Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.9
V. Mikhailenko
{"title":"“There Is No Alternative to the Standard of Civility...”","authors":"V. Mikhailenko","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.9","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":"67544448","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.2020.18.3.62.5
E. Obichkina
This article is about a book authored by Thomas Gomart on ten major geopolitical challenges for Europe today, Russia’s return to the club of the most influential world powers being one of them. A natural partner, Russia is being increasingly alienated from Europe and reciprocates to it by taking a diverging path. Is this emerging geostrategic r irreversible? This question is of critical relevance for the future of the both parts of the continent. An analysis of Europeans’ perceptions of the balance of geopolitical interests of Western Europe and Russia provides a key to understanding the reasons behind the growing divergence between them. Thomas Gomart, Director of IFRI (Institut français des relations internationales), the leading international relations think tank of France, is a top French expert in geopolitics who also specializes in Russian politics. His views and recommendations largely echo key foreign policy statements and actions of Emmanuel Macron, which reveals a high degree of their representativeness of French political elite views. Thomas Gomart's forecasts respond to the most urgent needs of European geopolitics from the angle of the interests of France which is committed to acting on behalf of the European Union and aims to position an expanded Western Europe as an independent center of power in the emerging world hierarchy. For Russian readers such publications are interesting from two points of view: they give an idea of the direction in which this type of research is going and of the methodology used in geostrategic forecasting. In particular, the book demonstrates significant cognitive changes in the analysis of international behavior of Russia. They stem from the new European reality, as represented, in particular, by Europe’s political and intellectual elite which has been molded by the 70 years of NATO’s existence and almost 65 years of the European Homo Atlanticus project. The overall conclusion is rather disappointing for Russia. Europeans regard its growing power as a challenge, not as an opportunity to join efforts to strengthen the continent's position in the face of the intensifying US-China rivalry. Moscow sees this as a break with the main pillar of French diplomacy — its Gaullist tradition, whereas, in fact, it merely reflects, in the spirit of classical realism, current assessments of the balance of power in Europe and the world. Any motivation for returning to partnership has decrease, firstly, due to Russian leaders’ flat refusal to adopt the Western model of convergence and, secondly, because of the forecasts of the weakening of the country's economic capacity. The growth of Russia’s military might clashes with the interests of Western Europe. If Russia turns to China, driven by the asymmetry of economic opportunities, it risks taking a subordinate role, if not a marginal one, in the global Great Silk Road project. At the same time, Russia, a great continental power spanning China and the European Union, in the
{"title":"“Russian Question” in the Focus of European Geopolitics","authors":"E. Obichkina","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.5","url":null,"abstract":"This article is about a book authored by Thomas Gomart on ten major geopolitical challenges for Europe today, Russia’s return to the club of the most influential world powers being one of them. A natural partner, Russia is being increasingly alienated from Europe and reciprocates to it by taking a diverging path. Is this emerging geostrategic r irreversible? This question is of critical relevance for the future of the both parts of the continent. An analysis of Europeans’ perceptions of the balance of geopolitical interests of Western Europe and Russia provides a key to understanding the reasons behind the growing divergence between them. Thomas Gomart, Director of IFRI (Institut français des relations internationales), the leading international relations think tank of France, is a top French expert in geopolitics who also specializes in Russian politics. His views and recommendations largely echo key foreign policy statements and actions of Emmanuel Macron, which reveals a high degree of their representativeness of French political elite views. Thomas Gomart's forecasts respond to the most urgent needs of European geopolitics from the angle of the interests of France which is committed to acting on behalf of the European Union and aims to position an expanded Western Europe as an independent center of power in the emerging world hierarchy. For Russian readers such publications are interesting from two points of view: they give an idea of the direction in which this type of research is going and of the methodology used in geostrategic forecasting. In particular, the book demonstrates significant cognitive changes in the analysis of international behavior of Russia. They stem from the new European reality, as represented, in particular, by Europe’s political and intellectual elite which has been molded by the 70 years of NATO’s existence and almost 65 years of the European Homo Atlanticus project. The overall conclusion is rather disappointing for Russia. Europeans regard its growing power as a challenge, not as an opportunity to join efforts to strengthen the continent's position in the face of the intensifying US-China rivalry. Moscow sees this as a break with the main pillar of French diplomacy — its Gaullist tradition, whereas, in fact, it merely reflects, in the spirit of classical realism, current assessments of the balance of power in Europe and the world. Any motivation for returning to partnership has decrease, firstly, due to Russian leaders’ flat refusal to adopt the Western model of convergence and, secondly, because of the forecasts of the weakening of the country's economic capacity. The growth of Russia’s military might clashes with the interests of Western Europe. If Russia turns to China, driven by the asymmetry of economic opportunities, it risks taking a subordinate role, if not a marginal one, in the global Great Silk Road project. At the same time, Russia, a great continental power spanning China and the European Union, in the","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":"67544669","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.2020.18.3.62.7
