A. Ignatov, M. Larionova, I. Popova, A. Sakharov, A. Shelepov
{"title":"Russia in Key International Institutions","authors":"A. Ignatov, M. Larionova, I. Popova, A. Sakharov, A. Shelepov","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3904840","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3904840","url":null,"abstract":"The whole complex of pandemic, economic, and social crises has become a kind of a stress test for the system of multilateral cooperation as it is weakened by geopolitical conflicts, contradictions between the key members and growing mistrust due to stalled reforms of international organizations and their inability to cope with a host of global issues. Even prior to the pandemic outbreak, 2020 did not promise to be easy. Deepening inequality, deceleration of economic growth, acceleration of climate change, fiercer competition for digital technologies, and the fragmentation of cyberspace demanded joint efforts at the regional and global levels. The human toll, contraction of GDP by 5.2%, a 13% drop in trade, a 60% plunge in oil prices,4 and a loss of an equivalent of 495 mn of full time jobs5 have aggravated long-term challenges by simultaneously casting aside cooperation to overcome them. In this context, it was paramount to balance the urgent agenda and long-term objectives.","PeriodicalId":290360,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Other International Cooperation (Topic)","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128370277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"BRICS and Global Restructuring: Notes for the Near Future","authors":"Charis Vlados, Dimos Chatzinikolaou","doi":"10.18639/MERJ.2020.1075592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18639/MERJ.2020.1075592","url":null,"abstract":"The multipolar cooperation between Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) countries seems to be a significant development in the current phase of restructuring of globalization. This article explores the relationship between the emerging radical readjustment of the world hegemony equilibrium with the past and future dynamics of the global socioeconomic system. It examines the relation of the ongoing institutionalization by the BRICS with the established international institutions and the relation of BRICS to the promotion of global economic development. After presenting a structured interpretation of the actual emergence of a “new globalization,” the article focuses on the aspects of BRICS\u0000evolution and dynamics that contribute to the discussion of the rise of a more balanced and more democratic multipolar global regime. It notices that multipolar cooperation at the international level should be more democratic as the BRICS claim, although these countries (China and Russia, in particular) face increasing concerns for their liberal rights\u0000and democratization domestically. In conclusion, it seems that a new and relatively stable global system now requires a repositioned conception of capitalism as an evolutionary socioeconomic phenomenon, in which innovation is the central and predominant organic process within all organizations.","PeriodicalId":290360,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Other International Cooperation (Topic)","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132364034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Asylum Providers: Hawks or Doves?","authors":"Yuji Tamura","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3067137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3067137","url":null,"abstract":"I examine the subgame-perfect Nash equilibrium of an asylum provision game in pure strategies, assuming that asylum is an international public good. An equilibrium does not necessarily exist because the players. payo¤s are not quasiconcave. When an equilibrium exists, it is either unique or multiple. When multiple equilibria arise, the game is a variant of hawk-dove game. Multiple equilibria suggest the counter-intuitive possibility that the more popular destination is more open to refugees even though openness is not modeled to boost popularity.","PeriodicalId":290360,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Other International Cooperation (Topic)","volume":"80 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114370394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Systemic Balancing and Regional Hedging: China-Russia Relations","authors":"A. Korolev","doi":"10.1093/CJIP/POW013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CJIP/POW013","url":null,"abstract":"There have been noticeable attempts in recent International Relations scholarship to introduce the concept of “hedging” as an alternative to “balancing” and “bandwagoning.” The analytical value of such conceptual innovation is not clear because adding a new term to the already rich mix may cause confusion. This paper argues that to be useful for the analysis of great power politics, hedging should be understood not as an alternative to balancing or bandwagoning, but as a phenomenon of a different order. In contrast to balancing or bandwagoning, which describe great powers’ behavior in response to system-level forces, hedging denotes interstate political matters unfolding at the unit and regional levels. The analysis of China-Russia relations supports this understanding. Both great powers are strategically on the same page with respect to resisting unipolarity and other issues of global politics, but their strategies often diverge with respect to purely bilateral relations or policies in their salient geographic environments. This two-level nature of China-Russia relations – balancing the Unipole while hedging toward one another – suggests that their global strategic behavior and regional bilateral interactions are subject to different causal forces that push in different directions. The former is a reaction to system-level pressure, whereas the latter is a result of multiple unit-level factors. Therefore, in the analysis of great power relations, hedging has a particular place on the ladder of levels of analysis.","PeriodicalId":290360,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Other International Cooperation (Topic)","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116887428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：