2009. vol. 4. No. 2

Barabanov Oleg– professor, PhD in Political Science, Head of Department of EU Politics and Policies, European Studies Institute, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) of the MFA of Russia

The article is dedicated to the theoretical approach to global governance within the International Relations Theory. The evolution of the term 'Global Governance' is analysed. The main part of the article is dedicated to the comparision of approach to global governance in the framework of the two main theoretic schools: Neorealism and Neoliberalism. The influence of Global Governance concept on state sovereignty is also analysied. Another focus of the article is given to the functional approach to the global governance.

Larionova Marina – Doctor of Political Science, Vice-rector of the State University – Higher School of Economics, Director of the SU-HSE International Organisations Research Institute

The paper presents methodology developed for analysis of the EU role as a global actor and its evolving influence in the G8 over the past decade. To provide for a systemic approach the analytical paradigm adopts Dr. John Kirton’s functional assessment of the G7/G8 performance and its role in global governance. Using the functional approach the study looks into and attempts to highlight and measure the EU contribution towards the main governance objectives of domestic political management, deliberation, direction setting, decision - making, delivery and global governance development. The six functions notion is nuanced to reflect the special nature of the EU as a collective member of the G8, and to allow (1) to explore the extend to which the EU can shape the G8 decisions contributing to deliberation, direction setting and decision making; (2) assess (where / if possible) the degree to which the other actors comply with the commitments made looking at the delivery.

Medvedev Sergey – professor, PhD in History, Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Applied Political Sciences of the State University – Higher School of Economics

Tomashov Igor – BA Student of the Faculty of Applied Political Sciences of the State University – Higher School of Economics

Global Public Goods are those goods, which benefits and costs tend to spread across state borders, social groups, and generations. Examples of global public goods include atmosphere, climate, human rights, struggle against infectious diseases, international peace, etc. Emergence of global public goods is one of the most notable results of globalization. This paper examines the history of “globalization” of public goods and suggests their typologies and ways to solve the international collective action problem.

Entin Mark – PhD in Law, Head of Chair of the European Law, Director of the European Studies Institute of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) of the MFA of Russia

The paper presents author’s vision of the European Union as a new but key global player. The EU features as a political institution, its internal structure and system of external relationships and mechanisms of co-operation with other global actors are overviewed in detail. Special emphasis is given to the EU characteristics such as borders’ transparency and the EU member states differentiation as themselves. Factors providing political cohesion (solidarity) of the EU member states including the supremacy of law, political culture of solidarity and mechanisms for the sovereignty co-governance are analyzed profoundly. Furthermore legal and institutional base for the EU world policy practices as well as ways of its positioning on the world scene reveal with the paper. In conclusion author evaluates the EU future role and its influence rising in setting future global agenda, addressing global problems and needs, promoting future global development.

Hajnal Peter Ivan – Research Fellow at the Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto and retired adjunct professor at the Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto (Toronto, Canada)

Panova Victoria – PhD in History, Senior Lecturer at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) of the MFA of Russia, Regional Director for Russia of the G8 Research Centre of the University of Toronto

This paper focuses on the period beginning with 1998, with only a brief reference to early reform initiatives of the G8. It will examine and comment on reform proposals as well as reforms actually achieved or underway. It will pay particular attention to the reform dimension of the evolving G5, Heiligendamm Process, BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), Major Economies Meeting and G20 groupings, and to the G8’s relationship to these structures. The chapter concludes with outlining possible trajectories of G8 reform.

Larionova Marina - Doctor of Political Science, Vice-rector of the State University – Higher School of Economics, Director of the SU-HSE International Organisations Research Institute

The paper presents analysis of the outcomes of the two G20 summits and the EU contribution towards the decisions made. Analysis of the EU input and impact on the two summits’ results allows to reveal “containing factors” in the EU institutional architecture constraining the quality and effectiveness of the EU global governance performance through the G20. First, the coherence and impact the institute of permanent Presidency can ensure is much higher than what can be achieved through the coordination efforts of the three rotating presidencies. This continuity and durability is essential not only for forging consensus with the EU partners in the G20, but, most importantly, for building internal consensus in the EU, as a vital factor of effective common foreign policy.

The author posits that though in the run up to the Washington summit the Presidency and the European Commission leadership and contribution were very much driving the process, the run up to the London summit presented a different story. The Presidency yielded leadership and the EU institutions and the leaders of the EU-G20 members stepped in. The paper highlights this experience as one more argument in favor of permanent Presidency of the EU. The Lisbon Treaty ratification and the new institutions of Presidency and the Foreign Minister – High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will consolidate the EU institutional foundation for the challenges of the future.

