The article examines the current state and major achievements of the research on international institutions and their role in world politics. The author explores the meaning of this notion, which due to its multiple interpretations, remains problematic. He differentiates the understanding of “institution” as rules of the game in society from its alternative conceptualization as an association, which becomes an actor of social interaction. Despite the various approaches regarding “international institutions”, the author includes in his definition both existing norms of international interaction and their reflection in organizational structures. Given the practice of conducting international affairs, it is possible to identify various types, including institutions-norms, institutions-organizations, institutions-integration groups, institutionsclubs, institutions-practices and institutions-dialogues. The author does not only characterize these types, he attempts to employ them to reconstruct the broad institutional map of the world in its evolution since the end of the Cold War. The author views the operations of the current international institutions as a part of the growth of structural complexity of the world. The emergence of new players on the international arena – non-state, formal and informal, permanent and temporary – impacts international affairs in a substantial way. Moreover, the multiple connections tied between these actors, the rise of their needs and ambitions and the growth of tensions also add to the complexity of the current institutional dynamics. These developments stimulate proliferation of international institutions, which find themselves responsible for the new tasks, including establishing communications between states and non-state actors, coordination of their interests, resolution of disputes and prevention of conflicts. In the context of growing global problems, which cannot be solved by single country alone, international institutions integrate efforts of multiple states, in order to respond to the specific set of challenges.

The article deals with issues, related to the functioning of international law in the current International Relations. It claims that in the absence of universal authority in global affairs, the interpretation and implementation of law depends on the specific legal traditions of states. Therefore, their comparative analysis is essential to understand prospects of enforcement of international norms, as well as general prospects of the international legal order. This is especially true in regards to the major centers of power in international affairs, including both established and emerging powers. A retrospective analysis of the Anglo-Saxon system of "common law" is provided. The paper emphasizes that the case-based approach to international law, together with the ability to interpret the law in the interests of one great power, poses a threat of the establishment of a unipolar world. The article gives a detailed description of specific features of the "continental" legal system, such as the rigidity of the law that, on the one hand, makes it less adaptable to the changing environment, and on the other hand, constitutes international law as a mechanism of regulation of relations. The paper highlights the attitude of BRICS countries to international law through the prism of civilization aspects, together with the contribution of the member countries in strengthening the international legal framework. The article provides recommendations for BRICS countries on their possible contribution to the advancement of international law, as well as on the development of an agreed position on the most important legal and political issues among participating countries.

The article studies trends in Ukrainian migration before and after the 2014-2015 armed conflict. Migration links between this country and Russia traditionally remained strong due to the geographic and ethnocultural closeness. The political crisis entailed massive flows of Ukrainian refuges. Ukrainian citizens form a group of desirable migrants – most of them speak Russian fluently, want to live in Russia and are highly qualified. Some of them are even ethnically Russian and many come from mixed Russian-Ukrainian families. The Russian Federation is one of the main directions for the migration of Ukrainians. Meanwhile, there is an ongoing discussion in Russia focused on correcting migration policy in order to employ more diversified approaches. Experts and state officials have identified the need to attract highly qualified specialists and immigrants from similar ethnical backgrounds. Given these priorities, Russian migration policy could be expected to welcome Ukrainian citizens. After the beginning of the military actions in Ukraine some doors were opened for them. However, by the end of 2015 the Russian migration policy started once more toughening the procedures. Ukrainian migrants are facing growing problems to participate in state programs of resettlement in Russia, in receiving temporary or permanent residence permit, and in applying for citizenship. On the strategic level, Russian migration policy is still far away from perception of Ukrainian migrants as an important labor and demographic resource for national development. The state needs to revisit its approach to its neighbor’s citizens and use the current geopolitical context in order to attract them into its regions.

