DOCSLIB.ORG

English/French

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

World Heritage 36 COM WHC-12/36.COM.INF.19 Original: English/French UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Thirty-sixth session Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation 24 June – 6 July 2012 SUMMARY RECORD RESUME DES INTERVENTIONS 1 Sunday, 24 June 2012 OPENING OF THE SESSION 7 p.m – 8 p.m Chairperson : H. E. Ms Eleonora Mitrofanova (Russian Federation) ITEM 1 OPENING OF THE SESSION Document: WHC-12/36.COM/INF.2 The 36th session of the World Heritage Committee was opened on Sunday 24 June 2012 in Saint-Petersburg, by H.E. Ms Eleonora Mitrofanova, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to UNESCO and Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee. The 21 Members of the World Heritage Committee were present: Algeria, Cambodia, Colombia, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Iraq, Japan, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates. The following 97 States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, which are not members of the Committee, were represented as Observers: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Chine, Congo (the Democratic Republic of), Сongo (Republic of), Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Holy See (Vatican City State), Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea (Republic of), Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Palau, Palestine, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint-Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania (United Republic of), The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Singapore, Member State of UNESCO and Non State Party, also attended the session. Representatives of the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee, namely the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) also attended the session. The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, H.E Ms Eleonora Mitrofanova welcomed the participants and delivered her address by which she indicated that the Committee will have to examine many critical and complex issues. She indicated that the decisions and actions will then have to further favour 2 intercultural dialogue, promote appropriate educational approaches and advance a culture of peace in the service of the properties of outstanding universal value, which transcend time and borders. She underlined that, since its adoption in 1972, the Convention initiated a global response to the fundamental need to preserve the balance in the interaction between the conservation of nature and of cultural properties. The Chairperson mentioned that the celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the World Heritage Convention going through this year 2012 puts special emphasis on the close linkage between the World Heritage and Sustainable Development, and the role of Local Communities in this interface. She also indicated that part of the Committee’s responsibility was to help prepare the decision-makers of tomorrow, to take over responsibilities for the long-term conservation of heritage sites. It is in consideration of this mission that she extended a particular welcome to the participants of the three parallel international youth events organized in the framework of this session. She mentioned that the Committee session will also be held for the first time in public, with the specific media-coverage and live transmission of debates through on- line and screening facilities. The Chairperson wished the participants a fruitful and inspiring session. (The entire text of this intervention is contained in Annex I). H.E Mr Vladimir Medinsky, Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation; indicated that it was a great honour for Saint-Petersburg to host the 36th session of the World Heritage Committee at the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention. He underlined that this Committee session was a unique opportunity to present the city of Saint-Petersburg, inscribed in 1990 as the “Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments” on the World Heritage List, but above all to consider the crucial question on how to conciliate heritage conservation with urban development. He insisted on the fact that the outdated infrastructure of many areas in the historic center including insufficient sanitary installations had become a most pressing issue for the 5 million