becoming rare. Issues of dynastic marriages and inheritances no longer play the same role in international relations. The dynastic wars that were characteristic of the first half of the 18th century are also becoming a thing of the past. in the history of international relations and European diplomacy. During this period, the problem of movements for national liberation- in Europe and in Latin America. The importance of issues of customs policy and trade agreements, the struggle of the industrial bourgeoisie for markets for their goods is increasing.

The European bourgeoisie put forward a new principle of foreign policy - the “principle of non-interference”, which stemmed from the idea of ​​the supremacy of the nation, and opposed the proclaimed feudal-absolutist principle of open interference in the internal affairs of other powers in order to suppress revolutions, and the principle of legitimism, which justifies the restoration of overthrown monarchies. The struggle between the principles of noble-dynastic diplomacy and the diplomacy of the rising bourgeoisie is a characteristic feature of international relations of the late 18th - first half of the 19th centuries.

The most important events of this period were such as the French bourgeois revolution, in which new foreign policy principles were proclaimed, the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna and the formation of the Holy Alliance. These events led to a new territorial division in Europe and in the colonies and to the regrouping of political forces in Europe - the final assertion of English hegemony on the seas and in the colonies, the loss of France's former influence in Europe, the formation of a close union of European monarchs who established control over political situation on the continent until 1830

The most important stages in the development of international relations at the end of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries. the following can be distinguished:

1) 1789-1794, when the defining event was the struggle of the French Revolution with the counter-revolutionary coalition led by England;

2) 1794-1815, when the main phenomenon of international life was the struggle of bourgeois France with England - in Europe, on the seas and in the colonies. On the European continent, Russia became the main and most powerful enemy of France, striving to subjugate all of Europe to its dominion. A new system of international relations was created - the Vienna System

3) 1815-1830, when with the formation of the “Holy Alliance” and a new regrouping of forces in Europe, the dominance of the great powers was established - the main participants in the Congress of Vienna. After France was accepted, there were five of these powers - England, Russia, Austria, Prussia and France. Until the middle of the 19th century. The first three powers played a decisive role in international relations.

Theoretical part

Preparation of question 1. Congress of Vienna 1814-1815.

Soon after the victory over Napoleon, representatives of all European powers, with the exception of Turkey, gathered in the capital of Austria to resolve issues related to the restoration of feudal orders in Europe and some of the former dynasties overthrown during the Napoleonic wars. All participants in the congress were also united by another common task - the fight against revolutionary and democratic movements. In addition, the Congress had to provide stable guarantees that would not allow the restoration of the Bonapartist regime in France and attempts to conquer Europe, as well as satisfy the territorial claims of the victorious powers.

On September 23, a week before the opening of the congress, scheduled for October 1, 1814, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Louis XVIII, Prince Charles Maurice Talleyrand-Périgord, arrived in Vienna along with other French diplomats. Alexander I knew him well. It was not for nothing that he asked and received money from the king so many times, not being very offended if he was refused. But the brilliant mind of Sh.M. Talleyrand, inimitable dexterity, resourcefulness, knowledge of people - all this made him a very dangerous opponent. The weakness of his position was that at the Congress of Vienna he was the representative of a defeated country. He needed to show maximum intelligence and ability to maneuver.

When Sh.M. Talleyrand arrived in Vienna, he already knew which problem would take more attention of the Congress - the so-called key Polish-Saxon question. Alexander I, whose troops occupied the Duchy of Warsaw after Napoleon's retreat, declared quite openly that he would not yield the duchy to anyone. And since it consisted mainly of lands captured by Prussia through three more divisions of Poland and only taken from it by Napoleon in 1807, the Prussian king Frederick William III claimed compensation in the form of annexing the kingdom of Saxony to Prussia. Alexander I agreed with this condition, and planned to take away his possessions from the Saxon king under the pretext of punishment for the fact that he had been a loyal ally of Napoleon for so long. Sh.M. Talleyrand immediately saw that it was most advantageous to fight on this basis. And a diplomatic battle was necessary to achieve its main goal: to break the Chaumont Union, i.e. in other words, to drive wedges between Austria, England, Russia and Prussia.

In April-May 1814, Russia, in terms of its military forces, which at that moment were at the disposal of the Russian government, was undoubtedly stronger than all other states of devastated and bloodless continental Europe. That is why the Austrian Foreign Minister K. Metternich did everything possible to postpone the congress until the fall and allow Austria to recover somewhat. Alexander I agreed to such a delay, despite the fact that he could not stand K. Metternich and well understood his intrigues and the game of politicians hostile to Russia, although touchingly flattering the tsar in the eyes - Lord R. Castlereagh and the French king Louis XVIII.

They all looked with concern to see if Alexander I would want to play the role of the new ruler of Europe. Alexander I did not really want the accession of Louis XVIII to the vacant French throne. When he finally reigned, the Russian Tsar resolutely insisted on the need to grant France a constitutional charter. Not, of course, because he liked constitutional institutions. The Tsar was convinced that the Bourbon dynasty would be swept away by a new revolution if a constitutional system was not established in France as a lightning rod. Alexander I had a negative attitude towards King Louis XVIII and his brother Charles of Artois, and they, in turn, were afraid of him and were ready to use all sorts of tricks to get rid of his tutelage.

Arriving in Vienna, Sh.M. Talleyrand was invited to take part in a meeting of representatives of the four “great” powers. He did not come there as a representative of a defeated nation. In an arrogant and very self-confident tone, he immediately asked the audience why other members of the French delegation had not received an invitation to this meeting, while Prussia, for example, was represented at it not only by K.A. Hardenberg, but also W. Humboldt. Referring to the fact that Treaty of Paris was signed by representatives of not four, but eight powers, it required the involvement of representatives of Spain, Portugal and Sweden in the preliminary meetings, in addition to representatives of France. In the end, he achieved that he was admitted to the steering committee and thereby got the opportunity to intrigue in order to push and quarrel the recent allies with each other.

At the beginning of October 1814 Sh.M. Talleyrand came to Emperor Alexander I and put forward his notorious “principle of legitimism.” The Russian Tsar must give up parts of Poland that did not belong to Russia before the revolutionary wars, and Prussia must not lay claim to Saxony. “I put rights above benefits!” - said Sh.M. Talleyrand in response to the Tsar's remark that Russia should receive from its victory the benefits it deserves. Apparently, this blew up Alexander, who, generally speaking, knew how to control himself, but in this case declared - “War is better!”

