Intrastate Ethnic Conflicts and External State Support of Ethnic Minorities in East Asia: Theoretical Perspectives
Most states in East Asia (Northeast and Southeast Asia) are ethnically diverse and have experienced or are currently experiencing ethnic conflict. Although, intrastate ethnic conflicts are in the domain of domestic politics, they often become “internationalized”, when an external state becomes involved. How can the difference in the behaviour of East Asian states regarding intrastate ethnic conflicts in other states of the region be explained? Scholars of international relations (IR) have come up with a variety of explanatory factors for a state’s decision whether to intervene. This paper presents an overview of the major theories and evaluates their explanatory power for IR in East Asia after the end of Cold War. The results presented in this paper lay the groundwork for the future qualitative empirical research.
The present paper focuses on the political processes in South Korea after the liberation from Japanese colonialism in August 1945 and before the establishment of the Republic of Korea in August 1948. Due to the division of Korea along the 38 parallel and dislocation of the US and USSR’s occupation forces in South and North Korea respectively the US with support of UN contributed a lot to the establishment of an independent South Korean state but didn’t prejudge the political situation completely. South Korean newspapers, documents on the American and Soviet foreign policy were used to determine a shift of the US strategy toward Korea and a political tactic of South Korean nationalists during transitional period (1945-1948). The preliminary results of the research show that the shift of the US strategy toward establishment a separatist government in South Korea coincided with the separatist tactic of South Korean right wing political groups. South Korean moderates developed a political movement for keeping national unity thus opposing to the rightists. The establishment of an independent South Korean state was a result of the joint efforts of the US and South Korean rightists and extreme right political groups.
The paper addresses a set of ways to conceptually organize and represent ethnic diversity though law and politics. The point of departure is an examination of the Russian law on non-territorial autonomy for ethnic groups (1996) and the conclusion that the law virtually has no practical value. A wider study reveals that the idea of "non-territorial autonomy" and its practical implications have much in common with the approaches resting on the notions of "multiculturalism" and "minorities". Also a comparison of legal and administrative practices related to ethnicity demonstrates that a variety of terminologies employed in different national contexts may denote similar ideas, decisions and outcomes. Ethnic differences are described in terms of "group" and "culture"; the issues of territorial affiliation becomes the crucial one; the theme of equality is being reduced to the issues of a "fair" classification and taxonomy of groups. It turns out that these approaches have no utilitarian meaning, but rather contribute to a publicly acceptable representation of social reality. These observations allow us to question the specific position of Russia in the area known as "nationalities policy" or "ethnic relations". Reversely, one can talk about some local manifestations of the global trends in the perceptions and representations of ethnic diversity. It is supposed that actual "diversity policies" stem from a set of essentialist and group-centric assumptions which have become universally accepted. The meaning of these "diversity policies" can be explained in terms of symbolic (re)production of social reality. Dissemination of these socially acceptable narratives concerning ethnic diversity turns to be a mechanism of power and social cohesion.
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.
The article is devoted to the study of the authoritarianism prevalent in the mass consciousness of Russians. The article describes a new approach to the consideration of the authoritarian syndrome as the effects of the cultural trauma as a result of political and socio-cultural transformation of society. The article shows the dynamics of the symptoms of the authoritarianism, which appear in the mass consciousness of Russians from 1993 to 2011. This paper proposes a package of measures aimed at reducing the level of the authoritarianism in Russian society.
This work looks at a model of spatial election competition with two candidates who can spend effort in order to increase their popularity through advertisement. It is shown that under certain condition the political programs of the candidates will be different. The work derives the comparative statics of equilibrium policy platform and campaign spending with respect the distribution of voter policy preferences and the proportionality of the electoral system. In particular, it is whown that the equilibrium does not exist if the policy preferences are distributed over too narrow an interval.
The article examines "regulatory requirements" as a subject of state control over business in Russia. The author deliberately does not use the term "the rule of law". The article states that a set of requirements for business is wider than the legislative regulation.
First, the article analyzes the regulatory nature of the requirements, especially in the technical field. The requirements are considered in relation to the rule of law. The article explores approaches to the definition of regulatory requirements in Russian legal science. The author analyzes legislation definitions for a set of requirements for business. The author concludes that regulatory requirements are not always identical to the rule of law. Regulatory requirements are a set of obligatory requirements for entrepreneurs’ economic activity. Validation failure leads to negative consequences.
Second, the article analyzes the problems of the regulatory requirements in practice. Lack of information about the requirements, their irrelevance and inconsistency are problems of the regulatory requirements in Russia.
Many requirements regulating economic activity are not compatible with the current development level of science and technology. The problems are analyzed on the basis of the Russian judicial practice and annual monitoring reports by Higher School of Economics.
Finally, the author provides an approach to the possible solution of the regulatory requirements’ problem. The author proposes to create a nationwide Internet portal about regulatory requirements. The portal should contain full information about all regulatory requirements. The author recommends extending moratorium on the use of the requirements adopted by the bodies and organizations of the former USSR government.