2016. vol. 11. No. 2

The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) is a new integration grouping in the post-Soviet space that is generating heightened interest as a global economy with the potential to become a new regional and global actor. This article analyzes the effectiveness of the Eurasian integration processes and proposes several actions to strengthen economic relations among EEU members through detecting and building common economic interests. Russia accounts for as much as 87% of the EEU’s geo-economic potential, which stresses the country’s role as anintegrative hub. The EEU benefits are thus unevenly distributed among its participants. Moreover, these benefits lack consistency and long-term orientation, which may threaten the EEU’s existence if markets and international economic relations change.This article analyses the interrelation and interdependency of national economies in terms of the mutual trade in goods and services and investment cooperation. It finds that the level of economic integration does not meet the interests of strengthening Eurasian integration. Despite the huge benefits of the Customs Union, trade volumes have not increased and the structure of manufacturing and cooperation ties remain unchanged. This article recommends that developing and implementing a common industrial and agricultural policy would strengthen the EEU, and proposes an approach to estimate the results of such a policy.

Russian and Chinese initiatives in Central Eurasia cannot be considered separate or mutually exclusive – Eurasian integration and the Silk Road Economic Belt complement rather than contradict each other. Successfully conjoining the two projects directly depends on Russian-Chinese relations that are based on mutual respect and political trust. Both sides are equally interested in maintaining a stable and safe Central Asia for fruitful cooperation, not competition. However, more systematic and consistent work between the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and China requires a strong and effective institutional basis and structure. The solution thus includes two important aspects. The first implies a more powerful Eurasian Economic Commission and the extension of its competence to new areas. The second means creating a special institution for intergovernmental cooperation, which could serve as a platform for a multilateral dialogue and provide ongoing day-to-day support for decision-makers and different experts of all levels. Such a mechanism would also help to elaborate a common position and policy on China for the five EEU countries. The conjoining of the EEU and the Silk Road initiative would not only boost trade among states but is necessary to develop infrastructure and investment programmes. Such a multifaceted agenda would require serious technical preparation as well as force EEU countries to compromise, because only with consent can members truly benefit.

This article considers the opportunities for Russia presented by the launch of China’s Silk Road Economic Belt initiative.This initiative is a comprehensive project for the rapid development of Central Asian countries, and not limited only to transportand logistics to guarantee the supply of Chinese goods to Europe. It is also China’s response to economic and political processes both within the country and in the Asia-Pacific region: the economic slow down and transformation of its social and economic model, diverging income levels, the growing presence of the United States in Asia, and the new divisions of labour within the region. The Silk Road initiative is based on China’s intention to create strong regional value chains, to outsource labour-intensive and environmentally harmful production, to foster the development of north west China including securing political stability in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, and to guarantee the use of Chinese construction firms’ capacity. Goods transit is a secondary priority and justified not by commercial benefits from using land routes, but by the need to diversify export risks, arising due to the deteriorating military and political situation in the South China Sea. The 2015 Joint Statement on Cooperation on the Construction of Joint Eurasian Economic Union and the Silk Road Economic Belt projects resolves the issue of all egedly competitive goals of these complementary projects. The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) provides an institutional base for cooperation while the Silk Road initiative provide investments for their development. Russia may benefit from participating in the Silk Road initiative. First, it would help integrate its transportation system into the region’s logistics network and provide additional opportunities for transit and associated logistical services as well as access to growing regional markets. Second, the Silk Road initiative offers opportunities to strengthen industrial cooperation among neighbouring countries to develop new economic clusters. Third, the EEU and the Silk Road may become the basis for more ambitious cooperation in greater Eurasia, which may transform into a new centre of economic development at the global level.

