17/1 Malaya Ordynka Str., Moscow, 119017
On June 29, 2019, the Russian president Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo met for the 26th time, this time at the G20 summit in Osaka. The long-standing territorial dispute between Russia and Japan continues to be an issue, but the dialogue revealed a few interesting trends. Abe emphasised “strategic importance” of strengthening relations with Moscow in political and economic sphere as well as that of joint projects on the disputed isles, which could eventually help facilitate the conclusion of a peace treaty. Putin also stressed the significance of bilateral documents signed during his visit to Japan. He asserted that expanding partnership and strategic communication, bilateral trade and investment cooperation would bring Russian-Japanese relations to a qualitatively new level. In this atmosphere, it would be possible to ‘find a compromise on the most difficult matters.’ It appears that both parties are delaying the territorial dispute resolution in the hope that building a firm partnership could help solve the problem.
This article discusses the role of spokesperson in Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). A spokesperson’s official role in frontline diplomacy is viewed and analyzed through the lens of public diplomacy to promote a nation-state’s foreign policy when engaging with foreign audiences and influencing public opinion. This article first investigates the history and approaches for Soviet-acting spokespersons who primarily targeted Americans and Western Europeans through the media and TV, although in accordance with mutually accepted conditions of hosting states. The article then assesses changes in world politics and communication technologies and evaluates the digital public diplomacy dimension that has shaped the spokesperson’s communication strategies. Finally, the article evaluates current Russian MFA spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s responsibilities and identifies the strategies she embraces when communicating with targeted audiences. The article concludes that the role of a spokesperson in Russian public diplomacy is increasingly prominent and has moved far beyond a mouthpiece.
The chapter discusses two major trends in contemporary world politics— the disintegration of the nation-state and supranational integration—and analyses their nature, causes and significance. The author concludes that these processes have a different character within and outside Europe and that the multidirectional trends in different parts of the world, on the one hand, complicate Russia’s foreign policy-making and implementation, but, on the other, widen Russia’s room for diplomatic manoeuvring and increase the opportunities to exploit the contradictions between old and new actors in international relations.
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
The widening political gap between the West and Russia is symptomatic of a broader unravelling of the post-Cold War order that has imperilled global governance. Positioned between a unipolar and multipolar system, the world is being pulled in each direction. Russia’s rejection of the unipolar order has contributed to widening the political gap with the West, yet the gap can be narrowed if Russia doubles down as a multipolar system based on multilateralism establishes itself. The foundation for a multipolar order is emerging, creating political incentives to develop global governance that address the new realities. Russia’s vision of a multipolar and balanced international system is founded on geoeconomic inter-regionalism in Greater Eurasia, a goal it pursues by diversifying its economic connectivity and developing new trade blocs, transportation corridors and financial instruments. As the political dogmas of the post-Cold War era lose force, new political voices are also emerging across the West that support the embrace of a new order. Yet, until a new order establishes itself, the stakes will grow higher, the willingness to take greater risks increases and the possibilities for miscalculations continue to multiply.
Science diplomacy emerged in the early years of the 21st century as a new vocabulary and a new concept in international relations, although the practice of science diplomacy has deep historical roots and various forms that were not labeled as such before. Science diplomacy refers to professional practices at the intersection of the world of science and that of diplomacy. It is also a subject of study that gives rise to a scholarly literature. Basically, the rationale of science diplomacy is twofold: advancing a country’s national interest and addressing global challenges. Science diplomacy encompasses a great range of activities to promote and secure a state’s foreign policy objectives and of activities to secure global public good at the transnational level, such as using scientific advice and expertise, enabling international scientific cooperation, bringing scientists on board of diplomatic negotiations, or appointing science attachés to embassies. International scientific cooperation is sometimes confused in the discourse with science diplomacy. However, if scientific cooperation is possible only with diplomatic assistance, serves a nation-state’s foreign policy objectives, promotes national interests, or aims to address global issues, then it is science diplomacy. Otherwise, it is not. Science diplomacy is also closely related to a state’s political system and beliefs because the effective use of science diplomacy contributes a great deal to a state’s power and influence in world politics and in international relations, and it helps to generate soft power of attraction and cooperation. A few notable institutions are active in science diplomacy, promote international dialogue on global issues, disseminate practices, and take part in the debate of the science diplomacy concept. They include the Center for Science Diplomacy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA), and the Science Diplomacy Center of Tufts University, and multilateral scientific organizations, such as the International Institute for Applied System Analysis, the International Science Council, and the Science Diplomacy Thematic Network at the University of the Arctic. National and international academies of sciences sometimes intervene in this debate. Professional literature on science diplomacy is abundant and academic literature is growing as well, which has not led, however, so far to the emergence of a genuine theory of science diplomacy. This article aims to guide readers in their comprehension of science diplomacy and of the related debates through a selection of sources that shed light on science diplomacy both in theory and in practice from various viewpoints.
