2012. vol. 7. No. 2

The article presents the analysis of global regulation mechanisms development in the banking financial sector of the world economy. The author focuses on the processes which started in this sector during the global financial and economic crisis and concurrent activities of the key international institutions, including G20, the Basel Committee on banking supervision and the Financial Stability Board, in this area.

The purpose of the undertaken research is to identify and analyze the emerging changes in global regulation of the banking segment and thus forecast the possible ways of its further evolution. Reforms in four priority areas, namely, new banking capital and liquidity standards (Basel standards), remuneration practices, stress-testing procedures, accounting standards and fair value accounting have been examined. The analysis demonstrates that the effectiveness of development and implementation of these new mechanisms in the banking financial sector varies due to insufficient or delayed actions of relevant international financial institutions and non-compliance with their recommendations on a country level. Monitoring and analysis of obstacles to implementing new regulatory mechanisms allows forecasting the ways and timing of further development of the banking financial sector. The author emphasizes the need for further G20 involvement in this area, in particular through delegating mandates to other institutions and promoting country-level implementation of the agreed reforms.

The paper draws on the outcomes of the project «Analysis of developments in the global and regional mechanisms of collective governance and regulation» implemented within the Program of Fundamental Studies of Higher School of Economics in 2011.

The article aims to assess the G8 and G20 contribution towards development of global and regional mechanisms of collective governance and regulation. Analysis of these institutions’ effectiveness based on the functional paradigm enables to assess G8 and G20 contribution to the new mechanisms development by three groups of indicators: global governance functions implementation, including accountability and compliance with commitments; contribution to the key issues of global agenda and engagement with other international institutions. The analysis covers the period of G8 and G20 coexistence from 2008 to 2011. G8 documents issued from 1998 to 2008 were analyzed to compare its effectiveness before and after the start of the world economic crisis.

Thus, the study contributes to building a quantifiable evidence base for an assessment of the G8 and G20 effectiveness and enables to forecast their future roles in the development of collective regulation. On the basis of the G8 and G20 documents’ analysis the authors conclude that the trend for division of labour between G8, G20 and other international institutions will be essential for the institutions’ capacity to enhance the quality of collective governance.

The G20 made a substantial contribution into development of new forms of collective regulation in the priorities of economy, financial regulation and international financial system reform, while the role of G8 in these spheres of collective regulation diminished. However, the G8 continued to shape the global agenda in the spheres of political issues, security, international development cooperation, environment protection.

The G8 should not lower its capacity to interact with international institutions, including G20. The research shows that the G20 is following the multilateral approach which has got several advantages. First, it would increase G20’s legitimacy, second, the international partnerships would strengthen G20’s potential to develop new forms of regulation, third, it would help to implement the decisions made. Moreover, relevant international institutions ensure expert support to G20 activities, which is especially important given the complexity of such G20 priorities as financial regulation. Interaction with key international institutions could be also helpful for monitoring implementation of the decisions made.

The paper draws on the outcomes of the project «Analysis of developments in the global and regional mechanisms of collective governance and regulation» implemented within the Program of Fundamental Studies of Higher School of Economics in 2011.

The article explores the issue of G20 legitimacy, its role in facilitating G20 effectiveness and possible ways of improving G20 effectiveness in the deficiency of legitimacy.

At the current stage, the legitimacy of the G20 as a multilateral institution is not topical issue. It is evident that the states representing a major share of world GDP and international financial transactions are expected and even obliged to undertake all available steps to ensure sustainable growth of the world economy, finance and trade. The G20 members act both in their national interests and common interest of a wider global community. Thus, the author perceives the G20 as a legitimate multilateral forum. However, in the future the problem of legitimacy might come to the forefront of the institution’s agenda, coupled with the issues of its efficiency and possible reformation. This process can be spurred by potential effect of the G20 work on the countries, which are currently excluded from the forum.

The author suggests that the inevitable legitimacy problems must be analyzed timely and adequately to avoid future crises and catastrophic shocks, at the same time warning against excessive bureaucratization of the G20 as it may eventually decrease the institution’s efficiency.

The publication was prepared within the framework of a joint project of Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) Project and International Organizations Research Institute of the HSE "Enhancing Effectiveness of Russia’s Participation in G8, G20 

The presented paper analyses documents and decisions of the BRIC and the BRICS summits and discusses positions of the participants on various aspects of international agenda. The BRICS counties ideological principles’ evolution is also demonstrated. The author explores the BRICS potential as an alternative forum for global regulation and comes to the conclusion that excessive expectations for BRICS «revolutionary» potential have not come to pass.

From its very inception the BRIC forum was perceived as an alternative to the current world order, especially in the midst of the global economic crisis, which raised concerns over the effectiveness and fairness of existing global economic regulation mechanisms. The BRICS countries, especially China, became the prominent examples of a different model of social and economic development, and were expected to come up with alternative ideas for the new economic order.

According to the author, the BRICS despite mixed perceptions in the western world, occupied the empty niche within the structure of global politics and assumed the character of a truly global forum after the admittance of South Africa, as it represents Eurasia, America and Africa.

The publication is prepared within the framework of a joint project of Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) Project and International Organisations Research Institute of the HSE "Enhancing Effectiveness of Russia’s Participation in G8, G20 and BRICS in accordance with Russian Priorities and National Interests" in 2011.

A comparative analysis of challenges that BRICS countries face in Fuel and Energy Complex enables to suggest possible solutions for oil, gas, coal and uranium sectors. Dynamics of minerals deficiency and surplus in BRICS countries is demonstrated and opportunities for cooperation in natural resources management is discussed.

