DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Agenda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Agenda LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2019 MOSCOW NONPROLIFERATION CONFERENCE November 7–9, 2019 1. ÅBERG SOMOGYI Martina, Korean Peninsula Desk Officer, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Sweden 2. AIKI Toshihiro, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, Сhargé D'affaires, Embassy of Japan to the Russian Federation 3. AKHMETOV Alimzhan, Director, Center for International Security and Policy, Kazakhstan 4. AKHTAMZYAN Ildar, Associate Professor, Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy of Russia, School of International Relations, Moscow State Institute for International Relations (MGIMO–University), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation 5. ALIPOR NANDEL Mohammadreza, Second Secretary, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Russian Federation 6. APARO Massimo, Deputy Director General, Head of Department of Safeguards, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 7. ARAGHCHI Abbas, Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs, Islamic Republic of Iran 8. ARIFFIN Irsyad Arif, First Secretary, Embassy of Malaysia to the Russian Federation 9. ARO -SÁNCHEZ Miia, Counsellor, Unit for Arms Control, Political Department, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Finland 10. ARTISYUK Vladimir, Advisor to the Director General, State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM, Russian Federation 11. BANNYKH Igor, Counsellor, Department of Customs Infrastructure, Eurasian Economic Commission 12. BARZEGAR Kayhan, Director, Institute for Middle East Strategic Studies (IMESS); Chair, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Islamic Republic of Iran 13. BAUER Sibylle, Director of Studies, Armament and Disarmament, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Germany/Sweden 14. BELL Alexandra, Senior Policy Director, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, United States 15. BELOBROV Yury, Leading Research Associate, Center for Global Issues and International Organizations Studies, Institute of Contemporary International Studies (ICIS), Diplomatic Academy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation 16. BELYAEVA Marina, Director, Department of International Cooperation, State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM, Russian Federation 17. BELYAKOV Andrey, Deputy Director, Department of International Cooperation, State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM, Russian Federation 1 18. BERDENNIKOV Grigory, Ambassador-in-Residence, Center for Energy and Security Studies (CENESS); Deputy Foreign Minister (1992–1993, 1999–2001), Russian Federation 19. BIDGOOD Sarah, Director, Eurasia Nonproliferation Program, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), Middlebury Institute of International Studies (MIIS) at Monterey, United States 20. BLAGODARINA Ekaterina, Attaché, Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control (DNKV), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation 21. BODROV Andrei, Associate Professor, Department of Theory and History of International Relations, Saint Petersburg State University, Russian Federation 22. BOGDANOV Konstantin, Research Associate, Center for International Security, Primakov National Research Institute for World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), Russian Federation 23. BORISENKO Alexandr, Head, Training Center for Customs Control of Fissile and Radioactive Materials, Vladivostok Branch, Russian Customs Academy, Russian Federation 24. BRAUN Anne, Second Secretary, Political Affairs, Embassy of Germany to the Russian Federation 25. BROOKS Linton, Senior Advisor, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security and Administrator of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA, 2003–2007), United States 26. BURMISTROV Oleg, Ambassador–at–Large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation 27. BUZHINSKIY Evgeny, Lt.–Gen. (ret.), Chairman of the Executive Board, PIR Center; Head of the International Treaty Directorate – Deputy Head of the Main Department of International Military Cooperation, Ministry of Defense (2002–2009), Russian Federation 28. CAMARA Marcelo, Head of Division, Disarmament and Sensitive Technologies Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil 29. CARLIN Robert, Visiting Scholar, Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, United States 30. CHARAP Samuel, Senior Political Scientist, RAND Corporation, United States 31. CHEKOV Alexander, Research Associate, Institute for International Studies, Moscow State Institute for International Relations (MGIMO–University), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation 32. CHERNENKO Elena, Member of the Presidium, Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (SVOP), Russian Federation 33. CHO Eunjeong, Research Fellow, Institute for National Security and Strategy (INSS), Republic of Korea 34. CLAUDE Frederic, Head, Section for Programme Coordination, Department