Pub Date : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-09
A. Shelepov
Digitalization of the global economy, which has intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, is leading to the development of digital currencies. Financial authorities in most countries are working to design regulation aimed at minimizing the risks associated with privately issued digital assets. At the same time, research is being carried out, and several pilot projects have been launched, on the use of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)—a new payment instrument that can potentially contribute to stimulating innovations, expanding access to financial services, simplifying cross-border payments, and maintaining financial stability. In this article, the author examines the approaches of some G20 members to regulating CBDCs and global stablecoins (GSC)—a financial instrument pegged to real assets, which is a potential alternative to traditional fiat currencies. The author then identifies general tendencies in the approaches of the considered jurisdictions to regulation and proposes recommendations on intensifying the development of Russia’s national rules and norms in this area, primarily for GSC, and strengthening international cooperation.
{"title":"Regulating Global Stablecoins and Central Bank Digital Currencies in Selected G20 Countries","authors":"A. Shelepov","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-09","url":null,"abstract":"Digitalization of the global economy, which has intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, is leading to the development of digital currencies. Financial authorities in most countries are working to design regulation aimed at minimizing the risks associated with privately issued digital assets. At the same time, research is being carried out, and several pilot projects have been launched, on the use of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)—a new payment instrument that can potentially contribute to stimulating innovations, expanding access to financial services, simplifying cross-border payments, and maintaining financial stability. In this article, the author examines the approaches of some G20 members to regulating CBDCs and global stablecoins (GSC)—a financial instrument pegged to real assets, which is a potential alternative to traditional fiat currencies. The author then identifies general tendencies in the approaches of the considered jurisdictions to regulation and proposes recommendations on intensifying the development of Russia’s national rules and norms in this area, primarily for GSC, and strengthening international cooperation.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46765144","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 : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-05
T. Lanshina, Dmitry Stoyanov, Arina Loginova
In 2020, despite the global economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear that decarbonization and energy transition had become strategic goals rather than market trends. Moreover, they have become part of the broader and more ambitious plans of the world’s largest economies to move toward carbon neutrality by the middle of the 21st century. These economies include the European Union, the U.S., China, Japan and Korea. In Russia, these trends are typically viewed through the prism of risk: carbon neutrality implies a dramatic decrease in demand for fossil fuels, the production and export of which still play a key role in the Russian economy. However, apart from the risk to traditional sources of income, the global transition to carbon neutrality creates new opportunities for the development and diversification of the Russian economy, as well as for international cooperation in new areas. This article is devoted to the general identification of such opportunities. The authors perform a content analysis of the official plans of the largest economies related to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050–60. The main areas in which actions will be taken are identified. The current state of the corresponding industries in Russia and the possibilities for improvement are investigated. On the basis of this analysis, promising directions for the development of the Russian economy are proposed in which the implementation of large-scale international economic cooperation is possible in the coming decades.
{"title":"The Transition of the World‘s Largest Economies to Carbon Neutrality: Areas of Potential Cooperation with Russia","authors":"T. Lanshina, Dmitry Stoyanov, Arina Loginova","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-05","url":null,"abstract":"In 2020, despite the global economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear that decarbonization and energy transition had become strategic goals rather than market trends. Moreover, they have become part of the broader and more ambitious plans of the world’s largest economies to move toward carbon neutrality by the middle of the 21st century. These economies include the European Union, the U.S., China, Japan and Korea. In Russia, these trends are typically viewed through the prism of risk: carbon neutrality implies a dramatic decrease in demand for fossil fuels, the production and export of which still play a key role in the Russian economy. However, apart from the risk to traditional sources of income, the global transition to carbon neutrality creates new opportunities for the development and diversification of the Russian economy, as well as for international cooperation in new areas. This article is devoted to the general identification of such opportunities. The authors perform a content analysis of the official plans of the largest economies related to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050–60. The main areas in which actions will be taken are identified. The current state of the corresponding industries in Russia and the possibilities for improvement are investigated. On the basis of this analysis, promising directions for the development of the Russian economy are proposed in which the implementation of large-scale international economic cooperation is possible in the coming decades.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43977665","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 : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-06
V. Barinova, A. Devyatova, Denis Lomov
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, digitalization has become a popular topic in both practical and theoretical terms. In many areas, for example, education and communications, information and communication technologies began to play a leading role, especially during the period of limited mobility. However, in some other areas that also came under close scrutiny during the pandemic, such as the field of energy transition, digitalization has not yet fully unlocked its potential. Moreover, the digitalization of energy transition has not been researched enough. The purpose of this article is to fill this gap. The authors investigate the current stage of digitalization of the energy sector and the role of information and communication technologies in the traditional energy complex and in clean energy and identify and analyze the key groups of technologies that will have a decisive impact on the energy transition in the near future. The authors also examine the process of digitalization in the Russian energy sector in order to determine whether it is giving an impetus to the energy transition of Russia.
