Summary. In an era of increasing and increasingly complex interstate relations, diplomacy and international organizations are important tools for maintaining peace, resolving conflicts, cooperation, and global security. The main purpose of this article is to analyze the events taking place in the changing global political arena and not only the success, but also the failure and ongoing difficulties of these tools on these issues. While diplomacy and international organizations are often important tools for global politics, the failure of these tools to maintain their effectiveness due to the imbalance of power and the national interests of states is also a major topic of discussion.
Keywords: World Order, Lodi Peace Treaty, Kadesh Treaty, Congress of Vienna, NATO, Clash of Civilizations, League of Nations, UN, Arab Spring, European Union, Prisoner’s Dilemma, Realpolitik, UNESCO, Marshall Plan, Budapest Memorandum.
 
Foundations of the World Order: Diplomacy and International Organizations. Diplomacy has evolved as an instrument of interstate relations since ancient times. A review of early history demonstrates that diplomatic practices were already being employed by ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Greek city-states. During these periods, diplomacy served as one of the principal mechanisms for concluding treaties, establishing alliances, and resolving conflicts. One notable example is the Treaty of Kadesh, signed in 1259 BCE between Ancient Egypt and the Hittite Empire, which is widely regarded as the oldest known peace treaty in human history. Another example of successful diplomatic practice can be found in Ancient Greece, where Pericles of Athens utilized diplomacy and alliance-building to strengthen Athens’ position and influence throughout the Greek world.
Moving to a later historical period, particular attention should be given to the Peace of Lodi, signed in 1454 among the Italian city-states with the aim of temporarily ending ongoing conflicts on the Italian Peninsula. This agreement is considered a significant turning point in the history of modern diplomacy. It was in the aftermath of this development that the foundations of the permanent diplomatic mission, later embodied in the institution of the embassy, began to emerge.
Subsequently, the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815), convened following the Napoleonic Wars to establish a new framework for international relations in Europe, provided further impetus to the development of diplomacy. The Congress introduced important principles of interstate cooperation and balance of power that would shape European diplomacy for much of the nineteenth century [1, p. 195].
The most profound transformations, however, became evident in the early twentieth century as a consequence of structural deficiencies within the international political system. This century witnessed two World Wars as well as the prolonged period of the Cold War. Despite the growing importance of diplomacy and the establishment of international organizations, the international community continued to face significant challenges in maintaining peace and stability.
Following the end of the First World War in 1918, the Allied Powers sought to create a framework capable of preserving international peace and security. To this end, they convened a conference in Paris in 1919, followed by a series of negotiations in Washington. The primary objective of these diplomatic initiatives was to prevent future conflicts and establish a more stable international order. Yet an important question remains: Were these efforts truly effective? What factors ultimately undermined this system and led to its failure?
The answers to these questions became apparent through the very course of the events themselves. The first major issue was that the defeated states were not invited to participate in the conference, and their perspectives regarding the post-war settlement were largely ignored. Few policymakers considered that such exclusion could foster resentment and political radicalization both within the governments of the defeated countries and among their populations. This oversight would later contribute to growing instability and dissatisfaction with the emerging international order.
Another significant issue concerned the proposals put forward by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who presented his famous Fourteen Points during the negotiations. One of the central elements of Wilson’s vision was the creation of an international organization dedicated to maintaining peace and preventing future conflicts—the League of Nations. Ironically, however, the United States itself never became a member of the organization. This development significantly undermined both the credibility and effectiveness of the League from its very inception.
Nevertheless, the League of Nations was formally established and began its operations. During its early years, it achieved a number of diplomatic successes. Among its notable accomplishments was the peaceful settlement of the Aland Islands dispute between Sweden and Finland in 1921, the resolution of tensions surrounding Upper Silesia between Germany and Poland, and diplomatic efforts regarding the Mosul question, which had the potential to provoke conflict between Turkey and Iraq. These cases demonstrated that international disputes could, under certain conditions, be addressed through negotiation and multilateral diplomacy rather than military confrontation.