of Safeguards, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2 35. COPPEN Tom, Senior Policy Officer, Security Policy Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Netherlands 36. COUNTRYMA N Thomas, Chair of the Board, Arms Control Association; Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (2016–2017), United States 37. CRUZ Cheryl, Deputy Director, Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Arms Control and Disarmament, Global Affairs, Canada 38. DA SILVA NUNES Tovar, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Brazil to the Russian Federation 39. DADSWELL Harry, Second Secretary Political (External), Embassy of the United Kingdom to the Russian Federation 40. DARZEMANOVA Gulnara, Specialist, Dukhov Research Institute of Automatics, State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM, Russian Federation 41. DE RIDDER Daniela, Deputy Chairwoman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Bundestag, Germany 42. DIAKOV Anatoly, Associate Professor, Department of General Physics, National Research University – Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (NRU–MIPT); Director, Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies (1989–2011), Russian Federation 43. DIMAGGIO Suzanne, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, United States 44. DIVSALLAR Abdolrasool, Research Fellow, Institute for Middle East Strategic Studies (IMESS), Islamic Republic of Iran 45.1. DRACHEVSKIY Leonid, Executive Director, The Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund, Russian Federation 46. DREICER Mona, Deputy Director, Center for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, United States 47. DWAN Renata, Director, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) 48. DYACHKOV Ilya, Associate Professor, Leading Expert, ASEAN Center, Moscow State Institute for International Relations (MGIMO–University), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation 49. EDERER Marcus, Ambassador of the European Union to the Russian Federation 50. EINHORN Robert, Senior Fellow, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative, Brookings Institution; Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation (1999–2001), United States 51. ELFADLY Ahmed, Director, Disarmament Affairs & Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Egypt 52.2. EMELIANOV Aleksandr, Chief of Section, Main Directorate of International Military Cooperation, Ministry of Defense, Russian Federation 53. EMTERUD Snofrid Byrlokken, Minister Counselor, Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Norway to the Russian Federation 3 54. ESIN Victor, Col.–Gen. (ret.), Leading Research Associate, Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS); Chief of Staff and Vice Commander–in–Chief, Russian Strategic Rocket Forces (RVSN, 1994–1996), Russian Federation 55. FAHMI Nabil, Founding Dean, School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo; Minister of Foreign Affairs (2013–2014), Egypt 56. FAN Jishe, Director for Global Governance and International Organization Studies, The Institute for International Strategic Studies, Party School of the Central Committee of CPC, China 57. FINDLAY Trevor, Principal Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia 58. FLAETE Jan, Counsellor, Embassy of Norway to the Russian Federation 59. FLOYD Robert, Director General, Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO), Australia 60. FROLOV Konstantin, Senior Lecturer, School of Natural Sciences, Far Eastern Federal University, Russian Federation 61. FU Cong, Director General, Department of Arms Control and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China 62. FUZHENKOVA Natalya, Head of Office for Export Control, Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control (DNKV), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation 63. GAI Elena, Researcher, Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC), Italy/United Kingdom 64. GARCIA Angel, Counsellor, Embassy of Spain to the Russian Federation 65. GERSCHNER Robert, Minister Counsellor, Embassy of Austria to the Russian Federation 66. GEVORGYAN Armenuhi, M.A. Candidate, Master Program on Strategic and Arms Control Studies, Saint Petersburg State University, Armenia/Russian Federation 67. GHANNAM ElSayed, Ph.D. Candidate, School of Public and International Affairs, Virginia Tech, Egypt/United States 68. GIOVANNINI Francesca, Strategy and Policy Planning Officer, Office of the Executive Secretary, Preparatory Commission, Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) 69. GIUNTINI Benedetto, First Counsellor, Embassy of Italy to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Historical Legacy for Contemporary Russian Foreign Policy