residents and the Russian Federation administration. The Minister underlined that Saint-Petersburg was a pioneer in elaborating an urban strategy concerning the conservation of cultural heritage based on the principles of the World Heritage Convention named “Conservation through development and development through conservation.” He mentioned that a special rehabilitation program 2013-2018 was being elaborated and that the valuable advice from the World Heritage Committee, based on best practices around the world, was very much welcome. He underlined that efforts were ongoing and that, in the past year, 11 billion rubles have been spent from the Federal and Municipal budgets for the rehabilitation of the historic centre and its monuments. The legal framework concerning urban zoning was recently redefined. The Minister informed that, a few months ago a moratorium on the destruction of buildings in the Historic Centre of Saint-Petersburg was declared which was supported by the majority of the residents who consider the conservation of the Historic Centre as one of the main priorities for the future of the city. He mentioned that he hoped the World Heritage Committee will find the most appropriate solutions to enhance the urban space and conserve our heritage for the future generations. 3 S.Exc. M. Georgy Poltavchenko, Gouverneur de Saint-Petersbourg, indique que la session du Comité du patrimoine mondial se tient à Saint-Pétersbourg et que plusieurs siècles d’histoire et de culture de son pays sont reflétés dans l’image unique de cette ville. Il souligne que nous vivons dans un monde complexe et que nous assistons à l’effondrement des valeurs traditionnelles. Le monde qui paraît être réuni grâce à des nouvelles technologies reste cependant divisé. Le Gouverneur insiste sur le rôle très important que l’UNESCO joue dans l’abolition des barrières, et notamment des barrières interculturelles. Il souligne que les travaux du Comité du patrimoine mondial sont extrêmement importants et que le destin des monuments historiques et culturels nécessite d’une attention toute particulière, notamment pour prévenir leur destruction et disparition. Le dialogue sincère, des bonnes intentions, une meilleure connaissance des problèmes et une compréhension mutuelle sont des outils dont nous avons besoin pour faire face aux difficultés. Il indique également que le grand défi de préservation du patrimoine spirituel de nos peuples est devant nous et qu’ensemble, nous pouvons effectuer cette mission. Mrs Irina Bokova Director-General of UNESCO delivered her address by which she expressed her appreciation to the Russian Federation authorities for hosting the 36th session of the World Heritage Committee. She underlined that this country adhered to the World Heritage Convention more than 20 years ago and now boasts 24 sites on the famous World Heritage List, including St Petersburg -- this “Venice of the North” which embodies the values and the concepts underpinning the World Heritage Convention. The Director-General noted that over 40 years, 189 States have ratified the World Heritage Convention making it one of the most universally ratified legal instruments. She however mentioned that, on its 40th birthday, the World Heritage Convention faces numerous threats, and also a more fundamental challenge -- that of its credibility and its future. She underlined that, in recent years, some developments within the inscription process have weakened the principles of scientific excellence and impartiality that are at the heart of the Convention. The Director-General reaffirmed that the credibility of the inscription process must be absolute at all stages of the proceedings. She indicated that today, criticism is growing, and that she was deeply concerned about this matter. She noted that we are at the crossroads, and that a clear choice should be made whether it is adding more sites to the list, adhering less and less strictly to the World Heritage Convention criteria. Or, on the other hand, to act and think as visionaries, to rejuvenate the World Heritage Convention and to confront the challenges of the 21st century. The Director-General reaffirmed that World Heritage could be an instrument of sustainable development in the 21st century. She underlined that the 40th anniversary celebrations showcase the dynamism of local communities and that
Recommended publications
  • Convention on Nuclear Safety Eighth Organizational Meeting of Contracting Parties