D. Shevsky
The article is devoted to an overview of state failure conceptualization. One of the most popular concepts was failed state after transformed in fragile state. These two concepts are based on weberian understanding of the state that is irrelevant from historical perspective. Also critics have denoted to political labeling, incorrectness and the lack of formalization of these concepts. Since these indices were built for practical purposes, a fullfledged theoretical foundation for the idea of state weakness was elaborated in great details in a concept of state capacity. This concept tries to surpass the narrow weberian understanding of the state and offers three dimensions of state capacity: fiscaleconomic, administrativebureaucratic and the control over violence. The drawback of this concept is an absence of the threshold to understand whether the state has experienced state failure or not. The most formalized approach to measure state failure is created within a concept of state collapse. This concept has common with the previous concept because bases on the same features (fiscal, administrative and military). Using this concept faces some difficulties because of different cases are the same according to this concept. Sociology offered a concept of state breakdown which has three points: fiscal crisis, elite conflict and mass mobilization. After analyzing both sociological and anthropological literature the author offers to add to these three criteria two additional: deligitimation (or change of selfdescription in the system) and territorial disintegration.
{"title":"What Is State Failure?","authors":"D. Shevsky","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.7","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to an overview of state failure conceptualization. One of the most popular concepts was failed state after transformed in fragile state. These two concepts are based on weberian understanding of the state that is irrelevant from historical perspective. Also critics have denoted to political labeling, incorrectness and the lack of formalization of these concepts. Since these indices were built for practical purposes, a fullfledged theoretical foundation for the idea of state weakness was elaborated in great details in a concept of state capacity. This concept tries to surpass the narrow weberian understanding of the state and offers three dimensions of state capacity: fiscaleconomic, administrativebureaucratic and the control over violence. The drawback of this concept is an absence of the threshold to understand whether the state has experienced state failure or not. The most formalized approach to measure state failure is created within a concept of state collapse. This concept has common with the previous concept because bases on the same features (fiscal, administrative and military). Using this concept faces some difficulties because of different cases are the same according to this concept. Sociology offered a concept of state breakdown which has three points: fiscal crisis, elite conflict and mass mobilization. After analyzing both sociological and anthropological literature the author offers to add to these three criteria two additional: deligitimation (or change of selfdescription in the system) and territorial disintegration.","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":"67544398","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.2020.18.4.63.2
I. Danilin
Superplatforms – diversified digital corporations from the United States (Amazon, Google and others grouped in FAMGA/GAFAM) and China (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent) dominating the Internet markets – are the leading actors of digital economy. In terms of revenue, markets, and capitalization they are already among the largest multinational corporations. Many basic factors of their success are still in place, but increased competition, diminishing importance of low base effects and other challenges forced them to sharpen focus on innovations and emerging technologies since late 2000s – early 2010s. This process was supported by a strong influx of capital from financial markets. As a result, superplatforms executed strong growth of research and development (R&D) expenditures and investments in venture markets – especially in the domain of emerging technologies. By the end of 2010s, superplatforms appeared among leading technology and innovation actors of respective National Innovation Systems (NIS) in terms of their share of national business R&D, venture investments and because of unique role in promoting digital transformation of the U.S.A. and China. It may also be stated, that superplatforms now are an important factor of both potential and competitiveness of the superpowers, including issues of digital sovereignty. For the future, disruptive innovations and technologies will still be in focus of the superplatforms. This is especially true since superplatforms need new quality of innovative development: further accelerated increase of R&D and venture investments seem to be almost impossible in new realm of the financial markets. The process will be more influenced by the external factors, than in the previous decade. (Among them are changes in the regulatory environment – also to compensate challenging monopolistic behaviors of FAMGA and BAT; changing global trade and investment dynamics – including technological “war” between the U.S.A. and China; rise of global competition). As a result, we may envision further rise of importance of the superplatforms for NIS and their transformation into a new factor of economic and digital power – and new arena of global competition for the U.S.A. and China.
