DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048X.2026.34.5

 

Анотація.

Abstract. The purpose of the article is to provide a theoretical and analytical examination of the network model of contemporary international relations, to identify its genesis, core characteristics, as well as the risks and threats emerging in the context of the ongoing transformation of the global order in the early twenty-first century. Particular attention is paid to interpreting networkedness as an empirically observable structural feature of the international system and its role in shaping a neo-post-bipolar configuration of global politics. The research methodology is based on a combination of systemic and structural-functional approaches, elements of actor–network theory (ANT), and an interdisciplinary synthesis of political science, history, sociology, and international relations theory. The theoretical framework is complemented by an empirical analysis of contemporary security and sanctions coalitions, which allows the network model to be verified through concrete cases of international coordination and interaction. Scientific novelty lies in conceptualizing the network model of international relations as a comprehensive analytical tool that goes beyond classical bipolar, post-bipolar, and multipolar frameworks. The article advances the argument that networkedness should be understood not as a metaphor but as a systemic characteristic of the neo-post-bipolar world order, within which competition, cooperation, and confrontation coexist inside the same network structures. The empirical case focuses on security and sanctions coalitions in response to the Russo-Ukrainian war (2014–2026), demonstrating the adaptive, polycentric, and multidimensional nature of modern network interactions. The conclusions demonstrate that contemporary international relations are increasingly polycentric, dynamic, and decentralized. The effectiveness of international action depends not only on the material resources of individual states but also on their position within global networks, their capacity for coordination, and their adaptive potential. At the same time, network logic generates new risks, including political fragmentation, blurred responsibility, information and cyber threats, which necessitate a rethinking of traditional security concepts and global governance mechanisms, deeper understanding of polycentric systems’ functioning.

Keywords: network model of international relations, world order, neo-post-bipolarity, actor–network theory, global security, sanctions policy, risks and threats.

 

Submitted 10.11.2025

---

Download

---

References:

1. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society Towards a New Modernity. London, Newbury Park, New Delhi: SAGE Publications. [In English].
2. Bieleń, (2021). Turbulence in the Post-Cold War Era. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. [In English].
3. Callon, M., & Law, J., Rip, A. (1986).  Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. London: Macmillan Press. [In English].
4. Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1992). Don’t throw the baby out with the Bath school! Science as practice and culture, 343–368. [In English].
5. Castells, M. (2010). The Rise of the Network Society (The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture) (Vol 1). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell Publ. [In English].
6. Deese, D.A., & Nye, J.S. (Jnr). (1981). Energy and Security. Cambridge. Mass.: A Report of Harvard’s Energy and Security Research Project, Ballinger. [In English].
7. Ferguson, Y.H., & Mansbach, R.W. (1996). Policies: Authorities, Identities, and Change. Columbia, S. C.: USC Press. [In English].
8. Keohane, R., & Nye, J.S. (Jnr). (2001). Between centralization and fragmentation: the club model of multilateral cooperation and problems of democratic legitimacy. John F. Kennedy School of Government Working Paper. Washington: Harvard University. [In English].
9. Keohane, R.O. (2005). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. [In English].
10. Keohane, R.O., & Nye, J.S. (Jnr). (2012). Power and Interdependence (4th ed). Published: Longman. [In English].
11. Kissinger, H. (1994). Published: Simon & Schuster. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/88168290/Henry_kissinger_diplomacy [In English].
12. Kyrydon, A., & Troyan, S. (2023). The Russian-Ukrainian war 2014–2023: Interference factors of the War. Foreign Affairs, 33(6), 30–39. [In English].
13. Kyrydon, A., & Troyan, S. (2024). Saving Russia. Neorealist Theorists and the Interpretation of the Kremlin’s International Policy according to the Actor-Network Concept. Central European and Balkan Studies. XXXIII, 171–189. [In English].
14. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [In English].
15. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [In English].
16. Nye, J.S. (Jnr). (2005). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. [In English].
17. Nye, J.S. (Jnr). (2006). Think Again: soft power. Foreign Policy, 4, 9–27. Retrieved from: http://foreignpolicy.com/2006/02/23/ think-again-soft-power [In English].
18. Nye, J.S. (Jnr), & Goldsmith J.L. (2011). The Future of Power. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 64 (3), 45–52. [In English].
19. Rosenau, J. (2000). The Governance of Fragmegration: Neither a World Republic nor a Global Interstate System. Studia Diplomatica. 53 (5), 15–40. [In English].
20. Sullivan, J., & Bowman, B. (2023). UN general assembly votes 141-7 for Russian forces to withdraw from Ukraine. Retrieved from: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/02/24/unga-votes-141-7-russian-forces-withdraw-from-ukraine/ [In English].
21. Troyan, S., Kyrydon, A., & Kosiak, S. (2025). Neo-post-bipolar international relations: turbulence in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war: Monograph. Kyiv: Publishing House «Interservice». [In English].
22. Ukraine Support Tracker Data (2025). Kiel Institut. Retrieved from: https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/ukraine-support-tracker-data-6453/ [In English].