Negotiations followed with Lord R. Castlereagh. Alexander I told him that he did not set himself the task of immediately, right there, at the Congress of Vienna, to reunite all parts of the former Poland. For now, he can only talk about the Polish territory that is now, in 1814, occupied by his troops. He will create the Kingdom of Poland from this part of Poland, where he himself will constitutional monarch. He will not only restore the Kingdom of Poland from areas that, by right of conquest, he could simply annex to Russia; he will even donate to this constitutional kingdom the Bialystok district, acquired by Russia in 1807, as well as the Tarnopol district, acquired by it in 1809.

Lord R. Castlereagh recognized the proposed constitution that the Tsar wants to give to Poland as too “liberal” and therefore dangerous for Austria and Prussia. He expressed fear that the Austrian and Prussian Poles would become agitated, jealous of their fellows enjoying the constitution. The Tsar so stubbornly argued that he cared about the independence and freedom of Poland that the minister of bourgeois England tried to convince him not to be so liberal. The Austrian government, even more than the British, feared the creation of a liberal regime in Poland and, as it seemed to them, an exorbitant increase in the power of Russia by annexing most of the Polish lands. The Austrian Chancellor then offered Lord R. Castlereagh the following solution: to let the Prussian Commissioner K.A. know. Hardenberg that Austria and England agree to give all of Saxony to the Prussian king. But Prussia must immediately betray Alexander I, join Austria and England, and together with him prevent the Tsar from taking possession of the Duchy of Warsaw. Thus, Saxony was supposed to serve as payment to the king for betraying Alexander.

King Frederick William III nevertheless decided to abandon this plan. It was clear that it was not without reason that Prince K. Metternich and Lord R. Castlereagh did not attract S.M. Talleyrand to the intended deal. For the King of Prussia, the full danger of his position was suddenly revealed: what would happen if Talleyrand told Alexander I about everything, and most importantly, he himself proposed joint diplomatic, and perhaps not only diplomatic actions of France and Russia against Prussia? The nightmare of the Franco-Russian alliance, the bitterness of the Tilsit and post-Tilsit times were all too vivid. In the end, King Frederick William III recognized it as good to inform Alexander I about everything in order to prove the nobility of his own intentions. The Tsar called K. Metternich and had a clear conversation with him. Regarding this, Sh.M. Talleyrand gloatingly informed Louis XVIII that even with a guilty lackey they did not speak the same way as Alexander I talked with K. Metternich.

The work of Congress due to persistent internal struggle didn't move forward. Then Sh.M. Talleyrand changed tactics, maintaining the same goal: to deepen the split in the ranks of the winners. France was interested not so much in preventing the strengthening of Russia as in preventing Prussia, France's immediate neighbor and enemy, from strengthening. And so Talleyrand makes it clear to Alexander I that France will not support England and Austria in their opposition against the creation of the Kingdom of Poland within Alexander’s empire; however, France will under no circumstances agree to the transfer of Saxony to the Prussian king. Frederick William III himself, as well as his diplomatic representatives K.A. Hardenberg and W. Humboldt played a very minor role at the congress. He was promised Saxony. Alexander I called the Saxon king a traitor, said that he would send him to Russia, assured that Prussia would receive Saxony in exchange for the part of Poland it had lost, and so on. the king was calm for some time. Talleyrand's activities were facilitated by the acute contradictions of his recent allies and, above all, by the active opposition to the plans of Russia and Prussia on the part of English and Austrian diplomacy. Trying by any means to prevent the strengthening of Russia and limit its influence achieved as a result of the victory over Napoleon, Lord R. Castlereagh and K. Metternich even went so far as to conclude a secret alliance with France. Sh.M. Talleyrand, of course, did not miss the opportunity to separate the recent victors of France.

The Congress of Vienna cemented Germany's political fragmentation. Alexander I, like K. Metternich, considered it expedient to consolidate the feudal fragmentation of Germany. England was completely indifferent to this issue, and Prussia was powerless, even if it wanted to join the fight. The entire state of mind of the leaders of the Vienna Congress testified to the reluctance of the parties, at least in some way, to meet the aspirations of the rising bourgeoisie; failure of hope German people to the unification of Germany was another characteristic touch in the picture of the complete triumph of reaction.

According to the plan of K. Metternich, the congress outlined the creation of an organization called the “German Confederation”. To conduct the affairs of this union, the so-called “German Diet” was created. Austria, Prussia and other German states (38 in total) were included in the union. The task of the German Confederation, according to the plans of K. Metternich, included creating a barrier against a possible future advance of France towards the Rhine and at the same time ensuring Austria a leading position in Germany.

The presidency of the Diet, whose seat was the city of Frankfurt am Main, was entrusted to the Austrian representative, and the votes at the Diet were distributed in such a way that Austria was given the final say. Of course, this ugly creature was by no means designed to unite German people, but, on the contrary, to perpetuate its fragmentation and preserve small feudal monarchies. Germany thereby found itself fragmented again.

The Congress had already begun to sum up the results of its work, when suddenly its participants were shocked by unexpected news. March 1, 1815 Napoleon landed in France. And three weeks later, on March 20, Napoleon had already entered Paris. The Empire was restored. Undoubtedly, rumors about the disagreements that tore apart the Congress of Vienna played a significant role in Napoleon’s decision to leave Fr. Elba. An amazing surprise awaited him in Paris. In the office of the king, who fled Paris only a day before Napoleon's entry, he found that same secret agreement on January 3, 1815, one of three copies of which was sent to Louis XVIII. Napoleon immediately ordered this document to be sent to Vienna and presented to Emperor Alexander I.

Alexander I, having read the secret treaty directed against him, blushed with anger, but restrained himself. When K. Metternich came to him, who since the return of Napoleon had been waiting mainly for the salvation of Europe from the tsar, the tsar silently handed him the secret fruit of the Austrian chancellor's diplomatic creativity. K. Metternich was so confused that, apparently, for the first and last time in his life he couldn’t even find something to lie about. The surprise was very great.

