The partnership for modernisation through the three level-of-analysis perspectives
This contribution suggests analysing European Union (EU)–Russian relations from three level-of-analysis perspectives. The structural one describes interrelations between the EU and its member states. The institutional perspective concentrates on the interplay of intergovernmental, transgovernmental, and transnational levels. The thematic perspective differentiates between values and concepts, policy-specific goals and implementation instruments. Together the three perspectives create a new methodological approach for the study of EU– Russian relations. The analysis of the EU–Russian Partnership for Modernisation (P4M) illustrates its rigour. The approach demonstrates how P4M is reinforced at the level of EU member states. It reveals how the transgovernmental and transnational levels have developed, changing the quality of EU–Russian relations. Finally, it illustrates that the P4M has brought a thematic change in favour of policy-specific cooperation. © 2014.Taylor & Francis.
It is shown in the paper, that the probability of economy’s transition to innovative forms of development largely depends on the type of logic according to which economic agents evaluate the role, utility and feasibility of technological innovation as a component of development strategies of firms.
This paper offers an outline of the perception of “transnational employment relations” in a legal context. It will analyse various doctrinal and legislative approaches to the definition of the phenomenon, as well as the usage of the terms employed in its naming, its key characteristics and classifications. The author will reveal and explore the reasons for the problems that arise in the interpretation and legal regulation of the phenomenon, and will suggest some possible solutions to them.
The paper will analyse several terminological aspects of the terms used in descriptions of and references to employment relations which could be seen as falling under more than one legal order (jurisdiction). The paper will also aim to prove the hypothesis that, from a legal point of view, a transnational employment relation can be described (and differentiated from a regular “national” employment relation) through the presence of elements in which “transnationality” manifests itself and the number of such elements in a particular relationship. From this viewpoint, we can divide all transnational employment relations into two groups according to whether the “transnationality” of its elements is connected with one (simple relationship) or more (complex relationship) countries (legal orders) except the observer’s county (legal order).
 The term “transnational employment relations” in the title and the opening parts of the paper merely serves as a starting point for the study and a time/space saver to make references more compact. It should not be seen as an ideal or recommended naming of the phenomenon in question.
This manuscript explores alternatives to the currently dominant model of political identification with a nation (nation-state), namely versions of civilizational, cosmopolitan and identification. In the course of the research author concludes that transnational identification can not become a solution to the problem of “identity crisis” for large political communities. However, the theoretical investigation of this form of identification may be relevant to the life strategies of single individuals who face existence under the dominant political order of the nation-state, despite the fact that their practices in a global world has already gone beyond national borders.
The monograph may be of interest to students in the field of political theory, international relations and philosophy, as well as a wide range of readers ingaged in a problem of the construction of political identities in the era of globalization.
The paper shows the connection of the normative-value system of Russians with the existing type of Russian society. On a large empirical data estimated specificity and stage of sociocultural modernization experienced by contemporary Russian society .
This collection includes copies of reports and participants are Russian scientific-practical conference on "Europe, Russia, Asia: Cooperation, contradictions, conflicts," held in Ryazan State University November 29, 2012. Designed for professionals, historians, teachers, schools and universities, undergraduate and graduate students of historical faculty.
In this chapter the cultural barriers of Russian modernisation and their consequences for the national development are analyzed. It starts from the necessity of consideration of cultural specifics when planning the social and cultural change in non-Western countries. The human-centered criteria for evaluation of culture and the concept of the cultural verticality-horizontality, based on the dimensions of Hofstede are offered. The comparison of national development indices of two countries - Russia and Canada- has shown that cultural verticality is a serious barrier for the further development of Russia, including the development of an innovative economy. In cross-national values comparisons, Russia appears to be closer in its value priorities to Post-Communist and Mediterranean countries. There is also a sizable value minority in Russia, which is typical for Western European countries, and these people might be a resource group for social advancement in Russia. In the conclusion possible ways of cultural modernisation of Russia from the point of human-centered approach are discussed.
The article examines partnerships for modernisation between Russia, on the one hand, and the EU as well as 23 out of its 28 member states, on the other hand. In doing that it first identifies the difference between the Russian economic interpretation of modernisation and the EU's one based on political values. The article then demonstrates the ambiguity rather than singularity of the position that EU member states promote in their modernisation partnerships with Russia. To illustrate the difference among EU member states’ the article designs a scale of Russia’s sensitivity to various political aspects of modernization and then posits member states on this scale on the basis of their national partnerships for modernisation with Russia. As a result, a new classification of EU member states emerges; it is based on the extent, to which they are ready to defend the political definition of modernisation (and ultimately the EU's normative power) in their relations with Russia.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.