{"title":"The Role of Digitalization in the Global Energy Transition","authors":"V. Barinova, A. Devyatova, Denis Lomov","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-04-06","url":null,"abstract":"In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, digitalization has become a popular topic in both practical and theoretical terms. In many areas, for example, education and communications, information and communication technologies began to play a leading role, especially during the period of limited mobility. However, in some other areas that also came under close scrutiny during the pandemic, such as the field of energy transition, digitalization has not yet fully unlocked its potential. Moreover, the digitalization of energy transition has not been researched enough. The purpose of this article is to fill this gap. The authors investigate the current stage of digitalization of the energy sector and the role of information and communication technologies in the traditional energy complex and in clean energy and identify and analyze the key groups of technologies that will have a decisive impact on the energy transition in the near future. The authors also examine the process of digitalization in the Russian energy sector in order to determine whether it is giving an impetus to the energy transition of Russia.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45565840","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 : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-13
A. Sakharov
The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a rethinking of the approaches to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, both nationally and within the multilateral system. The crisis has forced international actors not only to reassess humanity's capability to achieve the Goals by 2030, but to question the relevance of the Agenda's priorities in the new environment. This work reviews the positions of key international institutions on sustainable pathways to global economic recovery.
{"title":"Pandemic-induced changes in the SDG priorities and implementation mechanisms in the international cooperation system (analytical review)","authors":"A. Sakharov","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-13","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a rethinking of the approaches to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, both nationally and within the multilateral system. The crisis has forced international actors not only to reassess humanity's capability to achieve the Goals by 2030, but to question the relevance of the Agenda's priorities in the new environment. This work reviews the positions of key international institutions on sustainable pathways to global economic recovery.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47322391","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 : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-05
T. Romanova
In this article, the influence of the European Union’s (EU) Green Deal on its energy relations with Russia is analyzed. Two models of resilience are identified in the EU’s discourse. One aims at achieving resilience at the level of the EU’s energy sector (the “microsystem” for the purpose of this study) while destroying the system of EU-Russia relations (the “macrosystem”). The other aims at achieving resilience in the micro- and macrosystem at the same time. Empirically, the study relies on EU documents and speeches by its national and supranational representatives. Three cases are studied. The first covers competition of two models of resilience in the principles that the EU defined for its relations with Russia. The second case involves investments that slow down the development of renewable sources of energy in favour of natural gas. This case demonstrates how resilience can be achieved as a return to the previous pattern (bouncing back). Although it can be achieved both at the EU-only level and at the level of the EU and its relations with Russia, it clearly favours the latter. The third case involves the import of hydrogen, which creates possibilities for resilience both at the microsystem alone and at the micro- and macrosystems at the same time. This latter option is achieved through adaptation to new challenges (bouncing forward). The author concludes by comparing the two models of resilience. The model that prioritizes the microsystem’s resilience and challenges the macrosystem is based on the synthesis of environmental and geopolitical logics. The other model is based on economic and market logics, but the EU’s normative leadership is a prerequisite. The EU’s discourse demonstrates the viability of both models and related governance practices. Most likely, the two models will co-exist, but their relative importance will vary over time. This variation will be primarily determined by the EU’s internal constraints. However, Russia’s policy can facilitate the model of resilience, achieved in both the micro- and macrosystem.
