The article covers basic themes in the conceptual analysis of power: main stages (early, classical, modern), conceptual problems (actual power vs potential power, power as structures vs agents, «power to» vs «power over», intentionality of power, asymmetrical vs balanced power, conflict and ‘zero sum’) and their solutions, current trends in the conceptual analysis of power (multidimensional view of power, synthesis of different approaches, expansion of the concept, blurring the borders between power and non-power) and their practical consequences.

In the literature, there have been two essentially contrasting views of power: one of power as domination , largely characterized as power over , and the other of power as empowerment , frequently theorized as power to . To date, the four (Lukes and Foucault) dimensions of power have been considered forms of domination. In this article it is argued that the processes of four-dimensional power also constitute the process of normatively desirable power, as emancipation. Key is the realization that structured power over has the potential to be positive-sum, rather than zero-sum; furthermore, that the exclusions of two-dimensional power also constitute the conditions of possibility for justice. The fact that normatively desirable power and domination are constituted through the same processes is not chance: the effectiveness of power as domination is parasitic upon power as emancipation.

The article analyzes modern approaches to the measurement of the semantic space of the concept of «power» in Russian and Western scientific traditions. The concept of «power» refers to the group of «essentially contested» concepts, or to the group of concepts with features of «family resemblance». As a key aspect of the study, the question of the correlation of the corresponding units of conceptual and linguistic spaces is considered.

Assessing the power and influence of states on the world arena has always been one of the most pressing tasks in political science and international relations. Nevertheless, the problem of creating a universally recognized tool for measuring national power remains unsolved. The article presents one of the strategies of such an evaluation - discriminant analysis, which, in our opinion, has several advantages compared with its analogs. One of the obvious advantages of this method is the use of computational algorithms for finding the optimal «weights» of indicators in the index of national power based on training samples. The latter are sets of countries with maximum and minimum influence, obtained on the basis of expert assessments. In other words, using training samples gives researchers the opportunity to formalize mathematically the exact combination of indicators applied to estimate a state’s international power. Basing upon methodology developed in the project «Political Atlas of the Modern World», we apply it to the analysis of a wider data set, which includes 1995, 2005 and 2015. We track the dynamics of changes in the determinants of power and influence potential from 1995 to 2015, and come to an unexpected conclusion about the absence of any «tectonic» shifts in its components. Two dimensions of power potential, related, on the one hand, to economic and institutional factors, and, on the other hand, to military force, have remained the key ones over the past twenty years. Another empirical result of the study is a set of concrete estimations of international power potential for more than 190 countries during the period mentioned above.

The central focus of this paper is a methodological one. Using the set of indicators of state capacity, we demonstrate a specific strategy for identifying sustainable structures in multidimensional data sets that reflect complex and ambiguous concepts of political science. A key feature of this strategy is the application of related, but significantly different technically, multidimensional methods - cluster and pattern analyses. We use hierarchical clustering with various combinations of metrics and amalgamation rules, as well as ordinal-invariant pattern-clustering. Properties of pattern analysis as a method for studying multidimensional data are shown for the first time (to the best of our knowledge) in the political science literature. Since clustering has been actively used in political science for a long time, pattern analysis is still practically not adopted in our science. This situation requires correction, since pattern-analysis has some important and in many ways unique capabilities. It was shown that the combination of pattern and cluster analyses makes it possible to identify consistent structures that have a clear interpretation in terms of political science. Thus, in the course of our study, several types of state capacity were identified (although this task was rather illustrative for us). We use a set of empirical indicators of state capacity: the share of military spending in GDP, the share of military personnel in the total population, the share of tax revenues in GDP, the total rate of homicides and victims of internal conflicts, and the quality of government institutions. Data for more than 150 countries are taken for 1996, 2005 and 2015. Stable combinations of the values of these indicators, identified simultaneously via pattern and cluster analyses, form the structures of state capacity. In conclusion, we show the most promising directions for the development of the methodology described in this paper. One of the most important is the analysis of the dynamics of countries within the pattern-cluster structures of state capacity.