Despite these achievements, the League ultimately failed to fulfill its primary mission of preserving international peace. Its inability to prevent aggression and enforce collective security contributed to the conditions that led to the outbreak of the Second World War. Furthermore, the post-war international system that emerged afterward would eventually evolve into the geopolitical rivalry of the Cold War, highlighting the continued challenges of maintaining a stable and inclusive world order [2, p. 106].
The reasons behind these failures remain relevant to contemporary international politics. Many of the shortcomings that undermined the League of Nations can still be observed in various forms within the modern international system. Although historical circumstances change, unresolved issues and recurring policy mistakes often reappear in new contexts, producing similar consequences. At the same time, it would be simplistic to attribute these problems solely to the institutional weaknesses of international organizations. Numerous other factors contribute to international instability, including cultural, religious, political, and regional differences among nations. In some cases, conflicts emerge as a result of competing geopolitical interests and double standards pursued by major powers. In others, they are fueled by states that deliberately exploit existing divisions to advance their strategic objectives.
Having examined these developments and the sequence of events that shaped them, we are now better positioned to analyze the broader dynamics of international diplomacy and global governance. An understanding of these historical experiences provides an essential foundation for evaluating both the achievements and limitations of international organizations and diplomatic mechanisms in addressing contemporary global challenges.
Frameworks of Cooperation and the Challenges of Conflict Resolution. The failure of the League of Nations ultimately contributed to the circumstances that led to the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Following the war, the organization ceased its activities and was replaced in 1945 by the United Nations (UN). Although the United Nations was established with the primary objective of maintaining international peace and security, its principal decision-making body in this area—the United Nations Security Council—has increasingly become a source of controversy. Critics argue that the institutional structure of the Council, particularly the veto power of its permanent members, has often hindered effective action and slowed down peace processes in various international crises.
A deeper examination of this issue reveals the influence of cultural, religious, and regional factors on international relations. Drawing upon the arguments presented by Samuel P. Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, it becomes possible to understand how civilizational differences continue to shape contemporary political processes. One of the major obstacles to the effective implementation of diplomacy arises from the internal dynamics of international organizations themselves.
International organizations constitute political arenas in which states representing different cultures, civilizations, religions, and historical experiences interact with one another. While such diversity enhances the legitimacy and inclusiveness of these institutions, it simultaneously complicates the decision-making process. In this context, regional organizations often appear more effective in reaching consensus and implementing collective decisions. Examples include the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), both of which frequently demonstrate greater flexibility and cohesion than universal organizations such as the United Nations. One explanation for this phenomenon is that the member states of regional organizations generally share a broader set of common political values, historical experiences, and strategic interests [3, p. 185].
Some observers may question this argument by pointing to the membership of countries such as Greece and Turkey. Greece is a member of both the European Union and NATO, while Turkey remains a member of NATO but has not been admitted to the European Union despite decades of candidacy. The explanation for this situation lies not solely in cultural affinity but also in geopolitical considerations.
During the Cold War, both the Western and Socialist blocs sought to expand their spheres of influence by shaping the political orientation of strategically important states. In the 1950s, Greece and Turkey occupied a critical geopolitical position between East and West. As socialist movements gained influence in both countries, the Soviet Union sought to increase its presence in the region. In response, the United States and its allies provided extensive economic assistance under the Marshall Plan and facilitated the integration of both countries into NATO. The primary objective of this strategy was not cultural solidarity but rather the containment of Soviet influence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Had cultural affinity alone determined membership decisions, some argue that Turkey might have become a member of the European Union long ago.
Another example can be found in the events commonly referred to as the Arab Spring. Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, in his memoirs, noted that following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi sought to improve relations with Western states in order to avoid a similar fate. It is important to recognize that Libya has historically been characterized by a complex tribal structure. Under Gaddafi’s rule, tensions among various tribes were largely contained, preventing major internal conflicts.
However, developments in 2011 dramatically altered the political landscape. French President Nicolas Sarkozy took a leading role in promoting international action against the Libyan regime and organized a summit of European leaders to coordinate policy responses. According to various accounts, some participants became aware of French military operations against Libya even before the summit had formally begun. At the time, Russian leaders, including Vladimir Putin, warned that external intervention could produce long-term instability and chaos. Subsequent developments in Libya have often been cited by analysts as evidence supporting concerns regarding the unintended consequences of military intervention and regime change.
