ETHICS OF AWARDS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS: HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF MORAL DILEMMAS AND THEIR IMPACT ON FOREIGN POLICY OF STATES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31392/cult.alm.2025.3.9Keywords:
ethics of international relations, reward systems, moral dilemmas, foreign policy, international diplomacy, political ethics, symbolic power, global governance, international legitimacy, diplomatic instruments, ethical integrity, transparency, politicization of rewards, international organizations, moral leadershipAbstract
This study presents a comprehensive analysis of the ethical aspects of the functioning of award systems in the field of international politics, examining the evolution of moral dilemmas associated with the awarding of state and international awards and their impact on the formation of foreign policy strategies. The study is based on an interdisciplinary approach that integrates methods of political philosophy, ethics of international relations and comparative political science analysis to identify contradictions between the declared values of award systems and their practical use as instruments of diplomatic influence. The work covers the historical period from the end of the 19th century to the present, analyzing the transformation of ethical standards for awarding awards in the context of changing global political landscape and the evolution of international law. The methodological basis of the study is a critical analysis of archival materials, diplomatic documentation and public speeches of political leaders, supplemented by a qualitative content analysis of media discourse formed around controversial cases of awarding international awards. Special attention is paid to the study of institutional decision-making mechanisms in award committees, analysis of candidate selection criteria and identification of latent political motives influencing the awarding. The study uses a comparative approach to compare ethical standards of different award systems, including the Nobel Peace Prize, state awards of leading states and regional award initiatives in order to identify universal and particular aspects of moral issues. The results of the study demonstrate the existence of a fundamental contradiction between the declared humanistic goals of international awards and their actual use as instruments of political influence and diplomatic pressure. Systematic patterns of politicization of award processes are revealed, manifested in the selective application of ethical criteria depending on the geopolitical interests and ideological preferences of award institutions. The analysis shows that the moral dilemmas of award systems are especially exacerbated in periods of international tension, when ethical considerations come into conflict with the pragmatic foreign policy goals of the founding states or international organizations. The study also reveals the phenomenon of the “ethical paradox”, in which awards intended to promote universal moral values become a source of additional ethical contradictions and international disputes.
References
Corner, J. (2016). “Ideology” and media research. Media, Culture & Society, 38 (2), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443715610923
Gaberman, Yu. (2005). Hromadyanstvo i natsional’na identychnist’. In V. van Steenbergen (Ed.), Umovy hromadyanstva (O. O. Ivanenko, Trans., pp. 49–70). Kyiv: Ukrayins’kyy Tsentr dukhovnoyi kul’tury.
Ganguly, D., Docker, J., eds. (2008). Rethinking Gandhi and Nonviolent Relationality: Global Perspectives. Routledge. pp. 4–8.
Goswami, K. P. (1971). Mahatma Gandhi A Chronology. Publications Division. p. 60.
Horz, C. M. (2024). Identity Propaganda. British Journal of Political Science, 54 (2), 313–338. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123423000182
Iser, M. (2019). Axel Honneth (1949). In: Allen A., Mendieta E., eds. The Cambridge Habermas Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, pp. 570–572.
Jiang, F., & Liu, N. (2018). The hierarchical status of international academic awards in social sciences. Scientometrics, 117 (3), 2091–2115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2928-y
Lu, X., Ma, C., & Wang, S. (2022). Measuring the academic influence of geological research institutions based on international awards. Procedia Computer Science, 199, 1370–1376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.173
McGrayne, S. B. (2001). Nobel Prize Women in Science. 2nd ed. Joseph Henry Press, 357 p.
Raju, T. N. (1998). The Nobel chronicles. 1926: Johannes Andreas Grib Fibiger (1867–1928). The Lancet, 352 (9140), 1635. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)00067
Ryle M. (1985). Martin Ryle’s Last Testament. New Scientist, 105 (14 February), 36–37.
Sparks, C. (2007). Extending and Refining the Propaganda Model. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 4. DOI: 10.16997/wpcc.86
Taylor, Ch. (1982). The Diversity of Goods. In Sen, Amartya; Williams, Bernard (eds.). Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 129–144.
Thu-Hương Nguyễn-Võ (2008). The Ironies of Freedom: Sex, Culture, and Neoliberal Governance in Vietnam. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 73 p.
Wang, Qian, Zhu, Ruifang, & Duan, Zhiguang. (2021). An Analysis of Past Florence Nightingale Medal Recipients: Insights into Exceptional Nurses and the Evolution of Nursing. SAGE Open Nursing, 7.
Watson, J., & Crick, Fr. (April 25, 1953). Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Nature, 171 (4356), 737–738. Bibcode:1953. Natur. 171. 737W. DOI: 10.1038/171737a0.
山極 勝三郎 [Katsusaburō Yamagiwa]. (2012). Nihon Jinmei Daijiten (in Japanese). Tokyo: Shogakukan. Archived from the original on 2007-08-25. Retrieved 2012-11-08.
Zheng, Juntao, & Liu, Niancai. (2015). Mapping of important international academic awards. Scientometrics, 104. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1613-7