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.
The mode, general understanding, and practices of science diplomacy revolve
around a country’s history, the formation of its scientific institutions, the specifics
of its foreign policy approaches, and its diplomatic practices. The nexus
between science and diplomacy gives various results but ultimately are predetermined
by individual creativity, community values, and state interests and
support. The core element of diplomatic interactions between nations relies
on their historical and contemporary backgrounds. Understanding phenomena
of science diplomacy and their implementing practices helps to promote a
state’s power and influence on both national and international levels to secure
and promote its foreign policy.
The article analyzes the evolution of Russia’s policy in secessionist conflicts in the post-Soviet space in 1991–2018. The authors differentiate the patterns of Russian policy between the “first” and “second” generation of frozen conflicts. The “first generation” includes four conflicts of an ethno-linguistic nature that arose out of the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Pridnestrov’e and Karabakh). Most commentators interpret Russia’s actions in the “second generation” conflicts as centralized, directly controlled by the president of Russia, and driven by Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion, and some extend this logic back to the conflicts of the 1990s. However, this article argues that this was not true of Russian policy for the “first generation” conflicts in the early 1990s. In that period the policies of the Yeltsin administration were a product of struggle of different forces both in Moscow and outside of it. The “first generation” conflicts all primarily originated as a result of local grievances. Gradually, shifts in the broader geopolitical landscape in Eurasia, especially the growing confrontation between Russia and the West, led to a reconfiguration of the logic of these conflicts, turning them into the elements of Russian-Western geopolitical opposition.
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.
China and Russia are the main driving forces of Eurasian integration. Russia is pursuing its “pivot to Asia,” while China is branching out to the West through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The interests of Russia and China meet in Eurasia and their friendly relations have led to several cooperation projects there. The most important are linkages between the Eurasian Economic Union and Silk Road Economic Belt Initiative and the plan to create a broader Eurasian Economic Partnership or Greater Eurasia. This article studies the reasons which led the two countries to intensify their cooperation in Eurasia and the current state and prospects of that cooperation.
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.
The article examines the stages of structural change of intersystem legal entities created by states in the 19th century in order to regulate various types of cross-border social relations.
Purpose: to determine the general dynamics of the formation and development of the structure of intersystem entities in the practice of states in the 19th century and stress the features of each of its stages.
Methods: the methodological basis of the study was composed of general scientific and special methods of enquiry, including the historical method, methods of formal logic, analysis, synthesis, as well as the systemic, comparative legal and interpretation methods.
Results and conclusions. Since the 19th century to regulate certain types of cross-border social relations states have been forming intersystem entities on the basis of their own national law. In content, such entities are individual, but in the process of the formation of their structural elements it’s permissible, somewhat conventionally, to single out several common stages of their formation and development. During the research three basic stages of the structural change of such entities in the 19th century were pointed out. Initially, foreign law was allowed to regulate cross-border relations. Then the states begin the process of mutually elaborating unified approaches to the regulation of the corresponding cross-border relations, and the respective intersystem entities receive a legal component. At the next stage, international legal acts appear aimed at regulating cross-border social relations, but developed and adopted by new subjects of international law – international intergovernmental organizations.
«The Future of the Eurasian Economic Union: Economic Digitalization and the Youth» is the topic of the Annual Report 2019 of the Integration Club under the Speaker of the Russian Federation Council. Over the 5 years since the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union was signed on May 29, 2014, the EEU has proved its efficiency for the member states and also has earned an important position among world’s regional integration groupings. In particular, this can be seen by the surge of the third countries interest in cooperation with the EEU. To maintain such a positive dynamics it is needed today to define the future development direction of the Eurasian integration. For that purpose greater attention should be given to the work in the sphere of the digitalization of the EEU economy and implementation by the member states the youth policy which could respond to present day challenges. In this context, the aim of politicians, scientists and experts is to find the appropriate solutions to provide connection between these two large processes. The opinions and estimates by the Integration Club members on that topic as well as the club events papers and the articles provided by the leading universities, think tanks and state authorities are presented in the report. The report would be helpful for those interested in the Eurasian integration and its prospect in today’s world.