{"title":"Innovative Transformation of Superplatforms","authors":"I. Danilin","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.2","url":null,"abstract":"Superplatforms – diversified digital corporations from the United States (Amazon, Google and others grouped in FAMGA/GAFAM) and China (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent) dominating the Internet markets – are the leading actors of digital economy. In terms of revenue, markets, and capitalization they are already among the largest multinational corporations. Many basic factors of their success are still in place, but increased competition, diminishing importance of low base effects and other challenges forced them to sharpen focus on innovations and emerging technologies since late 2000s – early 2010s. This process was supported by a strong influx of capital from financial markets. As a result, superplatforms executed strong growth of research and development (R&D) expenditures and investments in venture markets – especially in the domain of emerging technologies. By the end of 2010s, superplatforms appeared among leading technology and innovation actors of respective National Innovation Systems (NIS) in terms of their share of national business R&D, venture investments and because of unique role in promoting digital transformation of the U.S.A. and China. It may also be stated, that superplatforms now are an important factor of both potential and competitiveness of the superpowers, including issues of digital sovereignty. For the future, disruptive innovations and technologies will still be in focus of the superplatforms. This is especially true since superplatforms need new quality of innovative development: further accelerated increase of R&D and venture investments seem to be almost impossible in new realm of the financial markets. The process will be more influenced by the external factors, than in the previous decade. (Among them are changes in the regulatory environment – also to compensate challenging monopolistic behaviors of FAMGA and BAT; changing global trade and investment dynamics – including technological “war” between the U.S.A. and China; rise of global competition). As a result, we may envision further rise of importance of the superplatforms for NIS and their transformation into a new factor of economic and digital power – and new arena of global competition for the U.S.A. and China.","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":"67544523","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.2020.18.3.62.6
S. Nozdrev
The article discusses the main areas and features of China and Japan participation in the process of financial integration. A comparative analysis of the possibilities of interaction with Asian countries in the credit and securities markets has been carried out. A special place is given to China and Japan activities in regional financial organizations and associations. It is argued that sphere of regional financial integration is one of the areas of economic cooperation between the two countries where along with the trends towards cooperation there is also a process of increasing competition. Improving the quality of bilateral economic ties between China and Japan and the establishment of multilateral cooperation is not accompanied by a general restructuring of competitive relations in the region. A number of areas of economic activity remain in the sphere of competition which continues to increase both at the state and corporations and banks levels. China uses innovative aid technologies to create the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, eliminate existing bottlenecks, and acquire strategic assets in the region. Japan, despite strained relations with a number of Asian countries, continues to integrate into the regional economy through a network of production and logistics chains and is still a major source of capital for many Asian countries. All this suggests that, despite China's undoubted economic and financial success, it needs time to secure its leadership in the region. At the same time, the further deterioration of trade and economic relations between China and the United States, the consequences of the coronavirus crisis push China to more cooperation with Japan in stock, banking and currency areas, through regional economic organizations, and further expansion of the use of local currencies, primarily yen and renminbi, instead of dollars for investment and expansion of multilateral settlement and payment transactions in the region.
