首页 > 最新文献

Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal最新文献

英文 中文
A Brief History of the G20 Institutional Dynamics (2008-2021) 二十国集团制度动力简史(2008-2021)
IF 0.9 Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-11
M. Larionova
The Group of 20 (G20) brought together leaders of the key advanced and emerging market countries to manage the 2007–08 financial and economic crises, reform the international architecture, devise a new global consensus, ensure recovery, and promote strong, sustainable, and balanced growth. Established as an anti-crisis mechanism and designated by its members as a premier forum for international economic cooperation, the G20 transformed into a global governance hub. Since its first summit, the G20 has generated high expectations and has become a subject of research and assessment for analysts, mass media, and the general public. Each summit’s deliberations, decisions, and engagements have been scrutinized. Critics of the G20 claim it has lost relevance and was not capable of responding to the degradation of multilateralism, or the COVID-19 pandemic and the crisis it induced. In this article, the logic of historical institutionalism is applied to explore the confluence of dynamics in the G20’s evolution: demand for G20 leadership; agenda expansion and institutionalization; and legitimation, accountability, and engagements. It is concluded that the G20 changed global governance trends, creating a more inclusive global governance that integrates the G20’s own extensive and diverse cooperation networks with the networks of the other international institutions and engagement groups involved in G20 policy processes. The networked governance, alongside the rotating presidency, the Troika, and various outreach mechanisms, augment the G20’s authority and reduce the legitimacy gap perception. The benefits from the early decisions, established and expanding agenda, patterns of engagement, cognitive scripts, embedded ideas, and internalized norms became strong endogenous sources of stability, reinforced in positive feedback loops. Despite tensions between members, the value that the G20 provides and the global public goods it generates, real and expected returns, constitute significant incentives for the G20’s continued engagement, sustain its evolving dynamics, and consolidate its path-dependency. The downside of the G20’s resilience is its inability to undertake innovative initiatives in the wake of COVID-19 or to provide the powerful leadership the world needed to overcome the pandemic and the related economic and social crises. Notwithstanding these failures, the G20 remains the crucial hub of contemporary global economic governance. However, the lock-in may entail the risk of losing relevance to other institutions.
20国集团(G20)汇集了主要发达国家和新兴市场国家的领导人,以应对2007-2008年的金融和经济危机,改革国际架构,制定新的全球共识,确保复苏,并促进强劲、可持续和平衡的增长。二十国集团作为一个反危机机制成立,并被其成员指定为国际经济合作的首要论坛,转变为全球治理中心。自首次峰会以来,二十国集团产生了很高的期望,并已成为分析人士、大众媒体和公众研究和评估的主题。每一次峰会的审议、决定和参与都经过了仔细审查。20国集团的批评者声称,20国集团已经失去了相关性,无法应对多边主义的退化,也无法应对新冠肺炎疫情及其引发的危机。本文运用历史制度主义的逻辑,探讨二十国集团演进的动力汇合:对二十国集团领导地位的需求;议程扩大和制度化;以及合法化、问责制和参与。结论是,二十国集团改变了全球治理趋势,创造了一种更具包容性的全球治理,将二十国集团自身广泛多样的合作网络与参与二十国集团政策进程的其他国际机构和参与团体的网络相结合。网络化治理,加上轮值主席国、三驾马车和各种外联机制,增强了二十国集团的权威,减少了人们对合法性差距的看法。早期决策、既定和扩大的议程、参与模式、认知脚本、嵌入的想法和内化的规范带来的好处成为稳定的强大内生来源,并在积极的反馈循环中得到加强。尽管成员国之间存在紧张关系,但二十国集团提供的价值及其产生的全球公共产品、实际和预期回报,构成了二十国集团继续参与、维持其不断发展的动力并巩固其路径依赖性的重要激励因素。二十国集团韧性的不利之处在于,它无法在新冠肺炎之后采取创新举措,也无法为世界提供克服疫情和相关经济和社会危机所需的强有力领导。尽管有这些失败,二十国集团仍然是当代全球经济治理的关键枢纽。然而,锁定可能会带来与其他机构失去相关性的风险。
{"title":"A Brief History of the G20 Institutional Dynamics (2008-2021)","authors":"M. Larionova","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-11","url":null,"abstract":"The Group of 20 (G20) brought together leaders of the key advanced and emerging market countries to manage the 2007–08 financial and economic crises, reform the international architecture, devise a new global consensus, ensure recovery, and promote strong, sustainable, and balanced growth. Established as an anti-crisis mechanism and designated by its members as a premier forum for international economic cooperation, the G20 transformed into a global governance hub. Since its first summit, the G20 has generated high expectations and has become a subject of research and assessment for analysts, mass media, and the general public. Each summit’s deliberations, decisions, and engagements have been scrutinized. Critics of the G20 claim it has lost relevance and was not capable of responding to the degradation of multilateralism, or the COVID-19 pandemic and the crisis it induced. In this article, the logic of historical institutionalism is applied to explore the confluence of dynamics in the G20’s evolution: demand for G20 leadership; agenda expansion and institutionalization; and legitimation, accountability, and engagements. It is concluded that the G20 changed global governance trends, creating a more inclusive global governance that integrates the G20’s own extensive and diverse cooperation networks with the networks of the other international institutions and engagement groups involved in G20 policy processes. The networked governance, alongside the rotating presidency, the Troika, and various outreach mechanisms, augment the G20’s authority and reduce the legitimacy gap perception. The benefits from the early decisions, established and expanding agenda, patterns of engagement, cognitive scripts, embedded ideas, and internalized norms became strong endogenous sources of stability, reinforced in positive feedback loops. Despite tensions between members, the value that the G20 provides and the global public goods it generates, real and expected returns, constitute significant incentives for the G20’s continued engagement, sustain its evolving dynamics, and consolidate its path-dependency. The downside of the G20’s resilience is its inability to undertake innovative initiatives in the wake of COVID-19 or to provide the powerful leadership the world needed to overcome the pandemic and the related economic and social crises. Notwithstanding these failures, the G20 remains the crucial hub of contemporary global economic governance. However, the lock-in may entail the risk of losing relevance to other institutions.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41437078","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}
