Эволюция политических взглядов П.П. Сувчинского и евразийство 1920-х годов
The article devoted to the evolution of P.P. Suvchinsky’s political views during his participation in the Eurasianist movement in 1920s. His role in so-called “the Clamar schism” is especially underlined. This “schism” was especially inspired by theoretical, not only organisational contradictions. The separation of Leftist Eurasianist from the “Right wing” was affected by the radicalization of Souvchinsky’s pre-Eurasianist views and also by the refusal of supremacy of religion in the public life. Besides, Souvchinsky also had started avoiding problem of the “East” and underlined the role of the “West”. Despite to the “Rightwing” of Eurasianism, Souvchinsky rejected Eurasianism as a dogmatic, formulated at the beginning of 1920s. He characterized Eurasianism as a multitude of ideas, which could be changed during the time. Afterwards, N.S. Trubetskoy characterised these Suvchinsky’s views as “aestetisation” of political position, usage of ideas as a palette for someone’s drawing. Previously, Souvchinsky interpreted “Ideology” in “Ideocratic way”, as a strict system of ideas, which dominated over the everyday activity. He grounded “Ideology” in the historical context, this mood inspired him to the legitimisation of status quo in the USSR. Pro-Soviet problematic, asserted by Suvchinsky, was consequently of special interest in the writings of “Right-wing” Eurasianists during the first half of 1930s.
The author differs several approaches to law in classical eurasianism. These distinctions, on his opinion, are based on metalegal grounds – on «alleinheit» theory in the writings of L.P. Karsavin and on «phenomenological method» in the works of N.N. Alexeev
If a power wishes to subdue a region, what can it do? Order its armies to annex it? Carve up the region into parts that are subsequently ruled by different great powers, or create new principalities as a tool for indirect power influence? Why not use ideology and economic strength to rule that same region instead? The volume demonstrates how the European powers of the 16 th - 19 th centuries oscillate between these different stances in their attitude towards the Balkans, at the same time leaving enough space for the smaller regional players - states and individuals alike - to exercise their local power and influence.
The concept of legal structure is important for the commucative legal theories, because it helps to find out basic elements in Law, which cannot be reformed intentionally by governmental activity. The paper focuses on the model of legal structure in the writings of Russian legal scholar Nicholas Alexeyev (1879–1964), which affected the communicative theory of Andrei Polyakov. The article analyses structural method in the Eurasianist writings, “legal structure” in the legacy of Alexeyev and the development of this concept in the context of Russian Eurasianism during 1920s and 1930s. The transpositive “legal structure” reveals new sides in prism of views on the Eurasia’s uniqueness.
Alexeyev, who turned to the Eurasianism in 1926th is not Eurasianist sensu stricto. However, the “spaceness” of this “structure” is similar to Eurasinist views on Russia-Eurasia as a specific place. Eurasianists also favoured Alexeyev’s rejection of reduction of Law to other basis. They denied the attempts to reduce Eurasia to Europe or Asia; Alexeyev did the similar things according to Law; he refused the reduction of Law to “sovereign’s command”, “form of freedom” or “social experience”. These similarities could be explained by the closeness between Eurasianist protostructuralism and phenomenological method of Alexeyev. This closeness influenced the development of Alexeyev’s legal views in frames of the Eurasian movement.
The revelation that the U.S. Department of Defense had hired anthropologists for its Human Terrain System project—assisting its operations in Afghanistan and Iraq—caused an uproar that has obscured the participation of sociologists in similar Pentagon-funded projects. As the contributors to Sociology and Empire show, such affiliations are not new. Sociologists have been active as advisers, theorists, and analysts of Western imperialism for more than a century.
The collection has a threefold agenda: to trace an intellectual history of sociology as it pertains to empire; to offer empirical studies based around colonies and empires, both past and present; and to provide a theoretical basis for future sociological analyses that may take empire more fully into account. In the 1940s, the British Colonial Office began employing sociologists in its African colonies. In Nazi Germany, sociologists played a leading role in organizing the occupation of Eastern Europe. In the United States, sociology contributed to modernization theory, which served as an informal blueprint for the postwar American empire. This comprehensive anthology critiques sociology's disciplinary engagement with colonialism in varied settings while also highlighting the lasting contributions that sociologists have made to the theory and history of imperialism.
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.