• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site
Of all publications in the section: 12
Sort:
by name
by year
Working paper
Sergey L. Barinov, Petr K. International Relations. IR. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2014
Euroregions is an important and quite popular mechanism of cross-border cooperation. Character of institutions development differs essentially between three groups of states, which use this mechanism: old members of the European Union; new members of the European Union (entered the EU after 2003); CIS members. This comparative research is concerned with the main circumstances of euroregions development in three areas noted above. The analyses show the fundamental differences between three Euroregion cases: Oresund, Pskov-Livonia and Dnieper. Those differences are noticeable in legislative basic, financing, cooperation issues, and even in four basic Euroregions principles realizing. Meanwhile we see that after fifteen years of copying the Euroregions in post-soviet countries the positive shifts occur in CIS members’ government perception and in the decision making process.
Added: Oct 11, 2014
Working paper
Soboleva E. International Relations. IR. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2015. No. 18.
Most states in East Asia (Northeast and Southeast Asia) are ethnically diverse and have experienced or are currently experiencing ethnic conflict. Although, intrastate ethnic conflicts are in the domain of domestic politics, they often become “internationalized”, when an external state becomes involved. How can the difference in the behaviour of East Asian states regarding intrastate ethnic conflicts in other states of the region be explained? Scholars of international relations (IR) have come up with a variety of explanatory factors for a state’s decision whether to intervene. This paper presents an overview of the major theories and evaluates their explanatory power for IR in East Asia after the end of Cold War. The results presented in this paper lay the groundwork for the future qualitative empirical research
Added: Oct 30, 2015
Working paper
Bratersky M., Krickovic A., Gokmen G. International Relations. IR. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2016
Politicians, pundits and experts in both Russia and the US frequently bemoan the “underdevelopment” of US-Russia trade, arguing that political factors have inhibited the development of economic ties. It is also often argued that political relations between the two countries would also be more cooperative and less conflictual if these ties developed up to their full potential. The paper seeks to test the conventional wisdom that the US-Russia trade is underdeveloped by employing a standard gravity model to measure where trade between the two countries “should” be. We find no evidence that the US-Russia trade is underdeveloped. In terms of its ability to live up to the predictions of the model, trade between the two countries is predicted by the standard determinants of trade, suggesting that there is nothing erratic about the US-Russia trade and it behaves like any average country pair. These findings suggest that USRussia trade relations actually live up to their economic potential and that the commonly held idea that political relations between Russia and the US can be dramatically improved by tapping into the “unfulfilled” promise of improved trade relations is unfounded. Moreover, our analysis demonstrates that the sectorial structure of the two economies, factor endowments and comparative advantages do not seem to indicate that there is significant potential for increased trade, as the conventional wisdom would suggest. The conventional view argues that poor political relations have impeded the development of economic relations between the two states. But, in fact, the opposite may be true: relations between the US and Russia are characterized by rivalry and conflict because there is little solid economic grounds for more pacific relations.
Added: Sep 14, 2016
Working paper
Ershova N. V. International Relations. IR. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2015. No. WP BRP 19/IR/2015.
This paper analyses the factors attracting Japanese capital to Russian economy and challenges that Japanese business face in the process of adaptation to Russian business environment. The purpose of the research is to reveal and systemize factors restricting investment cooperation development and their roots and to find out possible ways of overcoming these challenges using the strengths of investment ties between the two countries. The research is based on the content analysis of interviews with Japanese business, academic community and non-governmental organizations representatives as well as on the results of the survey of Japanese companies participating in the Moscow Japan Business Club (JBC).
Added: Oct 7, 2015
Working paper
Ershova N. V. International Relations. IR. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2014. No. WP BRP 07/IR/2014.
The paper addresses the aspect of regional differences in the approach of Japanese investors toward projects in Russia. The comparison of the major macro-regions that attract Japanese investment (Far-Eastern and Western regions, including Central and North-Western Federal Districts) allows to reveal the critical differences in the industrial distribution that reflect specifics of economic development and investment climate of these territories. However, the Western and Eastern parts of Russia complement each other in terms of investment attraction and contribute to the development of multifaceted and diversified framework for investment cooperation between Russia and Japan.
Added: Nov 12, 2014
Working paper
Grigoriev I. International Relations. IR. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2014. No. 11.
The article discusses the role of the European court of justice in the so called third pillar of the European Union. This role, from virtually non-existent in the early 1990s when the third pillar was introduced into the institutional structure of the European Union, grew extensively throughout the 1990-2000s and by the time the pillar structure was abandoned in the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, the Court has already effectively escaped its limitations by its own case-law. This provides a curious example of judicialization – the process whereby legal institutions gain political power and engage into taking politically salient decisions alongside, and sometimes even instead of politicians acting within majoritarian institutions. By reviewing the ECJ case-law in the third pillar the paper attempts to establish the effect of judicialization on the EU, to evaluate it and to answer the question whether the role of the ECJ grows too fast in the third pillar.
Added: Dec 29, 2014
Working paper
Dekalchuk A. A. International Relations. IR. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2014. No. WP BRP 05/IR/2014.
This article attempts to solve the empirical puzzle posed by the way the Finnish diplomatic missions issue Schengen visas to the Russians. Building on the theory of the Self and the Other, a theoretical expectation about the uniformity of the Schengen visa regime is brought forward and further checked against the legal reality of the European Union common visa policy and the Finnish-Russian visa issuance arrangements. The case study of the experience that the Finns have with the Russians coming to their territory and history of the Finnish-Russian relations is carried out to dismantle the panoply of motives and meanings laying behind a particular visa regime and to show how the interplay of various political, economic and social factors works to produce peculiar policy outcomes. The main findings prove that despite both theoretical expectations and legal rules governing the Schengen borders and visas, in practice different member states apply the ‘common’ regime differently depending on both economic rationale and historical memories.