引用次数: 0
NATO’s Capabilities in Global Governance: On the Balkan Scene 北约在全球治理中的能力:在巴尔干地区
IF 0.9 Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-09
E. Arlyapova, E. Ponomareva, Dushan Prorokovich
In this paper, the development and status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the Western Balkans is examined. NATO’s regional expansion can be considered a part of the general expansion of NATO to the East. Unhindered eastward progress lasted until 2006, when Russia came back on the Balkan scene with the strategic South Stream pipeline project. The unexpected appearance of a new actor led to an intensification of NATO’s membership expansion process. Further, Russia’s presence indirectly initiated other meaningful events on the peninsula, such as the self-declaration of Kosovo’s independence. Today, Russia remains the primary irritant for NATO and collective western policy on the Balkans. Allies put considerable pressure on regional actors to avoid closer economic and political ties with Moscow. There are apparent efforts underway to bring all kinds of interaction with the Russian Federation under overall control. Since 2014, local NATO members and candidates have pursued strongly pronounced anti-Russian policy. Russia relies on its traditionally strong relationship with the Balkan states. Moscow brings an alternative model of economic cooperation and development. Both bids raise questions. The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) has not proven its viability and effectiveness in either the medium- or the long-term perspective; regardless, it competes with a highly desired but elusive European Union (EU) membership. All this together requires more efforts from NATO and the West to maintain a dominating role and position in the region; it downgrades previously achieved capabilities in terms of global governance on the Balkan scene.
本文考察了北大西洋公约组织(NATO)在西巴尔干地区的发展和地位。北约的区域扩张可以看作是北约东扩的一部分。不受阻碍的东进一直持续到2006年,当时俄罗斯带着具有战略意义的南溪管道项目重返巴尔干地区。一个意想不到的新角色的出现导致了北约成员国扩张进程的加剧。此外,俄罗斯的存在间接引发了半岛上其他有意义的事件,比如科索沃宣布独立。如今,俄罗斯仍是北约和西方在巴尔干地区集体政策的主要刺激物。盟国对地区行为体施加了相当大的压力,以避免与莫斯科建立更密切的经济和政治关系。显然正在作出努力,将与俄罗斯联邦的各种互动置于全面控制之下。自2014年以来,当地的北约成员国和候选人一直奉行强烈的反俄政策。俄罗斯依赖其与巴尔干国家传统上牢固的关系。莫斯科带来了另一种经济合作与发展模式。这两项出价都引发了疑问。欧亚经济联盟(EAEU)无论是从中期还是长期来看,都没有证明其可行性和有效性;无论如何,它都在与欧盟(EU)成员国的身份竞争。所有这些都需要北约和西方付出更多努力,以保持在该地区的主导作用和地位;它降低了以前在巴尔干地区全球治理方面取得的能力。
{"title":"NATO’s Capabilities in Global Governance: On the Balkan Scene","authors":"E. Arlyapova, E. Ponomareva, Dushan Prorokovich","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-09","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, the development and status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the Western Balkans is examined. NATO’s regional expansion can be considered a part of the general expansion of NATO to the East. Unhindered eastward progress lasted until 2006, when Russia came back on the Balkan scene with the strategic South Stream pipeline project. The unexpected appearance of a new actor led to an intensification of NATO’s membership expansion process. Further, Russia’s presence indirectly initiated other meaningful events on the peninsula, such as the self-declaration of Kosovo’s independence. Today, Russia remains the primary irritant for NATO and collective western policy on the Balkans. Allies put considerable pressure on regional actors to avoid closer economic and political ties with Moscow. There are apparent efforts underway to bring all kinds of interaction with the Russian Federation under overall control. Since 2014, local NATO members and candidates have pursued strongly pronounced anti-Russian policy. Russia relies on its traditionally strong relationship with the Balkan states. Moscow brings an alternative model of economic cooperation and development. Both bids raise questions. The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) has not proven its viability and effectiveness in either the medium- or the long-term perspective; regardless, it competes with a highly desired but elusive European Union (EU) membership. All this together requires more efforts from NATO and the West to maintain a dominating role and position in the region; it downgrades previously achieved capabilities in terms of global governance on the Balkan scene.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41987682","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}
引用次数: 2
Reframing the Debate over BRICS Beyond its Conceptual Origins 超越概念起源,重塑金砖国家之争
IF 0.9 Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-02
Andrew Cooper
BRICS has commonly been framed through a strictly economic perspective, with a focus on the growth patterns of the individual members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Viewed in this fashion, the grouping is judged in a negative manner, with a sense of disappointment and frustration. Yet, framed in a wider diplomatic context, the image of BRICS is quite different, with an accent on several features that cast a more positive interpretation. BRICS: A Very Short Introduction highlighted these features in 2016. And, notwithstanding some unanticipated developments that exaggerated the differences—and tensions— between the members of BRICS, it is the staying power and pattern of evolution in a creative fashion of the BRICS club that stands out. Although overshadowed by other multilateral institutions, the achievements of the New Development Bank (NDB) should not be downplayed. Moreover, BRICS has developed problem (or even crisis) management techniques. As with other informal institutions with club-like attributes, some of these tensions were dealt with by avoiding issues that divided the members. Over time, though, this template has been complemented by more active forms of problem-solving relating to internal differences.