{"title":"The Green Deal and the Resilience of EU-Russian Energy Relations","authors":"T. Romanova","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-05","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the influence of the European Union’s (EU) Green Deal on its energy relations with Russia is analyzed. Two models of resilience are identified in the EU’s discourse. One aims at achieving resilience at the level of the EU’s energy sector (the “microsystem” for the purpose of this study) while destroying the system of EU-Russia relations (the “macrosystem”). The other aims at achieving resilience in the micro- and macrosystem at the same time. Empirically, the study relies on EU documents and speeches by its national and supranational representatives. Three cases are studied. The first covers competition of two models of resilience in the principles that the EU defined for its relations with Russia. The second case involves investments that slow down the development of renewable sources of energy in favour of natural gas. This case demonstrates how resilience can be achieved as a return to the previous pattern (bouncing back). Although it can be achieved both at the EU-only level and at the level of the EU and its relations with Russia, it clearly favours the latter. The third case involves the import of hydrogen, which creates possibilities for resilience both at the microsystem alone and at the micro- and macrosystems at the same time. This latter option is achieved through adaptation to new challenges (bouncing forward). The author concludes by comparing the two models of resilience. The model that prioritizes the microsystem’s resilience and challenges the macrosystem is based on the synthesis of environmental and geopolitical logics. The other model is based on economic and market logics, but the EU’s normative leadership is a prerequisite. The EU’s discourse demonstrates the viability of both models and related governance practices. Most likely, the two models will co-exist, but their relative importance will vary over time. This variation will be primarily determined by the EU’s internal constraints. However, Russia’s policy can facilitate the model of resilience, achieved in both the micro- and macrosystem.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43052080","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 : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-02
J. Luckhurst
In this article, the Group of 20’s (G20) networked pluralism and transversal policy practices in the governance of COVID-19 and the pandemic crisis effect are analyzed. The G20 is an important global governance hub, with the strategic capacities and authority to improve cooperation on the pandemic and economic recovery efforts. The forum’s increasingly pluralistic networkedgovernance processes have been crucial for recent shifts in global governance practices and authority. They were augmented by transversal consequences of the pandemic crisis effect, the latter denoting the consequences of new evidence during a crisis leading to a heightened perception of uncertainty and the repoliticization of background knowledge. The analysis combines a “practice-relational” social constructivist analytical approach with discourse-analytic and sociological insights. It integrates empirical evidence from semi-structured interviews, informal discussions, participant observation, and documentary analysis of G20 engagement on transversal policy dimensions of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially with its interlocutors and governance networks. This indicates the growing significance of networked G20 governance, involving engagement with increasingly pluralistic networks of actors from the Global North and Global South.
{"title":"Networked G20 Governance of COVID-19 and its Transversal Crisis Effect","authors":"J. Luckhurst","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-02","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the Group of 20’s (G20) networked pluralism and transversal policy practices in the governance of COVID-19 and the pandemic crisis effect are analyzed. The G20 is an important global governance hub, with the strategic capacities and authority to improve cooperation on the pandemic and economic recovery efforts. The forum’s increasingly pluralistic networkedgovernance processes have been crucial for recent shifts in global governance practices and authority. They were augmented by transversal consequences of the pandemic crisis effect, the latter denoting the consequences of new evidence during a crisis leading to a heightened perception of uncertainty and the repoliticization of background knowledge. The analysis combines a “practice-relational” social constructivist analytical approach with discourse-analytic and sociological insights. It integrates empirical evidence from semi-structured interviews, informal discussions, participant observation, and documentary analysis of G20 engagement on transversal policy dimensions of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially with its interlocutors and governance networks. This indicates the growing significance of networked G20 governance, involving engagement with increasingly pluralistic networks of actors from the Global North and Global South.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43176213","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 : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-01
D. Degterev, M. Ramich, D. Piskunov
From the perspective of power transition theory, international relations system is gradually entering the phase of "power transition" where the United States, as a global hegemon, seeks to maintain the existing world order, and China establishes alternative international formats to reorganize the system of international relations and strengthen its structural power. Cyberspace and technological sphere are becoming the field of non-violent competition between states, which makes the study of global governance of cyberspace critical for the understanding of the outlines of the "new bipolarity". The analysis in the paper is focused on U.S. & China approaches to global governance of cyberspace through the prism of Manuel Castells' theory of "network society". The authors aimed to determine the directions of the U.S. and China policy in the course of four types of "power" in cyberspace: networking power, network power, networked power and network-making power. Present analysis concludes that the United States play crucial role in the course of all four types of "power" at the expense of decentralized model of Internet governance which is based on the idea of "multistakeholderism". NGO and other entities play a decisive role in such a model. Nonetheless, China has already developed necessary tools for reforming the present system of global governance of cyberspace based on centralized model with the leading role of United Nations as an international governance organization and state as a basic actor. The main beneficiaries of the centralized model are developing countries, which are unable to influence the global governance of cyberspace under the dominance of private companies from developed countries.
