According to the current international climate change regime, countries are responsible for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that result from economic activities within their national borders, including emissions from producing goods for export. At the same time, imports of carbon-intensive goods are not addressed by international agreements, including the Paris Agreement that was adopted in 2015. This paper examines emissions embodied in Russia’s exports and imports based on the results of an input-output analysis. Russia is the second largest exporter of emissions embodied in trade and the large portion of these emissions is directed to developed countries. Because of the large amount of net exports of carbon-intensive goods, the current approach to emissions accounting does not suit Russia’s interests. On the one hand, Russia, as well as other large net emissions exporters, is interested in the revision of allocation of responsibility between exporters and importers of carbon-intensive products. On the other hand, both the commodity exports structure and relatively carbon inefficient technologies make Russia vulnerable to the policy of “carbon protectionism,” which can be implemented by its trade partners.
In the present political and economic trends, a timely exercise is the elaboration on a new research direction, namely studies of regionalism, both in theoretical and practical dimensions, within an active phase of globalization. Center for Asia-Pacific Studies (SAPS), Institute of World Economy and International Relations, does this with the focus upon the Asia-Pacific region developing its own approach.
The result has been three monographs in which critical Asia-Pacific issues seen through the prism of this approach were scrutinized.1) At present, the fourth monograph is being prepared.2) Besides, this approach has been tested during numerous conferences and round-table discussions both in Russia and in beyond.
Established in 2012, the comprehensive strategic partnership between Russia and Vietnam has yet to live up to its name in terms of both vision and action. Nevertheless, Russian–Vietnamese cooperation is embedded in Russia's emerging Eurasian priorities. Indeed, Russia’s prospective plans for its relations with ASEAN within the context of the Greater Eurasia Partnership strategy could serve to unlock the potential of the partnership between Russia and Vietnam, making it truly comprehensive and strategic.
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 article aims to identify and analyze factors behind the success of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) policy during its fifty-year history. Giving insights in the ASEAN approach to Southeast Asia’s international security challenges during the Cold War, the author then turns to ASEAN’s policy towards the establishment of Asia-Pacific multilateral dialogue platforms on security issues through the prism of identifying the external and internal prerequisites for its success. The article highlights the most important global and regional challenges that ASEAN is currently encountering, and its readiness to respond appropriately. Finally, the article focuses upon the degree of ASEAN’s relevance to its partners in terms of its potential contribution to the establishment of Greater Eurasia. In the author’s view, necessary preconditions for ASEAN’s successful policy are emerging there. The relevance of the undertaken analysis rests upon ASEAN’s eagerness to raise its сompetitiveness against the downward trends in relations between global actors and the upcoming projection of their contradictions on the Asia-Pacific and Southeast Asia. Among the key reasons behind ASEAN’s successes and failures during and after the Cold War, the author identifies readiness of ASEAN’s partners to regard it as a unified entity, give it the privilege to moderate multilateral cooperation, and readiness of ASEAN itself to assume this mission. These three conditions predetermined ASEAN’s international policy success, mainly manifested by the resolution of the Cambodian issue and establishment of multilateral dialogue platforms in the Asia-Pacific region. Realizing that only the multipolar world gives it chances for a decent future and encountering the rise of conflict in the current global political and economic affairs with its projection on Southeast Asia, the Association aims to develop cooperation in Greater Eurasia. This corresponds to the priorities of ASEAN’s Eurasian partners over the establishment of a continental security, cooperation and co-development system, with ASEAN as an important actor. The presence of the three basic prerequisites for ASEAN’s high international competitiveness and their synergy give ample reasons to expect new ASEAN “success stories”, this time in Greater Eurasia.
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 development of globalization has not been one of steadily rising interconnectedness. The foundations for the latest and greatest round of globalization are fragile. The fragmentation of the world economy into more regionalized trading blocs will affect the United States and Russia differently. The United States is dependent on an increasingly skeptical world to finance its large current account deficits; far-flung production chains for goods made or designed in the United States might be disrupted in ways that will increase both costs and prices; and, ultimately, this withdrawal will accelerate the nation’s long-term secular decline as a share of world output. Russia’s economic growth remains highly dependent on commodity exports, which may make it less susceptible to the costs of reduced globalization but which will limit economic development for decades to come. The prospects for U.S.-Russia economic cooperation in a deglobalizing world are limited while American and European sanctions are still in place.
The South China Sea issue still lives up to its reputation a hot topic in the Asia-Pacific international politics. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) decision of 2016 coupled with the pending reduction of the U.S. interests to Southeast Asia under the Trump administration amply suggests that in the transformation of the South China Sea problem, not only its internal features, but its external milieu looms all the larger. Among the factors that shape this milieu, the emerging Indo-Pacific region is raising in significance.
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.