This article conceptualizes ongoing efforts to develop the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), initiated by Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan in 2011. Engaging with two major theoretical perspectives, it establishes to what extent the EEU’s construction and potential expansion is economic regionalism (interpreted also as an isolationist strategy) driven by Russia led geopolitical motives. The political-economy debate of Eurasia goes beyond a common tariff area and a common market within the territory of the former USSR. Increasingly, it involves the establishment of a common monetary area. China’s Silk Road Economic Belt is building a foundation for a new Eurasia – one of the global economic and political players of this century. The economic reasons pursued by Russia in its Eurasian initiative are inseparable from economic problems of geopolitical significance. The overarching objective of Russian policy is to establish a regional economic fusion, with significant economic sovereignty and strong political influence; that is, to become the new centre of power in the global economy of the 21st century. Correspondingly, although Russian integration policy in Eurasia has not been formulated in an anti-American way, if it is successful the likely consequence will be the withdrawal of a significant segment of the global market from the economic dominance and political influence of western-led economic blocs.

This article examines the role of Brazil as a source of international governance innovation during the Lula da Silva and early Rousseff presidencies (2003–12). The analysis details some of Brazil’s main contributions to regional and global governance, and how these contributions are rooted in ideational and normative innovation and its imaginative, nonconformist, status quo–altering foreign policy of the period. Although Brazil was not, and is not, a “new actor” per se in global governance, it did take unprecedented and dramatic strides between 2003 and 2012 to redefine the multilateral agenda and reshape institutional arrangements for international cooperation and conflict management in South America. At the global level, Brazil launched new platforms for international cooperation, including with the other BRICS countries of Russia, India, China and South Africa. The regional trends are examined in the case of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), and the innovations that Brazil spearheaded and supported in international security and health cooperation. However, Brazil’s contributions gain greater salience as part of the broader processes of global change where international power is becoming increasingly diffused and decentralized.

The current political situation in the world is becoming increasingly turbulent, which does not give an unambiguous answer to the question of the future architecture of global governance, the balance of power and the role of international forums such as the BRICS grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – the prospects of which now seem highly controversial. As president of the BRICS in 2015, Russia did its best to promote dialogue at all levels of the BRICS, especially by increasing the number of formats and meetings within the main and outreach tracks. The BRICS Economic Partnership Strategy, which was adopted at the Ufa Summit, confirmed the consolidated positions on major financial and economic issues and on the general principles for relations between the subjects of world politics and specific development issues. Important steps were taken to develop cooperation within the BRICS in energy, science, technology, innovation and other areas. Relevant documents, declarations and action plans were prepared throughout the presidency. Several inaugural BRICS events were held, such as youth, global university and civil summits, creating a civil society component that definitely strengthened the BRICS. As a result of Russia’s presidency, the group has shown interest in further consolidation and development: the more complex the situation in a member, the more it is interested in mutual support and common positions in the existing system of global governance. Although the Ufa Summit demonstrated unity among the members and their intentions to cooperate on the agenda, many meetings and consultations revealed systemic divergences.The economic crisis in several countries narrowed the opportunities for cooperation and highlighted the existing political contradictions. Nonetheless, as a powerful mechanism for positioning these large economic actors outside the interests of the Group of Seven, the external representation of the BRICS is most efficient when the countries consolidate their positions in the Group of 20 or other international organizations and communities. BRICS positions have become very noticeable in such instances. However, the BRICS countries have not yet reached an adequate level of cooperating and promoting the irinterests in the United Nations, which could be considered one trouble spot for the group.This article presents a comprehensive analysis of various factors affecting the ongoing formation and development of the BRICS, and offers possible formats for its institutionalization, expansion with new members, and options for competing with the new structures of economic growth and regional trade and economic unions. It concludes that the BRICS should remain a strategic priority for Russia.