    CHAPTER 1 The Historical Legacy for Contemporary Russian Foreign Policy o other country in the world is a global power simply by virtue of geogra- N phy.1 The growth of Russia from an isolated, backward East Slavic principal- ity into a continental Eurasian empire meant that Russian foreign policy had to engage with many of the world’s principal centers of power. A Russian official trying to chart the country’s foreign policy in the 18th century, for instance, would have to be concerned simultaneously about the position and actions of the Manchu Empire in China, the Persian and Ottoman Empires (and their respec- tive vassals and subordinate allies), as well as all of the Great Powers in Europe, including Austria, Prussia, France, Britain, Holland, and Sweden. This geographic reality laid the basis for a Russian tradition of a “multivector” foreign policy, with leaders, at different points, emphasizing the importance of rela- tions with different parts of the world. For instance, during the 17th century, fully half of the departments of the Posolskii Prikaz—the Ambassadors’ Office—of the Muscovite state dealt with Russia’s neighbors to the south and east; in the next cen- tury, three out of the four departments of the College of International Affairs (the successor agency in the imperial government) covered different regions of Europe.2 Russian history thus bequeaths to the current government a variety of options in terms of how to frame the country’s international orientation. To some extent, the choices open to Russia today are rooted in the legacies of past decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • American‑Russian Relations in the Times of the American Civil War (1861‑1865)
    Studies into the History of Russia and Central-Eastern Europe ■ XLVIII Hanna Marczewska‑Zagdańska Historical Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences American‑Russian relations in the times of the American Civil War (1861‑1865) Outline: The 1860s were marked by an exceptional affection and friendship in the bilateral relations between the United States, a young American republic, and the long‑established tsarist Russia. This phenomenon, which had never occurred with such intensity before or since, inspired Russian and American researchers and politicians to organize The Tsar and the President: Alexander II and Abraham Lincoln, Liberator and Emancipator exhibition which was displayed, inter alia, in Moscow in 2011. The following article analyses (on the basis of numerous source materials from the period) the reasons of this mutual amity and trust, as well as their military and eco‑ nomic cooperation—both internal (the Civil War in the U.S., the January Uprising in the Russian Empire), and external (the rivalry with Great Britain and France, and political calculations in the search for suitable alliances)—in the period of world power rivalry for global spheres of influence. Keywords: President Lincoln, Tsar Aleksander II, US Civil War, Russian Empire, Polish Insurrection of 1863, Russian Fleet, United States – Foreign Relations – Russia, Russia – Foreign Relations – United States, 19th Century Diplomatic History. On February 22, 2011, the seat of the State Archive of the Russian Federation in Moscow saw the unveiling of an exhibition under the surprising and intriguing title “The Tsar and the President: Alexander II and Abraham Lincoln, Liberator and Emancipator”. Conceived on the initiative of the American‑Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation and already displayed in the United States in 2008‑2009, the exhibition attracted a large number of visitors and enthusiasts.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Great Power Identity on Its Bumpy Journey Through Time
    CEEISA-ISA Joint International Conference Anatoly Reshetnikov 23-25 June 2016, Ljubljana Central European University _____________________________________________________________________________________ Russia’s great power identity on its bumpy journey through time. Introduction Recently, Russia has been talking a lot about being a great power.1 In fact, it has even insisted that such a state like Russia had to either be a great power, or not be at all.2 In the western discourse, the term ‘great power’ immediately evokes unambiguous connotations. Namely, it is believed to be related to some privileged status in the international system. This status is associated either with a claim to be one of a few real policy-makers (as neorealists have argued),3 or with a claim for some rights and responsibilities in relation to the management of international order (as has been suggested by the English School of IR).4 Hence, it is those specifically IR-related associations that Russian great power rhetoric elicited in the west. Most observers perceived it as a question of foreign policy. Yet, if one looks carefully enough, it becomes obvious that Russia’s great power discourse does not operate the way the western observers expect it operate. On the one hand, when Russia talks about being a great power, it often places itself in a strong opposition to the rest of the great power club and shows its clear dissatisfaction with the existing international order.5 As a result, it is perceived by the west as an unpredictable trouble-maker rather than a great power in the English School’s terms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Decembrist Revolt and Its Aftermath: Values in Conflict by Robert F
