CC BY
150
< >
о о
Yakovleva N. V., Kreer M. Ya., Makrodchenko D. V.
Specific Features of Paradiplomacy in Russia
Yakovleva Natalya Vyacheslavovna
North-West institute of Management — branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public
Administration (Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation)
Lecturer of the Chair of international Processes of Eurasian Region
nancy-the-great@yandex.ru
Kreer Michael Yakovlevich
Saint-Petersburg branch of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Head of the Chair "Foreign Languages" mkreer@mail .ru
Makrodchenko Denis Vitalievich
Saint-Petersburg branch of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Lecturer of the Chair "Foreign Languages"
DVMakrodchenko@fa.ru
ABSTRACT
The article is devoted to the development of paradiplomacy in Western Europe and North America. The author reveals the concept of paradiplomacy and compares it with the trans-border regional cooperation (TbRC) in Russia. In the article author gives and describes all forms of TbRC. The research is based on a comparative analysis which defines the advantages and disadvantages of each form of TbRC. As a result, the author makes his own definition of paradiplomacy, which combines all the previous approaches.
KEYWORDS
paradiplomacy, regions, sub-regions, RF subjects, trans-border cooperation, border cooperation
Яковлева Н. В., Креер М. Я., Макродченко Д. В. Характерные черты парадипломатии в России
Яковлева Наталья Вячеславовна
Северо-Западный институт управления — филиал РАНХиГС (Санкт-Петербург) Преподаватель кафедры международных процессов евразийского региона nancy-the-great@yandex.ru
Креер Михаил Яковлевич
Санкт-Петербургский филиал Финансового университета при Правительстве Российской Федерации Заведующий кафедрой «Иностранные языки» ткгеег@таУ .ги
Макродченко Денис Витальевич
Санкт-Петербургский филиал Финансового университета при Правительстве Российской Федерации
Старший преподаватель кафедры «Иностранные языки»
DVMakrodchenko@fa.ru
РЕФЕРАТ
В статье рассматриваются различные подходы к определению парадипломатии, анализируются западные и российские взгляды на трансграничное региональное сотрудничество. На основе сравнительного анализа описаны достоинства и недостатки каждой формы трансграничного регионального сотрудничества. В результате предложено определение парадипломатии, которое объединят все изученные подходы.
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА
парадипломатия, регионы, суб-регионы, субъекты РФ, трансграничное региональное сотрудничество, приграничное сотрудничество
The first trans-border cooperation was officially born more than 60 years ago in 1941 with o a relevant agreement between the USA and Canada. The states took responsibility to repair ^ any damage happened as a result of unreasonable activity within border districts [13]. ^
The foundation stone of the agreement was a possibility to set rules restricting any EJ economic activity that can result in negative environmental impact for the neighboring g state. This cooperation provides economic development of backward border districts, L-boosting integration processes, cultural and labor exchange, mutually beneficial solutions o for legal issues according to the bilateral agreement [18]. o
In Soviet and Russian literature trans-border regional cooperation (TbRC) is described < as a set of bilateral and multilateral relations between authorities, business entities, ^ social organizations and population of border regions for two or more states. The ties x forming and developing as a result of the trans-border cooperation further lead to 2 strengthening of all other forms for the trans-border communication [23]. i-
TbRC is formed on the basis of regionalization and integration. Regionalization process ^ is one of the main satellites for trans-border cooperation. This statement comes from m the following understanding of relations between two concepts — regionalism and regionalization reflected in definitions of a Finnish political scientist K. Lahteenmaki-Smith: «Regionalization as a political and administrative process» [6].
In modern Europe there are quite a number of different institutions implementing TbRC with specific features, goals and targets, as well as specific ways of functioning, competence and resources together forming the concept «trans-border region».
A Trans-border region is a «potential region» looking as an entitiy from geographical, historical, ecological, ethnic groups, and economic points of view but split into several parts by the authorities rulling these territories [2].
Trans-border regional cooperation is a structural unit aimed at forming and implementing programs for the regional development of a country together with the other countries-participants of international cooperation [11].
In the theory of international relations there are a few approaches for understanding of a trans-border region and trans-border relations.
I. «Partnership at internal and external borders of EU where regions play the main part» [14] — It's a definition of TbRC given in one of the European parliament reports. On the basis of this definition we may define the following forms of trans-border cooperation:
1) Partnership forms which are typical for North-Western Europe resulting from traditional ways of cooperation supported by EU;
2) Partnership forms related to political changes in the states after joining EC;
3) Partnership forms directly triggered off by EU through different supporting programs;
4) Partnership forms leading to becoming a European Community member or strengthening ties with European Community (Central and Eastern Europe and Mediterranean region);
5) A Partnership form which is a combination of the first and the second forms, when European Community through its programs and initiatives forms new trans-border regions instead of out-of-date ones.
