G20 — The Australia Summit: Brisbane
Australia took over the responsibility for coordinating the G20 work from Russia, accepting the rotating presidency of the forum on December 1, 2013. Most commentators argue that the Russian presidency was a success in terms of strengthening G20’s institutional framework, its legitimacy and effectiveness.
G20 leaders met in St. Petersburg under the trying economic conditions. Sluggish global growth, persisting imbalances and downside economic risks demanded that the forum concentrates its efforts on developing and adopting a set of measures aimed at boosting strong, sustainable and balanced growth, along with job creation, around the world. Similarly to the previous summits, these traditional priorities constituted the core of the Russian G20 presidency agenda.
The Russian presidency managed to ensure a proper balance between its national interests and the partners’ priorities, utilizing the G20 capabilities to respond to the key global governance challenges. Сonsolidating members’ efforts to address core economic and financial issues, the G20 also launched its work on such risks as increasing income disparities, chronic underinvestment in the safe and secure modern infrastructure, unforeseen negative consequences of regulation.
Economic inequality is increasing both within and across countries. Growing inequality has negative economic, social and political consequences, it constrains economic growth, undermines social cohesion and political stability. Eradicating causes of inequality and turning structural barriers to equality into opportunities is fundamental for generating strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth. Transition to this growth model will depend on G20 coherent policy actions globally and nationally.
In the run up to the St. Petersburg G20 summit the Civil 20 initiated preparing a report and recommendations to G20 focused on surmounting the risks originating from growing income inequality. A special Task Force, bringing together experts from G20 member countries has been established to draft the report. Presented and discussed within the Russian G20 Presidency Civil Society Track (www.g20civil.com), the report provides an independent analysis and proposals for a dialogue between a wide range of stakeholders and the G20 governors on the G20 concerted policies and actions to improve economic equality within their countries and beyond.
This set of policy recommendations on how G20 can address inequality takes full account of the existing authoritative, best available, consensus, analysis and evidence of the IMF, OECD, UNDP, other international organizations and relevant scholarly, civil society and policy communities, as summarized above. It builds directly upon the extensive evidence and analysis of the causes and practical policy cures for income inequality in the G20 member countries, as identified in the country reports prepared by and for members of the Civil 20 Task Force on Equity (currently including Australia, Canada, China, France, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Korea, Russia, Turkey and the US).
The Civil 20 propose that G20 leaders at their St. Petersburg summit can act together to improve income and economic equality within their countries and beyond by agreeing the Saint Petersburg Initiative for Strong, Sustainable, Balanced and Inclusive Growth affirming the value of equality and inclusion along with economic growth and efficiency.
The G20 has proved that it can respond to crises. It has to live up to the expectations that it can prevent global risks, break dead locks other institutions responsible for resolving critical issues were unable to break. Challenging a plethora of skeptics G20 is now a long term process in motion. The G20 leaders’ decisions on the Mexican 2012 Presidency’s five priorities, which are broadly shared across the G20 members and beyond, are expected to advance global financial and economic stability; promote growth and jobs creation through structural reforms; make progress towards international financial institutions reform; strengthen financial regulation; enhance food security and mitigate commodity price volatility. The summit commitments and their implementation by the G20 and relevant international institutions will show how much the expectations held would prove to be the expectations met.
The paper presents analysis of the G8 and G20 assistance to developing countries in overcoming the consequences of economic and financial crisis. It assesses the G8's and G20's implementation of key global governance functions and highlights their engagement with international organizations. In conclusion the author gives recommendations for rational division of labour between the institutions in international development assistance.
For the past 37 years, the annual G8 summits have generated a wide breadth of declarations and communiqués binding the leaders to hard commitments across a diverse range of global policy issues. The extent to which the G8 members comply with their annual commitments has, in recent years, become a hotly contested topic, pitting academics, politicians, policy wonks and newsmakers against each other in an effort to understand whether commitments by the G8 do, in fact, matter. Given this era of ongoing domestic political constraints and conflicting global demands, does the G8 have the ability and, indeed, the capacity not only to make, but also to keep the commitments its members collectively generate at their annual summits?
The article analyses the EU activity in assisting developing countries to develop energy sector throughperspective of the functional approach. The author identifies the EU approach by assessing EU compliance with the G8 commitments on assisting developing countries to develop energy sector. The assessment is made on the basis of the analysis of EU implementation of its commitments made in four major spheres of international engagement for energy development, such as ensuring developing countries’ access to modern energy sources, clean energy development, raw natural energy resources, sustainable management and environmental protection. In order to ensure comprehensive and unbiased assessment the author applies the methodology of global governance delivery function approach and compares EU compliance with compliance of other traditional donors such as USA and emerging donors such as Russia. In conclusion some recommendations on how to raise effectiveness in assisting developing countries to develop energy sector are made for the Russian Federation.
One of the popular answers to the challenges of the modern world is the concept of global governance. Does it exist really/ This is the questyion J/ Kirton answers in his book.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.