Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.17994/it.2021.19.1.64.8
C. Pagani
This article assesses the theoretical contours and effectiveness of migration governance and diplomacy as an instrument of statecraft in interstate relations. The first part provides an overview of the stakes and challenges of migration within the fields of international relations and political theory. In particular, the category of migration defies the theoretical model of the nationstate, on which traditional IR and political theory are grounded. The second part highlights how the state, through the securitization of migration, uses migration as a tool to reaffirm its defining features: reinforcing its borders, legitimating state sovereignty, and building societal security. The third section demonstrates the usefulness of the category of statecraft within the context of migration governance at a bilateral level owing to the absence of a global normative framework. This relationship can serve different purposes, depending on the context: to harm, to deter, to bargain, to escalate. The last section presents contemporary case studies of the application of migration statecraft by the United States and Russia, as well as by member states along external border of the European Union and within the Schengen space. The elements of "migration statecraft" evidenced by these episodes focus on several objectives: trade blackmail, cooperation in an asymmetrical relation, political threat, and diplomatic escalation for electoral purposes. The variety of these cases illustrates the specificity of statecraft in comparison with foreign policy analysis. While the latter refers to a general and longterm strategy, the former is contextdependent and specific to achievement of a precise desired outcome.
{"title":"Migration Statecraft: Managing Migration Flows at a Bilateral Level","authors":"C. Pagani","doi":"10.17994/it.2021.19.1.64.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2021.19.1.64.8","url":null,"abstract":"This article assesses the theoretical contours and effectiveness of migration governance and diplomacy as an instrument of statecraft in interstate relations. The first part provides an overview of the stakes and challenges of migration within the fields of international relations and political theory. In particular, the category of migration defies the theoretical model of the nationstate, on which traditional IR and political theory are grounded. The second part highlights how the state, through the securitization of migration, uses migration as a tool to reaffirm its defining features: reinforcing its borders, legitimating state sovereignty, and building societal security. The third section demonstrates the usefulness of the category of statecraft within the context of migration governance at a bilateral level owing to the absence of a global normative framework. This relationship can serve different purposes, depending on the context: to harm, to deter, to bargain, to escalate. The last section presents contemporary case studies of the application of migration statecraft by the United States and Russia, as well as by member states along external border of the European Union and within the Schengen space. The elements of \"migration statecraft\" evidenced by these episodes focus on several objectives: trade blackmail, cooperation in an asymmetrical relation, political threat, and diplomatic escalation for electoral purposes. The variety of these cases illustrates the specificity of statecraft in comparison with foreign policy analysis. While the latter refers to a general and longterm strategy, the former is contextdependent and specific to achievement of a precise desired outcome.","PeriodicalId":37798,"journal":{"name":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67545258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-01DOI: 10.17994/it.2019.17.4.59.6
A. Kireeva
{"title":"THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND PROSPECTS OF A MILITARY ALLIANCE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND CHINA","authors":"A. Kireeva","doi":"10.17994/it.2019.17.4.59.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2019.17.4.59.6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37798,"journal":{"name":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46674070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-01DOI: 10.17994/it.2019.17.4.59.7
E. Galimullin, Irina Benedyk
{"title":"NORTHERN SEA ROUTE IN THE CONTEXT OF RUSSIANAMERICAN RELATIONS","authors":"E. Galimullin, Irina Benedyk","doi":"10.17994/it.2019.17.4.59.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2019.17.4.59.7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37798,"journal":{"name":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46273234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.4
V. Shapovalov
The article provides information about renminbi internationalization stages, actions taken by Chinese authorities in this field as well as suggests possible ways for further increasing usage of the currency in international operations. The analysis is based on international currency criteria used by IMF and SWIFT and well as suggestions of Russian and foreign researchers. Launching the process of renminbi internationalization China was looking to achieve a number of economic and political goals. Usage on the national currency in international operations increases the country’s prestige in the world, facilitates international transaction for domestic economic actors and allows influencing foreign counterparts. China achieved significant success in internationalizing its national currency in the past decade. Yuan has been part of IMF reserve currencies for more than three years. However, the share of renminbi in global settlements and investments is still moderate and does not correspond to the size of the country’s economy. The USA maintains their dominant role in the world’s financial system and is not interested in allowing China to increase its global influence. China is inviting its key trading partners to create yuan based international transactions system as an alternative to the US dollar. Despite the scale of the economy, volume of foreign investments and size of the internal securities market – international participants show relatively low interest for renminbi usage. Comparison of the anticipated goals and actions taken and with the current outcomes allows suggesting conceding amendments to the strategy of increasing renminbi usage in the world. This can be achieved by removing restrictions for international capital movements and facilitating access to yuan liquidity and instruments for international participants.