The ukrainian crisis emphasized disagreements among major international powers, which started to grow even earlier due to the increasing autonomy in their policies. Its major but not unique consequence become widening of tensions between Russia and the U.S., which forced Moscow to seek new partnerships beyond the West to increase its power. The article aims to identify new aspects, which Russia is required to take into account in the new strategic context in order to protect its interests and prevent greater challenges through softer counter-threats as well as calculated diplomatic maneuvers. It focuses on the mid-risk scenarios rather than prospects of full-scale military confrontation. The Ukraine crisis due to the mediation efforts by Franco-German tandem, presents some positive developments, but this does not presume restoration of the status quo ante among major powers. During political maneuvering of the last few years, status concerns of major players were heavily affected. Henceforth, now they are eager to respond with available tools, including political influence, military might and prestige. Their relations evolve into a game, which could end up as bluff or could lead to serious consequences. Under the new circumstances the U.S. started to pay more attention to the balance of power – category concept, which they seemingly forgot two and a half decades ago. Meanwhile, Russia is engaged in the search for the new partners both in the institutional domain (which was reflected in the enlargement of the SCO), or in economic and social connections.Western markets have not closed for Russian businesses, but it has become harder to make profits there. Therefore, China without any hurry will acquire the position of primary economic partner for Moscow, sidelining the EU. Russia’s interest towards other BRICS economies is growing as well. Meanwhile, there is significant underutilized potential in Latin America. The article examines the logic of economic cooperation as well as research and educational exchanges between Russia and international partners.

The European Union plays a salient role in the global arena. Yet to conceptualize its global role is a tough proposition if we remain within the scope of traditional international relations theory characterized by state­centrism. Indeed, the EU is commonly believed to be a sui generis entity, something between a state and an international organization. In the 2000s its position in international relations was commonly defined through the concept of “normative power”. However, this framework seems insufficient to explain diversity of the roles the EU assumes in international politics. Organization theory provides a partial solution to this puzzle, especially the meta­organization concept developed on its basis. They allow to treat both the EU and its member­states as organizations (although each of a different kind), which interact in the sphere of global governance, de facto competing with each other for authority. When compared to individuals, the smaller organizations composing meta­organizations emerge as less manageable. Thus, it is more problematic for a meta­organization, than for an organization per se, which includes individuals, to function as the global actor that it definitely is. In the international arena a meta­organization faces limitations that states never have. That notwithstanding, the establishment and maintenance of norms that states are expected to follow is, without doubt, of primary importance for meta­organizations. In this article EU efforts in regional and global coordination of financial transaction taxes, as well as EU participation in the global climate governance regime are presented as two examples which substantiate the specifics of its functioning in the global environment in the capacity of a meta­organization.

Russian foreign policy faces a substantial structural adjustment of the international system, which affects national interests to a significant degree. Increasing uncertainty and growing tensions in its relations with Western states make greater analytical skills in decision making and an ability to communicate more effectively its intentions and strategies all the more necessary, to have a positive impact on the global intellectual discourse. The Russian academic community graduating from the learning stage of its development of the 1990s, has made an impressive leap forward in the understanding of the current international transformations both on global and institutional levels. New research fields and disciplines have developed intensively in recent years. Still, the Russian academic community remains largely on the periphery of the existing system of international research communication. There is a gap in this respect separating it not only from leading Western research institutions, which remain the trend setters of the global intellectual landscape, but also from the new emerging centers of academic production. The risks caused by the lack of representation of Russian experts in international academic discourse forced the national leadership to identify it as a priority problem. Response to this challenge should incorporate existing rich traditions of Russian academic schools, and therefore rely on institutions of self-governance of the national professional community. Reorganized educational and methodological associations of Universities need to fulfill this coordinating role. Given the growing global competition, they are expected to facilitate the transition of the Russian University to a new innovative training method in International Relations and Area Studies.

Political Science, International Relations and Area Studies emerged in the Russian University system as independent and rapidly developing educational and research disciplines. However, recognition of their importance beyond the professional community remains far from universal. Therefore, Russian Universities are struggling to create training programmes, aimed to prepare specialists capable of dealing with various urgent issues of domestic politics and foreign policy. This task presumes careful study of rising challenges in the global system as w ell as advantages and shortcomings of the existing educational model in Russia. The current article seeks to identify major conditions, determining future prospects of teaching in international politics. The author claims that in recent decades three major transformations appear as crucial. First, the rise of New Modernity reflected the growing nonlinearity in societies. Second, political orders experience a continuous reshuffling after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Third, major centers of economic production are transferring to Asia. Russian tradition of Political thought opens wide opportunities for understanding these shifts. However, the professional community has to adapt to the new conditions and, first and foremost, cope with the existing gap between University studies and practice. This requires provdingstudents with methodological and other tools to conduct professional expertise of complex strategic interactions. The current reform of methodological organization of the educational process enables to solve this problem systematically through a specialized institution – federal University associations for educational methodology. In accordance with the reform, the renewed FUAEM incorporates separate, but interrelated disciplines – Political Science, International Relations and Area Studies. Bringing them together within a single institution does not presume their unification, but rather amobilization of intellectual and organizational resources.