金砖国家通常是从严格的经济角度来构建的,重点关注各个成员国的增长模式:巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非。从这种方式来看,分组是以消极的方式评判的,带有失望和沮丧的感觉。然而,在更广泛的外交背景下,金砖国家的形象却大不相同,强调了几个特征,从而做出了更积极的解释。《金砖国家:非常简短的介绍》在2016年突出了这些特点。而且,尽管一些意想不到的事态发展夸大了金砖国家成员国之间的分歧和紧张关系,但金砖国家俱乐部的持久力和创造性发展模式才是最突出的。尽管被其他多边机构所掩盖,但新开发银行的成就不应被低估。此外,金砖国家还开发了问题(甚至危机)管理技术。与其他具有俱乐部性质的非正式机构一样,其中一些紧张关系是通过避免成员之间的分歧来解决的。然而,随着时间的推移,这一模板得到了与内部差异相关的更积极的解决形式的补充。
{"title":"Reframing the Debate over BRICS Beyond its Conceptual Origins","authors":"Andrew Cooper","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-02","url":null,"abstract":"BRICS has commonly been framed through a strictly economic perspective, with a focus on the growth patterns of the individual members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Viewed in this fashion, the grouping is judged in a negative manner, with a sense of disappointment and frustration. Yet, framed in a wider diplomatic context, the image of BRICS is quite different, with an accent on several features that cast a more positive interpretation. BRICS: A Very Short Introduction highlighted these features in 2016. And, notwithstanding some unanticipated developments that exaggerated the differences—and tensions— between the members of BRICS, it is the staying power and pattern of evolution in a creative fashion of the BRICS club that stands out. Although overshadowed by other multilateral institutions, the achievements of the New Development Bank (NDB) should not be downplayed. Moreover, BRICS has developed problem (or even crisis) management techniques. As with other informal institutions with club-like attributes, some of these tensions were dealt with by avoiding issues that divided the members. Over time, though, this template has been complemented by more active forms of problem-solving relating to internal differences.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45634938","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}
引用次数: 0
The BRICS Agenda on the Internet Governance 金砖国家互联网治理议程
IF 0.9 Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-04
A. Ignatov
The key features of the modern Internet governance system are its decentralized structure, inhomogeneous internal “geography,” and the diverse nature of its decision-making actors. These factors determine the complexity of the decision-making process on Internet governance-related issues. Under these conditions, the BRICS group of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa is viewed as a suitable platform to establish a common ground and align the interests of the participating countries on five key spheres of Internet governance: infrastructure development, legal matters, economic issues, development, and social and cultural perspectives. The goal of this article is to study BRICS’ approach to Internet governance. The study presents an analysis of the BRICS countries’ priorities regarding Internet governance and incorporates a panel data on BRICS’ commitments and decisions regarding the issue. Several conclusions on the BRICS approach to Internet governance were drawn: the most prominent sphere for BRICS cooperation is digital infrastructure development; considerable discrepancies exist among the BRICS states regarding managing Internet content that contribute to a lack of concrete decisions on social and cultural aspects of Internet governance; there is a step-by-step convergence of the BRICS counterterrorism and counter-extremism agenda with a broader issue of cybersecurity. The author assumes that the infrastructure component dominates the BRICS Internet governance discussion due to China’s influence, which gives it the potential to be one of the key players and agenda-setters within BRICS, along with Russia. Steady incorporation of the counterterrorism and counter-extremism agenda into the cybersecurity discussion is strongly supported by Russia, in keeping with its declared national priorities regarding Internet governance. In the author’s opinion, it would be problematic for BRICS to reach a collective decision regarding Internet content governance given the conflict of interests among the participating countries revealed by this analysis.