However, the fear of Napoleon took over, and Alexander I immediately felt forced to tell K. Metternich that, despite everything, they had a common enemy - namely Napoleon. Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo on June 18, 1815, inflicted by the troops of the Seventh Coalition under the command of Duke A.W. Wellington and Marshal G.L. Blucher, completed the history of the Napoleonic wars.

A few days before Waterloo, June 9, 1815, the last meeting of the Congress of Vienna took place, as well as the signing of its Final Act, which consisted of 121 articles and 17 separate annexes. It seemed to the congress participants that they had created something very lasting. However, the reactionary utopia of the congress was to, regardless of either the new relations of production or the twenty-five-year storm that destroyed the old foundations of feudalism and absolutism in Europe, to keep this part of the world within the framework of an outdated system. This utopia underlay all the activities of the Congress.

Belgium was given to the new Dutch king; Denmark was approved, in addition to the Duchy of Schleswig, and German Holstein; Austria was given the purely Italian population of Lombardy and Venice; Germany remained fragmented into 38 independent states. Poland was again divided into three parts, and from the lands of the former Duchy of Warsaw a new Kingdom of Poland was created, which, according to the decision of the congress, was supposed to be “in inextricably linked with Russia”, and was governed by a constitution granted by the Russian Tsar. Poznan, Gdansk (Danzig) and Torun were left to Prussia, and Western Ukraine (Galicia) was left to Austria. The city of Krakow “with the region belonging to it” was declared “on eternal times a free, independent and completely neutral city" under the auspices of Russia, Austria and Prussia.

Prussia, in compensation for the Polish territories it lost, received, in addition to the northern part of Saxony, also about. Rügen and Swedish Pomerania, and in the west - the Rhine-Westphalia region. As a result, the Hohenzollern kingdom, despite resistance from S.M. Talleyrand and K. Metternich, strengthened largely as a result of support from the tsar, as well as the position taken by British diplomats at the congress. Despite the fact that Prussia remained torn into two parts - the old, eastern, and the new, western, - soon after 1815 it began to gain strength and become dangerous for its neighbors.

Austria also gained significant strength, gaining the Tyrol, Valtelina, Trieste, Dalmatia and Illyria. In Modena, Tuscany and Parma, the closest relatives of Emperor Francis I were placed on the throne, having tied themselves closely union treaties with Austria. The same treaties connected the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies with Austria, where Bourbon power was restored, and with the Papal States. Thus, in fact, the power of the Habsburgs extended to almost the entire territory of Italy, which remained in a state of political fragmentation.

The two most powerful European powers - England and Russia - emerged from long wars with France significantly stronger and stronger. England expanded its already huge colonial possessions. She remained in full measure the “mistress of the seas,” having achieved the elimination of her main rival, France, and, forcing other countries to recognize the essentially predatory “law of the sea” established by herself, i.e., the “right” to stop on the high seas and inspect trade ships of neutral countries for the purpose of confiscating goods sent to enemy harbors. The establishment of British rule on the island was especially important. Malta and the Ionian Islands, turned into naval bases, into outposts of the English bourgeoisie on the approaches to the countries of the Near and Middle East. Royal Russia emerged from the wars with Napoleonic France significantly expanded to include the lands of the former Duchy of Warsaw, Finland and Bessarabia. On the European continent, Russia no longer had rivals quite equal to it.

In addition to resolving basic political and territorial issues. The Congress of Vienna adopted a number of special additional regulations in the form of acts attached to the main treatise. Among them special place occupied by the “Declaration of the Powers on the Elimination of Trade in Negroes,” signed on February 8, 1815, as well as the “Regulations on the Ranks of Diplomatic Representatives,” adopted by Congress on March 19, 1815.

The latter for the first time established uniformity in the ranks of various diplomatic representatives, which then entered diplomatic use for many years as a norm of international law. This resolution put an end to the endless quarrels and conflicts over issues of seniority that were common in the diplomatic practice of the 18th century. The ranks were established as follows: 1) Ambassador, papal legate and nuncio; 2) Messenger; 3) Charge d'affaires. Later, in 1818, to these three ranks was added the rank of minister-resident, placed between envoys and chargés d'affaires.

The victorious sovereigns, who gathered in Vienna in September 1814, set themselves three main goals: to create guarantees against a possible repetition of aggression from France; satisfy their own territorial claims; destroy all the consequences of the French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century. and restore the old feudal-absolutist order everywhere.

But only the first of these goals was actually fully achieved. As for the second - the satisfaction of territorial claims - only a few victorious countries emerged from the long and bloody wars with France having actually expanded at the expense of other, weaker states of Europe. The third goal of the Congress of Vienna - the eradication of revolutionary principles and the complete establishment of the principles of legitimism - could not be achieved by its participants. The Holy Alliance of European monarchs, created to suppress the national liberation movement in Europe, symbolized the onset of reaction.

The Congress of Vienna decided the fate of France, secured the redistribution of colonies and territories of European countries in the interests of the victorious states. Thus, a new system of international relations, called the Vienna system, was established in Europe and in the world as a whole, consolidating new approaches and forms of relations and laying down new nodes contradictions on the continent.

Preparation of question 2. Congresses of the Holy Alliance - Aachen, Troppau, Laibach, Verona.

The people's struggle against Napoleon ended with the collapse of the French Empire. The victory over Napoleon was used to its advantage by a coalition of monarchical, feudal-absolutist states. The destruction of the Napoleonic Empire led to the triumph of the noble-monarchist reaction in Europe.

The peace treaty with France, the renewed Treaty of the Quadruple Alliance and the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna formed the basis of international relations after the Napoleonic era, which went down in history as the “Viennese system”. The interests of the victorious powers were contradictory. But at the final stage of the Congress of Vienna, members of the anti-Napoleonic coalition had to overcome mutual contradictions and make compromise decisions. The decisions of the Congress of Vienna contributed to the strengthening of the noble-monarchist reaction in Europe. To intensify the fight against revolutionary and national liberation movements, the reactionary governments of European states concluded a Holy Alliance among themselves.