II. A professor of Lancaster University M. Perkmann was the first to develop the typology of Euro-regions. His typology partly results from trans-border partnership empiric research having been made for many years and published in the year 2000 as «A practical book of border partnership». The book defines «euro-regions», «working communities» and «Interregional structures» focusing on two fundamentals of the typology: partnership intensity (depth and frequency) and geographical coverage.
Taking into account all the mentioned above TbRC can be divided into 4 types: working communities, euro-regions being currently formed, Scandinavian euro-regions and integrated euro-regions [16].
o III. Three forms of TbRC can be defined by subjects and these subjects' relations:
1) Local border contacts (Leningradskaya Oblast and the Republic of Finland); ^ 2) Cooperation between actors of different levels (where each participant can interact FJ with the other states) without reaching state level (transnational corporations, public g associations, national funds) [20];
L- 3) Cooperation between territorial units without a common border [15]; o In this case, actors of international relations are number of people, authority units, § transnational corporations, international, governmental and non-governmental institu-< tions, non-commercial funds, mass media and the states and the regions as well rep-c resenting their own interests within certain territory, thus having influence on this terri-x tory and arranging people and institutions.
The table below illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of these 3 forms (Tab-| le 1) [8; 22].
^ It can be concluded that each form of TbRC has its pluses and minuses. The second d and the third forms enhance the opportunities to arrange TbRC. Further researches will be based on the typology. The most interesting forms are the second and the third ones, which include cooperation between political subdivisions of two states without a common border and between actors of different levels without a common border.
TbRC is characterized by decentralization of cooperation, coverage of the main fields of the state's social life, saving historical traditions and regional cooperation [16].
Trans-border cooperation can be divided into three types:
• Trans-border economic cooperation;
• Trans-border ecological cooperation;
• Protection of trans-border waters, national parks etc.
It should be mentioned that in the world practice the first type of TbRC has existed for a long time and has a better legal and regulatory framework as well as the levels of cooperation itself. The second and the third forms have recently appeared in Russia and haven't been studied properly yet. As to Europe, trans-border cooperation and its further integration into European Community reached its peak in the beginning of 1990's after signnig Maastricht Treaty where the role of regions on international scene was determined.
Keohane R. and Nye J. studied trans-government relations as an integral part of transnational relations, relations of non-state subjects to distinguish relations between the countries. They analyzed these definitions as «the ways of direct cooperation for different government subdivisions", which are not controlled or guided by the heads of governments» [5].
The reason for the new forms of cooperation was newly appeared diplomatic issues which included everything ranging from international debt management and telecommunications up to flow of refugees and environment, which brought professional diplomats to unknown area and increased demand in different experts. Non-traditional diplomacy was described as «paradiplomacy» or direct international contacts between government departments and the institutions other than Ministries of Foreign Affairs and also private contacts or, in other words, civil diplomacy. Now we are moving towards a new era, «diplomacy without diplomats» and «...diplomacy seems to lose both its professionals and its qualification» [9].
This diplomacy includes processing information and its arranging within cultural, economic, military, scientific fields and government policy consultations as well. This is only one of its sides. It also includes representation of the state-nation functions abroad, taking part in bilateral and multilateral negotiations, consular services, though not all the functions, especially those of consular services and some other services of the territorial subdivisions can be analyzed.
At the same time since the very end of sixties of the twentieth century in the USA began to study a new phenomenon of cooperation between two federal states without
Table 1 o
m
Advantages and disadvantages of TbRC ^
Forms of trans-border regional cooperation Regional partnership possibilities between German national formations of Russian Federation and actors of FRG
Advantages Disadvantages
Local border contacts (Altay and Kazakhstan) • Saving historical traditions and regional cooperation; • Coverage of the main fields of the state's social life; • Common interests of the subjects and common problems • Development of only peripheral regions of the country; • Isolated (detached) development of border regions of the country
Cooperation between actors of different levels without a common border (transnational corporations, public associations, national funds) • Decentralization of partnerships; • Coverage of the main institutions of the states; • Common interests of the subjects; • Common problems in the fields of the state's social life • Distance between subjects of both countries; • Formation of new institutions within a company for improving management system; • Cooperation between actors of the two countries at a lower than state level
Cooperation between territorial formations without a common border (Azov German national district in Omskaya oblast and Germany) • Participation of non-state political actors; • Arranged communication channels between actors of the cooperation • Distance between actors involved in the cooperation; • Cooperation of actors at a lower than state level; • A great number of participants involved in the cooperation
defining this phenomenon as a separate research concept [19]. Research of the activity of subnational entities on the international scene was carried out by such scientists as Hans Michelmann, Panagiotis Soldatos, John Kincade, Andre Lecour, Ivo Duchacek, Earl Frei and many others [7]. A founder of paradiplomacy Ivo Duchacek [3] explained the meaning of expanded concept of diplomacy and introduced a general term to describe foreign relations of federal entities (federal subjects).