{"title":"Yuan Internationalization: Status and Perspectives","authors":"V. Shapovalov","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.4","url":null,"abstract":"The article provides information about renminbi internationalization stages, actions taken by Chinese authorities in this field as well as suggests possible ways for further increasing usage of the currency in international operations. The analysis is based on international currency criteria used by IMF and SWIFT and well as suggestions of Russian and foreign researchers. Launching the process of renminbi internationalization China was looking to achieve a number of economic and political goals. Usage on the national currency in international operations increases the country’s prestige in the world, facilitates international transaction for domestic economic actors and allows influencing foreign counterparts. China achieved significant success in internationalizing its national currency in the past decade. Yuan has been part of IMF reserve currencies for more than three years. However, the share of renminbi in global settlements and investments is still moderate and does not correspond to the size of the country’s economy. The USA maintains their dominant role in the world’s financial system and is not interested in allowing China to increase its global influence. China is inviting its key trading partners to create yuan based international transactions system as an alternative to the US dollar. Despite the scale of the economy, volume of foreign investments and size of the internal securities market – international participants show relatively low interest for renminbi usage. Comparison of the anticipated goals and actions taken and with the current outcomes allows suggesting conceding amendments to the strategy of increasing renminbi usage in the world. This can be achieved by removing restrictions for international capital movements and facilitating access to yuan liquidity and instruments for international participants.","PeriodicalId":37798,"journal":{"name":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67544320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.5
A. Maltsev
This article explores the role of technology proliferation within the international arms trade as the major part of political structure of international system. The first part of the article suggests a brief overview of the existing studies of international arms transfer as an integral system in international relations, specifically emphasizing the impact of Krause’s (1992) “diffusion of technology” theoretical concept on the literature of 1990–2000-s. The focus of the review is on the intersection between the studies of specific technological transfers and more generalized empirical research works reveals an interesting scientific puzzle – on the one hand key arms manufacturer states accumulate most of the military R&D thus securing their place on the top of the suppliers’ hierarchy, but on the other hand more and more states acquire capabilities to produce military hardware and they more willingly interact with each other establishing strong horizontal bonds with each other to achieve some political independence and maximize economic efficiency (so-called globalization of arms production). In the second part of the article, the network-based approach is suggested as a solution to the market-hierarchy paradox, with some overview of the latest research of arms transfers via Social Network Analysis (SNA) methodology. The third and the last part of the article provides first empirical investigation of the international military technology transfers using original operationalization approach based on SIPRI Arms Transfer Database information of localized production interstate transfers. Finally, the network graphs are constructed to compare general centrality metrics and locate network communities using the Blondel’s method for community detection. The network topology demonstrates significant interconnections between secondary suppliers within technology transfers sub-network, compared to “regular” transfers sub-network, as well as the existence of a “feedback loop” for the license transfers. Overall the empirical results provide positive evidence for Krause’s “diffusion of technology” concept and also support previous network studies of dissimilarities between USA and USSR dependent sub-network – the asymmetry between them appears to be even more stark on the license transfers data.
{"title":"Network Dynamics of Technology Diffusion in International Arms Transfers","authors":"A. Maltsev","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.5","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the role of technology proliferation within the international arms trade as the major part of political structure of international system. The first part of the article suggests a brief overview of the existing studies of international arms transfer as an integral system in international relations, specifically emphasizing the impact of Krause’s (1992) “diffusion of technology” theoretical concept on the literature of 1990–2000-s. The focus of the review is on the intersection between the studies of specific technological transfers and more generalized empirical research works reveals an interesting scientific puzzle – on the one hand key arms manufacturer states accumulate most of the military R&D thus securing their place on the top of the suppliers’ hierarchy, but on the other hand more and more states acquire capabilities to produce military hardware and they more willingly interact with each other establishing strong horizontal bonds with each other to achieve some political independence and maximize economic efficiency (so-called globalization of arms production). In the second part of the article, the network-based approach is suggested as a solution to the market-hierarchy paradox, with some overview of the latest research of arms transfers via Social Network Analysis (SNA) methodology. The third and the last part of the article provides first empirical investigation of the international military technology transfers using original operationalization approach based on SIPRI Arms Transfer Database information of localized production interstate transfers. Finally, the network graphs are constructed to compare general centrality metrics and locate network communities using the Blondel’s method for community detection. The network topology demonstrates significant interconnections between secondary suppliers within technology transfers sub-network, compared to “regular” transfers sub-network, as well as the existence of a “feedback loop” for the license transfers. Overall the empirical results provide positive evidence for Krause’s “diffusion of technology” concept and also support previous network studies of dissimilarities between USA and USSR dependent sub-network – the asymmetry between them appears to be even more stark on the license transfers data.","PeriodicalId":37798,"journal":{"name":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67544679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.17994/IT.2020.18.2.61.4
