Introduction In this brief essay I would like to present the theoretical and material reasons which I have identified to have triggered the shift in paradigm since 1990 until the present day, from a negativist approach in International Relations to a positivist one and its consequences in theoretical explanation of realities in the modern world. In doing so I will use the examples of U.S.A. and Russia, two of the most powerful states in the international system and because of this - great influencers of history and events, and put emphasis on war fought by the two aforementioned, how it has changed, what has changed and what are the consequences.

Theoretical approachSince the end of the Second World War European space and other parts of the world, especially the Middle East, have seen a display of power politics that shaped the International Relations paradigms through which security environment is analyzed today. Practicing sphere influencing policies has become increasingly popular with U.S.A. and Russia, the two great powers that affirmed themselves on the international arena[footnoteRef:1]. Examples of these displays include not only the spheres of influence in Europe to which we have all become accustomed to but also in Africa where diffusion of ideology was trying to be forced onto new emerging states by alternative means[footnoteRef:2]. Also, the Middle East has seen American and Russian implication in domestic affairs. Even though the period of the Cold War was one shaped greatly by realist thought with its anarchic view of the international arena, the sovereign state that pursues only goals for itself selfishly and non intervention rules posed even from the treaty of Westphalia, big powers have found it legal and legitimate to intervene and influence. [1: http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/46345.htm , accessed 1.02.2014, 13.28] [2: Kwabena O. AKURANG-PARRY, Africa and World War II, in: Toyin Falola, Africa, vol VI, The End of Colonial Rule: Nationalism and Decolonization, Carolina Academic Press, North Carolina, 2002, pp. 49-62]

After the end of the Cold War the world was left with new structures of cooperation, attempts at peace, embodied in the United Nations and NATO primarily, and the emerging European Union secondarily. The accent started to shift from power politics to softer means of influencing outcomes outside ones borders when the discourse about human rights emerged and gained power, transforming into a policy to be applied by all states, and intervention became the expression of the desire to keep balance in the overall international system and prevent conflicts from spreading[footnoteRef:3]. Of course even the nature of conflict changed at this point, focusing from expansionist objective to interstate conflict as we have the Kosovo situation, South Ossetia, Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Somali civil war, and many other parts of the world. But belligerent actors were not only portrayed in military troops but now transformed into terrorist groups that were hard to differentiate from the civil population. Responses to intervention by outer states in internal affairs of other states has caused ideological and religious groups to launch attacks not at the site of the conflict itself, but at the home-land, and as example we clearly have 9/11. Terrorist groups represent themselves a new type of non-state actor that has to be taken into consideration at the international level as a sole body and threat.[footnoteRef:4] [3: Alexander WENDT, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge UP, UK, 1999, pp. 2-10] [4: Mary KALDOR, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2006, p. VIII]

Because of these anomalies and the rising of the E.U. as an expression of cooperation under anarchy with little more than security as its interest and by using policy, institutions, economical cooperation and treaties to increase security rather than armament or military defense mechanisms it is certain that a shift in paradigm is occurring and realist and neorealist assumptions can no longer keep up with explaining the working of the system under certain conditions that no longer exist[footnoteRef:5]. Neoliberals, although very much closer to explaining why certain forms of cooperation have emerged, cannot always explain why certain forms of intervention by conflict still persist. A new current of thought does well in explaining how states got to cooperation and why forms of interventionism (or legitimate influence politics practicing in my opinion) have strived under current changing conditions of international cohabitation. [5: Alexander WENDT, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge UP, UK, 1999, p. 3]

Constructivism presents a new set of ideas starting from the assumptions that the state is not the main actor of international relations, but society is and it influences the behavior of state, its perception of the other, and its forming of interests and assumptions based on this observation. Also rules are the product of social interaction according to this line of thought, therefore are socially constructed, and are mainly based on a shared sense of justice and how things should work to preserve peace and prosperity for the group[footnoteRef:6]. Constructivism also offers a new approach to conflicts so as to be able to clarify the conditions in which these are held, how they started, and in contrary to the realist assumptions of why they happen, to offer a new explanation that better fits reality and helps grasp the theoretical essence of the matter in order to make policies fit accordingly. Deriving from the English School primarily that has at its basis a combination between realism and liberalism, constructivism complements the new paradigm, a positivist one, by filling out the theoretical gaps in order to create a solid ground on which the functioning of the system can be observed, understood, predicted.[footnoteRef:7] [6: Idem, p. 50-68] [7: Nilfer KARACASULU, Elif UZGREN, Explaining Social Constructivist Contributions to Security Studies, in Perceptions, Turkey, 2007, pp. 29-33]