The Holy Alliance entered the history of European diplomacy as an organization with a clerical-monarchist ideology, created on the basis of the idea of ​​​​suppressing the revolutionary spirit and political and religious love of freedom, wherever they manifest themselves. The Holy Alliance of the victorious countries became the stronghold of the new international political system established by the Congress of Vienna. The act of this union, drawn up Russian Emperor Alexander I, was signed on September 26, 1815 by the Austrian Emperor Franz 1, the Prussian King Frederick William III, and on their behalf was sent to other European powers. In November 1815, the French king Louis XVIII joined the Holy Alliance. Subsequently, almost all European states joined it, with the exception of England, which was not formally part of it, but its government often coordinated its policies with the general line of the Holy Alliance.

The Pope did not sign the act, fearing discontent among Catholics in different countries. The text of the document stated that by the sacred bonds of true brotherhood and the principles of the Christian religion they undertake to provide each other with assistance, reinforcement and assistance. The goal of the participants was to preserve the European borders established by the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and to fight against all manifestations of the “revolutionary spirit”.

In the Holy Alliance, especially in the first years of its existence, the main role was played by the major diplomat and Austrian Chancellor K. Metternich, and the entire policy of the Holy Alliance is sometimes called “Metternichian”. Big role Russian Emperor Alexander I also played in the alliance. The participants of the Holy Alliance in their policies adhered to the principles of legitimism, i.e. possible fullest restoration of the old dynasties and regimes overthrown by the French Revolution and the armies of Napoleon, and proceeded from the recognition absolute monarchy. The struggle of the Holy Alliance, as an organ of pan-European reaction against any liberal, much less revolutionary and national liberation aspirations, was expressed in the resolutions of its congresses.

In the political life of the Holy Alliance, three periods should be distinguished.

The first period - the period of actual power - lasted seven years - from September 1815, when the union was created, until the end of 1822, when the fourth congress of the Holy Alliance took place. This period of his activity is characterized by the greatest activity.

The second period of activity of the Holy Alliance begins in 1823, when it achieves its last victory by organizing an intervention in Spain. At the same time, the consequences of the coming to power of the British Foreign Minister George Canning in mid-1822 began to appear. This period lasted until the July Revolution of 1830 in France, after which the Holy Alliance was already in ruins.

The third period of activity of the Holy Alliance 1830-1856. - the period of its formal existence in the presence of serious disagreements among its participants.

In total, four congresses of the Holy Alliance took place: the Aachen Congress in 1818, the Troppau Congress in 1820, the Laibach Congress in 1821, the Verona Congress in 1822. In addition to the heads of the three powers - the founders of the Holy Alliance, representatives of England and France took part in them.

The first congress of the Holy Alliance took place in Aachen in 1818. It was convened in order to further strengthen the political balance in Europe. A proposal to meet the allied courts to discuss the situation in France was made by the Austrian Chancellor K. Metternich in March 1817. He had far-reaching goals; he sought, firstly, to weaken the political opposition to the Bourbons and stop the rise revolutionary sentiments in Europe; secondly, by advocating the return of France to the ranks of the great powers, to reduce Russia’s influence on it; thirdly, by tying France with treaty obligations with England, Austria and Prussia, to prevent the strengthening of Russian-French influence in Europe. It was he who proposed choosing the quiet German town of Aachen as the meeting place for the allies, where the German rulers could not influence the course of the meeting.

During the preparation of the Aachen Congress, disagreements emerged between the Allied powers regarding the agenda of the congress and the composition of its participants. All the Allied powers understood that the French problems would take central place at the upcoming meeting.

The Russian side believed that such a meeting should help strengthen the “Vienna system” and sought to bring up a wide range of European problems for discussion. According to the St. Petersburg cabinet, most European countries could take part in its work. But Alexander I agreed to limit the number of participants in the meeting if only one issue was considered - the withdrawal of allied troops from France. Alexander I considered it necessary to quickly withdraw foreign troops from France, which, after their evacuation, would take its proper place in the European community.

Austrian Chancellor Metternich argued that the main purpose of the meeting should be to consider the internal political situation in France. The Austrian court expected to hold the meeting only on the basis of the Quadruple Alliance, which limited the number of its participants and did not give Russian diplomacy the opportunity to maneuver. If the St. Petersburg court sought to avoid the principle of excluding small states when holding a future meeting, the governments of Austria, Prussia and England were of the opposite opinion.

During the preparations for the Congress of Aachen, Austrian memoranda of 1818 stated that the four Allied powers had the exclusive right to change the conventions and treaties of 1815, as well as to reject requests from European countries to participate in the meeting. However, this program could undermine the political balance in Europe. Therefore, K. Metternich was forced to make changes to it. The new version indicated that all questions, except for questions about the timing of the end of the occupation of France and its role in the “Vienna system,” should have been considered with the direct participation of interested parties.

On the eve of the Congress of Aachen, diplomats from the allied countries met in the allied town of Carlsbad. The last round of diplomatic preparations for the Congress took place here, the main purpose of which was to try to find out the strengths and weaknesses of the programs with which the allies and rivals were going to the upcoming meeting. By the beginning of the congress, the program of the Russian delegation had not changed. Austria's position also remained the same, but changes were made to the program of the British delegation. The memorandum, drawn up by Lord R. Castlereagh and approved as instructions for English representatives, noted the advisability of the complete withdrawal of allied troops from France while fulfilling its financial obligations. It was further emphasized that it was necessary to preserve the Quadruple Alliance in its original form, and, therefore, France could not become its full member.

The Aachen Congress opened on September 20, 1818, in which Russia, Austria, England, Prussia and France took part. The participants of the congress were respectively represented by the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs K.V. Nesselrode, Chancellor of Austria K. Metternich, Foreign Minister of England Lord R. Castlereagh, Foreign Minister of Prussia K.A. Hardenberg, Prime Minister of France, Duke of Richelieu. The delegations of Russia, Austria and Prussia were headed by Emperors Alexander I, Franz I and Friedrich Wilhelm III. In addition to them, many English, Austrian, Prussian, Russian and French diplomats of lower ranks gathered in Aachen.

During the work of the congress, French and Spanish issues, problems of prohibiting the slave trade and protecting merchant shipping, and a number of others were considered. The first to be resolved was the withdrawal of occupation forces from France. On September 27, 1818, conventions were signed between France and members of the Quadruple Alliance on the withdrawal of all allied troops by November 30, 1818 and the timely payment of indemnity in the amount of 260 million francs.

