Global climate change is a key challenge to the global economy in the twenty-first century. To address it properly, a combination of mitigation and adaptation strategies is required. Although the responsibility for adaptation lies primarily with national governments (though, even here, poorer countries need international support), mitigation is one of the key fields of international cooperation. There is little chance that the fundamental objective of stopping global temperatures from rising more than 2 °С can be reached without a stable and comprehensive global governance system. The current international climate change regime based on the Paris Agreement is insufficient to prevent catastrophic climate change. Deeper cooperation between leading economies is especially necessary, including among those that are now reluctant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The article opens with a brief overview of the provisions of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) establishing the general principles and rules of competition. It further presents a detailed analysis of the main features and characteristics of the EAEU competition law. Among the issues discussed in this article is the direct effect and direct applicability of the general rules of competition, the relation between EAEU and national competition law provisions as well as the division of competence between the Eurasian Economic Commission and national competition authorities. The relevant features and provisions of EAEU competition law, such as the notion of 'coordination of economic activity' are analysed through the prism of the EAEU Court's advisory opinions. The authors also use a comparative approach drawing parallels and underlining the differences with EU law and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Finally, the authors also examine the mechanisms of judicial protection available under EAEU law to economic entities in the field of competition law.
The author assesses the risks and opportunities for Russia as the world transitions to an increasingly green economy. The growing focus on developing a more sustainable greener world economy presents both risks and opportunities to Russia. The move towards green technologies undermines Russia’s economic model that has been excessively reliant on oil and gas, although opportunities also emerge due to the abundance of natural capital in Russia. Embracing the green wave could be a key driver for Russian technological development and modernization, and concurrently position Russia as a champion of global environmental security.
Because the Russian economy relies heavily on exports of fossil fuels, the primary source of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it may be adversely impacted by Paris Agreement-based climate policies that target reductions in GHG emissions. Applying the MIT Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model to assess the impacts on the Russian economy of the efforts of the main importers of Russian fossil fuels to follow the global goals of the Paris Agreement, we project that climate-related actions outside of Russia will lower the country’s GDP growth rate by about one-half of a percentage point. The Paris Agreement is also expected to raise Russia’s risks of facing market barriers for its exports of energy-intensive goods, and of falling behind in the development of low-carbon energy technologies that most of the world is increasingly adopting.
The 2020 pandemic has marked a turning point in many processes: globalization, regionalization, and the struggle of nation-states for survival. Many had expected something like this, and the reaction of states and societies to the new virus was unexpectedly strong and profound. Under the slogan of combating the epidemic, many countries started doing openly what they had wanted to do for a long time: closing borders, strengthening sovereignty, bringing back production operations from abroad, and shifting relations with neighbors to a bilateral footing
This book analyzes the state of global governance in the current geopolitical environment. It evaluates the main challenges and discusses potential opportunities for compromise in international cooperation. The book’s analysis is based on the universal criteria of global political stability and the UN framework of sustainable development. By examining various global problems, including global economic inequality, legal and political aspects of access to resources, international trade, and climate change, as well as the attendant global economic and political confrontations between key global actors, the book identifies a growing crisis and the pressing need to transform the current system of global governance. In turn, it discusses various instruments, measures and international regulation mechanisms that can foster international cooperation in order to overcome global problems.
Addressing a broad range of topics, e.g. the international environmental regime, global financial problems, issues in connection with the energy transition, and the role of BRICS countries in global governance, the book will appeal to scholars in international relations, economics and law, as well as policy-makers in government offices and international organizations
Is the topic of populism relevant to modern Russia? Can our conditions produce the phenomenon that is currently observed in Europe and the United States, and is generally spreading around the world? And is it not time to abandon the model based on political parties? These issues were discussed at a roundtable held in the office of the Russia in Global Affairs journal.
The report is based on situation analyses results. Situation analyses was conducted under the auspices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, with the support of the Committee on International Affairs of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the International Public Fund “Russian Peace Foundation,” as well as the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (CFDP) and Russia in Global Affairs journal.
