Search results

In recent years, discussions about the essence of humanitarization and humanization of international relations have intensified due to the aggravation of economic, social, and ethical problems against the background of a sharp deterioration in the international situation, particularly in the Global South. This paper aims to identify the specifics and provide a comparative analysis of the approaches of both the developed and developing states of the North and the South to the formats, content and purpose of humanitarian diplomacy in contemporary world politics. The first section examines academic discussions on the issues of humanitarian diplomacy. The authors highlight two main approaches in foreign and Russian international political studies to addressing the humanitarian problems of the Global South — an objectal and a subjectal ones. The former is typically associated with the developed countries of the Global North and is rooted in the practices of the colonial era. The latter gained prominence in academic research in the 21st century with the emergence of the 'new donors', which promoted joint development programs led by the countries of the Global South and built on regional financial institutions. At the same time, the authors note that academic research tends to focus primarily on the dynamics of aid flows and conditions for development assistance, while a number of current trends in the humanitarian diplomacy remain understudied. These trends are examined in the second section of the article. The authors emphasize the growing trend towards transnationalization and privatization of humanitarian diplomacy, active involvement of non-state and hybrid actors. The third section outlines the key features of humanitarian diplomacy of the leading countries of the Global South (China, India, Turkey), as well as that of the ASEAN states and Arab monarchies. The authors identify several general principles of humanitarian diplomacy shared by the countries of the Global South: a broad, pluralistic understanding of the humanitarian agenda to include cultural, scientific, academic, and youth policy issues; commitment to the ideas of solidarity and humanitarian cooperation (instead of the donor-recipient model); normative neutrality of the humanitarian policy; adherence to the principles of state sovereignty.

The IBSA Fund, which marks its 20th anniversary in 2024, has extended SouthSouth cooperation to 34 states since its establishment in 2004. This article aims to compare the recipients of bilateral development assistance from IBSA members with IBSA Fund projects' partners. The objective is to discern the motivations behind the selection of the Fund's project partners, assess the influence of member states on partner selection, and explore the potential benefits of including Russia and China (both BRICS and New Development Bank participants) as members. The authors analyze the structure, mechanisms, and priorities of IBSA projects, juxtaposing them with New Development Bank projects to highlight key differences and assess shortcomings. The research draws on releases and reports from development agencies, AidData databases, and online databases detailing cooperation projects of all IBSA members and the IBSA Fund. The analysis reveals that the IBSA Fund serves as an additional tool for member states in development cooperation, driven by shared opportunities and responsibilities. Partner selection appears largely motivated by the national interests of IBSA states. While both the IBSA Fund and New Development Bank espouse similar development principles, goals, and narratives, they exhibit differences in terms of development cooperation modalities, emphasis on loans versus grants, project geography, and priorities. As this makes closer cooperation between the two entities unreasonable, Russia and China, whose development assistance priorities largely align with those of the IBSA members, could still be included in the IBSA Fund mechanism, particularly if additional funding is required.

The article provides an analysis of the confessional aspect of religion's globalization. The theoretical approach underlying the study is the concept of J. Casanova, tracing the origins of global Catholicism in the practice of proclaiming Urbi et Orbi. The aim of the article is to identify the specifics of the messages "to the city and to the world" as a means of maintaining the global status of the Church. The study is conducted in the form of two variants of content analysis, with data being gathered from the website of the Holy See. Within the framework of the content analysis, issues and mentions of world regions are highlighted. A comparison of the findings of content analysis indicates the adaptability of Urbi et Orbi, its problem-oriented approach and increased attention to the issue of armed conflicts. The mention of the world regions in the papal messages is associated with the intensity of the manifestation of global problems at the local level. The result of the study is the confirmation of the hypothesis that the thematic content and geographical coverage make it possible to label Urbi et Orbi as an independent tool of Catholic globalization.