The Duke of Richelieu insisted on turning the Quadruple Alliance into an alliance of five powers, however, at the request of Lord R. Castlereagh and the German courts, a special convention of the four powers was signed on November 1, 1818, which confirmed the Quadruple Alliance, created to preserve the order established in France. Only after this, on November 3, 1818, the Allies invited France to join the four powers in maintaining state borders and the political system established by the Congress of Vienna.

The Declaration of November 3, 1818, signed by all participants in the congress, proclaimed their solidarity in maintaining the principles of “International law, tranquility, faith and morals, the beneficial effect of which has been so shaken in our times.” Behind this phrase was hidden the desire of the five monarchies to jointly strengthen the absolutist system in Europe and combine their forces to suppress revolutionary movements.

Despite the fact that officially there were only two issues related to French problems on the agenda of the meeting, other aspects of international relations were simultaneously considered at the congress: the issue of mediation of powers in the conflict between Spain and its colonies, issues of freedom of merchant shipping and the cessation of the slave trade. A specific decision was made only on the issue of protecting merchant shipping from piracy. It was recommended that England and France contact the North African regencies with a warning that piracy was damaging world trade and could lead to dire consequences for them.

The Congress of Aachen was the first major event in the history of European diplomacy after the creation of the “Vienna System”. His decisions strengthened it and showed that the great powers were interested in preserving their alliance. The decisions of the Aachen Congress were aimed at preserving the Restoration order in Europe.

The second congress of the five allied powers - Austria, Russia, Prussia, France and England, opened in Troppau on October 11, 1820 (Silesia). The Congress was convened on the initiative of K. Metternich in connection with the revolution of 1820 in the Kingdom of Naples, which posed a threat to Austrian rule in Lombardy and Venice.

The Congress took place in an atmosphere of intense diplomatic struggle. At the first meeting, Chancellor K. Metternich presented a “Note”, which substantiated “the right of the Allied powers to intervene in the internal affairs of states in order to suppress revolutions in them.” He sought moral support for the Austrian proposals and emphasized that there was no other way to fight the Neapolitan revolution other than military intervention.

The Russian delegation proposed to take joint moral action against the Neapolitan revolution. Prussian representatives supported the Austrian point of view, and the representatives of England and France refused to take part in the formalization of any decisions. On November 7, 1820, Russia, Austria and Prussia signed the Preliminary Protocol and its amendments, which proclaimed the right of armed intervention in the internal affairs of other states (without an invitation from their governments) to suppress revolutionary uprisings there.

The representatives of England and France were familiarized with the texts of the Preliminary Protocol and its additions. They recognized the right of the Allies to intervene in the Neapolitan events, but refused to officially accede to these documents. Thus, despite the formal refusal to approve the decisions taken in Troppau, neither the British nor the French representatives condemned the very right of intervention in internal affairs independent state. The protocol signed by the participants of the congress authorized the occupation of the Kingdom of Naples by Austria. At the insistence of Alexander I, the protocol ensured the preservation of the integrity of the kingdom and the possibility for the Neapolitan king to voluntarily grant a constitution to his people. Discussion of the issue of combating revolutions in Europe continued at the third congress of the Holy Alliance in Laibach, which opened on January 11, 1821.

Representatives of the Italian states invited to the congress sought to suppress the Neapolitan revolution and thought little about the consequences of the Austrian intervention for the whole of Italy. England was outwardly neutral, but in fact approved the Austrian plan, as did Prussia. France supported the very idea of ​​intervention. In February 1821, the campaign of Austrian troops against Naples began.

The official closing of the congress in Laibach took place on February 26, and in fact on May 12, 1821. Most of the participants remained in Laibach, monitoring the actions of the Austrian troops and the Viennese court in Piedmont. After the suppression of the Italian revolutions, the representatives of Austria, Prussia and Russia signed a declaration to extend the occupation of Naples and Piedmont and confirmed their determination to use violent methods to restore the power of legitimate monarchs. The Declaration, together with the Preliminary Protocol and its amendments, reflected the ideological principles of the Holy Alliance.

The situation in Europe after the suppression of the Italian revolutions continued to remain turbulent. In the spring of 1822, participants in the Troppau-Laibach Congress began a diplomatic probe in order to find out each other’s positions on the fight against the revolution in Spain. The next meeting of the monarchs of the allied powers was envisaged at the congress in Laibach. A proposal to convene a new meeting was made by Emperor Francis I to Russian Tsar Alexander I at the beginning of June 1822. Verona was chosen as the venue for the new congress. The monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia, Italian sovereigns, and numerous diplomats gathered in this ancient city. England was represented by a prominent statesman, Duke Arthur of Wellington.

The Congress in Verona took place from October 20 to November 14, 1822. It was the last and most representative among the diplomatic congresses of the Holy Alliance. The main role was played by five great powers who called themselves allies. Representatives of Italian states were assigned a secondary role: they participated in the discussion of Italian problems. Formally, the alliance of the five powers still existed, but there was no longer unity between them. The beginning of the Eastern crisis led to deepening contradictions. England was the first to retreat. France pursued a cautious policy. The program of the Russian delegation was conservative in nature.

The main problem at the congress was the preparation, on the initiative of the French king, of intervention to suppress the revolution in Spain. At a meeting of the plenipotentiaries of the Five Powers on October 20, 1822, the French Foreign Minister asked for “moral support” for his government to intervene in Spain in order to protect France from the influence of the revolution. Representatives of England, Prussia and Russia reacted positively to this initiative. A. Wellington stated that the French proposal contradicts the English position of non-intervention, so it cannot be approved.

Behind this statement lay the fear of the British side that France would strengthen its position in Spain and in the Mediterranean as a whole. On November 19, 1822, a protocol was signed, which was a secret agreement between the four powers on measures to overthrow the revolutionary government in Spain. A. Wellington refused to sign it under the pretext that it could create a danger to the life of the Spanish king.

