|
|
2024. vol. 19. No. 2
Topic of the issue: Cooperation for a Better Future at a Time of Fragmentation
.jpg)
|
|
|
7–20
|
The article examines the reasons for the fragmentation of the world economy and global trade at the beginning of the21st century. The author explores two aspects of this fragmentation. The first relates to the weakening of the World TradeOrganization (WTO) and its rule-making function, which has intensified regionalization, as manifested in the emergence ofmega trade agreements. Further progress of the latter, while the WTO remains relatively weak, may contribute to the futurefragmentation of world trade, from which small developing countries will primarily lose. The second aspect is largely due tothe consequences of the financial crisis of 2008–09, which resulted in the desire of key players to create more autonomousnational economies and ensure economic security to avoid excessive costs in the event of future crises. This gave rise to talkabout strengthening deglobalization trends. The second aspect also includes the U.S. – China trade war with technologicaldecoupling between them, the influence of geopolitical factors on trade, and the impact of industrial policies of large stateson trade. The final part of the article provides a brief analysis of the negative impact of fragmentation on the global economyand trade. The author concludes that geo-economic fragmentation poses a real threat to the global economy.
This article was submitted on 05.02.2024. |
|
|
21–55
|
Global political economy has been experiencing a new normal period through the COVID-19 pandemic and theUkraine War since Jan. 2020. At the same time, the trade conflict between the USA and China has been continuingsince the Trump Administration and even expanding to the technology conflict under the Biden Administration thathas enhanced protectionism in the world trade. Due to these conflicts, discussions on de-globalization or re-globalizationare raised. The two expected or unexpected historical events have resulted in a long wave of high inflation,energy and food crises, disorder of global supply chains etc. in the global economy, which is known as a new normalera shifted from low inflation, well-functioning global supply chains (GSCs) based on division of labor. In order tostrengthen its economic and political leadership, the Biden government has upgraded the Trump’s America FirstPolicy to the Made in America Policy based on Chips and Science Act (CSA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),which represent a new era of protectionism. In parallel, the EU has also considered to impose Net Zero Industry Act(NZIA) and other Acts. The research hypothesis is that protectionism in the name of economic security generatesinstability of the world trade. Its result may be negative impacts of some East Asian economies. This paper aims toanalyze the new trend of protectionism in the USA and the EU. It also focuses on impacts of protectionism on EastAsia in general and South Korea in particular.
The article was submitted 14.11.2023. |
|
|
56–69
|
Rather important goal for international relations is to improve methods for studying of interstate dialogue. The author paysattention to the format of intergovernmental consultations. The goal of article is to explore the functioning of the format onthe example of Germany, which uses this one in the dialogue with 12 other states. The problems of the functioning of theformat are still not in the details explored in Russian political science. Usually, the format is established by one power forthe cooperation with another power or the very important ally among small and medium-sized states. The frequency of themeetings is established for each format. Compliance with frequency or violation of it, especially interruption of the work arethe indicators of the dialogue development. One meeting in the format lasts only one day and it determines the scheme ofthe negotiations. The countries should focus on the most perspective and, on the contrary, the most problematic tracks of theagenda of bilateral relations, even if these negotiation priorities differ from the conceptual guidelines for each state. The keyvariants of the end of the meeting in the format are presented.The article explores the geography and chronology of establishment of the formats with German participation. Beforethe XXI century there was the long period of time between the launch of every two new formats. In the early – mid 2010s andearly 2020s there were the waves of newly established formats. The author stresses the absence of the ones between Germanyand the Arabian states, Iran, the African ones and explains the reasons. The difficulty for Germany was also the creationof formats with the Anglo-Saxon states. Another problem has become since the mid 2010-s the “freezing” of some formats(with Russia), the long interruption of their functioning (with Brazil, Italy, Poland, Turkey), the violation of frequency (withFrance, Netherlands, Spain). The article shows the reasons of such situations in each case. At the same time there has beenstable functioning of the mechanisms with India and China, even when the confrontation between the PRC and the USA hasbegun. The author concludes that in the 2010s Germany has tried to make the system of the formats of intergovernmentalconsultations global. But by the beginning of the 2020s these efforts were unsuccessful and there was the degradation of theprocess.