The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine can also be examined through the lens of Huntington’s civilizational framework. Huntington argued that Ukraine historically occupied a civilizational fault line between the Western and Orthodox worlds. According to this interpretation, the country has long exhibited cultural, political, and regional divisions that have periodically manifested themselves in electoral politics and competing foreign-policy orientations [4, p. 142].
From this perspective, some analysts suggested that any attempt by Russia to fundamentally alter the status of Crimea or Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation would inevitably provoke a strong response from Western powers. Critics of this interpretation often emphasize the common Slavic heritage shared by Russians and Ukrainians. Nevertheless, Huntington’s theory highlights additional factors beyond ethnicity and language, particularly the role of religion and civilizational identity.
While both Russians and Ukrainians belong predominantly to the Slavic linguistic family, historical religious divisions have also influenced political identities within Ukraine. Western regions have traditionally been more closely associated with Catholic and Uniate traditions, whereas eastern regions have historically maintained stronger ties to Eastern Orthodoxy. These distinctions, together with differing historical experiences and geopolitical preferences, have contributed to internal political polarization. In this context, the interaction between religion, culture, and geopolitics illustrates how identity-related factors can influence both domestic politics and international relations.
These examples demonstrate how cultural and religious differences may contribute to political tensions, interstate conflicts, and disagreements within international organizations. They also illustrate the challenges faced by diplomatic institutions operating in an increasingly complex and diverse international environment, where consensus is often difficult to achieve and competing identities continue to shape political outcomes.
Diplomacy, International Organizations, and Realpolitik. It is widely understood that diplomacy serves as a key instrument in both bilateral and multilateral relations. However, the reality of international politics demonstrates that diplomacy does not always succeed in achieving its intended objectives. While diplomatic negotiations and international agreements remain essential mechanisms for managing interstate relations, their effectiveness is often constrained by the strategic interests of states and the broader dynamics of power politics.
Without venturing too far into historical examples, it is possible to observe how this phenomenon operates within the contemporary international system. Beginning in the mid-twentieth century, major powers embarked upon the development of nuclear weapons, fundamentally transforming the nature of international security. In response to the risks associated with nuclear proliferation, a series of international agreements and arms-control regimes were established. The recognized nuclear powers undertook obligations aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, reducing nuclear arsenals, and regulating further development in this field.
Despite extensive diplomatic negotiations and numerous international treaties, states have not always fully complied with these commitments. There are several reasons for this outcome. The first is the problem of uncertainty. States can never be completely certain that their counterparts will faithfully adhere to international agreements. Consequently, even while publicly supporting arms-control initiatives, governments often continue to develop their strategic capabilities behind closed doors. This behavior reflects the practical application of the realist approach to international relations, commonly referred to as “Realpolitik”. In simple terms, Realpolitik represents the translation of realist principles into actual state behavior, whereby national interests and security considerations take precedence over normative commitments and diplomatic declarations [6, p. 127].
A related explanation can be found in the concept known as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, which occupies an important place in political science and international relations theory. The dilemma illustrates how two actors who lack mutual trust are incentivized to act in their own self-interest, even when cooperation might produce a better collective outcome. Since absolute certainty regarding another actor’s intentions is impossible, states frequently choose policies that maximize their own security, regardless of existing agreements.
A contemporary example of this dynamic can be observed in the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict. By examining the origins and development of this war, one can better understand why diplomacy often struggles to prevent or resolve major international crises.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, negotiations were initiated regarding the fate of the nuclear weapons stationed in newly independent states, particularly Ukraine and Kazakhstan. These discussions culminated in the signing of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994. Under the terms of the agreement, Ukraine and Kazakhstan agreed to relinquish the nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union. In return, their sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security were to be respected and guaranteed by the participating powers, including the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom.
Developments in subsequent decades have raised significant questions regarding the effectiveness of such diplomatic arrangements. One of the states that pledged to respect and guarantee Ukraine’s security later became directly involved in a military conflict on Ukrainian territory. As a result, the Budapest Memorandum is frequently cited in contemporary debates concerning the credibility of security guarantees and the limitations of diplomatic assurances.
