2015. vol. 10. No. 4

This article focuses on BRICS interaction with other international organizations in fulfilling the global governance functions. The study is based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis of references to international institutions in the BRICS documents, identifying and examining the models, intensity and distribution of interactions.

The findings of the study suggest that the dynamics of BRICS engagement with other international institutions is positive. However, despite the increase in the absolute number of references, a decrease in their intensity is observed. This trend persists in spite of the expansion of BRICS agenda and the establishment of cooperation mechanisms involving BRICS and other international institutions in new areas.

BRICS engagement with international institutions is characterized by two basic models: the “catalyst” approach and “parallel treatment”. In addition, BRICS countries use mechanisms for coordinating their positions in international institutions on issues relevant to their agenda and broader policy areas. The establishment of the BRICS own institutions has not led to a noticeable decrease in the number and intensity of references to other international organizations. Thus, the BRICS and its New Development Bank and Contingent Reserve Arrangement should not be considered as one more tool for the development of multilateralism and coordination rather than alternatives or competitors to the existing international institutions.

The analysis leads to the conclusion that to further enhance the effectiveness of global governance mechanisms it is necessary for BRICS to intensify its cooperation with other institutions, giving the priority to leadership in setting their priorities and identifying new areas of work, concrete decisions to support them, delegation of mandates and development of mechanisms for coordinating the positions of the five countries rather than just discussing the institutions’ activities.

This article focuses on the evolution of systems dealing with economic globalization. The emergence of successive structures of global governance is response to tension, crisis and uncertainty generated by anarchy of international environment. The author presents the concept of the super triad of economic governance (STEG), developed between 1973 and 2008. It is characterized by a departure from the traditional triadic systems of economic triad (United States – European Union – Japan) and institutional triad (International Monetary Fund – World Bank – World Trade Organization) toward networking, trans-governance and the increasing role of leaders whose summits are opportunities to resolve global issues in economics and finance, as well as politics. In consecutive sections the article, based on the neoliberal theory of international relations and the network theory of world politics developed by Kenichi Ohmae, Anne-Marie Slaughter, John Kirton, Andrew F. Cooper and Ramesh Thakur, discusses and critiques the triadic systems in an era of economic globalization, and then explains the STEG concept and its structure. The conclusion presents the main findings.

This year is a year of Russian presidency in BRICS, and fostering of cooperation in social sphere is declared among priority themes. This article deals with the common issues of BRICS countries in social sphere and possible ways of cooperation to address them. Article is divided into four thematic areas: social protection, healthcare, housing and education. First part highlights unemployment and inequality issues. Second part deals with the questions of healthcare financing, coverage of medical services, HIV/AIDS and non-communicable diseases response. Third item is dedicated to urbanization and quality of housing issues. Fourth part underscores questions of coverage of education, expenses on it and academic mobility between five countries.

Article concludes that the analysis of the partner-countries experiences may be quite beneficial for Russia, especially in the sphere of progressive taxation as a mechanism to fight inequality, promotion of healthy lifestyle, public private partnership in healthcare, cooperation in academic mobility, education standards unification. Russia in its turn can share experience in healthcare and education coverage, national programmes of social protection of vulnerable social groups.

The Arctic Council plays a vital role in the regional international relations system. It acts as a core cooperation mechanism for the Arctic states, which allows them to coordinate their efforts across a number of issue areas. Such cooperation between state and non-state actors is needed because of harsh climate conditions, a high degree of inaccessibility, underdeveloped infrastructure and difficult overall economic situation, aggravated by problems specific to indigenous communities. The article analyzes the history, evolution and transformation of the Arctic Council, tracing the progress of its institutionalization to determine its effectiveness in addressing the most pressing regional issues, such as climate change, economic development, waterways security and safety, as well as the delimitation of the Arctic Ocean. Drawing on national documents and official statements, the article also provides information on the official positions of the “Arctic Five” countries (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States) on their involvement in the Arctic Council as well as their views on the future of such collaboration and the forum’s potential institutionalization. The institutionalization trend has pervaded the Arctic Council’s agenda since the first ministers’ meeting in 1996. Despite several members’ reluctance to see the council as a new universal international organization responsible for dealing with the full spectrum of Arctic issues, this goal was a principle motivation behind the transformation of the 1991 Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy into the full-fledged international forum. The principal limitations of the Arctic Council lie outside of the institution’s agenda and scope. Geopolitical differences and conflicts that do not directly relate to the Arctic region, such as the conflict in Ukraine, can potentially disrupt the council’s activities. However, despite these difficulties, the forum’s concrete and depoliticized agenda facilitates cooperation among the states, which continue to engage on non-political, yet nonetheless prominent, Arctic issues.