现代互联网治理体系的主要特征是其分散的结构、不均匀的内部“地理”以及决策参与者的多样性。这些因素决定了互联网治理相关问题决策过程的复杂性。在这些条件下,由巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非组成的金砖国家集团被视为一个合适的平台,可以在互联网治理的五个关键领域建立共识并协调参与国的利益:基础设施发展、法律事务、经济问题、发展以及社会和文化视角。本文的目的是研究金砖国家的互联网治理方法。该研究对金砖国家在互联网治理方面的优先事项进行了分析,并纳入了金砖国家在这一问题上的承诺和决定的小组数据。就金砖国家互联网治理方式得出以下结论:金砖国家合作最突出的领域是数字基础设施发展;金砖国家在管理互联网内容方面存在相当大的差异,导致在互联网治理的社会和文化方面缺乏具体决策;金砖国家的反恐和反极端主义议程与更广泛的网络安全问题逐步趋同。作者认为,由于中国的影响力,基础设施部分在金砖国家互联网治理讨论中占据主导地位,这使其有可能与俄罗斯一起成为金砖国家的关键参与者和议程制定者之一。俄罗斯坚决支持将反恐和反极端主义议程稳步纳入网络安全讨论,这符合其宣布的互联网治理国家优先事项。在作者看来,鉴于这一分析揭示的参与国之间的利益冲突,金砖国家就互联网内容治理达成集体决定将是有问题的。
{"title":"The BRICS Agenda on the Internet Governance","authors":"A. Ignatov","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-04","url":null,"abstract":"The key features of the modern Internet governance system are its decentralized structure, inhomogeneous internal “geography,” and the diverse nature of its decision-making actors. These factors determine the complexity of the decision-making process on Internet governance-related issues. Under these conditions, the BRICS group of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa is viewed as a suitable platform to establish a common ground and align the interests of the participating countries on five key spheres of Internet governance: infrastructure development, legal matters, economic issues, development, and social and cultural perspectives. The goal of this article is to study BRICS’ approach to Internet governance. The study presents an analysis of the BRICS countries’ priorities regarding Internet governance and incorporates a panel data on BRICS’ commitments and decisions regarding the issue. Several conclusions on the BRICS approach to Internet governance were drawn: the most prominent sphere for BRICS cooperation is digital infrastructure development; considerable discrepancies exist among the BRICS states regarding managing Internet content that contribute to a lack of concrete decisions on social and cultural aspects of Internet governance; there is a step-by-step convergence of the BRICS counterterrorism and counter-extremism agenda with a broader issue of cybersecurity. The author assumes that the infrastructure component dominates the BRICS Internet governance discussion due to China’s influence, which gives it the potential to be one of the key players and agenda-setters within BRICS, along with Russia. Steady incorporation of the counterterrorism and counter-extremism agenda into the cybersecurity discussion is strongly supported by Russia, in keeping with its declared national priorities regarding Internet governance. In the author’s opinion, it would be problematic for BRICS to reach a collective decision regarding Internet content governance given the conflict of interests among the participating countries revealed by this analysis.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46343965","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}
引用次数: 0
hina's relations with Latin America and the Caribbean at the present stage 现阶段中国与拉美和加勒比地区的关系
IF 0.9 Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-07
E. Katkova, A. Eremin
In the "new era" of China’s foreign policy based on the concept of major power diplomacy with Chinese characteristics, Beijing has begun to change its attitude toward Latin America. In 2018, Xi Jinping officially invited Latin American countries to participate in the construction of the Belt and Road initiative, thereby bringing the region into the sphere of its global interests. This article is devoted to the study of the main directions of cooperation between China and the Latin American states and changes in the forms and instruments of Beijing's policy toward the region. The authors analyze the degree of involvement of Latin American states in the BRI and consider pros and cons of increasing China's influence in the region. The provisions of power transition theory form the methodological basis of the work, through the prism of which the U.S. factor in Sino-Latin American relations is examined. The final part of the article is devoted to the challenges facing Washington from the growing influence of China in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region.
