Публикации

Global climate change is a key challenge to the global economy in the twenty-first century. To address it properly, a combination of mitigation and adaptation strategies is required. Although the responsibility for adaptation lies primarily with national governments (though, even here, poorer countries need international support), mitigation is one of the key fields of international cooperation. There is little chance that the fundamental objective of stopping global temperatures from rising more than 2 °С can be reached without a stable and comprehensive global governance system. The current international climate change regime based on the Paris Agreement is insufficient to prevent catastrophic climate change. Deeper cooperation between leading economies is especially necessary, including among those that are now reluctant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This book analyzes the state of global governance in the current geopolitical environment. It evaluates the main challenges and discusses potential opportunities for compromise in international cooperation. The book’s analysis is based on the universal criteria of global political stability and the UN framework of sustainable development. By examining various global problems, including global economic inequality, legal and political aspects of access to resources, international trade, and climate change, as well as the attendant global economic and political confrontations between key global actors, the book identifies a growing crisis and the pressing need to transform the current system of global governance. In turn, it discusses various instruments, measures and international regulation mechanisms that can foster international cooperation in order to overcome global problems.

Addressing a broad range of topics, e.g. the international environmental regime, global financial problems, issues in connection with the energy transition, and the role of BRICS countries in global governance, the book will appeal to scholars in international relations, economics and law, as well as policy-makers in government offices and international organizations

В «Библиотеке» («Тысячекнижии») патр. Фотия в кодексе 52 содержится свидетельство об актах собора в Сиде, которые принято принимать как одно из главных элементов «антимессалианского досье» в греческой церковной традиции. Был ли этот собор в действительности – толком не известно. Однако наличные сведения свидетельствуют о большой запутанности и, возможно, о сфальсифицированности всей его истории. Главные герои с сирийской стороны выглядят как фиктивные. Из сравнения имен с сирийскими документами следует, что имя главного еретика – «Лампетия/Малпатия» вымышлено. За ним скрывается сириец Адельфий, ученик св. Юлиана Саббы. История «мессалианства» в свете нового взгляда на источники все более явственно предстает как большое недоразумение, вызванное конфликтом моделей аскетизма. В основе сирийской модели лежала евангельская идея «отсоединения от мира», которая спустя триста лет прочно укоренилась в византийской аскетике. Досье «мессалианской ереси» стало использоваться против «Макарьевского корпуса» и новых религиозных течений средневековья (павликианство, богомильство). Исторические нестыковки в средневековой антиеретической литературе перестали смущать читателей, ибо вся история «мессалианства» превратилась в миф.

The main research question of this chapter is whether, in the post-Soviet era, Russian and Western usages of several essential political terms -- globalization, civilization, Europeanness, democracy, and human rights -- signify a convergence in political expectations, or whether they increasingly manifest divergence, turning some basic categories into what constructivists call “empty signifiers.” The Introduction to this book presents three levels of regime change: national changes, changes within international organizations (pertinent to Europe), and international changes. Greater attention is paid to the first and the third levels, given that the terms in question are applied regularly by Russia and the European Union to both the national and international levels. The chapter focuses on how Russia’s discourse about these five terms has evolved at the international level. Important to this study are the five editions of The Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation (hereinafter FPC), which are barometers of changes in the views of both the political elite and the grassroots in Russia.

This research examines the relationship of social capital with the acculturation attitudes and socioculturaladaptation of 122 migrants from Central Asian republics of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics(Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan) and 136 migrants from South Korea.The questionnaire included scales for assessing acculturation attitudes (integration, assimilation, andseparation), individual social capital (bridging and bonding), and sociocultural adaptation. Using parallelmediation analysis, we found that acculturation attitudes for migrants from Central Asia are secondary totheir social capital in relation to sociocultural adaptation. However, among migrants from South Korea,social capital is not linked to their acculturation attitudes, and in general, its role in sociocultural adaptationis lower as compared to the role of acculturation attitudes. As a whole, our research shows that althoughsociocultural adaptation for all ethnic groups is linked to acculturation attitudes and social capital,acculturation attitudes for certain ethnic groups can be dependent on social capital.