Preparation of question 3. Polish and German questions. Creation of the German Confederation

The French Revolution of 1830 also gave impetus Polish movement, and at the end of the same year an uprising broke out in Warsaw. All Polish army joined the uprising. The Polish Sejm, meeting in Warsaw, declared the Romanov dynasty deprived of the Polish throne and established a provisional revolutionary government. Story Polish uprising can be divided into two periods.

The first period of the uprising from its beginning, that is, from November 29, 1830 to January 25, 1831, when, by a resolution of the Warsaw Sejm, Emperor Nicholas I was declared dethroned from the throne of the Kingdom of Poland. During this period, European diplomacy had a formal basis to inquire from Nicholas I whether he intended, despite the fact of the uprising, to recognize the state structure of the Kingdom of Poland, which was granted by Alexander I at the Congress of Vienna, and which Nicholas I himself swore to protect in the Manifesto to the Poles. accession to the throne on December 13, 1825

During the second period of the uprising, foreign representatives could only speak privately with the tsar about Polish affairs. Having deposed Nicholas I from the throne, the Poles, in the opinion of European diplomacy, themselves destroyed the constitution of 1815. From now on, that is, after January 25, 1831, there was a war between the Russian Empire and the Polish state, which arose in a revolutionary way and was not recognized by any of the European powers . None of the European powers considered it possible for themselves to intervene in this war diplomatically or with weapons in their hands, and all of them remained only in the position of spectators until the end of the uprising.

The government of Nicholas I had to enter into an armed conflict with Poland. Polish patriots were not satisfied with the constitution of 1815 and could not come to terms with the divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; they sought to restore the complete state independence of Poland, and, moreover, within the borders of 1772. However, disagreements and discord soon began among the leaders of the revolution, and the Polish army was not strong enough to fight the Russian one. In 1831 the uprising was suppressed.

After the suppression of the uprising, the constitutional charter of 1815 was canceled, a separate Polish army was destroyed, and Polish universities in Warsaw and Vilna were closed. The Kingdom of Poland was divided into provinces and subordinated to the imperial governor, who ruled the country with the help of a council of the main officials of the region. In the Western Russian regions, many lands that belonged to participants in the uprising were confiscated and transferred to the hands of the Russian government.

Thus, in 1830-1831. A wave of revolutions swept across Europe, which had a decisive impact on the pan-European situation in Europe. Three " nice day The July 1830 uprising in Paris brought an end to the Restoration regime in France. It took no more than four months for all members of the European Areopagus to recognize in principle the rebellious Belgium’s right to secede from the Kingdom of the Netherlands and to exist independently, thereby allowing for the revision of one of the “inviolable” resolutions of the Congress of Vienna. The Holy Alliance ceased to be a pan-European security system. Under the new monarch, the “bourgeois king” Louis Philippe, France could no longer be part of the conservative alliance. The difference in the nature of the state system between the two parliamentary monarchies of the West - Great Britain and France, on the one hand, and the absolutist powers of Eastern Europe - Russia, Austria and Prussia, on the other, affected their approaches to solving the problems brought by the revolutionary wave, and, ultimately, In general, it determined the composition of the unions into which the European pentarchy was breaking up at this time.

Preparation of question 4. Second Peace of Paris (1815).

On January 3, 1815, a secret agreement was signed by representatives of the three powers. It was directed against Russia and Prussia and obliged Austria, France and England, in the event “if... one of the high contracting parties were in danger from one or more powers,” to come to the aid of each other, deploying armies of 150 each for this purpose. thousand soldiers each. All three participants pledged not to conclude separate peace treaties with their opponents. Of course, the agreement had to be kept in the strictest confidence from Alexander I and from anyone else in general.

This secret agreement so strengthened the energy of resistance to the Saxon project that Alexander I could either decide to break and, perhaps, go to war, or give in. Having received everything he wanted in Poland, Alexander I did not want to quarrel over Prussia, much less fight with the three great powers. He conceded: Prussia was given only part of Saxony. The Saxon king finally settled in his possessions, which, however, were significantly curtailed.

Preparation of question 5. Features of the Vienna system of international relations (“European concert”)

In the mid-70s. XIX century The national liberation movement in the Balkans broke out with new strength. It was caused by the strengthening of the economic and political oppression of the Turks and the socio-economic development of the peoples under their control. The July uprising of 1875 in Herzegovina and the anti-Turkish uprising in August of the same year in Bosnia marked the beginning of a powerful liberation movement of the Balkan peoples. The Eastern crisis began.

In an effort to help the rebels, but not wanting to bring the matter to a military conflict, Russia proposed that Austria-Hungary jointly demand that Turkey grant autonomy to the rebels. Austria-Hungary feared the spread of the national liberation movement to its territory, which threatened its imperial foundations. However, she failed to maintain this position. There were influential elements in Austria who hoped to solve the South Slavic question differently: they thought of including the South Slavic regions western half The Balkans became part of the Habsburg state, starting with the capture of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Supporters of this plan were ready to agree that Russia would receive the eastern part of the Balkans. Emperor Franz Joseph really wanted to at least somehow compensate himself for the losses suffered in Italy and Germany. Therefore, he listened with great sympathy to the voice of the annexationists. These politicians energetically encouraged the anti-Turkish movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Russia advocated supporting the uprising, but without entering into conflict with Austria-Hungary. A. Gorchakov decided to intervene in Balkan affairs in contact with Austria-Hungary. This policy was also consistent with the principles of the agreement of the three emperors. In August 1875, the European powers offered the Turkish Sultan their mediation in resolving relations between the Porte and the rebels. Moreover, A. Gorchakov insisted that Turkey fulfill all its obligations regarding the Christian population of its regions. D. Andrássy, with the consent of A. Gorchakov, prepared a note containing a draft reform for Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to this project, it was provided for the provision of complete freedom of religion to the population, the abolition of the tax farming system, the use of regional income for local needs, the establishment of a mixed commission of Christians and Muslims to monitor the implementation of reforms, and the provision of land to the Christian population.

On December 30, 1875, Andrássy presented to the governments of all powers that had signed the Treaty of Paris of 1856 a note outlining this project of reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina. All powers expressed their agreement with D. Andrassy's proposals. On January 31, 1876, D. Andrássy’s project in the form of the Vienna Ultimatum was presented by Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany, England, France and Italy to the Turkish government. The Porte gave its consent to the introduction of the reforms proposed in D. Andrássy’s note. But the rebels put forward a number of more radical demands: an immediate truce, the transfer of a third of the land to the peasants, a guarantee from the powers on the issue of reforms. The Turkish government rejected these demands. Thus, D. Andrássy’s diplomatic enterprise failed.