在中国外交政策基于中国特色大国外交理念的“新时代”,北京开始改变对拉丁美洲的态度。 本文致力于研究中国与拉丁美洲国家合作的主要方向,以及北京对该地区政策的形式和工具的变化。作者分析了拉丁美洲国家参与“一带一路”倡议的程度,并考虑了增加中国在该地区影响力的利弊。权力转移理论的规定构成了这项工作的方法论基础,通过这一理论考察了中拉关系中的美国因素。文章的最后一部分专门讨论了中国在拉丁美洲和加勒比地区日益增长的影响力给华盛顿带来的挑战。
{"title":"hina's relations with Latin America and the Caribbean at the present stage","authors":"E. Katkova, A. Eremin","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-07","url":null,"abstract":"In the \"new era\" of China’s foreign policy based on the concept of major power diplomacy with Chinese characteristics, Beijing has begun to change its attitude toward Latin America. In 2018, Xi Jinping officially invited Latin American countries to participate in the construction of the Belt and Road initiative, thereby bringing the region into the sphere of its global interests. This article is devoted to the study of the main directions of cooperation between China and the Latin American states and changes in the forms and instruments of Beijing's policy toward the region. The authors analyze the degree of involvement of Latin American states in the BRI and consider pros and cons of increasing China's influence in the region. The provisions of power transition theory form the methodological basis of the work, through the prism of which the U.S. factor in Sino-Latin American relations is examined. The final part of the article is devoted to the challenges facing Washington from the growing influence of China in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49408417","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}
引用次数: 1
The First Fifteen Years of the BRICS 五、金砖国家合作的第一个15年
IF 0.9 Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-01
J. Kirton, M. Larionova
At the first BRIC(S) summit in 2009, leaders of the major emerging market countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) from different continents committed to build a democratic and transparent economic architecture, support the efforts of the Group of 20 (G20) to reform the international financial institutions, restore growth, and deepen intra-group cooperation. Since then, views expressed in the literature on BRICS (expanded to include South Africa in 2010) have ranged from the harsh dismissal of BRICS as a meaningless investment banker’s acronym to its identification as a new power centre with a profound impact on the global economic order. The authors offer an updated, systematic assessment of BRICS’ evolving institutional dynamics, performance, and contribution to cooperation among its members, and to global governance as a whole. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, they identify the major achievements of each of the BRICS’ 13 annual summits through the three five-year hosting cycles, the leaders’ agreements on 933 collective commitments, and their countries’ compliance with them at a level of 77% overall. Further, they highlight the expansion of the group’s agenda into 34 subjects, the process of building the intra-BRICS institutions with the New Development Bank (NDB) as its hallmark, and its extensive second track networks including Business, Think Tanks and Academic, Trade Unions, Parliamentarian, Youth and Civil BRICS. In its first 15 years, BRICS expanded and sustained its institutional dynamics, depth, and performance despite external and domestic challenges, tensions between the members, and the unprecedented tests of the COVID19 pandemic and the ensuing socio-economic crises since 2020. Established as a dialogue and policy coordination forum, it matured into a transregional governance institution with a comprehensive political-security, socio-economic, and people-to-people agenda. Its dense institutional networks, flexibility, continuity, and foundational principle of moving forward only on issues acceptable to all members were vital factors for BRICS’ resilience and evolution. Although broadening its agenda inhibited deepening cooperation, there was considerable continuity across the annual presidencies. Progress on intra-BRICS cooperation was more tangible than that on international architecture reform, despite the group’s unwavering commitment to an equitable international order. Its consensus-based working methods sometimes constrained the group’s leadership. However, BRICS proved its value as a platform for facilitating its members’ bilateral relations and convergence in approaches, promoting their role in global governance, and advancing a more inclusive, representative, and effective international institutional system.
在2009年的第一届金砖国家峰会上,来自不同大陆的主要新兴市场国家(巴西、俄罗斯、印度和中国)领导人承诺建立民主透明的经济架构,支持20国集团改革国际金融机构、恢复增长和深化集团内合作的努力。从那时起,关于金砖国家的文献(2010年扩大到包括南非)中表达的观点从严厉驳斥金砖国家是一个毫无意义的投资银行家的首字母缩写,到将其认定为一个对全球经济秩序产生深远影响的新权力中心。作者对金砖国家不断发展的制度动态、表现以及对成员国合作和全球治理的贡献进行了最新的系统评估。通过定性和定量的方法,他们确定了金砖国家13次年度峰会在三个五年主办周期中取得的主要成就,领导人就933项集体承诺达成的协议,以及各国对这些承诺的总体遵守率为77%。此外,他们强调了该小组议程扩展到34个主题,以新开发银行为标志的金砖国家内部机构建设过程,以及其广泛的第二轨道网络,包括商业、智库和学术、工会、议员、青年和民间金砖国家。在金砖国家成立的头15年里,尽管面临外部和国内挑战、成员国之间的紧张关系,以及2020年以来新冠肺炎疫情和随之而来的社会经济危机的前所未有的考验,金砖国家仍扩大并保持了其体制动力、深度和表现。作为一个对话和政策协调论坛,它已成熟为一个具有全面政治安全、社会经济和人文议程的跨区域治理机构。其密集的机构网络、灵活性、连续性以及只在所有成员国都能接受的问题上前进的基本原则是金砖国家韧性和发展的重要因素。尽管扩大其议程阻碍了深化合作,但各年度主席的任期相当连续。尽管金砖国家坚定不移地致力于建立公平的国际秩序,但金砖国家内部合作的进展比国际架构改革的进展更为明显。其以协商一致为基础的工作方法有时限制了该小组的领导能力。然而,金砖国家证明了其作为促进成员国双边关系和方法趋同的平台的价值,促进了它们在全球治理中的作用,并推动了一个更具包容性、代表性和有效的国际制度体系。