{"title":"China and Japan in the Process of Financial Integration in Asia","authors":"S. Nozdrev","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.6","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the main areas and features of China and Japan participation in the process of financial integration. A comparative analysis of the possibilities of interaction with Asian countries in the credit and securities markets has been carried out. A special place is given to China and Japan activities in regional financial organizations and associations. It is argued that sphere of regional financial integration is one of the areas of economic cooperation between the two countries where along with the trends towards cooperation there is also a process of increasing competition. Improving the quality of bilateral economic ties between China and Japan and the establishment of multilateral cooperation is not accompanied by a general restructuring of competitive relations in the region. A number of areas of economic activity remain in the sphere of competition which continues to increase both at the state and corporations and banks levels. China uses innovative aid technologies to create the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, eliminate existing bottlenecks, and acquire strategic assets in the region. Japan, despite strained relations with a number of Asian countries, continues to integrate into the regional economy through a network of production and logistics chains and is still a major source of capital for many Asian countries. All this suggests that, despite China's undoubted economic and financial success, it needs time to secure its leadership in the region. At the same time, the further deterioration of trade and economic relations between China and the United States, the consequences of the coronavirus crisis push China to more cooperation with Japan in stock, banking and currency areas, through regional economic organizations, and further expansion of the use of local currencies, primarily yen and renminbi, instead of dollars for investment and expansion of multilateral settlement and payment transactions in the region.","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":"67544742","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.2020.18.4.63.7
V. Yungblyud, D. Sadakov
The negotiation of parameters for the settlement of an armed conflict is always a complex process in which the interests of all its immediate participants and other concerned parties collide. One of the most striking examples of such confrontations is the settlement process at the end of the Korean War of 1950–1953, which culminated in the Geneva Conference of 1954. The purpose of the article is to specify the role of the United States as the leader of the UN coalition in the negotiations, as a result of which, after three years of war involving about two dozen countries, the situation returned to its original state – the pre-war border between North and South Korea was restored, and the most active and influential members of the opposing alliances agreed to a truce. The archival documents that have become available in recent years allow us to significantly supplement the ideas formed in domestic and foreign historiography about the reasons for the incompleteness of the peace settlement process in Korea after the end of the war of 1950– 1953. The article examines the contribution of the US diplomacy to creating of the Korean agenda at the conference, and shows that the UN coalition had been functioning in the "double deterrence" mode by the start of the negotiations in Geneva. The role of the United States as the leader of the military-political alliance in the development of plans for the peninsula unification is clarified. The conclusion is justified that already in the second half of May 1954, the United States, when making decisions, primarily proceeded from the motives of propaganda and considered seriously the conclusion to negotiations. As a result, the chance to resolve the Korean issue was ignored and the Geneva Conference turned into a means of fundamentalizing the American strategy in the Northeast Pacific region. It is shown that the results of the conference were in line with the immediate expectations of Washington and its long-term strategy in the Asia-Pacific region. The results of the Korean phase of the Geneva Conference consolidated the division of Korea into two hostile states and for a long time closed the question of possible union of the country.
{"title":"US Coalition Diplomacy on the Korean Issue: Record of the Geneva Conference of 1954","authors":"V. Yungblyud, D. Sadakov","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.7","url":null,"abstract":"The negotiation of parameters for the settlement of an armed conflict is always a complex process in which the interests of all its immediate participants and other concerned parties collide. One of the most striking examples of such confrontations is the settlement process at the end of the Korean War of 1950–1953, which culminated in the Geneva Conference of 1954. The purpose of the article is to specify the role of the United States as the leader of the UN coalition in the negotiations, as a result of which, after three years of war involving about two dozen countries, the situation returned to its original state – the pre-war border between North and South Korea was restored, and the most active and influential members of the opposing alliances agreed to a truce. The archival documents that have become available in recent years allow us to significantly supplement the ideas formed in domestic and foreign historiography about the reasons for the incompleteness of the peace settlement process in Korea after the end of the war of 1950– 1953. The article examines the contribution of the US diplomacy to creating of the Korean agenda at the conference, and shows that the UN coalition had been functioning in the \"double deterrence\" mode by the start of the negotiations in Geneva. The role of the United States as the leader of the military-political alliance in the development of plans for the peninsula unification is clarified. The conclusion is justified that already in the second half of May 1954, the United States, when making decisions, primarily proceeded from the motives of propaganda and considered seriously the conclusion to negotiations. As a result, the chance to resolve the Korean issue was ignored and the Geneva Conference turned into a means of fundamentalizing the American strategy in the Northeast Pacific region. It is shown that the results of the conference were in line with the immediate expectations of Washington and its long-term strategy in the Asia-Pacific region. The results of the Korean phase of the Geneva Conference consolidated the division of Korea into two hostile states and for a long time closed the question of possible union of the country.","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":"67544829","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.2020.18.4.63.9
G. Sufiyanova, E. Muslimova
{"title":"Digital Toolbox of Diplomatic Service","authors":"G. Sufiyanova, E. Muslimova","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.9","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":"67544558","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.2020.18.3.62.8
E. Bliznetskaya
Governance is so commonly used in academic literature and policy papers in the field of international environmental politics and as such has overtaken the words “policy”, “diplomacy” and “cooperation”. This phenomenon has empirical support – environmental policy is one of the most internalized areas of regulation, and states were no longer the sole subject of international rulemaking. The current state of the art in studying global environmental politics is quite paradoxical. Notwithstanding the increased recognition of the importance of non-state, transnational actors and mechanisms to solve global environmental problems, little attention is been paid to the study of the relationship between interstate and non-state forms of interaction. That raises the question of how multilateral environmental diplomacy and global environmental governance are connected with each other in the academic peer-reviewed journals. What kind of international interactions do they study and what links them? To answer these questions, the peer-reviewed articles from SCOPUS and Web of Science databases on multilateral environmental diplomacy and global environmental governance analyzed through a systematic literature review. To understand the nature of the two approaches in studying global environmental politics, I summarize the differences and then identify the links between them. In each of the research areas, sub-directions and the related content were identified, while the typology of the articles allowed to identify the relationships between them. In each of the research areas, sub-directions and the related content were identified, while the typology of the articles helped to highlight the relationships between them. The main finding includes the confirmation that environmental diplomacy and environmental governance studying mostly in isolation from each other. The main finding includes the confirmation that environmental diplomacy and environmental governance studying mostly in isolation especially regarding the interplay between interstate or non-state forms of cooperation as well as assessments of their significance. Two dimensions of the politics – formal negotiations on collective actions and weakly institutionalized public space that involves various stakeholders, movements and initiatives – exists in parallel to each other. At the same time, the study demonstrated the need to develop more responsive notions of international environmental diplomacy, since it is no longer specific only to the study of negotiations and other forms of interstate interaction.