An important observation to be made is that current theoretical research has pointed out various solutions for the anarchy problem that seems to be causing wars, or the societal element that is triggering conflicts; all of these answers, be it collective security, security regimes or self-help through cooperation, have in common the fact that states must be willing to cooperate and must want to preserve the status-quo of peace, in other words, collective security isnt for revisionist states. [footnoteRef:8] Revisionism can also be described as the will to change the current state of events. [8: There is also a third solution, balancing of power, but due to its result in the First and Second World War, I will not mention its traits here.]

Global trendsAs I mentioned earlier U.S.A. and Russia have the richest history in practicing influence politics through soft or hard politics, depending on how each considered necessary to carry out its influence. Since 1989 although the Cold War has ended we can still observe the same behavioral pattern only with another facet. To clarify this statement there are many examples of U.S.A. intervention in many parts of the world with the stated reason to promote democracy, as in Iraq (although the war was started as a preemptive one due to the risk of terrorism after 9/11), Israel (American military troops are present there), Yugoslavia, Africa (Liberia, Congo), Afghanistan, and many more[footnoteRef:9]. Also, Russian interventions made with the purpose of assuring regional stability and same as U.S.A. to promote democracy, as in Transnistria, Abkhazia, Checynia, Georgia and South Ossetia, Syria, and many more[footnoteRef:10], and also keeping close relations with Ukraine and influencing greatly some of its decisions recently, as becoming the only gas supplier for Ukraine. [9: http://www.globalpolicy.org/us-westward-expansion/26024.html , accessed 1.02.2014, 13.40] [10: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/21/us-georgia-russia-border-idUSBREA0K1V020140121 , http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/russia-backs-syria-chemical-weapons-plan-2014131114210216142.html , http://www.cbsnews.com/news/political-turmoil-in-yugoslavia/ , http://www.policymic.com/articles/36619/russia-chechnya-conflict-a-quick-guide , etc., accessed 1.02.2014, 14.00-15.00]

As all these wars are asymmetrical wars there is a very blurry line between legitimate and illegitimate intervention. Since the U.N. and the E.U. have placed maximum focus on human rights and the right to intervene in foreign affairs, making them responsibilities of each country, the argument has largely transformed into a tool of exercising influence with the help of securitization[footnoteRef:11] [footnoteRef:12]. [11: Concept of making an issue a security issue through discourse, thus giving it special policies and actions. ] [12: Paul WILLIAMS, Security Studies: An introduction, Routledge, UK, 2008, p.157]

Both the U.S. and Russia are part of United Nations permanent five[footnoteRef:13] which means extensive influence over international legality. This aspect gives both parties space to maneuver but also restricts an expansionist agenda, which does little to their ability to influence the world. Their size and strength make them the most eligible candidates in efforts to stop wars, the flaw is that this happens mainly by war and influence over the conflicting area is a bonus of the help that they provide. [13: www.un.org , accessed 1.02.2014, 15.30]

In my opinion todays belligerent areas can become tomorrows models of democracy or new cultural centers of the world. This potential is brought on by the unexploited political and economical resources of the country which with advancing technology and the appropriate support can become satellites with much to offer to whomever gains influence. Also these proxy wars have high visibility because of the media, but also regional, so the element of public opinion helps shape the view of the people on the conflict itself[footnoteRef:14]. [14: See Israel-Palestine war and war literature, very vast, very discussed.]