The U.S. has traditionally claimed a key role in the protection of international legal norms, including the use and exploitation of the ocean’s space and resources. This sphere is especially significant for it, as control over maritime routes is essential for American national security and prosperity. Therefore, the current article focuses on the current state of the U.S. policy regarding regulation in the World Ocean. The U.S. struggles against other states excessive maritime claims in the framework of the Freedom of Navigation Programme (FON). Its implementation is crucial not only to ensure US commercial and economic interests, but strategic and military also. First, it guarantees the possibility of American armed forces’ rapid transfer by sea. However, in some respects international maritime legislation restricts the United States ability to protect its interests. The U.S. fights against threats which pose a challenge to all countries of the world community like nuclear proliferation, piracy, maritime terrorism, all the while itself directly violating the norms and provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Moreover, the US desire to ensure itself a priority level of naval and intelligence activities leads Washington to broad interpretation of conventional norms. It also attempts to interpret some of the norms as part of the common legal order, which is applicable beyond Conventional terms. As a result, the US ocean policy can be qualified as contradictory and inconsistent because of its non-participation in the 1982 UNCLOS and because of it continuously encourages other states to respect the Convention's norms. The article, however, identifies some developments, which could force the United States to revisit its position and maybe join the 1982 UNCLOS.

The redistribution of power in the group of leading world powers is related to the rise of China and the comparative weakening of the U.S. positions in world politics. It has a substantial impact on the development of the U.S.-Japan alliance, which has been one of the most stable and important elements of regional architecture in East Asia in recent decades. Meanwhile, such a topic has been neglected by the research community in recent years. The purpose of present article is to reveal contradictions in the evolution of the U.S.-Japan military-political alliance and identify current trends of its transformation. The authors conclude that complications may arise in the interaction of China and the U.S. because of policies adopted by other countries. In particular, the intensification of the contradictions between China and Japan could lead to the engagement of the United States in the dynamics of their rivalry. The article considers the conceptual issues of the modern theory of military-political alliances, and analyzes the possible impact of "alliance dilemma" on the behavior of the world's leading powers. In addition, it includes an analysis of the evolution of U.S.-Japan relations in the military-political sphere since the 1950s. The article claims that contrary to the period of bipolar competition the nature of the contradictions in this bilateral alliance have changed fundamentally. Before the 1990s Japan's main concerns were related to the probability of being involved in conflicts with the communist powers, initiated by the United States; today Japan is much more concerned about the prospect in which it will be left without U.S. support in its conflict with China. The United States, by contrast, have to rely on Japan’s assistance in the military, political and technical spheres more widely. However, they are concerned about the political venture of Japan against China.

The article deals with the features and some implications of the so-called “third wave” of economic sanctions imposed by the European Union (EU) and the United States on the Russian oil and gas industry. Particular importance is attached to analyzing the state and the influence of long-standing problems of the Russian energy branch before the West embraced its sanction policy. The author considers particular sanctions and draws conclusions about their effect on the longterm development of the Russian economy, emphasizing the resulting investment shortages. In the short term sanctions hardly affect the Russian oil and gas industry as the restrictions on technology transfer are less detrimental, than the financial sanctions. However, cooperation with China is unlikely to mitigate the challenge. On the contrary, Russia could suffer substantial losses in the long term as the West blocks the development of oil and gas fields in the Arctic and Western Siberia. Still, it creates an opportunity to advance the national industry, given Russia is able to  mobilize its inner resources. Interstate trade statistics show that sanctions are a double-edged sword. The USA is suffering less than the EU as its bilateral trade with Russia is not as substantial as that of the EU. Anyway, western countries do not seem to be fully aware of implications of their steps in the mid and long term, especially, as regards their own interests. Western sanction policy considerably affects American and European transnational corporations that are doing business in Russia. Damaging the Russian oil and gas industry by depriving it of modern technologies will have a negative impact on the whole world energy market.