{"title":"The First Fifteen Years of the BRICS","authors":"J. Kirton, M. Larionova","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-01","url":null,"abstract":"At the first BRIC(S) summit in 2009, leaders of the major emerging market countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) from different continents committed to build a democratic and transparent economic architecture, support the efforts of the Group of 20 (G20) to reform the international financial institutions, restore growth, and deepen intra-group cooperation. Since then, views expressed in the literature on BRICS (expanded to include South Africa in 2010) have ranged from the harsh dismissal of BRICS as a meaningless investment banker’s acronym to its identification as a new power centre with a profound impact on the global economic order. The authors offer an updated, systematic assessment of BRICS’ evolving institutional dynamics, performance, and contribution to cooperation among its members, and to global governance as a whole. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, they identify the major achievements of each of the BRICS’ 13 annual summits through the three five-year hosting cycles, the leaders’ agreements on 933 collective commitments, and their countries’ compliance with them at a level of 77% overall. Further, they highlight the expansion of the group’s agenda into 34 subjects, the process of building the intra-BRICS institutions with the New Development Bank (NDB) as its hallmark, and its extensive second track networks including Business, Think Tanks and Academic, Trade Unions, Parliamentarian, Youth and Civil BRICS. In its first 15 years, BRICS expanded and sustained its institutional dynamics, depth, and performance despite external and domestic challenges, tensions between the members, and the unprecedented tests of the COVID19 pandemic and the ensuing socio-economic crises since 2020. Established as a dialogue and policy coordination forum, it matured into a transregional governance institution with a comprehensive political-security, socio-economic, and people-to-people agenda. Its dense institutional networks, flexibility, continuity, and foundational principle of moving forward only on issues acceptable to all members were vital factors for BRICS’ resilience and evolution. Although broadening its agenda inhibited deepening cooperation, there was considerable continuity across the annual presidencies. Progress on intra-BRICS cooperation was more tangible than that on international architecture reform, despite the group’s unwavering commitment to an equitable international order. Its consensus-based working methods sometimes constrained the group’s leadership. However, BRICS proved its value as a platform for facilitating its members’ bilateral relations and convergence in approaches, promoting their role in global governance, and advancing a more inclusive, representative, and effective international institutional system.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41314336","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}
引用次数: 5
The UN-AU Partnership in Peacekeeping: Tendencies and Problems 联合国-非盟维持和平伙伴关系:趋势和问题
IF 0.9 Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-08
S. Bokeriya
A strong partnership between the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU) is essential to achieving strategic convergence and coherence as well as effective solutions to complex peace and security challenges in Africa. In this article, the author examines the UN-AU peacekeeping nexus through research onpeacekeeping operations in Africaand analyzesthe key challenges in the UN-AU partnership for peacekeeping, including:the lack of clear regulation of actions in conflict despite attempts to develop common approaches to peacekeeping by the UN and the AU; the necessity of establishing equal, full and constructive participation of women in the peacekeeping process; and the problems in the relationship between the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the Peace and Security Council of the AU. The main objective of this article isto analyze the institutional structure of the African peace and security architecture, the evolution of the UN-AU partnership through the implementation of joint peacekeeping missions, and the challenges to their cooperation, as well as to assess the effectiveness of UN-AU cooperation. Based on a structural analysis of the African security architecture, quantitative methods of assessment,and comparative analysis of the UN and the AU statistics on partnership peacekeeping, as well as onwomen’s participation in peacekeeping operations in Africa from 2003 to 2019, and the voting patterns of the A3 (Niger, South Africa and Tunisia) countries to UNSC resolutions on African peacekeeping, the author concludes that there is a direct correlation between the deteriorating security situation in Africa and the level of strategic partnership between the UN and the AU, and that, in the long term, the priority will be to help national governments to prevent the causes of conflicts, which will make it possible to take into account the local specificities of African states in resolving and preventing conflicts.
联合国和非洲联盟之间强有力的伙伴关系对于实现战略趋同和一致性以及有效解决非洲复杂的和平与安全挑战至关重要。在本文中,作者通过对非洲维和行动的研究考察了联合国与非盟的维和关系,并分析了联合国与非盟在维和伙伴关系中面临的主要挑战,包括:尽管联合国和非盟试图制定共同的维和方法,但对冲突中的行动缺乏明确的规定;必须使妇女平等、充分和建设性地参与维持和平进程;联合国安理会与非盟和平与安全理事会之间的关系问题。本文的主要目的是分析非洲和平与安全架构的制度结构、联合国-非盟伙伴关系通过实施联合维和任务的演变,以及联合国-非盟合作面临的挑战,并评估联合国-非盟合作的有效性。基于对非洲安全架构的结构分析、定量评估方法、联合国和非盟2003 - 2019年伙伴关系维和统计数据、非洲妇女参与维和行动统计数据的对比分析,以及A3国(尼日尔、南非和突尼斯)对联合国安理会非洲维和决议的投票模式,作者的结论是,非洲日益恶化的安全局势与联合国与非盟之间的战略伙伴关系水平之间存在直接关联,并且,从长远来看,优先事项将是帮助各国政府防止冲突的根源,这将有可能在解决和预防冲突时考虑到非洲国家的地方特殊性。
