俄罗斯物权立法的现代化进程

俄罗斯物权立法的现代化经历了两个多世纪的艰难曲折,仍在徘徊之中。究其原因主要在于非西方国家现代化道路选择的非自主性所导致的现代立法模式与俄罗斯本土社会文化的不相融,以至于在俄罗斯物权立法现代性的旨向中呈现出传统与现代交织的画面,导致现代化进程面临困境。作者从俄罗斯社会文化传统、社会变革的模式、民族性格和地理环境方面分析了与俄罗斯物权立法现代化相背离的阻碍因素,不仅有利于理解俄罗斯物权立法的现代化进程,同时也为克服中国物权立法中的各种阻碍因素提供了借鉴的范式。     

俄罗斯与东亚合作：政策演进及发展前景

自20世纪90年代中期以来，特别是在普京执政之后，俄罗斯开始积极改善与东亚国家之间的关系，广泛参与东亚合作进程。俄罗斯东亚政策的实施并非畅通无阻，其参与东亚合作的进程也受到诸多因素的制约。尽管近年来俄罗斯不断加强了参与东亚合作的力度，但这并不意味着其外交重点已经从西方转移到东方。俄罗斯的欧洲属性为其融入欧洲的外交政策奠定了历史基点，发展同亚洲国家的关系在某种意义上只是俄罗斯作为欧亚大国在客观上所采取的一种平衡举措。     

博洛尼亚进程中的俄罗斯高等教育

博洛尼亚进程是实现欧洲高等教育空间一体化的重要举措之一。俄罗斯加入博洛尼亚进程有其积极的动因，该进程对俄罗斯高等教育改革内容产生了深刻的影响。     

贸易壁垒让俄罗斯离世贸组织还有多远？

经济全球化是当今世界经济发展的必然趋势，WTO（世贸组织）作为全球多边自由贸易管理机构，对世界诸多国家经济发展具有重要的影响力和促进作用。对俄罗斯而言，加入WTO是融入世界经济主流的重要渠道。加入WTO成为俄罗斯舆论主流，但以什么条件加入尚存争议。在阻碍俄加入WTO进程的众多因素中，贸易壁垒问题尤显突出。     

试析俄罗斯亚太新战略

俄罗斯制定亚太战略的背景是亚太随着经济持续发展,国际影响力大幅提升;美国强势重返亚太以遏制中国崛起;欧洲陷入债务危机不能自拔.俄罗斯亚太战略的目标是:在政治和安全方面,参与亚太政治安全体系和机制的构建,在中国与西方和亚太国家的博弈中起第三方平衡作用;在经济方面,积极融入亚太经济一体化进程,面向亚太市场开发西伯利亚和远东.其中后者占主导地位.俄罗斯对外政策的优先方向并没有因此彻底改变,欧洲仍然是俄最重要的政治和经济伙伴.俄将更积极地参与亚太地区事务,使俄远东乃至整个俄罗斯融入亚太经济一体化进程.     

俄罗斯法治进程中的核心文化因素及其影响

在俄罗斯法治进程中，专制政治传统和以东正教为核心的宗教传统这两种核心文化因素共同作用，产生了在俄罗斯传统中占主导地位的“宗法-专制”型文化模式，这种文化模式通过各种文化因素以“合力”的形式作用于法治的运行层面，这种文化核心因素作用下的俄罗斯法治进程异常艰涩。在当代俄罗斯法治进程中，传统的文化模式在现代化过程中正在为“俄...     

回归欧洲:理想与现实之间——俄罗斯民众对欧盟的认知

"回归欧洲"一直是俄罗斯国内外比较关注和予以讨论的一个重要话题。近几年来,伴随着欧盟东扩进程,俄罗斯民众对于俄罗斯是否需要加入欧盟的看法以及他们对于欧盟本身的发展和扩大的定位与认知也在发生着一定的变化。而这也必将与俄罗斯对外政策的调整和俄欧关系的发展前景乃至国际格局的演变互为作用和影响。     

俄罗斯的"欧洲选择"分析

苏联解体后,俄罗斯作出了"欧洲选择",将"融入欧洲"作为国家的发展方向.虽然俄罗斯对"回归欧洲"充满渴望,也付出了努力,但总体来看"欧洲选择"是失败的,在事关俄罗斯利益的重大问题上欧盟并没有与俄罗斯相向而行,俄罗斯也未能实现"融入欧洲"的目标.乌克兰危机的爆发终止了俄罗斯"回归欧洲"之路.希望、失望、争执、对抗一直伴随着俄欧关系发展的始终.俄罗斯认为,欧盟应承担俄欧关系恶化的主要责任,欧盟在东扩过程中无视俄罗斯利益、双方关系中置俄罗斯于不平等地位、在俄罗斯与欧洲之间人为制造分界线、排挤孤立俄罗斯、在独联体地区制造政治动荡等等,都是导致俄欧关系发展不畅的重要因素.目前俄欧关系处于冷战结束以来的最低水平,尚不具备实现正常化的条件,俄罗斯与欧盟握手言欢仍路途遥远.     