Interview with Tatiana Shakleina.

The article examines the processes of constructing identities in Moldovan ethnic minorities of Gagauz and Bulgarians. It reflects the results of the field study in relevant regions of the country in 2015. As Moldova is located in a contested zone defined by competition between Russian and European discourses the local population faces a serious, although misleading geopolitical choice. The authors attempt to illustrate the discursive complexity and specific features of Gagauz and Bulgarian national identities with the examples of their spatial images. While the representatives of the two groups migrated to the Moldovan territory simultaneously and lived side by side for a long time their identity developed in different ways, due to the variety in external pressure and opportunities. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the Gagauz minority managed to acquire some administrative and political autonomy. Meanwhile, the Bulgarian population retains wider set of identity choices. So far, it refused to join the Gagauz autonomy and engaged in some cooperation with the state of Bulgaria. Both ethnic groups, however, suffer from depopulation and pressure from the dominating Moldovan elites. They attempt to achieve more inclusive national space in Moldova and at the same time rely on ties with the Russian culture and state to respond to the ethnic majority. The Russian language and memories of common co-citizenship in the Soviet Union remains a significant part of their identity. The preferences of Gagauz and Bulgarians stipulate them to choose the pro-Russian geopolitical orientation (with some certain divergence) which allows the authors to state the variety and multidimensionality of geopolitical discourses in Moldova.

In the second issue of International Trends in 2015 Igor Istomin and Andrei Baykov published an article “Russian and International Publication Practices”. While it tries to explain the underrepresentation of Russian authors in Western academic journals by analysing the methodological differences between scholarly communities, Alexey Fenenko claims that Russian specialists struggle to get published in the West for ideological reasons. It identifies ideological principles, which determine acceptance in an American discourse on International Relations. They include belief in a long-term stability of the world order, which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union, trust in the moral superiority and historical inevitability of liberal democracy and globalization and the acceptance of the U.S. leadership as their principal guarantor. The author, further, argues that the Russian expert community does not share these central axiomatic provisions, advanced by their Western colleagues, therefore, any discussion between them appear to be fruitless. Russian scholars either expect that the American-centric order will disintegrate soon or identify signs of this disintegration, already. An absence of the common ideological framework precludes spillover in the methodological field. Henceforth, Russian academics become reluctant toward quantitative methods so dominant in the U.S., which rest on a hypothesis of long-term sustainability of political landscape. Russian scholars after excesses of uncritical studying of the American mainstream in the 1990s and early 2000s, over the last few years appear to have become disillusioned in the Western understanding of the international affairs. Unlike Istomin and Baykov, the current article expects growing renationalization rather than integration of expert communities both in Russia and the United States. As a result much of the channels for dialogue between Russian and American scholars are destroyed.

A book review: Sakwa R. Frontline Ukraine: Crisis In the Borderlands.  London & New York, I.B. Taurus, 2015. – 320 p.

Books review:

Мировое комплексное регионоведение: Введение в специальность: Учебник / Под ред. А. Д. Воскресенского –  М.: Магистр, НИЦ ИНФРА-М, 2015. – 448 с.

Мировое комплексное регионоведение: учебник / Под ред. проф. А. Д. Воскресенского. М.: Магистр, НИЦ ИНФРА-М, 2014. – 416 с.

Практика зарубежного регионоведения и мировой политики: учебник / Под ред. проф. А. Д. Воскресенского. М.: Магистр, НИЦ ИНФРА-М, 2014. – 560 с.

Books review: 

Бло И. Россия Путина. М.: Книжный мир, 2016. 240 с.

Россия удивляет 2015: настроения, суждения, ценности / Совместное издание ВЦИОМ и Центра социального проектирования «Платформа» при поддержке Фонда ИСЭПИ. М.: ЭКСМО, 2016.

Развитие институтов и накопление качества. Российская политическая система между федеральными выборами 2011 и 2016 года / Колл. авт. М.: Rethinking Russia – ИСЭПИ, 2016.

Идеологическая основа и практика политики позитивной дискриминации в Западном мире / Колл. авт. М.: Фонд национальной энергетической безопасности – ИСЭПИ, 2016.