{"title":"U.S. & China Approaches to Global Internet Governance: \"New Bipolarity\" in Terms of \"the Network Society\"","authors":"D. Degterev, M. Ramich, D. Piskunov","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-01","url":null,"abstract":"From the perspective of power transition theory, international relations system is gradually entering the phase of \"power transition\" where the United States, as a global hegemon, seeks to maintain the existing world order, and China establishes alternative international formats to reorganize the system of international relations and strengthen its structural power. Cyberspace and technological sphere are becoming the field of non-violent competition between states, which makes the study of global governance of cyberspace critical for the understanding of the outlines of the \"new bipolarity\". The analysis in the paper is focused on U.S. & China approaches to global governance of cyberspace through the prism of Manuel Castells' theory of \"network society\". The authors aimed to determine the directions of the U.S. and China policy in the course of four types of \"power\" in cyberspace: networking power, network power, networked power and network-making power. Present analysis concludes that the United States play crucial role in the course of all four types of \"power\" at the expense of decentralized model of Internet governance which is based on the idea of \"multistakeholderism\". NGO and other entities play a decisive role in such a model. Nonetheless, China has already developed necessary tools for reforming the present system of global governance of cyberspace based on centralized model with the leading role of United Nations as an international governance organization and state as a basic actor. The main beneficiaries of the centralized model are developing countries, which are unable to influence the global governance of cyberspace under the dominance of private companies from developed countries.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41405202","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 : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-11
H. Kalachyhin
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is one of the leading institutions involved in global economic regulation. Its purposes are to ensure multilateral cooperation on the liberalization of international trade, harmonize existing standards and requirements, and peacefully resolve trade disputes between countries. Since 11 December 2019, dispute resolution has been handicapped due to the consistent blocking of the appointment of members to the WTO Appellate Body (AB) by the United States. This has reduced the multilateral trading system’s (MTS) predictability and threatens its final decay. In this article, the fundamental and formal causes of the collapse are described, and its circumvention mechanisms and effectiveness are discussed. At the same time, an assessment is given of the possibility to overcome the collapse in 2021, considering the change of the U.S. president and other events. Special attention is paid to Russia’s position and its current and potential losses. Finally, the issue of dispute resolution through regional trade agreements is proposed for discussion. The fundamental reasons for the collapse were the shifting balance of power in the world order and the WTO’s inflexibility in adjusting the rulebook and its procedures. The main reasons for the U.S.’ dissatisfaction are objective but based on formalities; the blockage of the AB is an overreaction. Moreover, the U.S.’ position on this issue has not changed with the new president. As a result, there is abuse of the current situation as WTO members file appeals “into the void.” Existing tools to circumvent the collapse are partial and not yet popular among WTO members. Russia needs to resume the AB’s work to complete previously started high-profile disputes and to defend its interests in the future.