In the political science appeared a new term «paradiplomacy» which is interpreted as relations between sub-regions of a state in the developed society. The relations are focused on the regional level between two states. These states used to have international relations and now some of the sub-regions of the country restore their own international ties. First of all, the main purpose of paradiplomacy is economic, cultural, technological development and political support of these relations, development of trans-border regional ties on a long-term basis [7].
Stefan Wolff considered paradiplomacy as a form of political relations between sub-regions as legal entities of two countries (or provinces, districts, lands, states, regions) federal or autonomous, independent political subdivisions of unitary states [10].
o Such names as Panagiotis Soldatos and Ivo Duchachek took the view that paradiplo-^ macy is a new phenomenon and research subject of international relations which refers ^ to international politics and competence of governments of sub-states (their provinces, FJ districts, lands, states, regions), their right, regardless how the states on the internals tional scene follow their own international interests. These questions are conceptually L- studied very little [Ibid.].
0 Mainly these authors described relations between subjects of two federal states, § having strong political and economic ties.
< For the last decades in the history of states and provinces in Canada have appeared c new international subjects which «went abroad», wrote A. Lecours [7]. x In the 1990's European researchers Michael Kiting, Brian Hoging, Noe Cornago, 2 Francisco Aldecoa focused on that the combinations of formal and informal contacts
1 make it difficult for understanding. Typology of the given subject is diversified and so-^ phisticated because paradiplomacy suggests a lot of actors involved.
Robert Keiser defined three types of paradiplomacy in the global system:
• Regional paradiplomacy which includes all formal and informal cross-border contacts between neighboring regions (trans-border cooperation). These are relations between corporations and governments of two or more countries including lobby groups, local and regional authorities;
• Trans-regional diplomacy is cooperation with regions of different countries;
• Global paradiplomacy which suggests official political ties and contacts between governments, international organizations, industrial private sector, interest groups [4].
More detailed analysis will enable to study relations between subjects of RF and FRG at the level of sub-states between regions (under region we tend to understand relatively independent political system with wide competence). This political system encompasses one or a few areas (lands, provinces, federal subjects etc.) of a country (countries) or a union of several neighboring independent states with some common institutions. The states tend to interact at all levels of authority together and have mutual historical, cultural, economic, geographic, political and other specific features [17]. The regions are involved in the world events where national government and transnational institutions dominate which they (the regions authorities) can hardly resist, but have to work with.
Having analyzed definitions and examples of paradiplomacy in the world, we are able to define it as the following. Paradiplomacy is cooperation of political subdivisions between two countries without a common border but with common culture, ethnos, history which is implemented on the principles of self-reliance and independence of all political, economic, cultural and other actors [22].
In paradiplomacy cooperation between two subregions suggests the following types of relations [12]:
1) Region-Foreign state;
2) Region-Foreign governments (this type of relations is implemented directly through consulates and embassies of foreign countries);
3) Region-Federal authorities- Foreign governments («Rosvooruzenie» cooperates with local authorities of several areas, where military and industrial complexes are located, finding the best opportunities for the weaponry to be exported);
4) Region-Region (inter-regional cooperation programs) and also cooperation between two organizations under regional programs;
5) Region-International organizations;
6) City-Federal center-International organizations (Roszarubezcenter acts in the interests of a few Russian cities within the framework of the European program «Twin cities»);
7) Region-Transnational organizations-European organizations (regions taking part in the Forum of the Baltic Sea countries or Barents-Euro Arctic council may be participants of EC programs);
о
m —
О
[X <
>
о о
о
m О
m <
<
X —
X
О
8) Region-Ethnic diaspora-International organizations (for example, German national district and German national and cultural autonomies);
9) Regional enterprises-International organizations (for example, heads of major Russian enterprises are invited to World Economic Forum in Davos);
10) Participation of regional structures (enterprises, institutes of higher education, nonprofit institutions) in the activity of regional organizations; intermediate members in this case might be federal and regional structures;
11) Region-Federal government-Private companies-International bank;
12) Regional organizations of Russian region (banks, institutions of higher education, nonprofit institutions etc.) — regional organizations of a foreign country region; agreements are made between the structures without addressing to regional, central authorities and international organizations as possible intermediaries.