In the article, authors undertake an empirical study of the status of a state in the system of international relations and set themselves the task of studying the relation of this category with the category of state capacity. Within the framework of the study, it is proposed to understand the status position as the recognition of a given state’s importance (significance, influence, etc.) by the international system and other states. Based on this definition, the authors show that the status of a state (similar to the status of an individual in a community) is a product of construction by the others. It is noted that the status, which is recognized for a given state or for which the state is aspiring, is supported by material and non-material foundations and (or) resources, which at a particular point in time are considered by the international community as essential constituent elements of «power» («might», «strength») of a state. In the academic literature «governance» is listed among these factors (or «assets»). Authors rely on the conceptualization and operationalization of «state capacity» proposed by A. Melville, A. Akhremenko and I. Gorelskiy, as they find it very close in meaning to «governance» as an «asset». In the empirical part, authors offer an original operationalization of «status», bringing together a set of indicators which reflects both its material and non-material components. Based on a hierarchical cluster analysis of the status’s and state capacity’s indicators with fine-tuning control of parameters, robust groups of countries were obtained and their intersection was found in terms of the variables under consideration. As a result, the authors, having studied such groups referring to radar charts which serve as a special form of visualization of multidimensional data, conclude that between the two latent constructs - status in international relations and state capacity - there is a positive relationship, which is also fixed in the time dynamics.

Twice over the last 25 years, the USSR and Russia’s actions have been a major catalyst for change in international politics. Gorbachev and his fellow New Thinkers adopted unprecedented concessions that dismantled the Soviet Empire and brought an end to the Cold War. Contemporary Russian leaders are undertaking a risky challenge to US global leadership that signals an end to post-Cold War US dominance and the beginning of an era of unprecedented global disorder. Existing paradigms have had a difficult time accounting for Soviet/Russian behavior and integrating it into their larger theories about change in international politics. This is partly because they have ignored the important role that status considerations have played in Soviet and Russian decision making. But it also reflects larger shortcomings in the way that these paradigms approach the issue of change. What is needed is an evolutionary theory of change that is able to integrate driving historical (root) causes of change with proximate and contingent ones. In both of these cases, larger historical forces have pushed the international system towards change, limiting the choices available to Russian leaders. Yet it has been status considerations that have determined the actual policy choices Soviet and Russian leaders have made. While larger historical forces have been the root cause behind change, status aspirations and status dissatisfaction have been the proximate causes catalyzing change and moving it forward.

How is power and authority distributed in the European Union? What role does state capacity play in the framework of relations between the levels of authority in the EU? In this article, we seek to answer these questions by addressing two key approaches to the analysis of the European Union as a multi-level system of gover- nance: the structural-actor approach and the approach of consociational democracy. While supporters of the structural-actor approach perceive the EU as a hierarchical system, where one of the levels of power is always in a position of dominance and can dictate its rules of the game, the theoreticians of European consociationalism are more interested in the issues related to the decision-making process under the conditions of «grand coalitions», horizontal and vertical accountability and democratic deficit.

The article considers the problem of conceptualization of legitimacy. While being one of the fundamental concepts of political analysis, «legitimacy» describes the relationships of power, political order, regime, individual institutions, etc. The article argues for the relevance of studying the practice of decisions, actions, policy legitimation, proves the need to distinguish between «legitimation» and «justification» of policies, proposes their conceptualization.

The article is devoted to the case study of Ukraine 2014 as an example of state breakdown. To reveal some regularities in this process macrosociological theories were employed in the research. The crisis happened under the condition of weak state (in economic dimension) and intra-elite conflict. The conflict within the elite was caused by discontent due to Yanukovych politics which led to the depletion of wealth among the traditional elites and first of all among business groups. One else necessary condition for a state breakdown is mass mobilization. A preliminary analysis of the population welfare based on the official statistics does not demonstrate sources for mass dissatisfaction: incomes of the population were grown and that the inflation rate was at zero level. On closer examination of these dates, it turned out that there were lots of evidences that Ukraine had seen in 2010-2013 the population immiseration. The last condition for successful mass mobilization is mobilizing discourse. The discourse was directed against the postponed signing of the agreement on a European association which was carried forward by the disgruntled oligarchs and broadcasted through mass-media. The last part considers why Ukrainian oligarchs could exert influence on politics.

In this work we review articles devoted to the network analysis of international relations, which were published in foreign journals during last 10 years. We also consider the Russian input to the network studies of international relations. The articles we review can be divided into two topical groups: on the one hand, there are studies of interstate relations in the system of international organizations and military conflicts; on the other hand, the network of interstate relations can be analyzed in the context of trade links. Network analysis gives an opportunity to analyze the structure of international relations, its dynamics, as well as to evaluate power and influence of states in the network. Network analysis is also used as a secondary method to test hypotheses about factors of interstate links formation or about links’ influence on various political and economic processes.