    The Decembrist Revolt and its Aftermath: Values in Conflict by Robert F. Baumann Editor’s Note: Look for Shushanna Baumann’s companion piece to this article in the upcoming Special Report featuring papers presented at the 2019 Fort Leavenworth Ethics Symposium. n December 1825, a group of Russian conspirators attempted to seize power by carrying out an uprising against the tsarist regime. Known as the Decembrist Revolt, Soviet historians embraced the episode as a precursor to the Bolshevik Revolution, which followed a century Ilater. Less well known is that fact that the Decembrist Revolt drew inspiration from the American Revolution and U.S. Constitution. Made up primarily of nobles, officers and professionals, the Decembrists—as they came to be known later—offer a fascinating example of the complexity of ethical decision making. Moved by moral and political convictions to undertake an astonishingly brash and dangerous takeover, they gave meticulous thought to the justification, methods and end state of this extraordinary endeavor. Not only did they leave behind extensive documents and correspondence, but many survivors were extensively interviewed in the aftermath. This record faithfully reflects a process of principled ethical reasoning as well as the phenomenal complexity in taking the drastic step from discussion and debate to action.1 This essay explores the implications of Decembrist actions and their aftermath, as well as the resonance of the entire episode in Russian politics today. Since the period of the Decembrists, there has been a more or less continuous struggle by a significant fraction of Russia’s intellectual class to introduce liberal, Western ideas of legality and governance.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's “Soft Power”
    RUSSIA’S “SOFT POWER” STRATEGY A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of The School of Continuing Studies and of The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Liberal Studies by Jill Dougherty, B.A. Georgetown University Washington, D.C. November 1, 2013 RUSSIA’S “SOFT POWER” STRATEGY Jill Dougherty, B.A. MALS Mentor: Angela Stent, Ph.D. ABSTRACT On October 30, 2013 the business-oriented Forbes.com put Russian President Vladimir Putin at the top of its list of “The World’s Most Powerful People,” unseating United States President Barack Obama. Forbes said its editors made the decision based on the power of the person over a large number of people, the financial resources controlled by the person, their power in multiple spheres, and the degree to which they actively use their power. Revisionist media commentary immediately followed the report, pointing out that Russia remains a regional power, that its economy, while improving, still ranks fifth in the world, significantly trailing those of the United States and China. The ranking also appeared to be, at least partially, a reaction to Russia’s skillful shift in diplomacy on the Syrian conflict, by which it proposed a plan to destroy the Assad regime’s chemical weapons. Others noted that Forbes is a conservative publication, and part of its editors’ motivation might have been the desire to criticize a Democratic President. It was, nevertheless, a stunning turn-about for Russia’s President, an indication of how quickly evaluations of a leader and his or her country can shift, based on their perceived influence.
    [Show full text]
  • La Masonería En El Mundo – Rusia (3) Archivo C I E M - Madrid
    2011 La Masonería en el mundo – Rusia (3) Archivo C I E M - Madrid Documentación - países Adrian Mac Liman Centro Ibérico de Estudios Masónicos (CIEM) 03/04/2011 Noteworthy members Of the Grand Orient of France in Russia and the Supreme Council of the Grand Orient of Russia’s People Compiled by Mr. Andrei Priahin, Moscow, Russia The following list of names is derived from the writings of a number of Russian authors and is presented with no guarantee of accuracy. The authors' historical and political objectivity is not without question, nor are their citations and souces documented. Note that neither the Grand Orient of France in Russia nor the Grand Orient of Russia’s People are recognized as regular Freemasonry. Name Notes Lodges Vyrubov Grigoriy Nikolayevich Mason of 33° of French rite. "Rose of the perfect silence" (1843 - 1913) "Grand Orient of France". (Worshipful Master), From 1888 a French citizen. "Grand Lodge of France", Professor of philosophy; a friend of "Grand Orient of France", August Comte, one of founders of Chairman of Convent of the positive philosophy; edited journal "Grand Orient of France".. "La philosophie positive" (1867-1883) together with Charles Robin. The former Scottish rite mason. Initiated on Jan. 7, 1874 in Paris. Permanently demanded involvement of Scottish rite free masonry in real life affairs, had a conflict with "Grand Lodge of France" (Scottish rite) and joined much more politicized "Grand Orient of France" (French rite). Worshipful Master of the emigrants" lodge "Rose of the perfect silence", member of Council of lodges, Chairman of Convent of the "Grand Orient of France" since 1882.