大变动中的世界

2006年世界格局发生了一系列深刻而影响深远的变化,主要表现在布什政府的错误政策导致美国国际影响力下降;欧洲一体化进程陷于停滞的困境;俄罗斯大幅调整对外政策且引发强烈反应;发达国家与发展中国家的经济差距开始缩小。     

论俄罗斯立法机构的重建

本文以俄罗斯政治转轨的整体进程为视角,结合俄罗斯国内外现实政治因素,以俄罗斯宪政制度的确立与演变为主线,研究俄罗斯政治转轨中立法机构的重建问题。立法机构重建有其历史、现实及必然因素。立法机构重建的问题一旦被提上政治转轨的日程,政治转轨就转入实质阶段。立法机构与行政机构的权限划分是立法机构重建中遇到的重大问题。俄罗斯立法机构与行政机构的权限划分经历了两个阶段,即立法机构与俄罗斯最高苏维埃主席的权力划分;立法机构与总统的权力划分。     

‘Bringing Geopolitics Back In’: Exploring the Security Dimension of the 2004 Eastern Enlargement of the European Union

Notwithstanding the functional and technocratic basis of the European integration process, and the fact that the accession criteria hardly mentions security issues, the 2004 eastern enlargement brought to the forefront of EU politics important geopolitical and security issues. Eastern enlargement came on to the agenda of the EU in the wake of 1989's peaceful revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe. Security and geopolitics mattered to the decision taken by the EU to embark on expansion in the early 1990s, and thereafter security issues remained prominent in enlargement debates. This article seeks to analyse the most important geopolitical issues that eastern enlargement has brought to the fore. In exploring the geopolitical dimension of the eastern enlargement process, the article foregrounds some key issues including: the potential power realignments in Europe triggered by enlargement, the EU's relationship with Russia and its importance to the unfolding of the enlargement process, and how eastern enlargement was conceived as a mechanism for stabilising the EU's external environment. The article contrasts realist and constructivist images of post-1989 Europe and the eastern enlargement process and assesses their contribution to enlargement scholarship. It argues that constructivist imagery best explains the way in which EU actors interpreted key geopolitical issues within the enlargement framework. In particular, it presents enlargement as the expansion of the existing European security community, wherein geopolitical issues were subject to a process of securitisation and desecuritisation.     

Does Russia need a general staff?

The institutional arrangements and mechanisms for preventing and managing conflicts will determine the future of European security and the balance of power in a wider Europe. Russian policy and Russia‐NATO relations are anaylsed within the context of the ongoing changes at Russia's southern periphery. The embryos of three distinct security systems are developing ‐ a Russia‐led, a NATO‐led and one led by the international community. The article suggests that instability in the southern periphery in the future will require security cooperation and a joint approach by Russia and NATO countries.     

The EU,Russia and the Manichean Trap

Conceptualizing the EU as a postmodern cooperative power that “transcends realism” provides ideological scaffolding for an exclusive conception of “Europe” and veils a zero-sum geopolitical project as “European integration”. Neoclassical realism considers assigning morally opposite political identities to the EU and Russia to be “rational” to the extent it strengthens internal cohesion and mobilizes resources to enhance security in accordance with the balance of power logic. Yet, the artificial binary construction can also produce a Manichean Trap when compromises required to enhance security are depicted as a betrayal of indispensable virtues and “Europe”. The ability to harmonize competing security interests diminishes as the conceptual space for comparing the EU and Russia is de-constructed. Competition is framed in uncompromising terms as “European integration” versus Russian “spheres of influence” and democracy versus authoritarianism.     

