2019. vol. 14. No. 4

The article addresses challenges facing the designers of global governance, as well as the consequences of the mechanisms that trigger changes to the established international order. The latter, as a social construct and ultimately an ideological projection based on the interests, values and ideas that originated in the West, is challenged by emerging powers, seeking to change their status, and the electorates and anti-establishment movements in Western states, who are disillusioned with the asymmetric formula of globalization. The main aim of this article is to analyze the impact of the two aforementioned catalysts of change on the established international order. The analytic approach combines, especially, institutional tools from the field of International Relations, public statements, observations, and literature analysis. It deploys content analysis tools, especially metaphors, symbolized in the article by Weltschmerz which – as a negative scenario of global governance – is expressed by an inability to act, pessimism regarding the possibility of finding consensus, and a belief in the re-emergence of the inevitable, almost tectonic divisions between states.

The G20, established to overcome the 2008 financial and economic crisis, has asserted itself as the premier forum for international economic cooperation, most representative and authoritative mechanism for coordinating positions and forging collective decisions on economic policy issues. Members of the G7 and BRICS, the oldest club of developed industrial economies and the youngest club of the largest emerging economies, coordinate within the G20. It is argued  that in the process of consensus-building in the G20, advanced and developing countries form new ad hoc groupings on specific issues, which temporarily supersede the existing alliances, such as the G7/8 and BRICS, and allow them to pursue decisions conforming to their national interests.

This article reviews the G7 and BRICS members’ positions and coalition-building in the process of forging decisions on the issues historically central to the G20 agenda: international financial institutions reform, macroeconomic policy and financial regulation. The authors seek to reveal what role the BRICS and G7 alliances played in advancing their members’ priorities in the G20 decisions? Have ad hoc groupings of advanced and developing economies indeed replaced the traditional alliances? Was the BRICS successful in using the cooperation within the G20 to rebalance power and change the rules of the game in the global system? Has the G7 managed to maintain and consolidate its influence in the renewed system of global economic governance? What resources the BRICS possess for compensating the deficit of influence on the G20 decisions to achieve a more democratic and equitable multipolar world order and ensure sustainable, strong, balanced and inclusive growth?

The findings show that, despite contradictions within the alliances and common interests between the BRICS and some G7 members on a number of issues, ad hoc groupings of advanced and developing countries do not replace the existing clubs. The G7 members successfully use coordination within their club to resolve internal contradictions, develop a common position and jointly promote it in the G20. The G7 ensured strengthening of the IFI system and its influence in it through cooperation with new centers of power, with a slight increase in the IMF and WB quota and votes shares for the BRICS; minimum reduction of these figures for the G7; and maintaining control over the IFIs governance.  Both alliances influenced the G20 decisions to stimulate economic growth while maintaining price stability and ensuring financial sustainability. On managing the exchange rates, the BRICS and G7 acted as partners in the G20; however, the G7 demonstrated leadership in building consensus to address competitive devaluation. The G7 drove the financial regulation agenda. The BRICS established new institutions and rules. These new institutions create public goods for their members and their partners, exert catalytic influence for reform of the existing system, contribute to building a more equitable global economic governance. However, BRICS failed to change the balance of power and the rules of the game in the existing cooperation set up.

The interest of the international academic community in BRICS is constantly growing. International relations scholars are trying to explain the phenomenon of the transformation of the BRICS from an acronym into a functioning institution, to determine its potential to influence the decision-making process on key issues of global governance and to transform the current system, as well as to predict the future of the association. At various stages of BRICS development some scholars constantly predicted the inevitable collapse of the association, others questioned its ability to seriously influence the development of the international system and its institutions, while others confirmed that BRICS has a real opportunity to influence the transformation of the system, but believed that such an influence is extremely destructive. However, BRICS has also many supporters, not only among the academic community of member countries and other developing nations, but also among representatives of Western states.

In this regard, it is interesting to trace how BRICS is perceived by members of the academic community, what opinions prevailed at different stages of the institute's development, what factors could lead to a change in the nature of the assessments made, what methodological approaches are used, how serious is the influence of the general ideology that the author adheres to, and also highlight the main trends in ongoing research. Trying to answer these questions is the goal of this study.