    [Show full text]
  • January17 Cover Eng. 1-2 CURVE1
    Digital Editions available on: Special Issue Magzter.com www.worldfocus.in ISSN 2230-8458 U.S. Library of Congress No. 80910345 445 A Premier Indo-Centric Foreign Affairs Journal Since 1980 JANUARY 2017 NEXT ISSUE 100 Radical Islam & To Reach this location scan Here QR code US $ 17 /WorldFocus.In Terrorism /WorldFocusIn EDITORIAL Today Russia is again going to be as great as the United Soviet Union WORLD was. Russia under Putin is a nimble giant able to make decisions on its own and face the consequences of the same. Lost in space as a super power, today it is back in the reckoning as a country that matters in international relations and can take care of itself. With Russia getting OPEC nations to agree to cut oil production and getting Iran and Saudi FOCUS Arabia to work together and reducing oil output production by almost about 2 % and stabilising oil price at about $ 50 per barrel, INDOCENTRIC FOREIGN AFFAIRS MONTHLY JOURNAL singlehandedly, thus winning the respect of all oil producing nations. Volume XXXVIII Number 1 January 2017 Russia today is largely responsible for maintaining the current oil prices G . Kishore Babu and not letting it to fall. Russia today is willing to play the commercial Editor game to its benefit, and to others as a large oil producer. Investment bankers from the west are making a big bet on Russia and Bhabani Dikshit so are the rich Sovereign funds of the Middle East, after Syria and Managing Editor flexing its diplomatic strength to fix oil prices. Russia today is the flavour of the Middle East that is good for the entire region.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SHADOW Susan Baker Columbia University
    THE SHADOW Susan Baker Columbia University In the 1870s and the 1990s, the area of Yugoslavia became the focal point of many contending interests in the Western and Near Eastern worlds. Although they are removed in time and era, the nature and dynamics of these episodes—the “Eastern Crisis” of 1875-1878 and the Yugoslav Wars of Dissolution between 1991 and 1995—have striking similarities. Both were lengthy, extending through several years of agonizing war. Both elicited multiple international attempts at intervention. In both external interventions brought foreign agendae, which were imposed on the original problem. Both challenged the unity of the current European system. Both caused major political divisions within intervening states. Both entailed particular South Slav issues of rights and governance. Both stemmed from economic problems. Both brought up concerns of imperial or national sovereignty. Both entailed a power vacuum which resulted in foreign takeover. Austrians moved into Bosnia- Herzegovina in 1878. NATO and the EU took over in 1996. Both resolutions were thought to be temporary expedients but were prolonged in the absence of solutions to the original underlying problems. This paper will seek to a) set the international context for the evolution of these crises, b) tell the stories of the first phases of the crises, c) attempt to relate what happened "on the ground" with decisions made in diplomatic circles, and d) draw out the recurring patterns that can be observed. Several caveats are in order. Only the first phases of these crises will be treated in detail because it is believed that at this phase the original problems are in best focus.
    [Show full text]
  • Czechoslovakia (1968), and Afghanistan (1979)
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. U M I films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send U M I a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact U M I directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:42 06 August 2016 New Perspectives on Russian-American Relations
    Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:42 06 August 2016 New Perspectives on Russian-American Relations New Perspectives on Russian-American Relations includes eighteen articles on Russian-American relations from an international roster of leading historians. Covering topics such as trade, diplomacy, art, war, public opinion, race, cul- ture, and more, the essays show how the two nations related to one another across time from their first interactions as nations in the eighteenth century to now. Instead of being dominated by the narrative of the Cold War, New Perspectives on Russian-American Relations models the exciting new scholarship that covers more than the political and diplomatic worlds of the later twen- tieth century and provides scholars with a wide array of the newest research in the field. William Benton Whisenhunt is Professor of History at the College of DuPage, Illinois. Norman E. Saul is Professor Emeritus of Modern Russian History at the Uni- versity of Kansas. Contributors: Ada Ackerman, Monica Cognolato, Paul D’Anieri, Lee A. Far- row, Lyubov Ginzburg, Ivan Kurilla, Erich Lippman, Kathleen S. Macfie, Mat- thew Lee Miller, Vladimir V. Noskov, Alexander Yu. Petrov, Norman E. Saul, Susan Smith-Peter, Vladimir V. Sogrin, Pavel Tribunskiy, William Benton Whisenhunt, Sergei I. Zhuk, Victoria I. Zhuravleva Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:42 06 August 2016 Routledge Studies in Cultural History 1 The Politics of Information in 8 Making British Culture Early Modern Europe English Readers and the Scottish Edited by Brendan Dooley Enlightenment, 1740–1830 and Sabrina Baron David Allan 2 The Insanity of Place/The Place 9 Empires and Boundaries of Insanity Rethinking Race, Class, and Essays on the History of Psychiatry Gender in Colonial Settings Andrew Scull Edited by Harald Fischer-Tiné and Susanne Gehrmann 3 Film, History, and Cultural Citizenship 10 Tobacco in Russian History Sites of Production and Culture Edited by Tina Mai Chen and From the Seventeenth Century David S.