俄罗斯的欧洲安全政策:从普京到"梅普组合"

普京时期俄罗斯的欧洲安全政策可以称之为"回归欧洲"政策。尽管普京执政期间该政策取得了一定的成果,但并没有达到预期的战略目标。新的领导核心"梅普组合"形成后,对其欧洲安全政策进行一系列的调整。未来俄罗斯的欧洲安全政策将以追求国家安全和欧洲安全事务平等发言权为目标建构其欧洲安全政策,从战略退缩走向积极防御,将重建"俄控区",运用经济手段,加强对欧洲国家的影响。     

American security policy and NATO's future

NATO remains the United States’ principal instrument for shaping the security environment in Europe. It acts as a long‐run hedge against a possible resurrected Russian threat to the continent and to dampen the prospects for the renationalization of military and security policies in Europe. The United States faces formidable challenges to ensure the viability of NATO after the Cold War. Washington must be prepared to engage in a grand balancing act on several fronts to perpetuate the Alliance. It must support NATO enlargement to move the Alliance's geopolitical center eastward, but not to territory that would practically indefensible in the event of a resurgent Russia. Out‐of‐area operations will preoccupy Alliance attention in the near‐future, but too great an appetite for undertaking peacekeeping missions might over time substantially erode the Alliance's ability to deter or withstand the political and military pressure from a resurgent Russia or major power or coalition on the outlying areas of the Eurasian landmass.     

The Balkans and Euro-Atlantic Energy Security

Europe’s current energy crisis underscores its failure to deal adequately with the problems posed by increasing dependence one Russian gas. Particularly in the Balkans Russia’s oligopolistic position if not monopoly in some countries adds to its leverage upon them, stimulates corruption and state capture, and in general inhibits the European integration project. Nevertheless, there are opportunities to bring more gas into the Balkans and through them to Central Europe to reduce Russia’s hegemonic position in the gas market and reverse the trend towards illiberalism and poor governance that marks the region. Albania’s example and the connections to its neighbors that flow form its EU-approved plan illustrate what should be done and how such programs would improve energy and governance, if not security, in the Balkans and Europe as a whole.     

Quo Vadis Europe? The “Russian Question”

This article revisits the key factors that have reshaped European security to serve as a baseline for framing two distinct paths that will determine the continent’s security architecture in the coming decades. At the center of this discussion is Europe’s answer to the “Russian question”: the role that Russia wants to play in Europe as compared to the level of influence it may be able to achieve through economic pressure and military force. It posits that the answer is inextricably connected to how Germany’s foreign policy evolves going forward, especially the German-Polish relationship and military trilateral cooperation between the United States, Germany, and Poland. It will also touch on the issue of Brexit as arguably the most significant development that will continue to shape European security for years to come, and, by extension, America’s European strategy.     

Can Russia's Quest for the New International Order Succeed?

A genesis and development of the conflict in Ukraine demonstrated fragility of the international security system and its inability to guard sovereignty of the smaller or weaker nations. By creating and then manipulating conflicts, Russia is gaining leverage over the decision making on political and economic development, governance issues, and the external alliances of those countries. By challenging sovereignty of smaller states, and forcibly changing their borders, Russia is challenging existing international order and the basic principles of Helsinki Final Act on Security and Co-operation in Europe of 1975, to which the Soviet Union, and its successor state, Russian Federation, are signatories. For the interests of global stability, it is a priority to bring Russia back to the framework of the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE) without any concessions on principles of sovereignty for all OSCE member states.     

Growing Pains at the OSCE: The Rise and Fall of Russia's Pan-European Expectations

After the dissolution of the USSR, the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) sought to contribute to the transformation of Russia into a democratic state abiding by the rule of law and by international law. The Yeltsin administration concurred and adopted a generally cooperative posture within the CSCE. However, when Moscow suggested (as a counter-move against NATO's enlargement projects) the elaboration of a legal pan-European security system, the CSCE—now rebaptised OSCE—responded by means of the Istanbul Charter for European Security (1999), an empty text by Russian standards. Feeling that its interests were no longer served, the Putin administration warned that without drastic reforms the Organisation would be ‘doomed to extinction’. In order to defuse the crisis, the OSCE adopted a number of reform measures. Overall, however, the reform process brought very little to a Russia whose obsession with equality of status is now better addressed through bilateral institutional channels with NATO and the EU. In the present circumstances, the fate of the OSCE depends on the political value that the West attaches to this organisation, as well as Russia's wisdom not to break the single European security organisation where its place and role are fully legitimate.     

俄罗斯与中亚国家安全合作机制分析

安全合作是俄罗斯与中亚国家关系的关键性领域,对中亚地区安全态势及发展趋势具有关键意义。俄罗斯与中亚国家借助双边及多边安全制度,构建了军事同盟体系,并形成了完备的组织机构和决策模式。俄罗斯与中亚在共同使用军事设施、军事技术合作、联合军事演习和军事人才培养等方面展开具体的安全合作。俄罗斯与中亚国家安全合作机制的有效性受到权力结构、合法性与国内政治等因素的制约,其未来有可能向更为紧密的方向发展,对中亚地区安全发挥着长期的主导性作用。