2020. vol. 15. No. 1

In recent decades, economic growth in developing economies and the growth of the middle class lead to a surge in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Within the framework of the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals established in 2015, the solution to poverty and inequality thus comes into conflict with climate change mitigation.

The existing international system of climate regulation does not address this contradiction. Today, global climate governance relies on estimates of aggregate emissions by countries without considering their level of development and the distribution of emissions among income groups within each country. Emissions from production are being monitored, while consumption-related emissions, albeit known to experts, rarely underlie decision-making. Meanwhile, income distribution has a higher impact on consumption-based emissions in comparison to production-based ones. Decisions on emissions regulation are made at the national level by countries with different development agendas in which climate change mitigation often gets less priority in comparison to other socio-economic objectives.

The growth of the digital economy has become the most significant trend in global development. The digital economy creates new impetuses for economic growth, but at the same time it deepens global inequality and impacts the growth of countries of the global South. The role of global governance institutions such as the BRICS grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — the main representative of developing countries in global governance — in the promotion of digital growth has not yet been fully explored. There is also some ambiguity concerning the development level of the digital economy in particular countries. In the context of Russia’s third BRICS presidency in 2020, issues of digital development in BRICS have become particularly relevant. The author analyzes current indicators of digital development in the BRICS countries, drawing on several existing methodologies, ratings, and decisions made by BRICS on issues of digital growth and levels of compliance, and makes recommendations for the further development of BRICS’ digital agenda.

The article discusses current trends in the Russian practice of international development assistance (IDA). Despite international isolation, the Russian government continued to increase its allocations for official development assistance (ODA), which, from 2015, amount to about USD1 billion annually. The author identifies key problems in the field of IDA related to monitoring and evaluation, the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and interaction with the business sector. The author describes the actions of the government in its quest to solve these problems. Special emphasis is placed on a comparative analysis of the SDG indicators with indicators of national development goals until 2024. This makes it possible to link Russian goals with international priorities. The theoretical basis of this study is the  ‘systemic change’ and ‘scaling up approach’, which are often used in research on development economics. A “large-scale approach” allows us to measure the scale of Russia's participation in construction and installation work in terms of the number of allocated resources, the number of stakeholders involved, geographical coverage, etc. The “systemic change” approach explains how Russia's development cooperation activities are aligned with national goals and the SDGs, as well as the transformation in the structure and dynamics of the system, which leads to an impact on the material conditions or behavior of stakeholders.

In conclusion, the author reflects on the prospects for the creation of a national monitoring and evaluation system in the area of ​​IDA, as well as on the possibilities of contributing to the achievement of the SDGs by 2030. One of the directions could be increased participation in the formation of new international development institutions, including the creation of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) along with the expansion of bilateral programs in the field of international development assistance.

Implementation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) is one of the key elements of the current international agenda. But some countries, in particular, the least developed countries (LDCs), face serious difficulties in doing so. Such states have very limited internal resources and cannot ensure their own development; as such, they require the involvement of more developed states. Therefore, a key factor to ensure sustainable development is the facilitation and widening of trade and investment cooperation with partners that can provide financing support for the most urgent investment gaps, demand for export products, and imports of necessary goods and services. Traditional collaboration models with partners from developed countries cannot fully meet the needs of the LDCs in the current international context. This situation provides windows of opportunity as new power centres pursue their economic and political goals. China (PRC) has a special place among these emerging powers.

Despite efforts by the international community to curb international terrorism, it remains one of the main threats to international security. A main reason for this is that international terrorism has significant financial inflows and their routes transform faster than the international countermeasures designed to stop them.

The aim of this article is to identify existing and potential financial channels. The authors analyze antiterrorist legislation to define the theoretical and legal framework for this research and draw on empirical content from the reports of international organizations, the Group of 20 (G20), the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, and others.

This article shows that the main sources of terrorism financing include taxes paid by foreign enterprises functioning in the occupied lands, taxes paid by local populations, profits from resource and goods trade, captured treasures trade, payments from non-governmental organizations, and financial fraud.

By the end of XX–the beginning of XXI century the importance of humanitarian and social issues in the world has sharply increased. Humanitarian and social means began to be intensively included in military and economic actions and play a significant independent role. As a result, there was an increase in the importance of “soft security” aspects, and an expansion of this field.

This has affected the UN Security Council, which began to pay more attention to humanitarian and social issues, which was demonstrated with the statistical method.

The range of humanitarian issues discussed by the Security Council and the list of actors sponsoring resolutions on humanitarian issues has expanded. In the late 1990s–early 2000s the Council begins to consider large amount of humanitarian issues: security issues of individuals in armed conflicts (civilians, children, women, UN and humanitarian personnel); civilian aspects of conflict management and peacebuilding; and separate issues of “soft security” (humanitarian assistance and such “soft threats” to security as HIV/AIDS epidemics, food crises and climate change). In addition, the Council also addresses human rights violations.

The promotion of humanitarian issues in the Council on separate occasions was facilitated by high-ranking officials who put a premium on humanitarian issues; various UN bodies and organizations, mainly with humanitarian mandates; some non-permanent members of the Security Council who wanted to leave their mark in the Council’s history; various NGOs. In turn, some countries opposed the adoption of measures that they consider to be within the internal competence of their states.

The history of the millennium development goals (MDGs), the achievement of which experienced a major setback with the outbreak of the 2008 global economic and financial crisis, may provide some useful insights on the global partnership for the sustainable development goals (SDGs). There is a vast literature devoted to the MDGs. Most of the analysis is focused on the implementation and progress made toward achieving the MDGs. Fewer authors explore reasons for shortfalls or describe intrinsic limitations to the MDG framework, including limitations in the development, formulation and content of the MDGs themselves.

This article reviews cooperation on the MDGs, exploring the priorities of different stakeholders and the challenges to progress inthe broader context of development and global governance.The review focuses on MDG 8, developing a global partnership for development. Added to the MDGs due to Kofi Annan’s leadership, MDG 8 helped to attract support from developing countries which viewed the MDGs as reflecting a one-sided deal favouring the interests of rich countries. Inclusion of the goal to reform the international economic system appeased some critics of the international development goals that were put forward by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and taken as the basis for the MDGs. This article argues that despite the endeavour by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly to steer the development of global partnerships, extrinsic barriers such as lack of political will on the part of the key stakeholders, the financial crisis, and vested interests prevented deliveryon MDG 8’s key target ofdeveloping an open, predictable, rule-based, non-discriminatory trading and economic system. Achievement of this goal is necessary in order to create the equitable and inclusive international order demanded by developing countries for decades. Most markedly, a lack of progress on MDG 8’s goal of addressing systemic issues of global economic governance became the greatest challenge to achieving the MDGs, and the greatest disappointment. Systemic problems were inherited by the SDGs, the achievement of which requires a truly global partnership able to build a new economic order as a foundation for inclusive and sustainable development.