    [Show full text]
  • Warsaw East European Review
    Warsaw Contributors of this volume . VIII/2018 vol East Marijuš Antonovič | Metthew Bryza | Barbara Curyło | Aydan Er Daniel Fried | Graeme Herd | Jan Holzer | Kakhaber Kalichava Shahla Kazimova | Paweł Kowal | Valeriy Kravchenko European WEER Yevhen Kutsenko | Yevhen Mahda | Olga Maksymovych Jan Malicki | Petr Martínek | John S. Micgiel | Uliana Movchan Review Teimuraz Papaskiri | Katarzyna Pełczyńska-Nałęcz | Mykola Volume VIII/2018 | Revised Riabchuk | Evmorfia-Chrysovalantou Seiti | Konrad Zasztowt Małgorzata Zawadzka editorial discussion Trump, America and Eastern TRUMP, AMERICA AND EASTERN EUROPE EASTERN AMERICA AND TRUMP, Europe R Kowal | Malicki | Micgiel | Pełczyńska-Nałęcz | Riabchuk Warsaw East European Review Volume VIII/2018 | International Board: Egidijus Aleksandravičius | Vytautas Magnus University Stefano Bianchini | University of Bologna Miroslav Hroch | Charles University Yaroslav Hrytsak | Ukrainian Catholic University Andreas Kappeler | University of Vienna Zbigniew Kruszewski | University of Texas, El Paso Jan Kubik | University College London Panayot Karagyozov | Sofia University Alexey Miller | Russian Academy of Sciences Richard Pipes | Harvard University Mykola Riabchuk | Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Barbara Törnquist-Plewa | Lund University Theodore Weeks | Southern Illinois University Editorial Committee: Jan Malicki | chair of the Committee (director, Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw) John S. Micgiel | WEEC Conference Director (Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw) Wiktor Ross | secretary of the WEEC Programme Board (Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw) Editor-in-Chief Paweł Kowal Deputy Editor-in-Chief John S. Micgiel Assistant Editor Jan Jerzy Malicki Language Editor Christopher Moore ISBN: 978-83-61325-64-2 ISSN: 2299-2421 Copyright © by Studium Europy Wschodniej UW 2018 Typographic design & cover design Jan Jerzy Malicki Layout Jan Malik I. Trump, America and Eastern Europe Warsaw East European Review Editorial Discussion ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • War on Terror and the Law of Armed Conflict: Legal Aspects and Implications
    WAR ON TERROR AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT: LEGAL ASPECTS AND IMPLICATIONS Thesis submitted in candidature of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in National Defence University Islamabad Submitted by Muhammad Imran Chaudhry Supervisor Prof. Dr. Pervez Iqbal Cheema 2014 Department of Peace and Conflict Studies National Defence University, Islamabad, Pakistan Certificate of Completion We hereby recommend that thesis submitted by Muhammad Imran Chaudhry titled “War on Terror and The Law of Armed Conflict: Legal Aspects and Implications” be accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Ph.D. in the Discipline of Peace and Conflict Studies. Prof. Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema (Supervisor) ________________ (External Examiner) Countersigned By: ______________________ ___________________ (Controller of Examinations) (Head of the Department) ii Scholar’s Declaration I, hereby, declare that thesis submitted by me titled “War on Terror and The Law of Armed Conflict: Legal Aspects and Implications” is based on my own original research work and has not been submitted to any other institution for any degree. Date: September 4, 2014 Muhammad Imran Chaudhry (Ph.D. Scholar) iii Supervisor’s Declaration This is to certify that PhD dissertation submitted by Mr. Muhammad Imran Chaudhry (Registration No: NDU-PCS/Ph.D-Tfr/S-09/001(1988-ASC/Ph.D-07) titled “War on Terror and The Law of Armed Conflict: Legal Aspects and Implications” is supervised by me and submitted to meet the requirements for partial fulfillment of the degree of Ph.D. in Peace and Conflict Studies. Date: September 4, 2014 Prof. Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema Dean Faculty of Contemporary Studies National Defence University Islamabad iv Dedicated to my parents (May they both live long) and my beloved family for their love, endless support and encouragement.
    [Show full text]