Ocean Governance Diplomacy

         The ocean ecosystem contributes at least 21 trillion dollars annually to the sustainability of the planet biosphere. The respective contribution of land ecosystems is estimated at 12.3 trillion dollars. As the use of ocean resources expand, the need for an effective mechanism to ensure global responsibility for the state of the ocean is also on the rise. National governments, international forums a as well as NGOs and expert groups must intensify search for arrangements that would assign proportional responsibility for the ocean to individual states and transnational entities. The ocean should be treated as a global ecosystem whose regional and national components are tightly interconnected. The borders of these components rarely coincide with national borders or the limits of territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. Some 80 percent of ocean pollution originates from coastal areas - habitat of more than half of the world population. To address this problem, a Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities was adopted in 1995. The UN Agenda XXI designates the use of ocean resources as a major direction in the development of civilization. The UN estimates the annual value of ocean resources produced globally at 7 trillion dollars. Within this amount, fossil fuel and other mineral resources only account for 1 trillion dollars. Multilateral bodies have called upon states to formulate policies which duly correspond to the unity of global biosphere, including its land, atmospheric and ocean components. Equally essential is to set up mechanisms for a joint management of economic activity in coastal areas and to ensure that state borders not hinder effective environment protection policies. Ecological borders should under certain circumstances be given priority over formal state borders. Generally, the ability of humankind to increase the global protection of ocean environment is a litmus test to globalization. We cannot afford to fail to deliver on a comprehensive system of ocean governance as a means to combat some of the most acute challenges of globalization.

Political Dimensions of Outer Space

         Several new trends in the exploration of space have become manifest by the late 2000s. First, the space industry - the world's largest industrial branch - is becoming increasingly more privatized. In 1996 corporate profits earned on space programs for the first time surpassed cumulative state spending on the exploration of space. Second, the deployed private space infrastructure, such as the Global Positioning System, is ever more employed for military purposes. Third, the scale of international cooperation in space research and technology is expanding against the backdrop of an insufficient legal base intended to regulate such cooperation. To ensure beneficial cooperation in the conquest of space there is a need for a more solid consensus within the UN and other multilateral bodies charged with developing the law of outer space. A comprehensive convention on the use of outer space could turn various common practices and bilaterally adopted norms into universally binding rules. While the Russian Federation has invariably promoted the idea of such convention, the United States remains largely critical seeking to preserve the freedom of hands in American space programs. Differences persist regarding the concept of outer space. While the majority of states, including Russia, propose a 100–120 km boundary between airspace and outer space, Washington insists that this distinction be rather defined by the type of the used equipment - either aircraft or spacecraft. The issue of outer space debris is often resorted to by states to impose on each other their own standards of space launches and activity. Security of Borderlands By Sergey Golunov
An underresearched concept, 'border security' has become highly contested in IR studies. The framers of 'desecuritization' theory suggest replacing it with 'border management' to emphasize the day-to-day nature of border regimes and challenges. Other scholars use the notion of border security to examine security implications of mass violations of border regimes.
Most recently, the transnational security threats posed by globalization have attracted much attention to border security as a practical issue. Traditional protection of borders from military threats have given way to the mounting of firewalls to shield states from diffuse organized criminal activities and undesired information flows.
However, the current technical means of border protection against contemporary challenges are proving ineffective. Most notably, they do not help against illegal migrants on the U.S.-Mexican border or drug traffickers from Afghanistan spreading across Eurasia. Border regime violators have so far been able to successfully adapt to the new technologies used by border protection forces. This leads to increased militarization of borders, which, in turn, breeds social discontent. Another area of enhancing border protection has been the gathering and management of personal data. The relevant technologies and implications form the focal point of an emerging subdiscipline of 'surveillance studies'.
The easing of border regimes among developed countries has revealed the political salience of psychological perceptions of borders. Borders play an important role in providing the feeling of being shielded from outside dangers. Conversely, lax border regimes generate the feeling of insecurity among citizens.

Security of Borderlands

         An underresearched concept, 'border security' has become highly contested in IR studies. The framers of 'desecuritization' theory suggest replacing it with 'border management' to emphasize the day-to-day nature of border regimes and challenges. Other scholars use the notion of border security to examine security implications of mass violations of border regimes. Most recently, the transnational security threats posed by globalization have attracted much attention to border security as a practical issue. Traditional protection of borders from military threats have given way to the mounting of firewalls to shield states from diffuse organized criminal activities and undesired information flows. However, the current technical means of border protection against contemporary challenges are proving ineffective. Most notably, they do not help against illegal migrants on the U.S.-Mexican border or drug traffickers from Afghanistan spreading across Eurasia. Border regime violators have so far been able to successfully adapt to the new technologies used by border protection forces. This leads to increased militarization of borders, which, in turn, breeds social discontent. Another area of enhancing border protection has been the gathering and management of personal data. The relevant technologies and implications form the focal point of an emerging subdiscipline of 'surveillance studies'. The easing of border regimes among developed countries has revealed the political salience of psychological perceptions of borders. Borders play an important role in providing the feeling of being shielded from outside dangers. Conversely, lax border regimes generate the feeling of insecurity among citizens.