This situation also helps explain one of the major factors driving contemporary nuclear proliferation. Under the framework established by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968, only a limited number of states were officially recognized as nuclear-weapon powers, while other countries were expected to refrain from developing nuclear arsenals. However, when states observe cases in which security assurances appear insufficient to prevent external threats, questions inevitably arise regarding the effectiveness of non-nuclear security arrangements.
This has led many policymakers and analysts to ask a controversial but important question: if Ukraine had retained the nuclear weapons inherited after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, would the current conflict have occurred in the same manner? While there is no definitive answer, the question itself illustrates the enduring relevance of nuclear deterrence in international politics. Nuclear weapons continue to play a central role in what is commonly referred to as deterrence policy, whereby the threat of devastating retaliation is intended to prevent potential aggression.
The broader implication is that international organizations often lack fully effective mechanisms for guaranteeing security or enforcing compliance with international norms. Although institutions such as the United Nations were established to preserve international peace and stability, their ability to compel states to follow agreed-upon rules remains limited. The creation of a truly effective mechanism capable of punishing major powers for violations of international law faces a fundamental obstacle: the international system remains state-centric. The very states that are expected to comply with international norms are also the architects, members, and principal decision-makers within international organizations. As a result, the enforcement of international rules is frequently shaped by political considerations and power relations rather than by purely legal principles.
This reality underscores one of the central dilemmas of contemporary international relations. While diplomacy and international organizations remain indispensable tools for managing global affairs, their effectiveness ultimately depends on the willingness of states to place collective security and international commitments above immediate national interests—a condition that has historically proven difficult to achieve.
Another argument frequently advanced in discussions of international relations is that diplomacy becomes more effective when a greater number of states adopt democratic systems of governance. However, accepting this proposition as a universal truth would oversimplify the complexities of global politics. Historical and contemporary experience demonstrates that the relationship between democracy and international stability is far more nuanced.
Even Winston Churchill, one of the most influential political leaders of the twentieth century, acknowledged the shortcomings of democracy despite defending it as the least flawed among available political systems. As discussed earlier, the events associated with the Arab Spring provide an important example. Although many of the political systems in the region could not be described as democratic according to Western standards, they often functioned as mechanisms for maintaining stability within societies characterized by complex tribal, ethnic, and regional divisions. In several cases, attempts to rapidly introduce democratic governance were followed by prolonged political instability, state fragmentation, and internal conflict. The continuing turmoil in a number of countries affected by the Arab Spring illustrates the challenges associated with externally driven political transformation [7, p. 183].
From a realist perspective, democracy is sometimes viewed not merely as a political value but also as a foreign-policy instrument. States frequently promote democratic principles abroad when such policies coincide with their strategic interests. Conversely, when non-democratic governments serve important geopolitical or economic objectives, external pressure for democratization often diminishes. This observation has led many scholars of international relations to conclude that the promotion of democracy is not always guided solely by normative considerations but is often intertwined with broader calculations of national interest.
This perspective is frequently associated with the ideas of Henry Kissinger, one of the most prominent advocates of Realpolitik in modern diplomacy. Kissinger argued that international relations are ultimately driven by strategic interests and balances of power rather than by ideological preferences alone. From this viewpoint, the nature of a political regime becomes secondary so long as it contributes to stability and serves the interests of other major actors within the international system. When those interests change, however, calls for political reform and democratization often become significantly more pronounced.
These political realities suggest that democratization cannot be regarded as a universal solution for enhancing the effectiveness of diplomacy or improving the performance of international organizations. In some circumstances, rapid political transformation may even generate new sources of instability. One reason for this is that each region possesses its own historical traditions, social structures, political culture, and governance practices. Consequently, institutional models that prove successful in one part of the world may not necessarily produce similar outcomes elsewhere.
Critics of contemporary international organizations often argue that these institutions have become increasingly ineffective in resolving major international crises. Despite extensive negotiations, resolutions, declarations, and voting procedures, many organizations struggle to prevent armed conflicts, civilian casualties, and large-scale military operations. In practice, states facing existential threats frequently rely on their own capabilities rather than on international mechanisms to secure justice and defend their sovereignty.