This typology is considered to be comprehensive as it includes non-state actors (subjects) of international cooperation, which were formed as a multilayer and multilevel global civil society. Actually, international organizations try to regulate growing dependence of a state from civil society. This process was described by a former general secretary of WTO Mike Moore in his book «The Earth without walls (borders)» [21].
Having analyzed the experience of developed countries in their understanding of trans-border regional cooperation and experience of former Soviet (Russian) researchers, we can come to the conclusion that both schools have much in common.
Paradiplomacy includes the second and the third forms of TbRC. Table 2 compares these two concepts.
In both cases we can consider cooperation between two state subjects. It might be said that the 3rd typology of TbRC is almost similar to the description of paradiplomacy.
A specific feature of paradiplomacy is that this cooperation is only between two countries-partners, unlike border cooperation where more than two regions/subjects may cooperate simultaneously.
Generally, paradiplomacy enhances opportunities to arrange TbRC. It combines all the advantages of the 3rd and some advantages of the 2nd forms of TbRC, including self-reliance and independence.
Table 2
Comparative characteristics of the 2nd and 3rd forms of TbRC and «paradiplomacy»
Characteristic 2nd and 3rd Forms of TbRC Paradiplomacy
Decentralization of cooperation + +
Coverage of the main fields of state's social life + +
Saving of historical traditions and regional cooperation + +
Absence of a common border + +
Participation of non-state political actors + +
Cooperation through agreements + +
Common interests of subjects, common problems in different fields of state's social life + +
Participation of separatist movements in international relations +
Political and functional contacts of separate districts with more complicated terms for cooperation +
о References
со
о 1. Bosold D. Transatlantische Paradiplomatie. Die Kooperation kanadischer Provinzen und deutscher
< Bundeslander. Marburg, 2004. P. 120.
> 2. Charles R. Handbook on transfrontier co-operation for local and regional authorities in Europe. g Council of Europe Publishing. 2000. Vol. 4. P. 9-10.
3. Duchacek I. D. Perforated Sovereignties: Toward a Typology of New Actors in International о Relations // Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units. Oxford: g Clarendon Press, 1990. P. 230-232; Soldatos P. Le systeme institutionnel et politique des m Communautes europeennes dans un monde en mutation: Theorie et pratique (French Edition). 2 Bruylant, 1989. P. 305.
4. Kaiser R. Paradiplomacy and Multivel Governance in Europe and North America: Subnational
< Governments in International Arenas // Participation. 2003. Vol 27, N 1. Р. 17-19.
^ 5. Keohane R. O., Nye Jo. S S. Power and interdependence. Longman: New York, 2001. P. 41.
6. Lahteenmaki-Smith K. Globalisation, regionalization and the rest // Spatial Development trends Stockholm. 2004. P. 23.
7. Lecours A. Political Issues of Paradiplomacy: Lessons from the Developed World. Netherlands Institute of International Relations "Clingendael". 2008. P. 120.
8. Magone Jo. M. Paradiplomay Revisited: The structure of opportunitis of Global Governance and regional actors: [An electronic resource]. URL: http://www.unizar.es/union_europea/files/ documen/conferencia%2010.2006/JoseMAG0NE%20final.pdf
9. Soldatos P. Le systeme institutionnel et politique des Communautes europeennes dans un monde en mutation: Theorie et pratique (French Edition). Bruylant, 1989. P. 168.
10. Wolff S. Paradiplomacy: Opportunities and Challenges: [An electronic resource]. URL: http:// www.stefanwolff.com/files/Paradiplomacy.pdf (date of the address: 12.12.2013).
11. Babarykina N. A. Cross-border regional cooperation as the main direction of the European policy of the neighborhood [Transgranichnoe regional'noe sotrudnichestvo kak osnovnoe naprav-lenie evropeiskoi politiki sosedstva]: [An electronic resource]. URL: http://www .tag242217. taghosting.ru/index.php/2010-05-17-09-13-25/23-27-2011-/871-2011-11-24-12-36-02.
