With its strong economic, technological and innovative potential, Asia-Pacific has the potential to drive the global economy. The “engine” of this drive is the system of supply-value chains within the vertically-organized Asia-Pacific conglomerates specializing in producing value-added intermediate goods and services. In the academic literature, this phenomenon is conceptualized as “Factory Asia”.
To unlock Asia-Pacific’s true potential, the implementation of measures embracing regional infrastructural, institutional and people-to-people connectivity becomes the key prerequisite for success. The initiatives of Asia-Pacific economic regionalism covering the trans-Pacific and the East Asian/South Asian geographical domain—the Free Trade Area of Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – have different possibilities to develop the connectivity agenda. While FTAAP and potentially RCEP can stimulate these processes, for TPP it is highly problematic.
This broadens the possibilities for Russia to get more involved in Asia-Pacific economic cooperation with an emphasis upon technologically-advanced exchanges within Factory Asia. Strengthening regional connectivity is the key component in Russia’s agenda in multilateral cooperation with Asia-Pacific countries, which was exemplified by Russia’s APEC agenda. While at present the resource-intensive production in Russia’s Far East is prioritized, the multiplier effect produced by the Territories of Advanced Development on the industrial and innovative sectors of Russian economy can help Russia to enter Factory Asia.
EU–Russian Energy Relations. Do Institutions Stand the Test?
EU-Russian relations: history, institutions, basic trends
Sanctions and the future of EU-Russian relations
The Court of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU Court) is a new structure operating since 2015, and whose mission is to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of EAEU law. The article focuses on the main challenges the Court is presently facing: limited competence; a lack of procedural mechanisms to ensure the dissemination of its case-law among national courts; and a low number of applications. Consequently, it is divided into three sections.
The first section is devoted to an analysis of the Court’s competence and focuses on the loss of the preliminary reference procedure that existed under the EurAsEC law. The authors analyze its role and the possibility of compensating for its lost powers.
The second section explores the other tools available to the Court in order to influence the case-law of national courts indirectly. It explores the practical difficulties which economic entities face when bringing parallel proceedings before the EAEU Court and a national court, or when trying to obtain a review of a national court judgment following a positive outcome in the EAEU Court.
The third section tackles the issue of the low number of applications, linked to a lack of trust from the business and legal communities. Thus, it is vital for the Court to earn a reputation based on accessibility, professionalism and efficiency. To this end, the authors analyze such issues as the duration of proceedings, the locus standi of economic entities and the way in which judgments should be drafted to ensure the protection of rights and legitimate interests of economic entities.
The article focuses upon the specificity of relationship between India and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) within the framework of Full Dialogue Partnership and assesses its key achievements and limitations. Arguing that the globalization of India’s and ASEAN international priorities requires an expanded context of cooperation, the authors explore the potential of the Greater Eurasia as the emerging global center of geopolitical gravity and economic dynamism through the prism of re-energizing India-ASEAN cooperation. In the authors’ assessment, the Greater Eurasia institutionalized by the format ASEAN-SCO-EAEU can provide India and ASEAN with an upgraded rationale for cooperation with positive aggregate effect for Eurasian economy, politics and security, as well as for the interests of the Russian Federation.
The ASEM Forum has been the only platform to promote cooperation in the entire Eurasia for the last 20 years. Linking this experience to the current Eurasian bid for becoming a global center of gravity can stimulate cooperative trends in relations between the global actors and the establishment of a stable and balanced global security system. A significant contribution to that might be made by the Russian Federation, all the more so since Russia and ASEM are gaining increasingly higher ranks in each other’s priorities.
The very first steps in ASEAN research in the Soviet Union were made at a time when the Association was perceived as an unfriendly coalition and many experts were skeptical about its future. Current researchers of ASEAN in Russia work in a completely different environment and hardly recall those perceptions. However, the systematization of knowledge about ASEAN research as well as an understanding the dynamics of its development could help to assess the productivity of the academic work that has been done and adjust it to the highest standards. The article analyzes the development of the research programme related to ASEAN in the USSR and Russia. The first part of the article identifies stages of its evolution and describes the key trends. Two stages are defined in the Soviet period indicating the intensity of the research (from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s and from the mid-1980s to 1991). Russian studies since the end of bipolarity are divided into three stages in accordance with the changes that triggered the growth of interest to ASEAN in the academic circles of the Russian Federation (from 1991 to the mid-2000s, from the mid-2000s to 2014 and from 2014 to the present). The article further specifies the institutional structure of ASEAN research in the USSR and Russia and outlines its key directions. Increasing attention to ASEAN is resembled in the growth of the institutions involved, number of publications, joint initiatives and events. Nevertheless, most of them still involve organizations located in Moscow while regional structures are less active. It seems that the intensification of analytical and scientific work related to ASEAN in regional universities (especially in Siberia and the Far East) is likely to have a positive impact on the effectiveness of cooperation between Russia and ASEAN in the future. At the moment there are both opportunities and limitations for further development of Russia-ASEAN relations. In this regard enhancing our work on joint publications, international exchanges and individual research initiatives can create a basis for taking more advantage from the track II diplomacy in the upcoming projects.