在国际环境政治领域的学术文献和政策文件中，“治理”一词被广泛使用，并因此取代了“政策”、“外交”和“合作”等词。这种现象有经验支持——环境政策是最内部化的监管领域之一，国家不再是国际规则制定的唯一主体。目前全球环境政治研究的现状是相当矛盾的。尽管人们日益认识到非国家、跨国行为体和机制对解决全球环境问题的重要性，但对国家间和非国家形式的相互作用之间关系的研究却很少受到重视。这就提出了多边环境外交和全球环境治理如何在同行评议的学术期刊上相互联系的问题。他们研究什么样的国际互动，它们之间有什么联系?为了回答这些问题，通过系统的文献综述，对SCOPUS和Web of Science数据库中有关多边环境外交和全球环境治理的同行评议文章进行了分析。为了理解研究全球环境政治的两种方法的本质，我总结了它们之间的差异，然后确定它们之间的联系。在每个研究领域中，确定了子方向和相关内容，而文章的类型学允许确定它们之间的关系。在每个研究领域中，确定了子方向和相关内容，而文章的类型学有助于突出它们之间的关系。主要发现包括确认环境外交和环境治理研究大多是相互孤立的。主要发现包括确认环境外交和环境治理的研究大多是孤立的，特别是关于国家间或非国家形式的合作之间的相互作用以及对其重要性的评估。政治的两个维度——关于集体行动的正式谈判和涉及各种利益相关者、运动和倡议的弱制度化公共空间——彼此平行存在。与此同时，这项研究表明，有必要发展更具反应性的国际环境外交概念，因为它不再仅仅局限于研究谈判和其他形式的国家间相互作用。
{"title":"Global Environmental Governance and International Environmental Diplomacy","authors":"E. Bliznetskaya","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.8","url":null,"abstract":"Governance is so commonly used in academic literature and policy papers in the field of international environmental politics and as such has overtaken the words “policy”, “diplomacy” and “cooperation”. This phenomenon has empirical support – environmental policy is one of the most internalized areas of regulation, and states were no longer the sole subject of international rulemaking. The current state of the art in studying global environmental politics is quite paradoxical. Notwithstanding the increased recognition of the importance of non-state, transnational actors and mechanisms to solve global environmental problems, little attention is been paid to the study of the relationship between interstate and non-state forms of interaction. That raises the question of how multilateral environmental diplomacy and global environmental governance are connected with each other in the academic peer-reviewed journals. What kind of international interactions do they study and what links them? To answer these questions, the peer-reviewed articles from SCOPUS and Web of Science databases on multilateral environmental diplomacy and global environmental governance analyzed through a systematic literature review. To understand the nature of the two approaches in studying global environmental politics, I summarize the differences and then identify the links between them. In each of the research areas, sub-directions and the related content were identified, while the typology of the articles allowed to identify the relationships between them. In each of the research areas, sub-directions and the related content were identified, while the typology of the articles helped to highlight the relationships between them. The main finding includes the confirmation that environmental diplomacy and environmental governance studying mostly in isolation from each other. The main finding includes the confirmation that environmental diplomacy and environmental governance studying mostly in isolation especially regarding the interplay between interstate or non-state forms of cooperation as well as assessments of their significance. Two dimensions of the politics – formal negotiations on collective actions and weakly institutionalized public space that involves various stakeholders, movements and initiatives – exists in parallel to each other. At the same time, the study demonstrated the need to develop more responsive notions of international environmental diplomacy, since it is no longer specific only to the study of negotiations and other forms of interstate interaction.","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":"67544436","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.2020.18.4.63.8
M. Bukharin
{"title":"Global Uncertainty as a Factor in IR Evolution","authors":"M. Bukharin","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.8","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":"67544515","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.2020.18.4.63.6
A. Lukin, O. Pugacheva