12. Bazarov B. B. Regional paradiplomacy in cross-border regions of Siberia and East Asia [Re-gional'naya paradiplomatiya v transgranichnykh regionakh Sibiri i vostochnoi Azii] // Russia in system of Euro-Asian interactions [Rossiya v sisteme Evro-Aziatskikh vzaimodeistvii]. M., 2011. P. 26-36.
13. Ganzey S. S. Geoecology research of the international cross-border territories of the South of the Far East of Russia [Geoekologicheskoe issledovaniya mezhdunarodnykh transgranichnykh territorii yuga Dal'nego Vostoka Rossii] // World economy and international relations [Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya]: Bulletin of the Far East Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences [Vestnik DVO RAN]. 2004. N 6. P. 82-91.
14. The declaration on cross-border cooperation between regions — founders of the cross-border union Euroregion "Neman" [Deklaratsiya o transgranichnom sotrudnichestve mezhdu regionami — uchreditelyami transgranichnogo soyuza Evroregion "Neman"]. Suwatki, 1997.
15. Elyutin V. M. Potential of the border trade and economic complex "The Boundary — Suifenhe" in realization of a state program to assistance to voluntary resettlement of compatriots in the Far East Russia [Potentsial prigranichnogo torgovo-ekonomicheskogo kompleksa «Pogranichnyi — Suifen'khe» v realizatsii gosudarstvennoi programmy sodeistviyu dobrovol'nomu pereseleniyu sootechestvennikov na Dal'nem Vostoke Rossii] // East Finance [Finansy Vostoka]. 2006. N 7.
16. Kosov Yu. V. World politics and international relations [Mirovaya politika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya]. SPb.: Piter, 2012. P. 226-230.
17. Kosov Yu. V. Political regionalistics [Politicheskaya regionalistika]. SPb.: Piter, 2009. P. 192.
18. Kosov Yu. V. Cross-border regional communications of the states of the Baltic Sea [Trans-granichnye regional'nye svyazi gosudarstv Baltiiskogo moray] // Administrative consulting [Upravlencheskoe konsul'tirovanie]. 2005. N 3. P. 67-74.
19. Kuznetsov A. S. Development of schools of sciences of paradiplomacy researches in the western political science [Razvitie nauchnykh shkol paradiplomaticheskikh issledovanii vzapad-noi politicheskoi nauke] // Scientific almanac "Pi Discourse" [Nauchnyi al'manakh «Diskurs Pi»]. 2007. N 7. P. 92-94.
20. Shinkovsky M. Yu. Cross-border cooperation as lever of development of the Russian Far East [Transgranichnoe sotrudnichestvo kak rychag razvitiya rossiiskogo Dal'nego Vostoka] // Polical Researches [Politicheskie issledovaniya]. 2004. N 5. P. 62-70.
21. Yakovleva N. V. Cross-border cooperation of regions of the Russian Federation and the lands o of Germany as a factor of strengthening of the Russian statehood [Transgranichnoe sotrud- ™ nichestvo regionov RF i zemel' FRG kak faktor ukrepleniya rossiiskoi gosudarstvennosti] // A great power statehood Paradigm in development of the Russian state: materials of the inter- < national scientific conference on June 14-16 2011 [Paradigma derzhavnosti v razvitii Rossiiskogo > gosudarstva: materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii 14-16 iyunya 2011] / General o edition V. M. Yuryev. Tambov. Publishing house the house of TSU of G. R. Derzhavin [Izdatel'stvo ^ dom TGU im. G. R. Derzhavina], 2011. P. 309-311. o
22. Yakovleva N. V. Types of paradiplomacy in Russia [Vidy paradiplomatii
lems of the international relations in diplomacy (the second half of XX — the beginning of the ™
XXI century) [Aktual'nye problemy mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii v diplomatii (vtoraya polovina q_
XX — nachalo XXI v.)]: Materials of the international scientific and practical conference, Vitebsk, x
on April 25-26, 2013 / Vitebsk State University; A. P. Kosov (executive editor). Vitebsk: VSU of <
P. M. Masherov [VGU imeni P. M. Masherova], 2013. P. 314-317. ^
23. Yarovoy G. O. Regionalism and cross-border cooperation in Europe [Regionalizm i transgranich- tz noe sotrudnichestvo v Evrope]. SPb.: Norma, 2007. P. 280. ^
Литература
1. Bosold D. Transatlantische Paradiplomatie. Die Kooperation kanadischer Provinzen und deutscher Bundeslander. Marburg, 2004. S. 120.
