| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
130891
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Conferences organized by the journal in Yalta have already become a good tradition. It will be needless to speak of the significance that the Crimean land has for us: historically, ethnically, and mentally. Crimea is always a special place for Russia. There is no other area outside of Russia where so many Russian people live - Russian not only by ethnic origin, not only by blood, but also by spirit and mentality. We often
hear that Ukraine is going its own way, in accordance with its national interests. Of course, the choice of way is the right of every sovereign state. But many keep wondering about this. For example, at a recent meeting with local political analysts, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Anatoly Mogilev, put the following question to the audience: "Will the signing of
the document in Vilnius become an irritating factor for Crimean society and lead to a destabilization of the situation?" The question is how to avoid de stabilization because nobody, whether in Moscow or in Kiev or especially in Crimea, is interested in it. No prediction of public behavior in this situation is yet available and we are looking forward to recommendations from the expert community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
130892
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Today, multipolarity and polycentrism are quantitatively and qualitatively different from their "prototypes" of historical periods of the past. Here it is necessary to single out three moments. First, Euro-centrism has been fading away in the past 20 years. Up to the 20th century, all the "concerts of powers" were based on the leading role of European states in international relations. Secondly, this new polycentrism is moving away from the straightforward dominance of the principle of force. The third moment, which characterizes the new-style multipolarity, is a phenomenon of international law that we have inherited from the 20th century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
107439
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Interactions between ruling and opposition parties in India have long been sorely neglected by political analysts. This study finds clear contrasts between interactions at national and state levels in this federal system, and further, often marked variations across the 28 states - each of which has its own Westminster-style legislature. Government-opposition relations range from semi-civilized to caustic, although most cases are situated some at distance from those extremes. So, despite a recent confrontation in the Indian Parliament, there are no strong trends towards either deterioration or greater accommodation. This is a study in ambiguity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
152422
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Akop P Nazaretyan argues that historical determining factors are mostly of a mental nature. The state of and fluctuations in mass consciousness, the ambitions and talents of authoritative leaders and other such “subjective” factors frequently determine social events more forcefully than “objective” factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|