Six years after the first 2009 summit in Yekaterinburg, the BRICS grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa has established its identity as an informal global governance forum. The members have consistently consolidated their cooperation, expanded and deepened their agenda, coordinated efforts aimed at the recovery and growth of their economies, and engaged with other international organizations. This work continued during the Russian presidency in 2015. This article focuses on one dimension of BRICS performance: its engagement with international organizations. Atleast three reasons define the relevance of this analysis. First, since its launch the BRICS members collectively committed tobuilding a multipolar, fair and democratic world order, which would not be possible without cooperating with key international organizations. Second, the objective of enhancing the sustainability, legitimacy and effectiveness of the global governance architecture defines the need for the flexible combination of different models of engagement of summit institutions with other international institutions. Third, according to Russia’s BRICS Presidency Concept, one of its priorities was to transition to a qualitatively new level of engagement with international organizations.The analytical framework for this study thus builds on the theory of rational choice institutionalism. The calculus approach fits the analysis of summit institutions bringing together states from a wide range of cultures, continents and economic development. Its distinctive features clearly apply to the analysis of the origin and performance of the BRICS. First, members act in a highly strategic manner to attain their priorities. Second, summitry presents an arrangement where strategic interaction among leaders plays a major role in determining political outcomes. Third, rational choice institutionalism offers the greatest analytical leverage to settings where consensus among actors accustomed to strategic action and of roughly equal standing is necessary to secure institutional changes – the features typical of summit institutions. Fourth, the institutions are created by the voluntary agreement of the leaders to perform specific functions and missions. In order to maximize benefits from the new arrangement, the founders may choose to engage voluntarily with existing institutions in a mode they regard most efficient for achieving their goals. The choice of partner institutions, modes and intensity of engagement is accepted to be strategic, intentional and voluntary, aiming to compensate for efficiency. The models of engagement are not mutually exclusive but coexist, with their choice dependent on the policy area and type of organization. The models of engagement with the other international organizations reflected in the leaders’ discourse are expected to indicate their place and role in the architecture of global governance, imputed to them at the summit’s launch and subsequent evolution.This study applies qualitative and quantitative methods. Drawing on a content analysis of BRICS documents, it tracks the dynamics of engagement with multilateral organizations and main models of engagement, comparing them with previous summits. Findings confirm the hypotheses that the choice of engagement model reflects the forum’s role and place in the global governance architecture and depends on the policy area and phase in cooperation development and perception of the organization’s relevance to BRICS objectives. The models are not mutually exclusive, but coexist, and transform in the course of cooperation. By establishing new institutions, the BRICS consolidates its cooperation with other organizations in a policy area. Engagement with the UN institutions and the World Trade Organization is based on the model of catalytic influence (exerting an influence for international organizations’ changes through endorsement or stimulus, or compelling them to reform), whereas with the Group of 20, the model of  “governance in alliance with multilateral institutions” has remained unrealized. In 2015 BRICS consolidated its preference in favour of two models: “catalytic influence” and “parallel treatment” (the creation of the forum’s own institutions). The BRICS continues to establish new institutions. While strengthening its own institutions, the BRICS will apply the model of governance in alliance with multilateral institutions to its cooperation with relevant international organizations.

More than 100 years ago, the concept of quantization began to go beyond natural and physical sciences. For instance, quantum numbers are used to determine the electron configuration of an atom, the probable location of the atom’s electronsand other characteristics of atoms. The main idea of quantization is the application of “double nature” logic to observed processes and phenomena, as well as to their driving forces and structure. Based on this logic, the principle of wave –particle duality was developed in physics and mathematics and provides the basis for quantum mechanics and relativistic theory. This principle applied to analysis and calculations helps to formulate fundamental theories to explain processes and structure using relativistic velocity and, in turn, describe operations of the material world at the macro and micro levels. This article applies the concepts of quantization and representation duality (which is the analysis of the dual nature of facts and events observed at the macro and micro levels) to social, economic and political data to describe the dynamics of actors and processes of the multiple connections of the global system. The analysis of the current state of world’s multiple connections in a macroeconomic context is conducted with inapproved parameters that characterize the dynamics of various changes that explain events in a two-dimensional manner.Often criticized by experts, these parameters have been supplemented by new ones, which have not yet resolved the flaw sin such a study of changes in economic processes. This article describes a theoretical concept of a structural-topological approach based on presenting global multiple connections in the form of two aggregated spaces – the space of events and the space of states – that complement each other to create a single system. The study demonstrates the representation method of the global economy illustrated through a practical analysis of integrational processes in the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union. The method presented in this article can be used along with existing research methods to understand global fluctuations.