The publication is prepared within the framework of a joint project of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) Project and International Organisations Research Institute of the HSE "Enhancing Effectiveness of Russia’s Participation in G8, G20 and BRICS in accordance with Russian Priorities and National Interests" in 2011.

The article presents pressing issues in Russian development assistance. The author analyses Russian potential in this area and discusses successful projects implemented on the basis of trilateral cooperation. Implementation mechanism of these projects has been also described. Opportunities for using this experience in Russian development assistance practice have been examined. Proposed projects should include activities to contribute the effective implementation and dissemination of Russian IDA, enhance the image of Russia as a donor.  Paradigm of modern Russian government presupposes the existence of several players at the executive level in the field of international development assistance. Unsuccessful attempts to create Russian international development assistance program or agency that have sufficient authority in this area indicate a low capacity for coordination within the government. We can assume that in the coming years, Russia's demand of IDA program will have remained unsatisfied. The need for this kind of program is long overdue due to a number of social, economic and environmental problems in CIS countries. These problems are not solved for more than 20 years and will soon begin to put pressure on Russia.

The article analyses the RF policy in innovation development and reasons for Russia’s lagging behind most leading and developing countries. The authors explore special features of RF scientific and technological complex and provide a comparative analysis of science and innovation sector efficiency in different countries, including Russia. Special attention is given to opportunities for Russia’s international cooperation in science and innovation sector. Barriers for this cooperation have been analysed.

The authors present and describe the most important areas of Russia’s international cooperation with developed countries: 1) the networking programs for sharing experiences in innovation; 2) the joint program in social innovation (creative industries, «grass-roots innovations», innovation in service sector); 3) developing student, scientist, specialist mobility; the coordination of exchange programmes.

In conclusion the authors made recommendations on improving effectiveness of the Russian innovation system by competitive growth, attracting investment, creating business and innovation environment, arrangement of conditions for science and technology international cooperation. 

The publication is prepared within the framework of a joint project of Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) Project and International Organisations Research Institute of the Higher School of Economics "Enhancing Effectiveness of Russia’s Participation in G8, G20 and BRICS in accordance with Russian Priorities and National Interests" in 2011.

The article analyses the influence of existing and potential international organisations on development and implementation a political line of post-Soviet space countries inEurope. Statehood formation of sovereignBelarus,MoldovaandUkraineis taking place in the period of constant dynamic changes not only inside these states but also in the region (Eastern Europe), continent and the world. Globalisation and regionalisation processes affect more and more space and have an increasing impact on foreign and domestic policies of these independent states. In a rapidly globalising world leading countries make efforts to structure existent processes by establishing integration organisations that effectively meet the challenges of the changing world. The region, which includesBelarus,MoldovaandUkraine, is at complex geopolitical surrounding, and under influence of two integration organisations: expanding European Union in the West and emerging Eurasian Union in the East. In the absence of potential integration these two organisations have competitive and alternative relations. Therefore, East European states are affected by both organisations and this leads to a strategic dilemma and forces these states to choose a direction for integration.

The article illustrates the structure and dynamics of East European countries international cooperation with regard of international organisations and initiatives. It also describes genesis, practice and political prospects of post-Soviet states inEuropeand provides a forecast for diplomatic landscape in the region and its impact on global and European stability.

The article discusses basic characteristics of supranationality. The author explores supranationality as a legal category and studies different concepts of supranationality.  Supranationality, on the one hand, is considered as a principle of international law, on the other - as a legal phenomenon. The most common is the idea that the supranationality constantly evolving, contributing to the further development of integration processes.

Interest is the classification of international organizations on the nature of authority, allowing to allocate interstate and supranational or, more precisely, supranational organizations. This classification allows a better understanding of the legal nature of the legal acts which are adopted by international organizations and their impact on internal legal orders of the Member States. Special attention is paid to the definition of supranational nature of the international organization.

Introduction to the structure of the international organization of some supranational elements does not necessarily lead to a restriction of the sovereignty of the members of these organizations, providing a certain increase in the efficiency of the organization. Availability supranational elements in the structure of the organization does not lead to a restriction of the sovereignty of Member States. Supranational organizations does not mean the loss of the Member States of their sovereignty, but only transfer their powers jointly established international organization. Transfer of the State's powers is the cornerstone question of the theory of supranationality. The answer depends only on what philosophy adheres to a researcher or other entity interpretation.

The article outlines the similarities and differences between the two most powerful organizations in the Asia-Pacific region – ASEAN and APEC. It then examines the origins of these structures, contemporary state and future directions of its evolution. This study argues that it is in the interests of participants to keep both organizations to pursue their own national priority. In general we can say that ASEAN has been more effective structure than APEC. This is evidenced by at least the fact that ASEAN is the center of such intergovernmental organizations as ASEAN+3 and East Asian Summit. But ASEAN and APEC in fact are not competing because they were created for different purposes and under the influence of various factors. Thus, ASEAN countries need in APEC, as well as members of APEC are interested in maintaining ASEAN. Despite the prospects and APEC interest of Russian economy, Asian investors still do not recognize Russia as a promising investment land. Thus, Russia faces a major task to develop the concept of optimal interaction with regional integration organizations. Active participation in APEC activities and cooperation with ASEAN give great economic and political importance for Russian geostrategic status as the largest Eurasian power and the grow role of Russian foreign economic relations.