Abstract: According to realist approach, three most modern influential states Russia, China and US strive to gain maximum freedom in the international arena while retaining independence in domestic policies. The author suggests that a different constructivist approach should be used. Paying attention to the peculiarities of norms and acknowledging the influence of domestic policy on the norms, this approach allows to explain the differences in understanding sovereignty in different states. The political elites of Russia and China tend to consider that the strong central power secures the Westphalian sovereignty, while the historic experience of the US formed the ideal of decentralized power. Aiming at population protection, democracy promotion, terrorist persecution and maintaining US hegemony, American liberal internationalists and neocons are in general eager to step away from the traditional understanding of sovereignty. Russia and China consider sovereignty from the absolutist standpoint, though they have made a number of concessions to the changing norms of territorial integrity and humanitarian intervention. The article proves that the Russian, American and Chinese understanding of sovereignty (both domestic sovereignty and interdependence sovereignty in S.Krasner’s terms) is changing with the emergence of common interests and the necessity to counteract new global threats.

Abstract: According to realist approach, three most modern influential states Russia, China and US strive to gain maximum freedom in the international arena while retaining independence in domestic policies. The author suggests that a different constructivist approach should be used. Paying attention to the peculiarities of norms and acknowledging the influence of domestic policy on the norms, this approach allows to explain the differences in understanding sovereignty in different states. The political elites of Russia and China tend to consider that the strong central power secures the Westphalian sovereignty, while the historic experience of the US formed the ideal of decentralized power. Aiming at population protection, democracy promotion, terrorist persecution and maintaining US hegemony, American liberal internationalists and neocons are in general eager to step away from the traditional understanding of sovereignty. Russia and China consider sovereignty from the absolutist standpoint, though they have made a number of concessions to the changing norms of territorial integrity and humanitarian intervention. The article proves that the Russian, American and Chinese understanding of sovereignty (both domestic sovereignty and interdependence sovereignty in S.Krasner’s terms) is changing with the emergence of common interests and the necessity to counteract new global threats.

Abstract: The article studies the role of the G20 in the evolving world and foreign policy of China in this entity. In the current world the G20 emerges as a key global platform for economic dialogue among major powers of the world. Which role has it been playing during and after global crisis? Which forces does impact it and define its future? How does China view this entity? These questions were raised by international and Chinese scholars The current article attempts to provide reasonable answers for those questions.

Abstract: Institute for democracy and cooperation is the first non-profit nonstate organization, set up to become a link between American think tanks and research centers, civil society institutions, universities and Russian intellectual and research centers and political and societal organizations. The IDC director Andranik Migranyan tells about the project of fundamental international research Democracy in the Russian mirror on the basis of the IDC and its significance for the world intellectual community and for Russia, about the project’s American comanager and co-editor Adam Przeworski, on the participants’ selection criteria. Project discussions were held in New York and in Moscow at MGIMO faculty of politics. A. Migranyan evaluates the results of work, the project workshops in Moscow and New York and makes tentative plans for joint follow-up research.

Abstract: Leading Western and Russian political scientists contributed to this collective study, which covers issues related to the Russian record of democratic rule and operation of the current political regime in the country, as well as comparative analysis of various concepts of democracy and institutional analysis of various organisations and mechanisms of democratic politics. Moreover it examines major incentives and obstacles to consolidation of democracy.

Abstract: Leading Western and Russian political scientists contributed to this collective study, which covers issues related to the Russian record of democratic rule and operation of the current political regime in the country, as well as comparative analysis of various concepts of democracy and institutional analysis of various organisations and mechanisms of democratic politics. Moreover it examines major incentives and obstacles to consolidation of democracy.

Abstract: The article analyses the book on political systems and processes in the East prepared by MGIMO-University authors and edited by Alexei D. Voskressenski in order to show the differences in approach and methods used in linguistics and political science. The author shows two significant differences in present-day stressing that linguistics of the XIX century was closer to the present-day political science? As he believes. The first difference includes monism of political science approach, since the book reveals monistic scale from totalitarianism to democracy, while linguistic has abandoned the monistic view on typology. The second difference is the value-addedness of the political science approach. The value-free norm in linguistics presupposes setting up of a single standard for all speakers in order to reach full mutual understanding. In political science subjective criteria are decisive for evaluation. The article gives examples from the book to prove that political science, compared to linguistics, is not aimed at overcoming contradictions, distinguishing between the terms, avoiding unproved statements and subjective evaluations.

Abstract: The article gives a critical review and comparison of the concepts of history in two recently published books by sinologists L.S.Vasiliev and O.E.Nepomnin. The concept of L.S.Vasiliev is built upon the rejection of Marxism, especially historic Marxism, though Marx’s idea on the Asian type of production is still used. The main idea of Nepomnin’s book is to distinguish a few oriental models of societal relations, different not only from the West but from each other. Unlike Vasiliev who wants to generalize the East in one scheme, Nepomnin wants to stress the differences between Asian civilizations, though without determining the peculiarities of the models with the help of objective methods and not offering any convincing parameters of comparison. The article shows that now there is a mix of pieces of various concepts, which are outdated and not linked to each other. The author suggests to tackle the methodological issues of history ic process, to apply new approaches in periodization, based not on one factor (like type of production) but on multifactor paradigms and to make new research of the development of the West.

Abstract: Since the middle of the XX century the Western monopoly on explanation of world development is under erosion. However the atmosphere of intellectual intolerance predominates this process. Despite marginal record of mutual enlightment, theoretical achievements of both West and East have not been subjected to comprehensive dialogue.

Abstract: Contemporary Political Science deals mainly with three major research fields (typology of social order within countries, existing and emerging regional identity and world order in international system), which are studied separately. This division is a product of the traditional, West-centric theories. The current article building upon achievements of the Russian school of Asian studies and new reality of the West and East proposes framework for complex approach towards political reality with due account of interdependence between global, regional and national levels.

Abstract: Among both Russian and international authors there are wide-spread stereotypes regarding typical values of Russians. However, sociological studies on systems of values and patterns of behaviour frequent among citizens of Russia contradict with the myths of special “Russian path”. Domination of the “ideals of achievement” in Russian places it in line with other European countries.

Abstract: All post-soviet states face stateness problems, that is why it’s important to reveal their preconditions. The article distinguishes the main factors of state formation in the post-USSR states determining the similarities and differences in the governance problems, the effectiveness of state institutions and rational use of resources. The similarities are explained through the specific nature of post-imperial transition with problems of state and nation-building on top. The differences are determined by the following factors: inclusion into international structures, the number of competing internal and external centers and the degree of tension between centers and cultural-ethnic, regional and economic peripheries, the institutional legacies, the traditions of statehood, resource presence and the degree of political regime consolidation.

Annotation: The article focuses on the comparative analysis of East Asian strategies of catching-up development with a special emphasis on the IT sphere. The article also examines the “growth with equity” phenomena as an outcome of such strategies.

Twenty years of post-Soviet Russian politics: ideology and state system and global strategy.

MGIMO-University. School of Political Affairs and World Politics.

MGIMO-University Master’s Degree in Political Science ”Politics and Economics in Eurasia”.

MGIMO-University Master’s Degree in Regional Studies ”Politics and Economics of World Regions”.

MGIMO-University Master’s Degree in International Relations ”International Politics and Transnational Business”.