The article was submitted 09.10.2023
|
Digital Platforms Regulation in the BRICS. Challenges and Cooperation Perspectives
|
|
70–92
|
Digital platforms act as private regulators of their ecosystems. However, until recently, these platforms have not been objects of regulation by the state. Currently, many jurisdictions adapt and update their consumer protection and competition policy instruments and introduce ex ante regulation to protect consumers and competition in digital markets. Regulatory problems derive from the nature of platforms’ business models, the transnational character of their operations, and the significant resources necessary to ensure regulation enforcement and monitoring. Coherence of regulatory approaches applied by different jurisdictions creates legal certainty, reduces costs of compliance and prices, and ensures consistency of requirements with regard to the quality of platforms’ services and user protection. Despite the advantages of policy coherence, cooperation develops slowly and is fragmented due to a contestation over the influence on the rules of governance.
This article reviews the main problems and key approaches to the digital platforms’ regulation, and the challenges of, and perspectives on, international cooperation. The study draws on a survey of research articles, national documents on digital platforms policies and EU regulations, analytical materials of research centres and international organizations, and assessments of regulatory practices by concrete jurisdictions. The article explores problems and approaches to ensuring protection of users and fair competition, ex ante regulation application, and multilateral initiatives. In conclusion, the authors put forward some ideas on international cooperation perspectives.
The article was written on the basis of the RANEPA state assignment research programme.
This article was submitted 25.03.2024. |
|
|
93–109
|
Brazil is a major market and both the G20 and BRICS member. It is particularly important to analyse Brazil’s positionon digital platforms and markets regulation in the context of its G20 Presidency, where since the beginning of the year ithas been trying to agree on common solutions to regulate digital platforms, especially in the aspect of content moderationand the fight against fake news. The fight against misinformation and hate speech is one of the central themes of Brazil’s2024 G20 presidency programme, which aims to ensure the integrity of information in the digital environment. Accordingto Brazilian officials, preventing the spread of misinformation requires action on four directions: guaranteeing regulationby holding digital platforms responsible for the dissemination of illegal and harmful content, implementing media educationstrategies, strengthening professional journalism, and expanding public policies aimed at disseminating correct informationto the public.The aim of this article is to identify Brazil’s main priorities in digital platforms regulation. Project laws dedicatedto the regulation of digital platforms are analyzed, as well as the political context of their submission and consideration,because they were proposed during and following the 2018 and 2022 electoral campaigns. Coordinating positions with Brazilon the regulation of digital platforms may help to better address the interests of developing countries, as well as marketswhere large technology companies play a significant role but are subject to the laws of other jurisdictions
the article was written on the basis of the RANEPA state assignment research programme
This article was submitted on 05.04.2024
|
|
|
110–126
|
Given the active formation and development of digital platforms in Russia, discussion of possible approaches has intensifiedand legislative changes have been initiated aimed at improving regulation in platform markets. The Ministry of EconomicDevelopment and Bank of Russia have published the Concept of Regulating Digital Platforms and Ecosystems and the report“Ecosystems: Approaches to Regulation,” respectively. The competition legislation has been supplemented, primarily withinthe framework of the Fifth Antimonopoly Package, along with regulations aimed at protecting consumer rights on digitalplatforms. The Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation (FAS Russia) and representatives of business participatedin developing tools for digital platforms’ self-regulation.The purpose of this article is to analyze approaches to regulation of digital platforms in Russia and to identify difficultiesin its development and opportunities for improvement. The study is based on the analysis of legislation and law enforcementpractice, scientific articles, and analytical reports. Based on the results of the analysis, the authors make conclusionsregarding possible future directions for regulatory developments and proposals for deepening international cooperation.The approach to protecting consumer rights on digital platforms in Russia combines the extension of previously existingnorms to the platform economy with the addition of some new norms relating to aggregators of information about goodsand services. Antimonopoly regulation follows the same approach, while, as part of the Fifth Antimonopoly Package, ruleshave been introduced aimed at eliminating illegal practices of dominant platforms and ecosystems.Based on the results of the analysis, the authors forecast further regulatory developments, which may relate to a widerange of aspects, from the unification of terminology and the introduction of new criteria for classifying platforms as dominantto the appointment of platforms’ contact points for communication with authorities and consumers and interdepartmentalcoordination. The authors recommend using the regulatory experience accumulated by both western jurisdictions andpartner countries, taking measures to promote Russian approaches at the international level, and intensifying cooperationon the regulation of digital platforms in multilateral formats, primarily in the BRICS group (including Brazil, Russia, India,China, South Africa, and others). the article was written on the basis of the RANEPA state assignment research programme.