Y. Nadtochey
The appliance of interdependence concepts in the International Relations studies can hardly be regarded as something new. However, slowing down globalization and rising international tensions even among partner or allied states make rethinking of these concepts relevant. The notion that interdependence may ease tensions was put under question and opposed by the idea that interdependence may become a source of conflict. Scholars also missed their focus on conceptualization of interdependence forgetting that it was not a product of globalization, rather a result of the Cold War era. Thus, it can be applied to relations not only between partner countries, but also rivals, as was in the case of the U.S.-Soviet relations. The dense fabric of bilateral agreements, institutions, and regimes in various fields (primarily in security domain) prevented superpowers from a destructive conflict. After the collapse of the bipolar world, both states tried to consolidate the legacy of interdependence by increasing cooperation, transferring relations from mutual assured destruction to sustainable partnership, from deterrence to security community. However, structural changes in world politics reshaped Russian-American relations. Unlike the Cold War period with its unique U.S.-Soviet interdependence model, which served as a necessary precondition for lasting peace, contemporary Russian, as well as American decision-makers do not tend to estimate cooperation between two countries as critical in terms of national security and conflict prevention. In contrast, they are more likely to treat bilateral relations as too costly and burdening. Moscow and Washington increasingly prefer to be unbound in achieving their short- or long-term political goals and choose the way of unilateral decisions and actions with no corresponding with the counterpart. These risky policies of mutual neglect increase the likelihood of future conflict between the two powers.
{"title":"Facets of Interdependency in Russia-US Relations","authors":"Y. Nadtochey","doi":"10.17994/IT.2020.18.2.61.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2020.18.2.61.4","url":null,"abstract":"The appliance of interdependence concepts in the International Relations studies can hardly be regarded as something new. However, slowing down globalization and rising international tensions even among partner or allied states make rethinking of these concepts relevant. The notion that interdependence may ease tensions was put under question and opposed by the idea that interdependence may become a source of conflict. Scholars also missed their focus on conceptualization of interdependence forgetting that it was not a product of globalization, rather a result of the Cold War era. Thus, it can be applied to relations not only between partner countries, but also rivals, as was in the case of the U.S.-Soviet relations. The dense fabric of bilateral agreements, institutions, and regimes in various fields (primarily in security domain) prevented superpowers from a destructive conflict. After the collapse of the bipolar world, both states tried to consolidate the legacy of interdependence by increasing cooperation, transferring relations from mutual assured destruction to sustainable partnership, from deterrence to security community. However, structural changes in world politics reshaped Russian-American relations. Unlike the Cold War period with its unique U.S.-Soviet interdependence model, which served as a necessary precondition for lasting peace, contemporary Russian, as well as American decision-makers do not tend to estimate cooperation between two countries as critical in terms of national security and conflict prevention. In contrast, they are more likely to treat bilateral relations as too costly and burdening. Moscow and Washington increasingly prefer to be unbound in achieving their short- or long-term political goals and choose the way of unilateral decisions and actions with no corresponding with the counterpart. These risky policies of mutual neglect increase the likelihood of future conflict between the two powers.","PeriodicalId":37798,"journal":{"name":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67544072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.17994/IT.2020.18.4.63.4
M. Entin, E. Entina, V. Voynikov
The Covid-19 pandemic was a catalyst for the growing systemic crisis of the EU and at the same time gave the Union an impetus towards its qualitatively new development in favor of deeper integration, expressed in a change in the financial and economic space of the EU. Realizing the risks of their internal destabilization, the EU core countries decided to sacrifice the surplus from their economic successes through the socialization of debts in order to save the most affected peripheral Member States to preserve both the integration union and the European idea itself. The purpose of this article is to explain the difficulty of making this decision and its compromise nature, as well as to clarify the likely consequences and suggest options for the further development of the situation. The authors first compare the pros and cons of debt socialization. Then the variables are compared: the Spanish proposal, the Franco-German initiative and the negotiating platform on the "next generation EU" by Ursula von der Leyen with the fundamental points of the European Council compromise decision. It also provides answers to questions about the volume, conditions, mechanism, and control over the expenditure of the financial assistance provided. The breakthrough steps taken by the Member States towards finding an optimal solution are analyzed. The result of the study is a balanced conclusion about the ambiguous nature of the decision adopted by the EU but having a historical significance and opening prospects for the further deepening of integration processes. This is facilitated by reaching an agreement on the need to bring the core of the EU closer to the periphery through the socialization of debts, as well as the importance of structural reforms that would ensure the construction of a harmonious economy of the future based on a new technological platform and formulated in a breakthrough plan called the next generation EU. Success is not guaranteed, as it depends on the behavior of all Member States, but it is real.