{"title":"The Collapse of the Appellate Body as a Determining Factor of the WTO’s Future","authors":"H. Kalachyhin","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-11","url":null,"abstract":"The World Trade Organization (WTO) is one of the leading institutions involved in global economic regulation. Its purposes are to ensure multilateral cooperation on the liberalization of international trade, harmonize existing standards and requirements, and peacefully resolve trade disputes between countries. Since 11 December 2019, dispute resolution has been handicapped due to the consistent blocking of the appointment of members to the WTO Appellate Body (AB) by the United States. This has reduced the multilateral trading system’s (MTS) predictability and threatens its final decay. In this article, the fundamental and formal causes of the collapse are described, and its circumvention mechanisms and effectiveness are discussed. At the same time, an assessment is given of the possibility to overcome the collapse in 2021, considering the change of the U.S. president and other events. Special attention is paid to Russia’s position and its current and potential losses. Finally, the issue of dispute resolution through regional trade agreements is proposed for discussion. The fundamental reasons for the collapse were the shifting balance of power in the world order and the WTO’s inflexibility in adjusting the rulebook and its procedures. The main reasons for the U.S.’ dissatisfaction are objective but based on formalities; the blockage of the AB is an overreaction. Moreover, the U.S.’ position on this issue has not changed with the new president. As a result, there is abuse of the current situation as WTO members file appeals “into the void.” Existing tools to circumvent the collapse are partial and not yet popular among WTO members. Russia needs to resume the AB’s work to complete previously started high-profile disputes and to defend its interests in the future.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45318234","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 : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-03
D. Gershinkova
Article 6 of the Paris Climate Agreement, adopted in 2015, defines three mechanisms that stimulate reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These are the trading of the results of emission reductions, the implementation of climate projects, and so-called non-market approaches. However, the rules for the application of Article 6 have not been agreed so far. Among the remaining contradictions in the positions of the participating countries are different understandings of approaches to prevent double counting of the results of project activities, mandatory deductions for adaptation purposes, and the transfer of unused carbon units under the Kyoto Protocol. At the same time, some countries have already initiated pilot projects under Article 6 with the intention that, in the coming years, they will become Article 6 projects. In November 2021, the 26th United Nations (UN) Climate Conference will be held in Glasgow. Experts link the effectiveness of forthcoming forum with completion of Article 6 negotiations. In this article, the main problematic issues in the negotiations are considered and proposals for the Russian position at the upcoming conference are formulated.
{"title":"Unresolved Issues of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement – Is a Compromise Possible in Glasgow","authors":"D. Gershinkova","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-03","url":null,"abstract":"Article 6 of the Paris Climate Agreement, adopted in 2015, defines three mechanisms that stimulate reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These are the trading of the results of emission reductions, the implementation of climate projects, and so-called non-market approaches. However, the rules for the application of Article 6 have not been agreed so far. Among the remaining contradictions in the positions of the participating countries are different understandings of approaches to prevent double counting of the results of project activities, mandatory deductions for adaptation purposes, and the transfer of unused carbon units under the Kyoto Protocol. At the same time, some countries have already initiated pilot projects under Article 6 with the intention that, in the coming years, they will become Article 6 projects. In November 2021, the 26th United Nations (UN) Climate Conference will be held in Glasgow. Experts link the effectiveness of forthcoming forum with completion of Article 6 negotiations. In this article, the main problematic issues in the negotiations are considered and proposals for the Russian position at the upcoming conference are formulated.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47374555","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 : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-07
D. Medzhidova
In 2021, the European Union (EU) is entering a new phase of energy transition, reducing the use of fossil fuels to achieve climate neutrality by the mid-century. For a qualitative assessment of the impact of the EU gas market’s green policy, transaction cost theory and the concept of asset specificity is referenced in this article. During the first stage of market development, the level of asset specificity was high, while a decline can be observed with market liberalization. However, at the current stage, a radical transformation of specificity in the context of energy transition can be seen. Assets that used to guarantee higher profitability (gas pipelines, gas processing plants, liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals) will soon be disqualified. In this article, the long-term prospects for the natural gas market in Europe, and what will happen to key assets if the climate agenda dominates the issue of energy security, are considered; qualitative assessment of the changes and of the future of the assets on the European gas market is undertaken.
{"title":"Energy transition and asset specificity transformation of the European gas market","authors":"D. Medzhidova","doi":"10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-07","url":null,"abstract":"In 2021, the European Union (EU) is entering a new phase of energy transition, reducing the use of fossil fuels to achieve climate neutrality by the mid-century. For a qualitative assessment of the impact of the EU gas market’s green policy, transaction cost theory and the concept of asset specificity is referenced in this article. During the first stage of market development, the level of asset specificity was high, while a decline can be observed with market liberalization. However, at the current stage, a radical transformation of specificity in the context of energy transition can be seen. Assets that used to guarantee higher profitability (gas pipelines, gas processing plants, liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals) will soon be disqualified. In this article, the long-term prospects for the natural gas market in Europe, and what will happen to key assets if the climate agenda dominates the issue of energy security, are considered; qualitative assessment of the changes and of the future of the assets on the European gas market is undertaken.","PeriodicalId":42976,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44390255","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：