2021. vol. 16. No. 1

The rationalization of production and consumption patterns lies at the core of sustainable development as it determines the level of anthropogenic impact on the environment, which is ultimately the subject of all international climate arrangements. This topic broadly encompasses not only sustainable development goal (SDG) 12, but also certain aspects of SDGs 7 and 11.

The role of BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) in promoting the concept of sustainability globally is determined by their place among the leading producers and consumers of natural resources and emitters of pollutants, as well as the parties to major global agreements in this area. This article focuses on the institutional contribution of the BRICS agenda to the international community’s efforts to achieve the SDG targets related to the rationalization of resource production and consumption.

The role of information and communications technology (ICT), high-speed communication infrastructure, digital content and the digital economy is expected to grow in the post-pandemic society. Simultaneously, competition for digital technologies and solutions and the contest to influence norms, standards and regulatory mechanisms is escalating. The new regulatory mechanisms and approaches are concurrently being shaped in the key international institutions, including the United Nations (UN), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), the European Union (EU), the Group of 20 (G20) and the BRICS group of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

This article presents analysis of the current cooperation on issues of digital economy regulation within the main international institutions. The study aims to assess the influence of the existing and emerging regulatory mechanisms on the balance of power between the key international actors.

This assessment of the emerging mechanisms’ impact on the balance of power among international actors indicates that advantages and leverage capabilities accruing from them are distributed unevenly. The advanced members of the OECD and the G20 gain significant advantages, and there is a risk that the new mechanisms will consolidate the balance of power embodied by the Bretton Woods system, which has successfully resisted decades-long endeavors for its reform.

However, regulation of the digital economy is not yet built as an established order.  A window of opportunity was opened in 2020, not only to implement the G20’s 2008 pledge to reform the international financial and economic architecture, but also to build a new digital economy governance system, ensuring thatemerging markets and developing countries have a voice in decision-making commensurate with their weight in the global economy.

Central Asia is extremely important for the security of Russia, China and the Eurasian region, both historically and at present. Unconventional security challenges, led by terrorism, extremism and separatism, which in the official Chinese rhetoric and official documents of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are designated as the ‘three forces of evil,’ pose a serious challenge to the security of China, Russia, the countries of Central Asia and Eurasia in general.

Over the 20 years of the SCO’s history, proceeding from their ‘Shanghai spirit,’ the participating countries have created unique legislative and organizational mechanisms for a joint strike against the ‘three forces of evil,’ as well as mechanisms for bilateral and multilateral antiterrorist exercises. The most important of these is the Peace Mission joint exercise, which has been regularly held since 2005.

Digitalization is one of the dominant processes in contemporary economic development, both on the national level and globally. The process of articulating and implementing digital economy policies is underway in the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and in 2017 the EAEU Strategic Directions for the Development of the Digital Agenda Until 2025 were adopted. Identifying the specificities and challenges of the digital agenda’s implementation in the context of integration processes in the region is the aim of this article. The study focuses on the interaction at the supranational level of decision-making within EAEU institutions, as well as the interaction of the national and supranational levels. The author concludes that the projects and initiatives are being implemented as a part of the agenda, albeit slowly. The other envisaged mechanisms require a much higher level of harmonization, for which EAEU leaders are not yet ready. The main features of the digital agenda’s implementation in the EAEU are the primacy of sovereignty, diverging levels of digitalization of members in both access to infrastructure and regulatory frameworks, project-based approaches to implementation, absence of a digital agenda in the EAEU Treaty and involvement of expert communities.

Based on analysis of the legal and regulatory framework, the following recommendations can be made: an institutional and legal framework for the digital agenda should be established, coordination between the national and supranational levels should be improved, digital strategies should be adopted and synchronized in all member states, the selection and implementation of initiatives should be improved, best practices should be adopted, and cooperation with international organizations and theEuropean Union (EU) should be developed.

For Russia, the development of a digital agenda within the EAEU and deepened integration (or development of cooperation) are necessary to ensure the realization of national interests in a priority region—the post-Soviet space—especially given the increasingly active developing regulatory influence of other actors, primarily the EU. Given the growing importance of digitalization as a driver of economic growth and the increasing competition for influence on the regulation of the digital economy, a priority for the Russian Federation should be to resolve the contradiction between the principle of primacy of sovereignty and the development of integration. A possible way out could be an approach based on ‘multi-speed integration,’ as tested in the EU. Another option could be a complete revision of the model of interaction with neighbours in the region.

The article examines the current foreign trade relations between the EU and Central Asia. Based on econometric analysis, it sets out possible perspectives for the further development of mutual trade relations in the time of geoeconomic changes. As one of the most important integration groupings in the world, the EU has a significant influence in promoting its foreign trade interests. Central Asia is a part of Asia consisting of several states that are members of different regional integration groupings with different priorities. The result of the research is an analysis of mutual foreign trade relations. Character and perspective of mutual trade relations is assessed by using of selected one-factor indicators (trade complementarity index and trade intensity index). With the help of time-series forecast model, the article also tries to estimate the future development of EU exports as well as EU imports in relation to Central Asian countries. While the EU imports from Central Asian countries are dominated by minerals and fuels in the long term, EU exports consist of more sophisticated and diversified production. This represents the potential for further development of the business relationships and growth of mutual trade. In the case of favourable circumstances, a continuing growth trend in trade can be expected, especially on the side on EU exports.

In recent years, the "Major non-NATO ally" (MNNA) status has become more prominent in American foreign policy. Media representatives are interested in following: who will be the next MNNA, what privileges will the country receive, and can the status be granted as an alternative of joining NATO? The purpose of the article is to illuminate the prerequisites for status appearance and its legal foundations, to study the MNNA’s role as the American foreign policy instrument.

This article reviews the key topics and debates in Hegemony and World Order: Reimagining Power in Global Politics (Routledge, 2020), edited by P. Dutkiewicz, T. Casier, J. A. Scholte. The volume covers several issues related to hegemony in contemporary politics from neo-liberal, realist, constructivist, neo-Gramscian, world-systems and postcolonial theoretical perspectives. The concept of “complex hegemony,” briefly evaluated in this review, and the analysis of the recent stage of globalization presented in the volume offer meaningful contributions to the theoretical debates. From a more practical perspective, Hegemony and World Order dwells on the future of world order and the prospects for alternative hegemonic projects, including those sponsored by China and Russia. Additionally, the hegemony of non-state actors in global governance is studied in detail. The review considers the ability of the leading states to execute complex hegemony and discuss the demand for hegemony in the context of the transformation of world order.