From this perspective, the experience of Azerbaijan is often cited as a notable example. For nearly three decades, the issue of the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territories remained unresolved despite numerous diplomatic initiatives and the involvement of various international organizations. Azerbaijan consistently sought a peaceful resolution through negotiations and diplomatic channels. However, according to this interpretation, the combination of institutional inefficiency and the perceived double standards of certain international actors prevented meaningful progress toward a settlement.
As a result, Azerbaijan ultimately restored its territorial integrity through military means in accordance with its understanding of the principles of sovereignty and self-defense under international law. Following these developments, attention from several international organizations increased considerably. Critics have pointed out that some institutions which had remained largely passive during the years of occupation became significantly more active after the territories were liberated.
The role of UNESCO is frequently mentioned in this context. During the period of occupation, Azerbaijani officials repeatedly raised concerns regarding the destruction of cultural heritage sites, religious monuments, and historical settlements in the occupied territories. According to this viewpoint, despite numerous appeals, international monitoring missions were not conducted and the issue received limited attention. Following the restoration of Azerbaijani control over these territories, however, international interest in conducting assessments and monitoring missions increased substantially. This contrast has led some observers to question whether international organizations always operate with complete neutrality or whether political considerations sometimes influence their priorities and actions.
More broadly, these debates reflect a central feature of contemporary international politics: the continuing importance of power. The modern international system remains largely structured around the capabilities and influence of states. International law, resolutions, and institutional mechanisms undoubtedly play important roles, but their effectiveness often depends upon the willingness of powerful actors to support and enforce them.
Consequently, diplomacy should not be viewed as a mechanism capable of eliminating all conflicts. Rather, it serves as a tool for managing tensions, reducing risks, and delaying or mitigating potentially dangerous developments. Likewise, international organizations continue to face significant challenges in accommodating the diversity of cultures, civilizations, political systems, and interests that characterize the contemporary world. As global politics increasingly reflects the realities emphasized by realist theories of international relations, the influence of idealistic approaches has become more constrained, while considerations of power, security, and national interest remain at the center of international decision-making.
Foundations for Structural Change. At present, the international organization most frequently discussed in relation to contemporary global political developments is the United Nations (UN). However, many observers argue that its institutional structure is increasingly unable to effectively regulate the complex processes taking place within the international system. Decision-making mechanisms often encounter significant obstacles, and the organization’s principal body responsible for maintaining international peace and security—the Security Council—has become one of the most controversial aspects of the UN system.
According to this perspective, the Security Council faces growing difficulties in managing the diversity of interests, identities, and priorities represented within the contemporary international community. Many of today’s conflicts are not driven solely by territorial disputes or geopolitical competition; they are also influenced by cultural, religious, and civilizational differences. As a result, some scholars and political thinkers have proposed that meaningful reform of the Security Council should take these factors into account [6, p. 137].
One proposed approach involves reconsidering the composition of the Security Council itself. Rather than limiting decisive influence to a small number of major powers, proponents of this view argue that representation should be broadened to include the principal or “core” states of major civilizations. The rationale behind this proposal is that the successful resolution of contemporary conflicts requires not only military power but also cultural understanding, political legitimacy, and the ability to exercise soft power. In many cases, the states best positioned to mediate disputes are not necessarily those possessing the greatest military capabilities, but rather those capable of fostering dialogue and building trust among different societies and cultural communities.
From this standpoint, if international politics were determined exclusively by military strength, global governance would rely primarily on military alliances rather than international organizations. The continued existence of international institutions suggests that legitimacy, cooperation, and cultural understanding remain essential components of conflict resolution alongside traditional power considerations.
The relevance of civilizational factors in international relations has been emphasized by scholars such as Samuel P. Huntington, whose theory of the “Clash of Civilizations” continues to generate debate among academics and policymakers. Although many observers hoped that the technological progress and globalization described by Francis Fukuyama in The End of History and the Last Man would gradually reduce ideological and cultural divisions, contemporary developments suggest that identity-related issues remain highly influential. Cultural, religious, ethnic, and historical differences continue to shape international politics and frequently contribute to tensions in many of the world’s conflict zones.