{"title":"The UN-AU Partnership in Peacekeeping: Tendencies and Problems","authors":"S. Bokeriya","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-08","url":null,"abstract":"A strong partnership between the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU) is essential to achieving strategic convergence and coherence as well as effective solutions to complex peace and security challenges in Africa. In this article, the author examines the UN-AU peacekeeping nexus through research onpeacekeeping operations in Africaand analyzesthe key challenges in the UN-AU partnership for peacekeeping, including:the lack of clear regulation of actions in conflict despite attempts to develop common approaches to peacekeeping by the UN and the AU; the necessity of establishing equal, full and constructive participation of women in the peacekeeping process; and the problems in the relationship between the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the Peace and Security Council of the AU. The main objective of this article isto analyze the institutional structure of the African peace and security architecture, the evolution of the UN-AU partnership through the implementation of joint peacekeeping missions, and the challenges to their cooperation, as well as to assess the effectiveness of UN-AU cooperation. Based on a structural analysis of the African security architecture, quantitative methods of assessment,and comparative analysis of the UN and the AU statistics on partnership peacekeeping, as well as onwomen’s participation in peacekeeping operations in Africa from 2003 to 2019, and the voting patterns of the A3 (Niger, South Africa and Tunisia) countries to UNSC resolutions on African peacekeeping, the author concludes that there is a direct correlation between the deteriorating security situation in Africa and the level of strategic partnership between the UN and the AU, and that, in the long term, the priority will be to help national governments to prevent the causes of conflicts, which will make it possible to take into account the local specificities of African states in resolving and preventing conflicts.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43058448","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}
引用次数: 6
China’s Leadership in BRICS Governance 中国在金砖国家治理中的领导地位
IF 0.9 Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-03
A. Wang
The BRICS is an international summit institution that provides a platform for the world’s leading emerging economies to discuss issues of global governance from a development-centered perspective. This article examines of China’s leadership role in the BRICS, drawing on quantitative indicators of China’s performance within the BRICS since its first summit in 2009, to the most recent summit in 2021. This arti cle also develops a model of leadership based on quantitative performance measures of deliberation, decision-making, and compliance. This analysis shows that China is predominantly a facilitative and exemplary leader. Its leadership focuses on shaping BRICS discussions on its priority subjects, particularly development and macroeconomics, in addition to leading by positive example through achieving high compliance with its summit commitments.
金砖国家是一个国际峰会机构,为世界领先的新兴经济体提供了一个平台,从以发展为中心的角度讨论全球治理问题。本文考察了中国在金砖国家中的领导作用,从2009年金砖国家第一次峰会到2021年最近一次峰会,中国在金砖五国中的表现的量化指标。这篇文章还开发了一个基于深思熟虑、决策和遵守的量化绩效衡量标准的领导力模型。这一分析表明,中国主要是一个乐于助人、以身作则的领导者。其领导层的重点是塑造金砖国家关于其优先主题的讨论,特别是发展和宏观经济,此外,通过高度遵守峰会承诺,以身作则。
{"title":"China’s Leadership in BRICS Governance","authors":"A. Wang","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2022-02-03","url":null,"abstract":"The BRICS is an international summit institution that provides a platform for the world’s leading emerging economies to discuss issues of global governance from a development-centered perspective. This article examines of China’s leadership role in the BRICS, drawing on quantitative indicators of China’s performance within the BRICS since its first summit in 2009, to the most recent summit in 2021. This arti cle also develops a model of leadership based on quantitative performance measures of deliberation, decision-making, and compliance. This analysis shows that China is predominantly a facilitative and exemplary leader. Its leadership focuses on shaping BRICS discussions on its priority subjects, particularly development and macroeconomics, in addition to leading by positive example through achieving high compliance with its summit commitments.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49017413","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}
引用次数: 0
Sustainable recovery – challenges and opportunities for Russia 可持续复苏——俄罗斯面临的挑战与机遇
IF 0.9 Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-04
A. Sakharov
The purpose of this article is to check Russia’s strategic planning system and anti-crisis measures against the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by monitoring the documents for policy objectives directly or indirectly corresponding to the targets of the sustainable development goals (SDG); comparing the indicators present in the Russian documents with those in the 2030 Agenda; assessing the impact of anti-crisis measures on the sustainable development outlook in the country; and tracing the changes present in the latest socio-economic development initiatives of the Russian government. The scope of the study in terms of the number of documents analyzed was determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of the Federal Law No. 172-FZ On Strategic Planning in the Russian Federation, and includes a vast array of federal strategies, sectoral strategic planning documents, national and federal projects, state programmes, the 2020 Presidential Decree No. 474 On the National Development Goals of the Russian Federation for the Period Until 2030 and its auxiliary documents, as well as other ad hoc anti-crisis planning instruments, such as the 2020 Nationwide Action Plan. The results of the analysis make it possible to trace the paradigm shift in Russia’s decision-making toward incorporating more elements of the sustainability discourse characteristic of the 2030 Agenda and other multilateral arrangements, particularly in regard to climate change and environment, taking place in 2020–21.