The article is a response to a new, pioneering book Modern Korea. Metamorphoses of Turbulent Years (2008–2020) written by a group of leading Russian experts on Korea from MGIMO University: Anatoly Torkunov, Georgy Toloraya, and Ilya Dyachkov. The book is a valuable addition to the existing literature and a product of a unique approach to modern Korean studies conducted at MGIMO. The article examines and develops the comprehensive analysis provided by MGIMO professors, point out pressing issues on the Korean Peninsula and assess Russia’s potential role in solving them. The fact that the goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula based on Pyonyang’s rejection of nuclear weapons not only has not been achieved, but became even more distant than before, leads us to questioning the logic behind the authors' recommendation for Russia to withdraw its support from the international system of sanctions against Pyongyang and to move closer to North Korean. We argue that easing the sanctions may mean recognizing that Russia does not believe in this goal and wishes to encourage North Korea's refusal to comply with the demands of the international community. Moreover, such an approach could be perceived as evidence of Russia’s support of some new academic theories which claim that the very system of nonproliferation has become outdated and can even be abolished altogether. At the same time, this position would reduce the role of Russia in the Korean settlement, which would inevitably have a negative impact on DPRK's renunciation of nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future. The article argues that such views, especially that the non-proliferation strategy is outdated, come into a direct contradiction with Russia's interests. The recognition of DPRK's nuclear status may spark a chain reaction in the quest for nuclear weapons in the region which in turn would create a serious security threat for Russia's eastern regions. In addition, an increase in the number of nuclear states would devalue Russia’s status as a nuclear power, thus, the policy of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons should remain a priority of Russia’s foreign policy. Overall, we conclude that Moscow's policy towards the Korean peninsula should be based on careful evaluation of the current international situation as well as Russia’s interests, and not on outdated and often counterproductive Soviet tradition.
{"title":"Korea in the Early 21st Century and Russia’s Interests","authors":"A. Lukin, O. Pugacheva","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.4.63.6","url":null,"abstract":"The article is a response to a new, pioneering book Modern Korea. Metamorphoses of Turbulent Years (2008–2020) written by a group of leading Russian experts on Korea from MGIMO University: Anatoly Torkunov, Georgy Toloraya, and Ilya Dyachkov. The book is a valuable addition to the existing literature and a product of a unique approach to modern Korean studies conducted at MGIMO. The article examines and develops the comprehensive analysis provided by MGIMO professors, point out pressing issues on the Korean Peninsula and assess Russia’s potential role in solving them. The fact that the goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula based on Pyonyang’s rejection of nuclear weapons not only has not been achieved, but became even more distant than before, leads us to questioning the logic behind the authors' recommendation for Russia to withdraw its support from the international system of sanctions against Pyongyang and to move closer to North Korean. We argue that easing the sanctions may mean recognizing that Russia does not believe in this goal and wishes to encourage North Korea's refusal to comply with the demands of the international community. Moreover, such an approach could be perceived as evidence of Russia’s support of some new academic theories which claim that the very system of nonproliferation has become outdated and can even be abolished altogether. At the same time, this position would reduce the role of Russia in the Korean settlement, which would inevitably have a negative impact on DPRK's renunciation of nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future. The article argues that such views, especially that the non-proliferation strategy is outdated, come into a direct contradiction with Russia's interests. The recognition of DPRK's nuclear status may spark a chain reaction in the quest for nuclear weapons in the region which in turn would create a serious security threat for Russia's eastern regions. In addition, an increase in the number of nuclear states would devalue Russia’s status as a nuclear power, thus, the policy of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons should remain a priority of Russia’s foreign policy. Overall, we conclude that Moscow's policy towards the Korean peninsula should be based on careful evaluation of the current international situation as well as Russia’s interests, and not on outdated and often counterproductive Soviet tradition.","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":"67544689","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：