Then Russian diplomacy appeared on the scene again. A. Gorchakov suggested that Andrássy and Bismarck arrange a meeting of the three ministers in Berlin, timed to coincide with the upcoming visit of the Tsar. In May 1876 the meeting took place. A. Gorchakov’s project, in contrast to D. Andrássy’s note, demanded not reforms, but autonomy for individual Slavic regions of the Balkan Peninsula. However, D. Andrássy failed Gorchakov's plan, making so many amendments to it that it lost its original character. The finally agreed proposal of the three governments, called the Berlin Memorandum of 1876, stipulated that if the steps outlined in it did not give the desired results, then the three imperial court agree to take “effective measures to prevent the further development of evil.”

So, the Berlin Memorandum, adopted on May 13, 1876 by Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany and France and Italy who joined them, was transferred to the Turkish government. The Berlin Memorandum demanded that the Turkish government conclude a two-month truce with the rebels, provide them with assistance in restoring their homes and farms, and recognize the rebels’ right to retain weapons. The goal of the three imperial courts was to preserve the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, however, this was conditioned by easing the lot of Christians, in other words, by “improving” the status quo. This was the new diplomatic term with which A. Gorchakov expressed the main idea of ​​the Berlin Memorandum.

France and Italy agreed with the program of the three emperors. The British government, represented by B. Disraeli, disagreed with the Berlin Memorandum, spoke out against new interference in Turkish affairs and thereby supported the struggle Turkish Sultan. In addition, England did not want Russia to establish itself in the straits and increase its influence in the Balkans.

England saw the Balkans as a springboard from which to threaten Constantinople. At the same time, she began to take possession of the Suez Canal and establish English dominance in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. With the passage of the straits into Russian hands, the main lines of communication of the British Empire could be threatened by the Russian fleet. Therefore, England sought to bring under its control not only Egypt, but also Turkey. In the event of a conflict over the Balkans, she could count on Turkey and Austria-Hungary. Therefore, it was more profitable for England to start a fight with Russia not in Central Asia, where it alone stood face to face with Russia, but in the Middle East. By his refusal to accept the Berlin Memorandum, B. Disraeli gained dominant influence in the Turkish capital, upset the European “concert” in Constantinople and encouraged Turkey to resist the demand of the three emperors.

Preparation of question 6. Creation of a new European order based on the principle of legitimism.

Sh.M. Talleyrand, even before the start of the Lieutenant Congress, understood well that from the point of view of the interests of France, it was most rational to put forward the so-called “principle of legitimism.” This principle was as follows: Europe, which gathered in the person of its sovereigns and diplomats at the Congress of Vienna, must, when redistributing lands and changing territorial boundaries, leave inviolate what legally existed before the outbreak of revolutionary wars, i.e. until 1792

If this principle had been accepted and implemented, then not only France would have gained confidence in the integrity of its territory, which it was not able to defend by military force at that moment, but also Prussia and Russia would have been curbed in their aspirations for territorial expansion. Sh.M. It would, of course, be beneficial for Talleyrand to first come to an agreement with K. Metternich, who also did not want to give Poland to Russia, and Saxony to Prussia, and with Lord R. Castlereagh, who held the same opinion on this issue as K. Metternich. But such a general conspiracy had not yet taken place, and it was rather difficult to establish. Both Prince K. Metternich and Lord R. Castlereagh belonged to Sh.M. Talleyrand with suspicion, admitting the possibility of new betrayal on his part.

Preparation of question 7. Formation of the “Holy Alliance”, the pentarchy as guarantors of the Vienna system of international relations

Almost simultaneously with the appearance of the Berlin Memorandum, the Turks brutally suppressed the uprising in Bulgaria. B. Disraeli tried to somehow gloss over the Turkish atrocities. Meanwhile, Serbia and Montenegro were already preparing for armed intervention in favor of the Slavic rebels. Representatives of Russia and Austria in Belgrade officially warned against this. But on June 30, 1876, the war of Serbia and Montenegro against Turkey began. Under these conditions, the delivery of the Berlin Memorandum was delayed, and soon it lost all meaning and was no longer put forward.

There were about 4 thousand Russian volunteers in Serbia, including many officers. In addition, financial assistance came from Russia. By secretly encouraging both the rebels and the Serbian government, Russian tsarism risked a conflict with the great powers, for which Russia was not prepared either militarily or financially. Although the tsarist government feared such a conflict and, nevertheless, pursued such a policy.

The Serbo-Turkish war increased the danger of a pan-European explosion. If Turkey had won, Russia would inevitably have had to intervene and would have had to face Austria-Hungary. If Serbia had won, it most likely would have caused the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In this case, it would hardly have been possible to prevent a brutal fight between the great powers over the Turkish inheritance. The policy of Russian diplomats in the second half of 1876 tried to solve a difficult diplomatic task: to provide support to the Balkan Slavs, but not to clash with Austria-Hungary. The Serbian-Turkish War confronted the Russian government with the need to secure an agreement with Austria-Hungary in case of expansion political crisis in the Balkans. The meeting of Alexander II and A. Gorchakov with Franz Joseph and D. Andrássy in Bohemia, at Reichstadt Castle, on July 8, 1876, was devoted to the solution of this problem.

The Russian government achieved an agreement with Austria-Hungary, although no formal convention or even a protocol was signed at Reichstadt. The results of the Austro-Russian conspiracy on behalf of A. Gorchakov and D. Andrássy were recorded. According to both records, it was agreed at Reichstadt that both powers would for the time being adhere to the “principle of non-intervention.” If the Turks were successful, both sides pledged to act by mutual agreement, to demand the restoration of the pre-war situation in Serbia, as well as reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the event of a Serbian victory, the parties pledged that “the powers will not assist in the formation of a large Slavic state.” Due to discrepancies in the records of Russian and Austro-Hungarian diplomats, the Reichstadt Agreement harbored the seeds of many misunderstandings and conflicts.