This book explores Russia’s efforts towards both adapting to and shaping a world in transformation. Russia has been largely marginalized in the post-Cold War era and has struggled to find its place in the world, which means that the chaotic changes in the world present Russia with both threats and opportunities. The rapid shift in the international distribution of power and emergence of a multipolar world disrupts the existing order, although it also enables Russia to diversify it partnerships and restore balance. Adapting to these changes involves restructuring its economy and evolving the foreign policy. The crises in liberalism, environmental degradation, and challenge to state sovereignty undermine political and economic stability while also widening Russia’s room for diplomatic maneuvering. This book analyzes how Russia interprets these developments and its ability to implement the appropriate responses.
Russia contributes to this transformation and pursues policies aimed at enhancing her foreign trade and economic security now and also to facilitate the development of a system where foreign nations will have no significant influence over the international currency system and world credit markets thus making economic dimensions of Russian overall power less vulnerable to manipulations from abroad.
Since its establishment in 2015 the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union (the 'Court') has been largely seen as a mechanism for resolving disputes between governments or for interpreting the law of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in abstracto via its advisory opinions. As a result, its potential has been largely underutilized by economic entities despite a liberal locus standi and the possibility to challenge the validity of both individual acts (for instance, in the field of EAEU competition law) and regulatory acts of general application adopted by the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC), including antidumping measures or even technical regulations. This article aims to discuss how the EAEU Court may help private actors to protect their rights and legitimate interests under EAEU law. It examines the different types of actions available to economic entities, the admissibility criteria and the consequences of the Court's judgements. As the analysis of the EAEU Court's case-law shows, the action for failure to act is of particular importance as it may be used by private entities as an indirect mechanism to enhance Member States' compliance with their obligations under EAEU law. Finally, the authors also address the issue of the sources of law that private actors could rely upon.
Kazakhstan actively cooperates with Russia in the energy sector, which is directly associated with the role played by the fuel and energy complex in the functioning of all sectors of the Kazakh economy. The paper considers the main factors in the development of Kazakhstan’s fuel and energy complex, and concludes that its partnership with Russia is important in ensuring national security in a contextual sense. The article also considers the risks of Kazakhstan’s energy policy based on the geopolitical competition of regional and global actors.
The events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine prompted the European Union (EU) to adopt several ‘packages’ of restrictive measures against Russia. A number of attempts have been made by natural and legal persons to challenge the validity of those measures before the General Court and the Court of Justice of the EU. Despite the fact that the applicants in all of these cases were unsuccessful and the judgments largely confirmed the existing case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), these cases deserve special attention for a number of reasons.
Firstly, they provide an important clarification of the application of the listing criteria developed in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. In the Rotenberg and Kiselev cases, the General Court gave a restrictive reading of the notion of ‘active support’ used in the sanction criteria as covering only those forms of support which, by their quantitative or qualitative significance, contribute to Russia’s actions and policies destabilising Ukraine. This rather restrictive reading fits well with the fifth principle guiding the EU’s policy towards Russia, implying that only a small group of persons will be liable to fall under this criterion and that it will not threaten people-to-people contacts at large.
Secondly, the Court had the opportunity to rule on the validity of different types of measures. While the Almaz-Antey Air and Space Defence, Kiselev, and Rotenberg cases dealt with the freezing of assets, in other cases the Court examined general economic measures, such as the restriction of access to capital markets and export restrictions. Rosneft and NK Rosneft and Others present a particular interest in this regard as the Court addressed the issue of the legality of those measures with regard to the provisions of the EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of 1994 (PCA) and WTO law. Those expecting an elaborate analysis were however quickly disappointed as the Court basically confirmed the Council’s broad discretion for the adoption of political decisions. In its appraisal of the necessity of restrictive measures for the protection of EU essential security interests, it relied entirely on the Council’s assessment contained in the preambles of the contested acts transforming an already limited judicial control in a pure formality. In a situation where restrictive measures are imposed by the EU on the ground of international law violations, this reluctance by the CJEU to exercise an effective control as to the respect of international law – or at least conduct its own assessment of the situation – can be seen as questioning the Court’s stance as an independent non-political institution.
Thirdly, what is even more important, some of the cases brought a significant contribution to the development of the Court’s jurisprudence in the area of CFSP as the Court was prompted to deal with several new legal issues. The Rotenberg case, for instance, answers the question of whether persons in charge of certain businesses may be included in the sanctions list because they benefited from the decision-makers at any point in time or whether the EU institutions need to demonstrate the existence of such a connection at the time when the third state’s illegal actions took place. In the Kiselev case, the General Court had to ascertain the legality of restrictive measures taken against a journalist in the light of the freedom of expression. In its turn in Rosneft, the Court of Justice ruled on the possibility to challenge the legality of autonomous restrictive measures via the preliminary reference procedure. Finally, the number and nature of the cases may also contribute to the debate on the effectiveness of the sanctions. The present chapter does not seek to describe the cases one by one, but rather analyses their contribution to the development of the CJEU case-law on restrictive measures by focusing on the key issues discussed in these cases.