This article was submitted on 12.04.2024 |
|
|
127–144
|
India’s government set the goal to grow the country’s digital economy to $1 trillion by 2025–26. Dynamic growth of digitalmarkets is one of the government’s priorities for attaining this goal. Digital platforms are important drivers of growth. Simultaneously,big tech’s non-competitive practices create risks of economic and moral damage for consumers and distort competitionin the markets. India’s authorities shape regulation of the digital markets in two main directions: consumer protectionand prevention digital platform behaviours which might impair competition. To protect consumers, the government hasamended the consumer protection rules and expanded their application to digital enterprises. India adopted the ConsumerProtection Act (2019), the Consumer Protection in E-Commerce Rules (2020), and the Digital Personal Data ProtectionAct (2023). To ensure contestability, fairness, and transparency in digital markets, in 2023 the Competition (Amendment)Act was approved by Parliament, placing digital markets within the legal framework of competition. The Committee on theDigital Competition Law developed a draft Digital Competition Bill (2024) which aims to regulate systemically significantdigital enterprises through an ex ante approach.The article reviews the government of the Republic of India’s policy on digital platform regulation, exploring themain instruments and difficulties in shaping the new system and determining a regulatory approach. The study draws on asurvey of the regulatory bills and rules, reports, bill drafts, experts’ assessments, and research articles. The authors focuson the amendments to the consumer and competition protection laws adopted in recent years. The article concludes withthe authors’ views regarding the adoption of the Digital Competition Bill and perspectives on India’s interest in deepeninginternational cooperation on digital markets regulation, including in the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China, SouthAfrica, and others) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). the article was written on the basis of the RANEPA state assignment research programme.
This article was submitted on 29.03.2024. |
|
|
145–160
|
With the increasing importance of digital platforms as an infrastructure for the digital modernization of industry,the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is moving a comprehensive, but more flexible, model for their regulation. The distinctivefeatures of this model include the requirement to ensure interoperability of large platforms, interoperability of socialnetworks and mobile payments, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by platforms, and three-way interaction betweenAI developers, platform operators, and inspection authorities. This article presents the results of monitoring the key decisionsof the Chinese leadership in changing the regulatory model for digital platforms in recent years, as well as analyzing thePRCʼs policy of regulating digital platforms in three key areas – competition protection, ex ante regulation, and consumerand personal data protection. the article was written on the basis of the RANEPA state assignment research programme
This article was submitted on 15.04.2024.
|
|
|
161–182
|
South Africa represents an actively developing digital services market that ranks among first in Africa. The local marketattracts major international companies that endangers local suppliers threaten with prospects of loosing competitive marketpower and overall monopolization of the segment. Loose of competitive power by local suppliers threatens the country’s datasovereignty and users data safety. Digital platform services suppliers’ regulation issues are among the most demanded researchtopics that is especially important for the BRICS bringing together digital growth leaders from the countries of globalmajority.The article presents results of South Africa’s digital platform services regulation framework analysis. The paper reliesupon the author’s personal attempt to examine the country’s existing regulatory framework as well as upon reports presentedby competent international expert groups and the national regulator. The analysis indicates existence of systemic constrainsreferring to institutional arrangements within the digital platform services provision regulatory framework along with imperfectionof the local legislation. The author claims that South Africa’s experience in promotion of the local businesses might beof interest for the competent governmental bodies of Russia. For South Africa deepening of cooperation within the BRICS isone of the top priorities as its realization would provide firm ground for implementation of the country’s development goals.
the article was written on the basis of the RANEPA state assignment research programme.
This article was submitted08.04.2024 |
|
|
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
© 