    Convention on Nuclear Safety Eighth Organizational Meeting of Contracting Parties

    Convention on Nuclear Safety Eighth Organizational Meeting of Contracting Parties 17 October 2018 Report of the President 1. Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure and Financial Rules of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, the Organizational Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Nuclear Safety was held at the Headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna on 17 October 2018. 65 out of 85 Contracting Parties participated, namely: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Korea (Republic of), Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Myanmar, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vietnam and Euratom. The list of participants is attached as Annex I. 2. The Meeting adopted the proposed agenda as shown in Annex II. 3. Based on a report by the Office of Legal Affairs, the Meeting accepted the credentials of the delegates as presented by the Contracting Parties participating in the Organizational Meeting on the understanding that those delegations that had so far not submitted credentials in the proper form would do so as soon as possible. 4. The Meeting decided to establish seven Country Groups for the 8th Review Meeting. Pursuant to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure and Financial Rules, the Meeting allocated Contracting Parties to Country Groups using the method described in Annex III of the Guidelines regarding the Review Process under the Convention on Nuclear Safety.
  • Russian Economy: Trends and Perspectives 08'2011

    Russian Economy: Trends and Perspectives 08'2011

    © GAIDAR INSTITUTE FOR THE ECONOMIC POLICY 3-5, Gazetny pereulok, Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation Phone (495)629-67-36, fax (495)697-88-16, Email: [email protected] www.iep.ru RUSSIAN ECONOMY: TRENDS AND PERSPECTIVES 08’2011 MONTHLY BULLETIN: THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN AUGUST: PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND MAJOR TRENDS 2 THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RESULTS OF AUGUST 2011 (S.Zhavoronkov) 4 INFLATION AND MONETARY POLICY (N.Luksha) 7 FINANCIAL MARKETS (N.Burkova, E.Khudko) 10 REAL ECONOMY: TRENDS AND FACTORS (O.Izryadnova) 16 INVESMENTS IN REAL ECONOMY SECTOR (O.Izryadnova) 19 FOREIGN TRADE (N.Volovik, K.Kharina) 24 STATE BUDGET (E.Fomina) 28 RUSSIAN BANKING SECTOR (S.Borisov) 31 HOUSING MORTGAGE IN THE RF (G.Zadonsky) 35 ECONOMIC GROWTH FACTORS IN 2010 – THE FIRST HALF YEAR OF 2011 (E.Astafi eva) 39 ECONOMIC LEGISLATION REVIEW (I.Tolmacheva) 42 REVIEW OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION GOVERNMENT IN AUGUST 2011 (M.Goldin) 44 AN OVERVIEW OF NORMATIVE DOCUMENTS ON TAXATION ISSUES FOR JULY AND AUGUST 2011 45 (L.Anisimova) AMENDMENTS TO THE BUDGETING LEGAL FRAMEWORK (M.Goldin) 50 RUSSIAN ECONOMY: TRENDS AND PERSPECTIVES THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN AUGUST: PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND MAJOR TRENDS The socio-political situation in August 2011 was rather calm although more ‘businesslike’ than usually. The most notable event was Georgy Poltavchenko’s appointment to the post of St Petersburg governor. In his previous role of the RF President’s Representative in the Central Federal District, Poltavchenko had defi nitely failed to achieve much in the public sphere, and proved himself one of the most lackluster offi cials of this rank.
  • E/2015/49 Economic and Social Council

    E/2015/49 Economic and Social Council

    United Nations E/2015/49 Economic and Social Council Distr.: General 13 April 2015 Original: English 2015 session 21 July 2014-22 July 2015 Agenda item 19 (c) Social and human rights questions: crime prevention and criminal justice Capital punishment and implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty Report of the Secretary-General Summary The Economic and Social Council, by its resolution 1745 (LIV) of 16 May 1973, invited the Secretary-General to submit to it, at five-year intervals starting from 1975, periodic updated and analytical reports on capital punishment. The Council, by its resolution 1995/57 of 28 July 1995, recommended that the quinquennial reports of the Secretary-General should continue to cover also the implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. By the same resolution, the Council requested the Secretary-General, in preparing the quinquennial report, to draw on all available data, including current criminological research. The present ninth quinquennial report reviews the use of and trends in capital punishment, including the implementation of the safeguards during the period 2009-2013. In accordance with Economic and Social Council resolutions 1745 (LIV) and 1990/51 and Council decision 2005/247, the present report is submitted to the Council at its substantive session of 2015, and will also be before the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its twenty-fourth session, and the Human Rights Council at its twenty-eighth session. The report confirms the continuation of a very marked trend towards abolition and restriction of the use of capital punishment in most countries.
  • The Russian Federation

    The Russian Federation

    Asylum Research Centre The Russian Federa�on: LGBTI Country of origin informa�on to support the adjudica�on of asylum claims from Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (‘LGBTI’) asylum seekers /shutterstock.com Bennian 17 July 2012 Cover photo © 17th July 2012 Country-of-origin information to support the adjudication of asylum claims from Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (‘LGBTI’) asylum-seekers The Russian Federation Commissioned by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Division of International Protection. Any views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of UNHCR. Contents 1. The legal position of LGBTI persons in the country concerned including criminalisation p. 3 2. Evidence of the implementation of legal provisions, including police and judicial treatment p. 11 and punishment of same sex activity 3. Societal attitude to LGBTI persons, evidence of non-state persecution and discrimination p. 31 4. Homophobia and transphobia in government institutions (including but not limited to p. 47 government statements state owned media, prisons, education, health system) 5. State willingness and ability to provide effective protection to LGBTI persons; (particularly p. 54 police attitude to LGBTI persons, investigations into crimes perpetrated against LGBTI persons) 6. (Limitations in) access to social and economic rights for LGBTI persons p. 60 7. Sources consulted (including descriptions of lesser known sources) p. 72 1 Explanatory Note The following non-exhaustive excerpts of COI are from 2011-2012. The COI is presented in reverse chronological order and is cited directly from the original source, including original footnotes.
  • 1907475* A/Hrc/28/2

