Al-azma al-arabiya: at-tahadiyat al-dgadida (Арабский кризис: новые вызовы)
For nearly four years the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) has been shaken the next «round» of the crisis. Clashes on ethnic and religious grounds don’t stop, exacerbated by opposition of various armed groups. Analysis of these dramatic events and issues related to their reconciliation was devoted III conference held 2627 November 2014 in the Institute for African Studies RAS (previous conferences were held earlier in May 2011 and June 2013). There were more than 20 reports; discussed issues related to the exacerbation of socioeconomic, political and ethnoreligious conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa and a new level of these conflicts; the impact of the crisis events on the situation in the other African countries; the further development of the region after the «Arab Spring».
The Arab Spring affected a large number of countries North Africa, but the intensity and nature of protests were different from one country to another. In some cases, protests led not only to the overthrow of authoritarian leaders, but to civil war and harsh clashes among ethnic and religious groups. Nonetheless, the nature of the regime type that might be said to depict these groups is the “hybrid regime” which combines authoritarianism and some aspects of electoral democracy. Hence, mass protests played the same role among the three hybrid regime countries: Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt.
The political situation in Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt after the Arab Spring revolutions witnessed multi-faceted changes. Based on the theory of political change, we can track different situational, institutional and policy changes that occurred in the three countries after the protests: “New Political Elite” in Tunisia: from Islamists to a regime of technocrats and democrats; Constitutional reforms in Morocco: The steady "Palace" knows well how to play the game with Islamists; The Islamist failure and rise of the army into power in Egypt.
In the selected countries mass protests served as specific triggers for change that led to different kinds of democratic development. The features of every state and a combination of involved actors and key factors determined the nature of such changes, but taking into account general patterns, we could say that the main trend of political and democratic change was certainly close in each case. Therefore, the role of protest publics in hybrid regimes can be described as “triggers” of democracy whereby efforts to democratize are slowly getting off the ground under authoritarian conditions.
The article examines current trends in the process of national codifications of international private law (PIL) on the example of countries in Asia and Africa. The choice of the subject of the study is due to the fact that the PIL of these countries is least known to the Russian reader. Meanwhile, the process of codification of PIL is global, covering all regions of the world, including Asia and Africa. The legislation of these countries demonstrates the whole variety of forms and methods of codification of PIL, the whole range of contradictions and problems that arise when developing new laws and modernizing old ones. The article concluded that in the codification of MPEs in African and Asian countries, the intrabranch form dominates, with a considerable number of legislators preferring the intrabranch integrated method; there is a direct borrowing of the European models adopted many years ago, often without their adaptation to current trends in the development of the PIL; many laws on PIL in Islamic countries have a religious tint, which may hinder the normal development of cross-border private relations.
In this Article we tried to research to the best of current knowledge the situation in the Middle East, the history that lead to the conflict we are witnessing and ramifications of the so-called “Arab Spring” for the world as we know it to be. We think that “street revolutions” in Tunisia, Egypt and the civil war in Syria were and are not as “street” as they look to be and carry with them grave changes not only in social and economic life of the region, but cultural, religious and psychological shifts that will affect the world in the nearest future. We are elaborating on the assumption that the Western “interference” in the things Arab in the region carries a definite danger to the peaceful resolution of the ongoing crisis and bears grave danger to the world as a whole.
In a previous article, The Coming Epoch of New Coalitions: Possible Scenarios of the Near Future (Grinin and Korotayev 2011), it was preliminarily demonstrated that the turbulent events of late 2010 and 2011 in the Arab World may well be regarded as a start of the global reconfiguration. The subsequent events have confirmed this supposition. That is why in the present article we develop this important theme. The article offers a thorough analysis of the internal conditions of Arab countries on the eve of revolutionary events, as well as causes and consequences of the Arab Revolutions. The article also offers an analysis of similar historical World System reconfigurations starting with the sixteenth-century Reformation. The analysis is based on the theory (developed by the authors) of the periodical catch-ups experienced by the political component of the World System that tends to lag behind the World System economic component. Thus, we show that the asynchrony of development of various functional subsystems of the World System is a cause of the synchrony of major political changes. In other words, within the globalization process, political transformations tend to lag far behind economic transformations. And such lags cannot constantly increase, the gaps are eventually bridged, but in not quite a smooth way. The article also suggests an explanation why the current catch-up of the World System political component started in the Arab World.
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.