The article explores the conceptual landscape surrounding national interests. It posits that the identification, safeguarding, and advancement of national interests serve as the bedrock upon which state policies in the domain of national security are formulated. The article traces the origins, evolution, and contemporary interpretations of national interests. Special emphasis is accorded to interpretations espoused by proponents of the political realism. The author conducts an in-depth examination of Russian perspectives on national interests during the 19th and early 20th centuries, as well as throughout the Soviet era, presenting an original periodization of conceptual approaches within Soviet Russia and the USSR. In addition to its historical inquiry, the article critically assesses the implications of national interests of contemporary Russia’s foreign policy. Through analysis of strategic policy documents, the author discerns instances where policy objectives are conflated with the national interests, diverging from their realization.

Given Russia's distinctive geopolitical position and security challenges, the author defines the paramount Russia's national interest – establishing a secure periphery characterized by cooperative relationships with neighboring states and ensuring unimpeded access to global maritime routes.

The editorial explores the evolution of the BRICS community, overviewing the articles included in the special issue. The authors emphasize various facets of ongoing and evolving cooperation, delineating how BRICS nations engage with climate change, development assistance and collaboration, global governance reform, and the progressive advancement of the New Development Bank (NDB).

Since the onset of the 2008 financial crisis, the concept of multipolarity has regained prominence, driven by the persistent demands of emerging economies for increased representation and involvement within multilateral institutions. Since 2009, BRICS nations have orchestrated collaborative economic strategies to recalibrate their positions on the global stage. This article seeks to examine the positioning of new entities such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and China-led initiatives within a landscape characterized by the coexistence of traditional structures primarily led by the US and Europe. Against the backdrop of recent global developments, the research endeavors to elucidate the effective role of BRICS in the contemporary international arena, fifteen years since their inception. Specifically, it explores whether current international transformations align with BRICS' aspirations. The investigation employs theoretical frameworks from International Political Economy (IPE), particularly focusing on the dynamics of international multilateral frameworks.

Scholarship on global political economy and global peace and security governance often depicts BRICS members as emerging powers with relatively limited experience in international leadership. These depictions underscore their contested regional leadership and ambiguous institutional, political, ideological, and socio-economic capacities to influence and reshape the global governance system. However, this article challenges some of these characterizations of BRICS members as inaccurate and rooted in Western exceptionalism. Employing a qualitative secondary research approach, it aims to analyze the role of BRICS as a new model for global governance by examining key institutional and political initiatives undertaken by the bloc, as well as by each of its member states.

The analysis reveals that institutional initiatives such as the New Development Bank (NDB) demonstrate the BRICS’ capacity to deploy a combination of hard and soft power tools, thereby contributing to the emergence of multipolarity in the global governance architecture. These initiatives have exposed the world's developing regions to new experiences, resources, and understandings of the priorities of emerging powers. Furthermore, political responses to crises, such as turmoil in Zimbabwe, Libya, and Mali, as well as nuclear issues in Iran, where BRICS members have assumed mediatory, supportive, or leading roles, have sparked renewed interest in understanding BRICS as an alternative to traditional conceptions of global peace and security governance. Significantly, BRICS’ soft power diplomacy plays a pivotal role in projecting the bloc as an advocate of alternative global governance architecture and in dispelling negative perceptions. This objective is achieved through the BRICS’ transformative agenda, which offers alternative pathways for attaining international public goods in developing regions with shared historical and ideological affinities.

In the complex world of international negotiations, nation-states often navigate a spectrum of political relationships, from alliances and partnerships to competition and rivalry. Despite their diverse backgrounds and interests, the BRICS countries collectively constitute a significant proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions. Drawing upon the principles of neoliberal institutionalism, this study delves into the origins of the BRICS cooperation mechanism and its impact on climate cooperation among its member states. Our analysis traces the climate policies of BRICS nations since the inception of the UNFCCC in 1992, taking into consideration factors such as their level of economic development, environmental vulnerability, and the broader international political context. We argue that these three factors primarily shape the dynamics of alliance and partnership within BRICS regarding climate governance, although underlying competition may also influence collaborative efforts. This study aims to stimulate further theoretical discourse on the formation of political alliances within the context of global climate governance.

Initiating its operations in 2016, the New Development Bank (NDB) disbursed close to US$ 14.6 billion by the conclusion of 2021. However, Brazil received only US$ 1.86 billion (12.8%) of this sum, marking it as the recipient of the least funding from the Bank thus far. As the NDB approaches its seventh year of operation, it becomes imperative to assess its lending trajectory to Brazil, scrutinizing both the disincentives and the potential for augmenting loans to the country. With this objective in mind, this article endeavors to delve into the obstacles and opportunities for enhancing the NDB’s utilization in Brazil. Our hypothesis suggests that despite the recent surge in operations, there remains room for advancement, particularly in light of the political developments unfolding in Brazil in 2023.

Methodologically, the study hinges on analyzing NDB financial data, conducting interviews with pertinent stakeholders in Brazil, and scrutinizing and contrasting the financing institutional frameworks of the NDB and the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES). Our findings indicate that: i) access to the BNDES partially offsets the necessity for Brazilian firms to seek loans from the NDB; ii) a rigid institutional framework within the NDB and the Brazilian government impedes project approval and proposition; iii) all loans to Brazil thus far have been denominated in US dollars, diminishing their attractiveness; iv) there has been a lack of encouragement from the Brazilian national government, attributed to the reorientation of Brazilian foreign policy following the 2016 impeachment. Consequently, achieving a more prominent role and usage of the NDB necessitates not only an institutional reassessment of certain approval processes within the Brazilian government but also a more active, assertive, and collaborative stance from the Bank itself.

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.

Book review:  Bulatov A., ed. 2023. World Economy and International Business: Theories, Trends, and Challenges. Springer Cham. 830 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-20328-2