    1907475* A/Hrc/28/2

    United Nations A/HRC/28/2 General Assembly Distr.: General 7 May 2019 Original: English Human Rights Council Twenty-eighth session Agenda item 1 Organizational and procedural matters Report of the Human Rights Council on its twenty-eighth session Vice-President and Rapporteur : Mothusi Bruce Rabasha Palai (Botswana) GE.19-07475(E) *1907475* A/HRC/28/2 Contents Page Part One: Resolutions, decisions and President’s statements adopted by the Human Rights Council at its twenty-eighth session ........................................................................................................... 4 I. Resolutions .................................................................................................................................... 4 II. Decisions ....................................................................................................................................... 5 III. President’s statements ................................................................................................................... 6 Part Two: Summary of proceedings ............................................................................................................... 7 I. Organizational and procedural matters .......................................................................................... 7 A. Opening and duration of the session ..................................................................................... 7 B. Attendance ...........................................................................................................................
  • Veiled Political Questions: Islamic Dress, Constitutionalism, and the Ascendance of Courts

    Veiled Political Questions: Islamic Dress, Constitutionalism, and the Ascendance of Courts

    Veiled Political Questions: Islamic Dress, Constitutionalism, and the Ascendance of Courts The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Goldenziel, Jill I. 2012. “Veiled Political Questions: Islamic Dress, Constitutionalism, and the Ascendance of Courts.” American Journal of Comparative Law 61 (1) (October 15): 1–50. doi:10.5131/ ajcl.2012.0015. Published Version 10.5131/AJCL.2012.0015 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:25484695 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA \\jciprod01\productn\C\COM\61-1\COM107.txt unknown Seq: 1 7-DEC-12 12:44 JILL I. GOLDENZIEL* Veiled Political Questions: Islamic Dress, Constitutionalism, and the Ascendance of Courts† This Article explains how judicial independence can develop in regimes that are not fully democratic. Conventional wisdom holds that a strong legislature and political parties are necessary for the emergence of an independent judiciary. This Article challenges con- ventional wisdom by explaining how judicial independence may arise in the absence of these conditions. It presents a theory of how judicial independence emerges and why and when other political actors will respect it. It also explains why courts may be better poised than legis- latures to counter executive power in non-democracies. The theory is developed through a discussion of cases involving Islamic headscarves and veils in Middle Eastern courts.
  • The Saint Petersburg Property Market 2012 1

    The Saint Petersburg Property Market 2012 1

    The Saint Petersburg Property Market 2012 1 The Saint Petersburg Property Market 2012 The Saint Petersburg Property Market 2012 Contents Preface 7 I – General information 8 1.1 Basic facts about Russia and St. Petersburg 8 1.2 Economic overview 10 II – Institutional framework for property investment 18 2.1 Legislation 18 2.2 Taxation 21 2.3 Market practices 24 2.4 St. Petersburg property investment market 26 III – Players in property investment market 29 3.1 Ownership structure 29 3.2 Real estate service sector 31 IV – Property sectors 34 4.1 Office sector 34 4.2. Retail sector 39 4.3 Industrial and warehouse property sector 42 4.4 Rental residential property market 44 Sponsors 48 Sources 49 Appendix 1 50 Appendix 2 52 5 The Saint Petersburg Property Market 2012 Preface The Saint Petersburg Property Market 2012 aims to satisfy the This publication is sponsored by two companies that information needs of persons interested in the St. Petersburg represent both the Finnish and Russian property investment property market. The report provides a comprehensive and development markets. The sponsoring companies are overview of the St. Petersburg property market structure BPT Asset Management and SATO Corporation. KTI and practices. It contains in-depth analysis of data obtained wishes to thank the sponsors for their support. from various sources, including interviews with key market We also greatly appreciate the contribution of all players, market reports, property-related magazines and specialists interviewed during preparation of the report. journals. The intent of the report is to present a neutral view The report is available in PDF format at www.kti.fi.
  • Dp-Wgoc-V-Crp4