Added: Oct 22, 2014
Working paper
Likhacheva A., Kalachyhin H. International Relations. IR. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2018
The idea of the lagging Pivot suggests that the Russian policy of the “Pivot to the East” cannot last successfully on a long-term basis given the extensive lag between the political and economic dimensions of the Pivot, in Russia and abroad. One of the most inevitable and necessary conditions of bridging this gap can be found among the instruments of trade liberalization. Here we should shift our focus from Russian interests to the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) which has a privileged mandate on merchandise trade negotiations with third countries and blocs like ASEAN: Russia has not been able sign any FTA on its own since 2015. However, this puzzle was relatively poorly studied both in Russia and abroad and this paper attempts to fill this gap. We briefly analyze the scope of trade between Russia and key Asian markets (which still remain mostly limited to North-East Asia) to define the most sensitive export markets for Russia, then we systematize existing barriers which could be potentially eliminated by international trade negotiations and compare them with existing international activity of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC). The results of our study clearly demonstrate an objective demand for more intensive EAEU activity on trade liberalization in Asia with a particular focus on non-tariff barriers (NTBs).
Added: Nov 17, 2017
Working paper
Suslov D. International Relations. IR. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2012. No. 02.
To a big extent the Russian defense policy and, as a consequence, development of the Russian defense industrial complex, is determined by the prospects of the US missile defense policy and fate of the US-Russia negotiations in this area. As a cooperative solution seems improbable in the observable future, Russia plans to develop certain response measures of military nature, including creation of a new heavy  ICBM, and to create its own missile defense by 2015. However, this policy does not seem correct from the economic, political and security viewpoints. Russia overestimates the possible military challenges of the hypothetic US missile defense system and invests huge funds into fighting non-existent threats. A US-Russia cooperation in missile defense is possible, and it would fundamentally change their overall relations for the better.
Added: Jan 17, 2013
Working paper
Suslov D. International Relations. IR. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2012. No. 01.
The contemporary Russian military-industrial complex to a great extent still remains a shortened and shrinking copy of the old Soviet military machine, which is less and less capable of defending Russia from the real threats and challenges and stimulates  ineffective spending of financial resources. The reason is that the logic of the Russian defense policy, which determines structure of the military-industrial complex, did not change since the Cold War. This logic is strategic deterrence of the US. Today more factors objectively unite Russia and the US in the world rather than separates them. However, Moscow is still committed to maintaining a parity (or at least an illusion of parity) with the US in the strategic nuclear sphere and regards it as a criteria for its military security and maintenance of a great power status.
Added: Jan 17, 2013
Working paper
Dekalchuk A. A. International Relations. IR. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2015. No. WP BRP 23/IR/2015.
By studying the process of reform of the Schengen acquis in 2011-2013 inspired by the Arab Spring and the inflow of migrants to the Mediterranean shores of the European Union, in this paper I seek to show how policy entrepreneurs exploit windows of opportunity that open following an external shock (a notion I use to conceptualise the events of the Arab Spring) in order to fulfill their own preferences, regardless of the substance of the external shock in question. How could it happen that the reform initiated by Italy and France in 2011 to “re-nationalise the Schengen” would in the end turn just the opposite of what they sought to achieve? My research suggests that the major factor which helps explain this is the institutional standing of the European Commission which holds exclusive right of legislative initiative, and the fact that by using its position, the Commission was able to win over the European Parliament to its side by effectively making it into a veto-player in its negotiations with the EU Council, thus trapping the Member States into the “joint decision trap”.
Added: Dec 29, 2015
Working paper
Гринин Л. Е., Коротаев А. В., Исаев Л. М. и др. International Relations. IR. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2017. № WP BRP 29/IR/2017 .
The present working paper analyzes the world order in the past, present and future as well as the main factors, foundations and ideas underlying the maintaining and change of the international and global order. The first two sections investigate the evolution of the world order starting from the ancient times up to the late twentieth century. The third section analyzes the origin and decline of the world order based on the American hegemony. The authors reveal contradictions of the current unipolar world and explain in what way globalization has become more profitable for the developing countries but not for the developed ones. The paper also explains the strengthening belief that the US leading status will inevitably weaken. In this connection we discuss the alternatives of the American strategy and the possibility of the renaissance of the American leadership. The last section presents a factor analysis which allows stating that the world is shifting toward a new balance of power and is likely to become the world without a leader. The new world order will consist of a number of large blocks, coalitions and countries acting within a framework of rules and mutual responsibility. However, the transition to a new world order will take certain time (about two decades). This period, which we denote as the epoch of new coalitions, will involve a reconfiguration of the World-System and bring an increasing turbulence and conflict intensity. There are grounds to conclude that in 2011–2012 the World-System experienced to some extent a phase transition to a qualitatively new state of global protest activity. This phase transition is shown to bear some resemblance to the one which the World-System experienced in the early 1960s. The first (after 1919) phase transition of this sort occurred in the early 1960s and was related to the growth of global informational connectivity after the World War II, as well as the improvement of the means of protest self-organization due to the spread of television, portable radio receivers, portable electric loud-speakers and other technologies of the Fourth Kondratieff Cycle. The phase transition of the early 2010s was prepared by a new wave of growth of global informational connectivity, as well as the improvement of the means of protest self-organization due to the spread of various technologies of the Fifth Kondratieff cycle (the Internet, satellite television, Twitter and other social networks, mobile telephony etc.). Similarly to what was observed during the Fourth Kondratieff Wave, during the Fifth Cycle while the spread of these technologies was going on for many years before 2011, their internal colossal potential for generating and spreading protest activity was realized in one leap, as a phase transition.
Added: Apr 16, 2017