In this spirit even the E.U. strives, working on a different level. Its cooperation politics and non-violent settlement of any disputes combined with financial aid for members, and political involvement in almost every belligerent area of the world. Its actions bring its members together by dividing sovereignty at the European decision making level and construct models of democracy as well through mutual development and collaboration[footnoteRef:15]. Its influence is not to be discarded as both U.S.A. and Russia work closely with it and receive help as well through various treaties such as N.A.T.O. , for example Romanian troops in Afghanistan and Italian troops in Iraq for U.S.A[footnoteRef:16], thus not even the peaceful E.U. misses out on the armed activity in the world, but offers something more than soldiers: a theoretical and institutional framework of democracy, thus a place to start. [15: Simon COLLARD-WEXLER, Integration Under Anarchy: Neorealism and the European Union, in European Journal of International Relations, SAGE Publications, UK, 2006, vol. 12, pp.397-412] [16: http://www.ziare.com/articole/trupe+romanesti+in+afganistan , http://www.repubblica.it/2005/e/sezioni/politica/nuovacdl/finiprl/finiprl.html , accessed 1.02.2014, 15.50]

As an observation, because of all the activity presented above there is a theoretical concept now that rules over any argument when dealing with the state, that is sovereignty is not a guarantor of strict borders but rather of national identity and self-determination. In this idea it is worthy to mention also that if before, until the World Wars and after the decolonization process wars war fought for independence, today less and less wars are started in this spirit and more wars are started because of cultural and ethnic clashes. Theorists call these wars state-dismantling wars and give a clue about the future of the international system with the state as its main actor, as borders are becoming less rigid and nationalism more fundamental.[footnoteRef:17] [17: Mary KALDOR, Elaborating the New War thesis, in Rethinking the Nature of War, Jan ANGSTROM, Isabelle DUVENSTEIN, Frank Cass, NY, 2005, pp.211-217]

My hypothesisTaking the facts and fitting them into the theory that has already been explored can often give an unexpected result. Seeing what has been presented so far theory-wise, I can only draw three conclusions: in the last two decades the perception has shifted from state and institution to social networks and human rights, cooperation is seen as an option, a possibility, rather than an anomaly, and preserving peace is the main argument in any action undertaken when dealing with involvement in internal affairs of other states. Reality-wise, trends have shifted as well, from: interstate wars to intrastate wars, from regional to proxy (at least as far as Western countries are concerned, most of them), and from state building to state dismantling.Since U.S.A. and Russia are still proliferating influence actions by the conflicts they are involved in, and since they are still promoting democracy through conflict intervention, it can be argued that the policy they follow is a residual doctrine of the Cold War. Since E.U. has adapted so well at the emphasis put on society and societal constructs in its policy making and cooperation programs, it can be said that it is the closest to achieving peace and the ideal collective security theorists are hoping for. The cases of U.S.A. and Russia are not the same because of lack of ideology change, as I demonstrated before they follow the same ideology in external policy conducting, and will probably, at some point, be left behind in terms of international system rearrangement and influence. ConclusionEven if the international system and its actors are changing in so many ways and so rapidly, the nature of U.S.A. and Russian response is a clear indicator of how much they are behind from a doctrinaire point of view. A weak response to cultural demands and the growing networking between countries are the two elements that will eventually take a toll on the two system-changing forces leading to their own change instead of them changing and rearranging the system. Also in light of the conditions for proposed solutions to cooperation under anarchy, neither U.S.A. nor Russia can be seen as status-quo keeping states since their actions are revisionist in conformity to the presentation of facts above. Therefore the logical question arises: in the efforts to maintain peace, are not the peacekeepers the ones who endanger peace the most, on the principle that the objective justifies the means?

Bibliography

Articles: AKURANG-PARRY, Kwabena O., Africa and World War II, in: Africa, vol VI, The End of Colonial Rule: Nationalism and Decolonization,Toyin Falola, Carolina Academic Press, North Carolina, 2002 COLLARD-WEXLER, Simon, Integration Under Anarchy: Neorealism and the European Union, in European Journal of International Relations, vol.12, SAGE Publications, UK, 2006 KALDOR, Mary, Elaborating the New War thesis, in Rethinking the Nature of War, Jan ANGSTROM, Isabelle DUVENSTEIN, Frank Cass, NY, 2005 KARACASULU, Nilfer, UZGREN, Elif, Explaining Social Constructivist Contributions to Security Studies, in Perceptions, Turkey, 2007Books: KALDOR, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2006 WENDT, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge UP, UK, 1999 WILLIAMS, Paul, Security Studies: An introduction, Routledge, UK, 2008Web resources: www.aljazeera.com, www.cbsnews.com, www.globalpolicy.org, www.reppubblica.it, www.reuters.com, www.polycimic.com, www.state.gov, www.un.com, www.ziare.com

1Nsudeanu Ghinea Oana - Ria