    Dp-Wgoc-V-Crp4

    UNITED DP NATIONS b GoverningCouncil Distr. of the GENERAL United Nations Development Programme DP/1992/4 15 November 1991 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH Special session 10-14 February 1992, New York Item 3 of the provisional agenda UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME GULF TASK FORCE Proposals for the socio-economic and environmental recovery of countries affected by the Gulf crisis of 1990-1991: Overview* Report of the Administrator SUMMARY The present report contains an overview of proposals for the socio-economic and environmental recovery of countries affected by the Gulf crisis of 1990-1991. Three priority areas are targeted for technical cooperation support: (a) human development and returnees; (b) environmental rehabilitation; and (c) management of the economic impact of the crisis. The report contains proposals which the United Nations Development Programme has received from countries affected by the crisis as well as regional proposals. These proposals, which differ considerably in magnitude and detailed level of presentation, represent a broad sample of requirements. They should provide a useful basis for discussion and formulation of a strategy. * A detailed proposal, cos~ed project briefs and other related data prepared as part of this exercise are available from the office of the Gulf Task Force, United Nations Development Programme, DC-I, room 2254. 91-38638 2694i (E) /... DP/199214 English Page 2 CONTENTS Paragraphs BACKGROUND .......................................... 1 - 5 3 PRIOR AND ONGOING ASSISTANCE FROM THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM .............................................. 6 - I0 4 A. The inter-agency humanitarian relief effort ..... 6 - 7 4 B. The role of the United Nations Development Programme ....................................... 8 - 10 IIl. COMPILATION OF TNE PROPOSALS FOR THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY OF COUNTRIES AFFECTED BY THE GULF CRISIS ....................................
  • Federalism Under Putin

    Federalism Under Putin

    FAD8 10/17/2002 6:02 PM Page 137 8 Federalism under Putin In August 1991 Yeltsin created two new administrative bodies to keep the regions in check: presidential representatives and regional governors. Between 1991 and 1996 Yeltsin was able to maintain control over the gov- ernors through his powers of appointment. However, once Yeltsin relin- quished these powers and governors were able to come to power via the ballot box (see chapter 6), he was forced to turn to his presidential repre- sentatives to win back control of the regions. As we noted in chapter 3 one of the major powers of the governors was their control over the appointment of the heads of federal bodies situated in their territories. By controlling the appointment of such powerful offi- cials (e.g., heads of the tax inspectorate, financial oversight bodies, and customs officers, the judiciary, procuracy, central electoral commissions and others), regional executives were able to undermine the authority of the federal government and to thwart the implementation of federal policies. In some regions (for example Stavropol¢) governors were even able to appoint their own regional security councils thus giving them a significant degree of leverage over the ‘power ministries’ (security, internal affairs) in their territories. According to Yeltsin’s Presidential Decree of August 24, 1991, ‘On Representatives of the President of the RSFSR in Krais and Oblasts of the RSFSR’, the presidential representatives were charged with overseeing the work of the governors and federal agencies. However, three further presidential decrees followed in a largely unsuccessful attempt to raise the profile of the representatives.1 In the last of these decrees promulgated in July 1997 the presidential representatives were given increased powers to monitor the implementation of federal programmes and to coordinate the activities of the myriad of federal bureaucracies situated in the regions.
  • National Security Council of the Russian Federation Pacmun 2018 Chair: Bryan Metzger Crisis Director: Benjamin Lee

    National Security Council of the Russian Federation Pacmun 2018 Chair: Bryan Metzger Crisis Director: Benjamin Lee