Kartamyshev Vytaliy – Governance Policy Officer, Oxfam International in the Russian Federation

The article analyses the European Union development policy over the past decade. It highlights Europe’s leadership role in providing multidimensional, high quality and predictable aid focused on poverty eradication and achievement of Millennium Development Goals by the recipient countries. Various aspects of EU’s development policy are considered: ODA (Official Development Assistance), budget support, Aid for Trade, etc. It also identifies challenges for the EU to continue playing this crucial role in the current unfavourable economic environment and offers some recommendations on improved implementation of development policy.

Medvedev Sergey – professor, PhD in History, Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Applied Political Sciences of the State University – Higher School of Economics

Tomashov Igor – BA Student of the Faculty of Applied Political Sciences of the State University – Higher School of Economics

International peace and security are among the most important global public goods because of their key role in the creation of conditions for sustainable development. However, cooperation in this field is often limited by the lowest common denominator of mutual deterrence and crisis management. New opportunities may be opened by a more active involvement in this process of the EU and the G8. This chapter takes stock of the key problems and contradictions of safeguarding of international peace and security and examines the history and future prospects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU.

Biscop Sven – professor, Director of the Security & Global Governance Programme at Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations (Brussels), visiting professor for European Security at the College of Europe (Bruges) and at Ghent University

The European Union (EU), and the European Economic Community (EEC) before it, has always been a global economic power. That economic weight endowed it with the potential to also become a global actor in the realm of diplomacy and defence, but it was not until 1991 that the Maastricht Treaty created the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Europe began to develop its own foreign and security policy, and even then very tentatively. This chapter aims to assess whether in the 15-odd years since the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, in 1993, the EU has managed to become a global strategic actor, i.e. an actor that consciously and purposely defines long-term objectives, with regard to all dimensions of foreign policy, that actively pursues these objectives, and that acquires the necessary means to that end.

The adoption of the European Security Strategy (ESS) by the December 2003 European Council must be considered a landmark event in this regard. Of course, the ESS was not handed down in the shape of ten neatly summarized points engraved on two stone tablets. It is not because something is written in the ESS that it necessarily will be so, nor is everything written in the ESS. But the simple fact that it is omnipresent – in EU discourse, in statements by European as well as other policy-makers, in the debate in think tanks and academia – and that in December 2007 the European Council by mandating High Representative Javier Solana to produce a report on its implementation by December 2008 launched a high-profile, full-year debate about the ESS, proves that its importance should not be underestimated either. It is the first ever strategic document covering the whole of EU foreign policy, from aid and trade, democracy and human rights promotion, to diplomacy and the military. As such it is first of all a statement of the EU’s ambition as an international actor, and has therefore become the reference framework guiding the EU’s performance as well as the benchmark to judge it. Through its performance the EU at the same time is developing a strategic culture of its own, the maturation of which is helped forward by the ESS. Ultimately however, what really counts to assess whether the EU is a strategic actor, and what determines the consolidation of the EU’s strategic culture, is whether the EU, through its policies and actions, is able to achieve results and realize its ambitions. This paper revisits a previous assessment of EU strategy to take into account the outcome of the 2008 debate.

Medvedev Sergey – professor, PhD in History, Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Applied Political Sciences of the State University – Higher School of Economics

Tomashov Igor – BA Student of the Faculty of Applied Political Sciences of the State University – Higher School of Economics

A growing role of knowledge as a factor for the development of modern societies stimulates the international community to address the problems of education and science more actively. Today fighting illiteracy and protecting intellectual property rights are common problems for the international community. New solutions can be found by analyzing knowledge and education as global public goods. This chapter examines the problems of international cooperation in the field of education, paying special attention to the initiatives of the G8 and the EU.

Zuev Vladimir – professor, PhD in Economics, Head of International Economic Organizations and European Integration Department, Faculty of World Economics and World Politics of the State University – Higher School of Economics

The article explores EU decision making models in global governance. Emphasizing unique nature of a mechanism of European integration based on rational approach to a decision-making process, article discloses basic principles of this mechanism. Possible options for several EU elements to be integrated into the practice and functioning of modern global institutions are analyzed. As well as good and negative consequences expected to come from the usage and further strengthening of subnational elements in international regulations, first of all in economic area. Such questions as “What kind of forms of the international economic regulation – international or subnational - to be applied within different international organizations, e.g. UN, could be more effective?”, and “Why model of the European Union enjoys success and popularity among member and neighboring countries?” are addressed herewith.

Larionova Marina - Doctor of Political Science, Vice-rector of the State University – Higher School of Economics, Director of the SU-HSE International Organisations Research Institute

Rakhmangulov Mark – Researcher of the Informational – Analytical G8 Research Centre of the International Organizations Research Institute of the State University – Higher School of Economics

The paper presents preliminary findings of an empirical study of the EU contribution towards global governance processes, focusing on the EU role in the G8. Key priorities, values and functions of both institutions are assessed and compared using the qualitative and quantitative analysis within the functional analytical paradigm.