Consequently, some analysts argue that the international community requires an institutional framework that is more structured, representative, and responsive to civilizational diversity than the existing system. Such a framework would acknowledge differences in political traditions, cultural identities, and governance models rather than assuming a universal approach to conflict resolution. Without addressing these underlying realities, many long-standing international disputes may remain unresolved despite continued diplomatic efforts.
Conclusion. The developments examined throughout this study suggest that the role of international organizations and diplomacy in global politics is undergoing significant transformation. Contemporary international relations increasingly reflect a world characterized by asymmetries of power, strategic competition, and the pursuit of national interests. Within this environment, the ability of international organizations to influence political outcomes has become the subject of growing debate.
The United Nations, despite remaining the most comprehensive global institution for international cooperation, frequently encounters difficulties in achieving consensus and implementing effective solutions to major international crises. In some instances, disputes resolved through bilateral negotiations have produced more tangible outcomes than issues discussed for years within multilateral institutions. This reality raises important questions regarding the effectiveness of existing mechanisms of global governance.
Furthermore, the prevalence of Realpolitik in contemporary international affairs demonstrates that political decisions are often shaped less by idealistic principles and more by calculations of power, security, and strategic interest. As cultural and political diversity continues to expand within the international system, institutions designed in the aftermath of the Second World War face increasing challenges in adapting to new realities.
For this reason, structural reform has become an increasingly important subject of discussion. If the institutional architecture of international organizations remains unchanged, their capacity to manage future crises may continue to decline. History demonstrates that unresolved structural deficiencies can have serious consequences for international peace and stability. The experience of the twentieth century serves as a reminder that ineffective international mechanisms may contribute to the escalation of global tensions rather than their resolution.
Accordingly, any future reform process should seek not only to address questions of power distribution but also to incorporate cultural, religious, and civilizational diversity into decision-making structures. Greater participation by representative states from different civilizational and cultural spheres could contribute to a more inclusive and balanced system of international governance. Such an approach would not eliminate conflict, but it could improve the legitimacy and effectiveness of international institutions in managing contemporary global challenges.
Ultimately, the continuation of existing approaches without meaningful adaptation risks preserving many of the shortcomings that currently hinder international cooperation. A more representative and responsive institutional framework may therefore be necessary if international organizations are to remain relevant and effective in an increasingly complex and multipolar world.
 
Bibliography:
1. Nicolson H. Diplomacy. – London: Oxford University Press, 1963. – 216 p.
2. Weiss T.G., Wilkinson R. International Organization and Global Governance. – 2nd ed. – London; New York: Routledge, 2018. – 712 p.
3. Gaddis J.L. The Cold War: A New History. – New York: Penguin Press, 2005. – 352 p.
4. Huntington S.P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. – New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996. – 367 p.
5. Huntington S.P. The Clash of Civilizations? // Foreign Affairs. – 1993. – Vol. 72, No. 3. – P. 22–49.
6. Fukuyama F. The End of History and the Last Man. – New York: Free Press, 1992. – 418 p.
7. Fukuyama F. The End of History? // The National Interest. – 1989. – No. 16. – P. 3–18.
8. Friedman A. Berlusconi: My Way: The Rise and Fall of Silvio Berlusconi in His Own Words. – New York: Hachette Books, 2015. – 416 p.
                                                                                              

Резюме. В эпоху растущих и всё более сложных межгосударственных отношений дипломатия и международные организации становятся важными инструментами поддержания мира, разрешения конфликтов, сотрудничества и глобальной безопасности. Основная цель данной статьи — проанализировать события, происходящие на меняющейся мировой политической арене, и не только успехи, но и неудачи, а также сохраняющиеся трудности, связанные с использованием этих инструментов в решении этих вопросов. Хотя дипломатия и международные организации часто являются важными инструментами мировой политики, неспособность этих инструментов сохранять свою эффективность из-за дисбаланса сил и национальных интересов государств также является важной темой для обсуждения.
Ключевые слова: мировой порядок, Лодийский мирный договор, Кадешский договор, Венский конгресс, НАТО, столкновение цивилизаций, Лига Наций, ООН, Арабская весна, Европейский союз, Дилемма заключенного, Realpolitik, ЮНЕСКО, План Маршалла, Будапештский меморандум.