    National Security Council of the Russian Federation PacMUN 2018 Chair: Bryan Metzger Crisis Director: Benjamin Lee 1 Table of Contents Introductory Letter 3 Letter from President Putin 4 State of the Nation 5 -Military 5 -Economy 6 -Politics 6 State of the Issue 8 Questions to Consider 9 Character List 10 Citations/Further Reading 14 2 Dear Delegates, It is my pleasure to welcome you to PacMUN 2018! Our team has been working hard on building a conference that is fun and engaging, but also challenging and informative. We hope that you all find this to be true, and that you take this opportunity to learn something new about the world and yourself as we deal with the Syrian Civil War from the perspective of the Russian Federation. As for me, my name is Bryan Metzger, and I’m a junior studying International Relations and (hopefully!) minoring in Arabic at Stanford University. My interests are in international security and the Middle East, and just this past summer, I interned at the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence in Latvia, a center focused on the issue of Russian disinformation and its effect on the NATO alliance. Thus, you can see why I would be excited to host this committee! I’ve also been doing some version of MUN for the past 4 years, ranging from class simulations to high school conferences to a couple of college conferences. I also chaired the China Committee at PACMUN 2017 as we tackled a number of issues, including the South China Sea. I’m originally from Albuquerque, NM, but I have some family ties to Hawaii through my dad’s side of the family, so it’s nice to return once again to the beautiful island of Oahu.
  • Passport of St. Petersburg

    Passport of St. Petersburg

    Passport of St. Petersburg Saint Petersburg (St. Petersburg) is situated at the easternmost tip of the Gulf of Finland of the Baltic Sea. The exact geographical coordinates of the city centre are 59°57' North Latitude 30°19' East Longitude. St. Petersburg, located in the node of several major sea, river and land transportation routes, is the European gate of Russia and its strategic centre closest to the border with the European Union. Inland waters constitute about 10% of the city territory. The total area (with administrative subjects) covers 1439 km². The population amounts to 5 225.7 people (as of January 1, 2016 by the data from the federal statistical agency “Petrostat”). St. Petersburg is the second (after Moscow) largest city of the Russian Federation and the third (after Moscow and London) largest city in Europe. St. Petersburg is the administrative centre of the Northwestern Federal Region which is characterized by considerable potential in natural resources, well developed industry, a fine traffic network and furthermore provides contact of the Russian Federation with the outside world via the sea ports of the Baltic Sea and the Arctic Ocean. The city hosts the following institutions: • The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation; • Regional offices of federal ministries and departments; • Representations of 24 entities and 2 cities in the Russian Federation; • 65 consular offices of foreign countries; • Offices of international organizations: CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the Eurasian Economic Community, representatives of international organizations, funds and associations, UN agencies and representative offices and branches of international banks. • Offices of international cultural institutions: the Goethe German Cultural Center, the French Institute, the Finnish Institute, the Dutch Institute, the Danish Cultural Institute, the Israeli Cultural Center and the Italian Cultural Institute.
  • BNE Invest in Azerbaijan

    BNE Invest in Azerbaijan

    Contents: Top story 3 bne:Invest in Azerbaijan PASHA Bank 6 Interview 7 Feature 9 Sector 12 Economics & finance 14 Chart 18 News in brief 19 October 2015 Follow us on twitter.com/bizneweurope www.bne.eu AZPROMO is the main partner of the bne:Invest in Azerbaijan newsletter. www.azpromo.az Russia and Azerbaijan boost commercial ties through series of bilateral events The Azerbaijan Export and Investment Promotion significant boost for bilateral ties between the two Foundation (AZPROMO), in collaboration with countries. the Ministry of Economy and Industry, organised an Azerbaijan-Russia business meeting at its The gathering brought together 50 Russian and headquarters in Baku on October 2. Together Azerbaijani representatives of companies active with the 6th edition of the Russia-Azerbaijan in industry, agriculture, logistics, construction Interregional Business Forum, which took place in and pharmaceuticals, in an effort to diversify Yekaterinburg on September 30, the event was a bilateral investment away from oil and gas. Azerbaijan Export & Investment Promotion Foundation bne:Invest in Azerbaijan October 2015 Page 2 Energy accounts for over 90% of Russia's $1.8bn ways to forge new partnerships. And while aggregate investment in Azerbaijan, according AZPROMO and its Russian counterpart signed to Rufat Mammadov, president of AZPROMO. an agreement to foster trade and investment, "Another $200mn represent investments in private companies from regions like Dagestan, non-oil sectors, and we are currently working Tatarstan, Stavropol Krai, Astrakhan, Svedlovsk intensively to diversify our economic relations, Oblast, Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia and St which is a priority for both sides," Mammadov told Petersburg sought tangible ways to grow their the audience present at the meeting.