{"title":"The EU Choice towards Integration in the Midst of COVID-19 Pandemics","authors":"M. Entin, E. Entina, V. Voynikov","doi":"10.17994/IT.2020.18.4.63.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2020.18.4.63.4","url":null,"abstract":"The Covid-19 pandemic was a catalyst for the growing systemic crisis of the EU and at the same time gave the Union an impetus towards its qualitatively new development in favor of deeper integration, expressed in a change in the financial and economic space of the EU. Realizing the risks of their internal destabilization, the EU core countries decided to sacrifice the surplus from their economic successes through the socialization of debts in order to save the most affected peripheral Member States to preserve both the integration union and the European idea itself. The purpose of this article is to explain the difficulty of making this decision and its compromise nature, as well as to clarify the likely consequences and suggest options for the further development of the situation. The authors first compare the pros and cons of debt socialization. Then the variables are compared: the Spanish proposal, the Franco-German initiative and the negotiating platform on the \"next generation EU\" by Ursula von der Leyen with the fundamental points of the European Council compromise decision. It also provides answers to questions about the volume, conditions, mechanism, and control over the expenditure of the financial assistance provided. The breakthrough steps taken by the Member States towards finding an optimal solution are analyzed. The result of the study is a balanced conclusion about the ambiguous nature of the decision adopted by the EU but having a historical significance and opening prospects for the further deepening of integration processes. This is facilitated by reaching an agreement on the need to bring the core of the EU closer to the periphery through the socialization of debts, as well as the importance of structural reforms that would ensure the construction of a harmonious economy of the future based on a new technological platform and formulated in a breakthrough plan called the next generation EU. Success is not guaranteed, as it depends on the behavior of all Member States, but it is real.","PeriodicalId":37798,"journal":{"name":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67544604","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.1
A. Boldyrev
{"title":"Debate on the Istanbul Canal in Russian and Turkish Publications","authors":"A. Boldyrev","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37798,"journal":{"name":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67544125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.2
A. Vylegzhanin, V. Salygin, K. Krymskaya
Since hydrocarbon resources found close to the delimitation line between two or more states require special regulation due to its complex and sensitive nature, the states involved have to consider national legislation and applicable international instruments relating to transboundary exploitation, as well as interests of their oil and gas companies. However, when one state unilaterally explores or exploits the deposit from its side of the delimitation line, it ipso facto violates the rights of the other state, thus leading to a potential international conflict, that would take years to settle. The previously practiced method of seizing such deposits on the “first come – first take” basis is currently considered fraught with interstate conflicts. Moreover, this approach is, economically irrational and, without any doubt, bears a greater negative impact on the environment, thus making an agreed regime of transboundary subsoil use more viable. Often coastal states reach an agreement on transboundary activities, that calls for intergovernmental consultations to be held once a particularly transboundary deposit is discovered. It is usually followed by conclusion of contract between operating companies, that addresses all the technical issues of exploration and exploitation of specific field. The existing political and legal mechanisms of transboundary subsoil regulation prove to be successful, especially in previously disputed maritime areas. State practice demonstrates the tendency towards universal agreement-based exploration and exploitation of transboundary hydrocarbon resources. Applicable political and legal mechanisms will presumably evolve and differ from one another depending on the individual characteristics of oil and gas fields in question and areas where the deposits are located.
{"title":"Transboundary Hydrocarbon Resources: Political and Legal Mechanisms for Preventing International Conflicts","authors":"A. Vylegzhanin, V. Salygin, K. Krymskaya","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.2","url":null,"abstract":"Since hydrocarbon resources found close to the delimitation line between two or more states require special regulation due to its complex and sensitive nature, the states involved have to consider national legislation and applicable international instruments relating to transboundary exploitation, as well as interests of their oil and gas companies. However, when one state unilaterally explores or exploits the deposit from its side of the delimitation line, it ipso facto violates the rights of the other state, thus leading to a potential international conflict, that would take years to settle. The previously practiced method of seizing such deposits on the “first come – first take” basis is currently considered fraught with interstate conflicts. Moreover, this approach is, economically irrational and, without any doubt, bears a greater negative impact on the environment, thus making an agreed regime of transboundary subsoil use more viable. Often coastal states reach an agreement on transboundary activities, that calls for intergovernmental consultations to be held once a particularly transboundary deposit is discovered. It is usually followed by conclusion of contract between operating companies, that addresses all the technical issues of exploration and exploitation of specific field. The existing political and legal mechanisms of transboundary subsoil regulation prove to be successful, especially in previously disputed maritime areas. State practice demonstrates the tendency towards universal agreement-based exploration and exploitation of transboundary hydrocarbon resources. Applicable political and legal mechanisms will presumably evolve and differ from one another depending on the individual characteristics of oil and gas fields in question and areas where the deposits are located.","PeriodicalId":37798,"journal":{"name":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67544184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：