This article considers two groups of studies on the role of BRICS in the modern system of international relations. The first includes representatives of Western countries and universities. The second analyzes the position of non-Western authors. At the same time, the aim of the study is to demonstrate the spectrum of attitudes towards BRICS by the international academic community, the methods used, the prevailing approaches, and not to express the point of view of the author of this article regarding the place, role and future of BRICS.

International trade order has entered into a turbulent phase, after the deepening of trade war-like situation across the globe. What looks like a chaotic inward-looking policy making on the surface, is actually a battle for trade and technology supremacy between the USA and China. The slow but gradual shift of international trade and business towards Asia and away from North Atlantic and Western Europe provides the backdrop of this conflict. The tendency of a shift from developed to developing countries has also started to appear. In that sense, the battle for supremacy was bound to happen, as China played the principal role in that shift.

In the process, the “golden era of trade” signified in the rise of WTO has been halted while multilateralism in trade is almost in a comatose state. Fast growing economies, including the emerging ones, are going to bear most of the brunt of this trade slowdown.

Two principal protagonists of this epic battle, China and the USA, are looking for alternative sources of economic prosperities in their own ways. In the absence of multilateral platform of trade, the action plan for developing nations is getting clearer by the day. These countries have to scout for trade alliances where each can benefit economically. To do so, each of these countries has to analyse its economy and then scout for trade partners accordingly. Unpreparedness to deal with this trade turmoil may result into disastrous consequences for these countries.

International trade is an essential factor of the socio-economic development of developing and least developed countries, including in the context of achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015. The G20, which is today the key global governance institution, can play a significant role in the implementation of the SDGs at the junction of development and trade. This article discusses the contribution of the G20 members to the implementation of the trade-related SDGs to international trade. The analysis of the collective G20 decisions demonstrated a significant contribution to the trade-related SDG targets implementation and the promotion of international development in general. At the same time, despite a significant institutional contribution to the promotion of sustainable development policies, several factors remain that impede the implementation of the SDG targets by the G20 members related to international trade.

The granting of full membership to India and Pakistan transformed the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) into the world’s largest trans-regional structure and changed the trajectory of regional cooperation. However, following the expansion of its initial Central Asian focus to the wider Eurasian region, the identity of the SCO has undergone several changes. This article argues that the SCO is in fact experiencing an identity crisis. The historical perspective and environmental background of the SCO are examined, allowing the author to characterize the unique identity of the SCO and the possible scenarios to resolve the ongoing identity crisis.

Against the background of increasing turbulence and uncertainties in the world developments, regional and trans regional organizations and structures are making their international political profile more visible. With this respect an issue of their interaction in different dimensions of global life is gaining momentum. SCO and BRICS are among them. Proceeding from the fact that both their political and economic agendas mainly coincide, as well as active participation in them of such biggest world nations as India, China and Russia, the two structures have broad prospects for deep cooperation and interaction both in global and eurasian scale. Necessary preconditions have being created in recent years by mutual move towards equalizing of foreign political component in BRICS activity, and external economic one in terms of SCO. This possibility has been encouraged  by recent coming into force of the Earasian Economic Union and by Chinese Belt and Road initiative, now on the table. Mutual cooperation and connectivity could be maintained through deepening and expanding of interactions not only at regular high level meetings of the two structures, but also through holding of their joint summits and drafting of a road map concerned.

At the same time there are significant objective difficulties with this respect, resulting from specific political interests and goals of their member nations in international arena, that are not identical enough, as well as from different level of their relations with leading western countries.

The review covers the WTO report “Can Blockchain revolutionize international trade?” The report studies the multifaceted effects of Blockchain on international trade and its multiple applications.  Digitalization of the cross-border transactions as the key effect would be particularly beneficial for the most paper-intensive processes, including trade finance, trade facilitation, trade in services, intellectual property and public procurement. The significant positive and transformative effect of Blockchain on international trade goes without saying, but the author warns against being too enthusiastic on the prospects of the full-size trade digitalization. As this requires enhanced trust between parties of the cross-border transactions, as well as international cooperation and joint efforts to build Blockchain ecosystems, and tackle legal and policy issues.