This book addresses the challenges and opportunities of contemporary and future development of Eurasia. The main theme of the first part of the book is examining the reaction evoked in different countries by the Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative.” The second part analyses other national and international integration and infrastructure projects in Eurasia. This unique publication brings together in one volume works by leading researchers from different countries, all united by their common interest in the political and economic processes unfolding in the Eurasian continent. By offering various points of view from experts from all over the world, this book provides a multi-dimensional analysis of the Eurasian future and will be of value to a wide range of readers, including scholars, publicists, the international business community and decision-makers.
The USA is in the midst of a very difficult and protracted revision of its place in the international system. Its role as a global leader, a major pillar of international security and centre of the global economic and political order is unsustainable and is increasingly rejected from both outside and within. Adapting to this new role will not be linear and will develop at different paces in different regions. In the middle term, it will proceed with a harsh and prolonged confrontation with Russia and China as well as with a substantial increase in the US foreign policy unilateralism. The latter will fluctuate from administration to administration, but the common denominator will be a less multilateralist and benign approach than that in the Obama era. Because the USA remains the most powerful player militarily, and diplomatically, retains the dominant position in global finance and has been the centrepiece of the prevailing global governance system for decades, both the international order and global governance will suffer negative consequences until the USA completes its transition to new modalities of participation in the international system. Only when the USA finally accepts rules for equal relations with the other poles can a new international order and a new pattern of global governance emerge.
As unthinkable as this could have seemed just a decade ago, the forces of populism have been gaining momentum recently in the United States and in Europe, propelled by the current anti-liberal wave.
The challenge of right-wing populism to conservatism and liberal democracy in the United States is analyzed in the article through the prism of an ideological approach. The ideological structures of American conservatism and populism are analyzed on the base of Michael Frieden's method of «ideological morphology». The methodology of the paper divides ideologies on thin-centered ideology and host ones. Thin-centered ideologies, which include populism, form their ideological discourse using the concepts of more universal host ideologies like conservatism. The ideological contents of the main types of American conservatism (traditionalism, libertarianism, social conservatism, neoconservatism, paleoconservatism) and various types of populism are under investigation in the research. The development of the intellectual conservative movement in the United States in correlation with the ideological evolution of populism is investigated. The interrelation of American conservatism and populism at different historical stages is revealed. The author considers the role of American conservatism in the formation of Trumpism as a contemporary populism in the United States. The basic elements of Trumpism such as the antithesis of the «pure Americans» and the «corrupt elite», and the concept of the «common people’s will» are defined. It is revealed that Trumpism, on the one hand, creates a threat to liberal democracy in the United States, on the other hand, it has the potential to correct it. The author traces the acceptance of paleoconservative ideas of foreign policy isolationism and economic protectionism by Trumpism. Correlation between Trumpism and traditionalism in the domestic political agenda is determined. Comprehensive analysis of the implementation of the right-wing populist agenda in the American political development during the presidency of D.J. Trump is presented in the paper.
The process of ideological and political transformation of American conservatism under the influence of foreign policy factors in the XXI century is discussed in the article. Foreign policy concepts of various types of American conservatism (neoconservatism, traditionalism, social conservatism, libertarianism, paleoconservatism) are studied based on Michael Frieden’s method of «ideological morphology». Two main directions of the conservative foreign policy (interventionism and isolationism) have been identified. The analysis of the foreign policy aspect of Trumpism as US version of contemporary populism is presented in the light of the ideological approach. The characteristics of Trumpism as «thin-centred» ideology, which based on the antithesis of «the pure American people» and «the corrupt Washington elite» and a concept of «common will of the people», are under investigation in the paper. The research shows, that Trumpism uses concepts of «host» ideology (conservatism) to form its discourse. The connection between the international agenda of Trumpism and isolationist and protectionist ideas of paleoconservatism is determined. The influence of conservative ideological attitudes on the evolution of US foreign policy in the XXI century is traced.