At this time, Turkey's atrocities in Bulgaria were made public in England, which forced the government of B. Disraeli to somewhat change its foreign policy course. The predicament of the British government could not have come at a more opportune time for Russia. Russian diplomacy needed to save Serbia, since already in August 1876, Prince Milan turned to representatives of the powers in Belgrade with a request for mediation to end the war. All powers agreed. During the Constantinople Conference, the English ambassador conveyed to the Porte the proposal of the powers to grant Serbia a truce for a period of one month and immediately begin peace negotiations. Türkiye announced its agreement. However, at the same time, she put forward very strict conditions for the future peace treaty. European powers rejected Turkish demands. The ensuing discussion did not advance the issue of ending the Serbo-Turkish war. Meanwhile, the successes of the Turks forced Russia to rush to save Serbia.

In order to achieve an agreement with Austria-Hungary, Alexander II undertook diplomatic sounding in order to clarify Germany’s position in case Russian-Turkish war. The aggravation of the “Eastern Question” came in very handy for O. Bismarck. These complications were supposed to quarrel between Russia and England and Austria. As a result, the Chancellor hoped to deprive France of those allies that had emerged for it in 1874-1875. and thus consolidate its diplomatic isolation. The Eastern crisis posed some danger for O. Bismarck, which consisted in a possible Russian-Austrian war. He really wanted a Russian-Turkish, and even more - an Anglo-Russian war, but he was afraid of a complete break between both of his partners in the alliance of the three emperors

In these diplomatic negotiations, more clearly than anywhere else, the balance of power that gradually began to be determined as a result of the Franco-Prussian War was outlined: Russia and France, on the one hand, Germany and Austria-Hungary, on the other. In 1876, both of these groups had not yet found their formalization in any treaties, but they had already become quite clearly visible in the international arena.

Chancellor Bismarck's refusal to force Austria-Hungary to become Russia's ally in the event of a Russo-Turkish war convinced the Russian government of the need to ensure Austria-Hungary's neutrality. On January 15, 1877, a secret convention was signed in Budapest, stipulating that in the event of a Russian-Turkish war, Austria-Hungary would maintain benevolent neutrality towards Russia. In exchange, she was given the right to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina with her troops. Thus, in January 1877, the tsarist government secured the neutrality of Austria-Hungary, and in March, Romania’s consent to allow Russian troops to pass through its territory.

After the failure of the Constantinople Conference, Russian-Turkish relations deteriorated sharply. Things were heading towards war. Nevertheless, the Russian government made another attempt to force Turkey to make some concessions to the great powers. The success of this diplomatic attempt depended on the position of the British government. In February 1877, Ignatiev was sent to European governments on a special mission, who was tasked with persuading them to sign a protocol that would confirm the decisions of the Constantinople Conference. On March 31, 1877, representatives of Russia, England, France, Austria-Hungary, Germany and Italy signed the London Protocol. Despite the fact that the British government signed this protocol, it encouraged Turkey to reject it. In response, on April 12, 1877, Russia declared war on Turkey.

Preparation of question 8. Problems and contradictions of the Vienna system

The five “great powers” ​​- England, Russia, Austria, Prussia and France formed an important stronghold of the “Viennese system” of 1815. But over the course of three decades (1815-1848), the interests of these powers increasingly diverged.

In the 40s XIX century There was a sharp deterioration in relations between Prussia and Austria, and even more between Prussia and Russia. Until the early 40s, the tsar favored Prussia, not Austria, and was in the closest relations with the Berlin court. There were no disputes between Prussia and Russia that would lead to disagreements. But, starting in 1840, the center of the bourgeois-liberal movement in Germany began to move to Prussia. Among the Prussian bourgeoisie, the desire for the unification of Germany under the leadership of Prussia intensified.

These new facts have caused concern in Russia. It was more profitable for Nicholas I for Germany to remain fragmented, for it to have a system of counterbalance between Prussia and Austria, which mutually neutralized each other and allowed tsarism to play the role of arbiter in German affairs. By 1848, the unity of the three “northern courtyards” was shaken. In Vienna and St. Petersburg, distrust of Prussia grew. Nicholas I drew closer and closer to Austria, seeing in it a counterbalance to the liberal and national unification aspirations of the German bourgeoisie.

The foreign policy of the French government at this time was consistently reactionary in nature. Peace at all costs, peace based on unquestioning compliance with the treaties of 1815 was one of the foundations of French foreign policy.

The British bourgeoisie in 1848 still benefited from preserving the treaties of 1815. “System of 1815” excluded the possibility of dangerous domination of any one power on the mainland for England and provided England with the opportunity to exert significant influence on European affairs by intervening in the mutual struggle of Russia, Austria, France and Prussia.

England's main opponents were Russia and France. The British Foreign Minister G. Palmerston opposed French influence in the Italian states, Switzerland, and Spain. Protecting the neutrality of Belgium and Switzerland from encroachments by France was one of the foundations of his policy. He tried to prevent armed French intervention in Italian affairs. Strengthening the Kingdom of Sardinia as a barrier between France and Austria, strengthening Prussia as a counterweight to France and Russia - these were the few significant changes in the “Viennese system” that G. Palmerston found in 1848-1849. acceptable and desirable in the interests of the traditional British policy of “European balance”.

Preparation of question 9. The growing crisis of the Vienna system

Revolutions of 1848-1849 flared up not only against internal reaction, but also threatened to radically undermine the entire European system of international relations, which had developed on the basis of the reactionary Viennese treaties of 1815.

In France, the revolution of 1848 put the French bourgeois class in power, whose circles pursued an aggressive policy, a policy of expanding colonial possessions, which sooner or later was bound to lead to international clashes.

The revolutions in Italy and Germany were aimed at eliminating feudal fragmentation and creating strong nation states: united Italy and united Germany.

The Italian and Hungarian revolutions led to the collapse of the Austrian Empire. The Polish revolutionary movement, whose goal was the restoration of an independent Poland, threatened not only the Austrian Empire, but also the Prussian monarchy and Tsarist Russia.

In international relations 1848-1849. The central question was whether the system of 1815 would survive or whether it would collapse and the reunification of Germany and Italy into independent states would take place. Creation