Global or World Security?

         Almost a decade into the 21st century, there is still little agreement among observers on the fundamental parameters that underlie the system of international security and the way the system has changed since the end of the previous era. Much has been said about the growing impact of non-state actors. Some scholars have even suggested that states more often find themselves locked in military confrontation with non-state actors. On top of that, internal armed conflicts now pose threats and project instability far beyond the countries in their immediate neighborhood. Nonetheless, the state strikes back in the form of new tougher domestic security arrangements that sometimes impinge upon individual rights and liberties. The international community has realized that weak and failed states are no less dangerous to international security than strong and powerful state actors. The agenda of international security has expanded to involve environment protection. All forms of pollution, climate change, as well as natural calamities, inflict no smaller damage on the international community than inter-state and civil wars. This is equally true as to epidemics of contagious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS. Over the past 100 years more people have died at the hands of their own governments than on battlefields of inter-state wars. This fact points to the salience of human security as opposed to state regime security. Relations between major producers and consumers of hydrocarbon energy resources are becoming increasingly “securitized”. Disruption of energy transit or disputes over rights to develop resources at high sea, including the Arctic, may pose just as serious threats to national security as military confrontation with another state. The “globalization” of security has a number of important caveats. Most importantly, some regions produce much greater impact on international security than others. Also, the short-lists of most acute security threats vary from one country to another. They also evolve with time. As a marked example, the Russian leadership has demoted “international terrorism” to the tenth position lately while emphasizing the “expanding presence of external powers in the areas of traditional Russian influence”.

Russia in the Global Space of Perceptions

         Russia's dominant international image combines controversial and sometimes contradictory concepts of a “country at the crossroads”, “resurgent evil empire” and a “normal Western-type state”. Some of the challenges faced by both Russian officials and businesses abroad stem directly from “image problems” and misconceptions. Moscow needs a more proactive image-making policy which should emphasize the positive features of Russia as a country and an actor on the world stage. Internally, Russia needs to overcome the deep distrust of people towards the state apparatus which is commonly perceived as manipulative and egoistic. As indicated by the polls, disillusioned Russians tend to prioritize the image of Russia as a “powerful and self-sufficient state” over that of a “democratic and wealthy country. Russia's image in the outside world is seriously influenced by the centuries-long history of ideological struggle between Russia (the Soviet Union) and the West. To make matters worse, the current cohort of “Russia experts” in Europe and the United States is largely formed by Russian ?migr?s, whose shared psychological profile includes inclination to criticize Russia aggressively and irrationally. Despite complaints about “unfair” image, the polls suggest that Russia is treated abroad better than the United States, China, Iran, or Israel. Existing mainstream IR theories have direct implications in terms of Russia's international image. From both realist and liberalist perspectives, Russia emerges as a regular example of either a “great power” pursuing its national interest through all available means or a “non-democratic” state which is naturally prone to an assertive international posture. Globalization theories as well as the world-system approach point out Russia's vulnerability as an insufficiently competitive state sitting on the periphery of the developed community. More favorable for Russia are constructivist theories which emphasize the role of ideas and identities as important political factors.

Political Consultations in World-Political Studies

Islamic Societies inside the European Union?

“Weak States” in American Analytical Discourse

Motivations of Central and Eastern European States vis-a-vis the Iraq Crisis

PERSONA GRATA

Faces and Personalities

A “Lost Decade” in Arms Control

The Case of Kosovo and Prospects for Transcaucasia

To Recognize or not to Recognize?

OUR NETWORK

Forum Strengthens the Academic Community

Debating Spaces of World Politics

SCRIPTA MANENT

Reviews

The Power Factor in U.S. Policy
Kurt M. Campbell and Michael E. O’Hanlon. Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security. New York: Basic Books, 2006. 319 p.

Europe as “Anti-America”
Andrei S. Markovits. Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007. 275 p.

Realism with a Human Face
Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman. Ethical Realism: A Vision for America’s Role in the World. New York: Pantheon Books, 2006. 228 p.

“Irregular” Integration and Outdated Integration Standards
Mark Beeson. Regionalism and Globalization in East Asia: Politics, Security, Economic Development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. 324 p.

Case Study Methods
John Gerring. Case study research: principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Textbook Creating
Алексеева Т.А. Современные политические теории: Курс лекций. М.: РОССПЭН, 2007. 464 с. Алексеева Т.А. Политическая философия: От концепций к теориям: Учебное пособие. М.: РОССПЭН, 2007. 397 с.

IN MEMORIAM            

Ivan G. Tyulin (1947-2007)

In brevi

A POTENTIA AD ACTUM

New doctorships

Contents and Summaries

Our authors