本文旨在通过监测与可持续发展目标直接或间接对应的政策目标文件,对照联合国2030年可持续发展议程,检查俄罗斯的战略规划体系和反危机措施;将俄罗斯文件中的指标与《2030年议程》中的指标进行比较;评估反危机措施对该国可持续发展前景的影响;追踪俄罗斯政府最新的社会经济发展举措的变化。根据关于俄罗斯联邦战略规划的第172-FZ号联邦法第11条的规定,确定了所分析文件数量方面的研究范围,其中包括大量联邦战略、部门战略规划文件、国家和联邦项目、国家方案、,《关于俄罗斯联邦2030年前国家发展目标的2020年第474号总统令》及其辅助文件,以及其他临时反危机规划文书,如《2020年全国行动计划》。分析结果使我们有可能追踪俄罗斯决策的范式转变,即纳入2020-2021年《2030年议程》和其他多边安排的可持续性话语特征的更多元素,特别是在气候变化和环境方面。
{"title":"Sustainable recovery – challenges and opportunities for Russia","authors":"A. Sakharov","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-04","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to check Russia’s strategic planning system and anti-crisis measures against the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by monitoring the documents for policy objectives directly or indirectly corresponding to the targets of the sustainable development goals (SDG); comparing the indicators present in the Russian documents with those in the 2030 Agenda; assessing the impact of anti-crisis measures on the sustainable development outlook in the country; and tracing the changes present in the latest socio-economic development initiatives of the Russian government. The scope of the study in terms of the number of documents analyzed was determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of the Federal Law No. 172-FZ On Strategic Planning in the Russian Federation, and includes a vast array of federal strategies, sectoral strategic planning documents, national and federal projects, state programmes, the 2020 Presidential Decree No. 474 On the National Development Goals of the Russian Federation for the Period Until 2030 and its auxiliary documents, as well as other ad hoc anti-crisis planning instruments, such as the 2020 Nationwide Action Plan. The results of the analysis make it possible to trace the paradigm shift in Russia’s decision-making toward incorporating more elements of the sustainability discourse characteristic of the 2030 Agenda and other multilateral arrangements, particularly in regard to climate change and environment, taking place in 2020–21.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42841317","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}
引用次数: 0
Back to the Iron Cage? Institutional Isomorphism of the AIIB 回到铁笼?亚投行的制度同构
IF 0.9 Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-01
Jiejin Zhu, Xinyu Hu
During its first five years of operation, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is becoming more and more similar to traditional Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in terms of operational goals, business area, and environmental and social standards. Why has the AIIB, the newest type of multilateral development bank (MDB) initiated by an emerging economy, undergone institutional isomorphism? Based on the socialization theory, this paper argues that the institutional environment in which the AIIB is operating has a strong influence on AIIB’s institution-building, mainly through the coercive, mimetic, and normative institutional isomorphic processes. On coercion, the pressures from European donors, international credit rating agencies, and global civil society have resulted in the AIIB’s institutional isomorphism. On mimicking, the social uncertainty of the relationship between the AIIB and the Belt and Road Initiative and the technical uncertainty of infrastructure projects have triggered the AIIB’s institutional isomorphism. On normativeness, the similar educational backgrounds and working experience of the AIIB’s staff and active interactions among the MDB family members have caused the AIIB’s institutional isomorphism. The paper concludes that the international institutional environment might hamper emerging economies’ capabilities of institutional innovation.
亚洲基础设施投资银行(亚投行)成立5年来,在业务目标、业务领域、环境和社会标准等方面与传统多边开发银行越来越接近。作为新兴经济体发起的新型多边开发银行,亚投行为何会出现制度同构现象?基于社会化理论,本文认为亚投行所处的制度环境主要通过强制性、模仿性和规范性的制度同构过程对亚投行的制度建设产生强烈影响。在胁迫方面,来自欧洲捐助者、国际信用评级机构和全球公民社会的压力导致了亚投行的机构同构性。在模仿上,亚投行与“一带一路”关系的社会不确定性和基础设施项目的技术不确定性引发了亚投行的制度同构。在规范性方面,亚投行工作人员的教育背景和工作经历相似,以及亚投行大家庭成员之间的积极互动,造成了亚投行的机构同构性。国际制度环境可能会阻碍新兴经济体的制度创新能力。
{"title":"Back to the Iron Cage? Institutional Isomorphism of the AIIB","authors":"Jiejin Zhu, Xinyu Hu","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-01","url":null,"abstract":"During its first five years of operation, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is becoming more and more similar to traditional Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in terms of operational goals, business area, and environmental and social standards. Why has the AIIB, the newest type of multilateral development bank (MDB) initiated by an emerging economy, undergone institutional isomorphism? Based on the socialization theory, this paper argues that the institutional environment in which the AIIB is operating has a strong influence on AIIB’s institution-building, mainly through the coercive, mimetic, and normative institutional isomorphic processes. On coercion, the pressures from European donors, international credit rating agencies, and global civil society have resulted in the AIIB’s institutional isomorphism. On mimicking, the social uncertainty of the relationship between the AIIB and the Belt and Road Initiative and the technical uncertainty of infrastructure projects have triggered the AIIB’s institutional isomorphism. On normativeness, the similar educational backgrounds and working experience of the AIIB’s staff and active interactions among the MDB family members have caused the AIIB’s institutional isomorphism. The paper concludes that the international institutional environment might hamper emerging economies’ capabilities of institutional innovation.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42101698","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}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1