2. Charles R. Handbook on transfrontier co-operation for local and regional authorities in Europe. Council of Europe Publishing. 2000. Vol. 4. P. 9-10.
3. Duchacek I. D. Perforated Sovereignties: Toward a Typology of New Actors in International Relations // Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. P. 230-232; Soldatos P. Le systeme institutionnel et politique des Communautes europeennes dans un monde en mutation: Theorie et pratique (French Edition). Bruylant, 1989. P. 305.
4. Kaiser R. Paradiplomacy and Multivel Governance in Europe and North America: Subnational Governments in International Arenas // Participation. 2003. Vol. 27, N 1. Р. 17-19.
5. Keohane R. O., Nye Jo. S. Power and interdependence. Longman: New York, 2001. P. 41.
6. Lahteenmaki-Smith K. Globalisation, regionalization and the rest // Spatial Development trends Stockholm. 2004. P. 23.
7. Lecours A. Political Issues of Paradiplomacy: Lessons from the Developed World. Netherlands Institute of International Relations "Clingendael". 2008. P. 120.
8. Magone Jo. M. Paradiplomay Revisited: The structure of opportunitis of Global Governance and regional actors: [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.unizar.es/union_europea/files/ documen/conferencia%2010.2006/JoseMAG0NE%20final.pdf
9. Soldatos P. Le systeme institutionnel et politique des Communautes europeennes dans un monde en mutation: Theorie et pratique (French Edition). Bruylant, 1989. P. 168.
10. Wolff S. Paradiplomacy: Opportunities and Challenges: [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http:// www.stefanwolff.com/files/Paradiplomacy.pdf (дата обращения: 12.12.2013).
11. Бабарыкина Н. А. Трансграничное региональное сотрудничество как основное направление европейской политики соседства: [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.tag242217. taghosting.ru/index.php/2010-05-17-09-13-25/23-27-2011-/871-2011-11-24-12-36-02.
12. Базаров Б. Б. Региональная парадипломатия в трансграничных регионах Сибири и Восточной Азии // Россия в системе Евро-Азиатских взаимодействий. М., 2011. С. 26-36.
13. Ганзей С. С. Геоэкологическое исследования международных трансграничных территорий юга Дальнего Востока России // Мировая экономика и международные отношения: Вестник ДВО РАН. 2004. № 6. С. 82-91.
14. Декларация о трансграничном сотрудничестве между регионами — учредителями трансграничного союза Еврорегион «Неман». Сувалки,, 1997.
15. Елютин В. М. Потенциал приграничного торгово-экономического комплекса «Пограничный — Суйфэньхэ» в реализации государственной программы содействию добровольному переселению соотечественников на Дальнем Востоке России // Финансы Востока. 2006. № 7.
16. Косов Ю. В. Мировая политика и международные отношения. СПб.: Питер, 2012. C. 226230.
17. Косов Ю. В. Политическая регионалистика. СПб.: Питер, 2009. С. 192.
о 18. Косов Ю. В. Трансграничные региональные связи государств Балтийского моря // Управ-н ленческое консультирование. 2005. № 3. С. 67-74.
" 19. Кузнецов А. С. Развитие научных школ парадипломатических исследований в западной ^ политической науке // Дискурс Пи. 2007. № 7. С. 92-94.
> 20. Шинковский М. Ю. Трансграничное сотрудничество как рычаг развития российского Даль-о него Востока // Политические исследования. 2004. № 5. С. 62-70.
ш 21. Яковлева Н. В. Трансграничное сотрудничество регионов РФ и земель ФРГ как фактор укрепления российской государственности // Парадигма державности в развитии Рос-§ сийского государства: Мат-лы междунар. науч. конф. (14-16 июня 2011 г.) / Гл. ред. ™ В. М. Юрьев; Мин-во обр. и науки РФ, ФГОБУ ВПО «Тамбовский государственный университет Г. Р. Державина». Тамбов: Издат. дом ТГУ им. Г. Р. Державина, 2011. С. 309-311.
х 22. Яковлева Н. В. Виды парадипломатии в России // Актуальные проблемы международных < отношений в дипломатии (вторая половина ХХ — начало XXI в.): Мат-лы междунар. на-^ учно-практич. конф. (Витебск, 25-26 апреля 2013 г.) / Витебский гос. ун-т; Редколл.: ^ А. П. Косов (отв. ред.). Витебск: ВГУ имени П. М. Машерова, 2013. С. 314-317.
^ 23. Яровой Г. О. Регионализм и трансграничное сотрудничество в Европе. СПб.: Норма, 2007. 2 С. 280.
