Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022)

View Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46991/JOPS/2022.1.2
Published: 2022-09-30

In this Issue

Regional Policy

  • Regional Policy

    Armenian Statehood in Foreign Policy Realities: the First Steps of the First Republic

    Gegham Petrosyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    The article analyzes the prerequisites for the establishment of the restored Armenian statehood in Eastern Armenia at the end of May 1918, as well as from June to November, which was of existential importance for the further development of the Republic of Armenia. The establishment of Armenian statehood took place under extremely difficult internal and external conditions. The problems facing the newly created Republic of Armenia and requiring immediate solution were diverse and many. In unprecedented geopolitical conditions, the political elite is faced with a national agenda to bring the state institutions and the Armenian society out of a hopeless situation. For the implementation of which political will, enormous efforts and consistent work were always needed.

    The article also analyzes the problems related to social security, because hunger, epidemics and various diseases continued to negatively affect all spheres of Armenian society’s life. It was obvious that the genocidal policy was continued against the Armenian people, because being isolated from the civilized world, helpless and surrounded by enemies, Armenia was quickly running out of food supplies.

    The moral and psychological atmosphere prevailing in the Armenian society is also in the center of attention in the article. The latter generated despair and internal division, which gradually destroyed the united spirit of the nation, weakened resistance, and deprived the ability to think and act for the common good of the state. In such circumstances, the establishment of Armenian statehood was extremely difficult. The disastrous internal political and economic situation of the republic continued until the end of the year, one of the main reasons of which was the security and hostile environment of Armenia.

    References

    A-Do [Ter-Martirosian, Hovhannes]. 2014. Throes of Birth of the Armenians. Yerevan: History Museum of Armenia.

    Avetisyan, Hrant. 1997. The Armenian Question in 1918. Yerevan: “High School” publishing house.

    Babalian, Artashes. 1959. Pages from the History of Armenian Independence [Ejer Hayastani ankakhutyan patmutyunits]. Cairo: Husaber.

    Badalyan, Khachatur, and Ashot, Harutyunyan, ed. 1970. From the History of Foreign Intervention in Armenia in 1918: Documents and Materials. Yerevan: Yerevan University Press (in Russian) [Бадалян, Хачатур, и Ашот, Арутюнян (ред.) 1970. Из истории иностранной интервенции в Армении в 1918 году: Документы и материалы. Ереван: Изд-во Ереванского университета].

    Beylerian, Arthur. 1983. Les Grandes Puissances L’Empire Ottoman et les Armeniens: dans les Archives Francaises, 1914-1918 (3 vols). Paris, France: Publications de la Sorbonne.

    Beylerian, Arthur. 2005. The Great Powers, the Ottoman Empire and Armenians in the French Archives (1914-1918), Vol. II. Yerevan: Hayastan (Grakan Hayrenik).

    Darbinyan, Ruben. 1991. The Russian Threat. Yerevan: Azat Khosk Publishing House.

    Ghaziyan, Alvard, and Sonya Mirzoyan, ed. 2003. The massacres of the Armenians in the provinces of Baku and Elizabethpol in 1918-1920: Collection of documents and materials. Yerevan: Archive of the history of the RA.

    Hairenik. 1924. “Hairenik” monthly (June). Boston.

    Hairenik. 1935. “Hairenik” monthly (February), Vol. 4. Boston.

    Hayruni, Ashot. 2013. The Armenian Issue in German Foreign Policy in 1918. Yerevan: YSU Publishing House.

    Kajaznuni, Hovhannes. 1990. Open letter to Z: Turkey or Russia? Yerevan.

    Katchaznouni, Hovhannes. 1923. Dashnaktsutiune anelik chuni ailevs [The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) Has Nothing To Do Any More]. Vienna: Mechitarist Press.

    Khachatryan, Astvatatur. 2010. Eastern Armenian and Turkish diplomatic relations. Yerevan: National Archives of Armenia, Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia.

    Leo [Babakhanyan, Arakel]. 1925. From the Past. Memoirs, Papers, Judgments. Armenian Question. Armenian Revolutionary Federation. World War: Revolution. Tbilisi: Soviet Caucasus.

    Ludendorff, Erich. 2014. My War Memories 1914-1918. Moscow: Veche [Людендорф, Эрих. 2014. Мои воспоминания о войне 1914-1918 гг. Москва: Вече].

    Melkonyan, Ashot. 2003. Javakhk in the 19th Century and the First Quarter of the 20th Century. Yerevan: Zangak-97.

    Mikayelyan, Vardges. 1995. The Armenian Question and the Armenian Genocide in Turkey (1913-1919): Materials of the Political Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kaiser’s Germany: Collection. Yerevan: Gitutyun [Микаелян, Вардгес. 1995. Армянский вопрос и геноцид армян в Турции (1913-1919): Материалы Политического архива МИД Кайзеровской Германии: Сборник. Ереван: Гитутюн].

    National Archives of Armenia. 2009. “Protocols of the sessions of the Parliament of the Republic of Armenia: 1918-1920.” Yerevan.

    Ruben [Der Minasian, Ruben]. 1982. Hai Heghapokhankani Me Hishataknere [Memoirs of an Armenian revolutionary], Vol. E. Tehran.

    Sakartvelos Respublika. 1918a. Newspaper (July 8). Tbilisi, Georgia.

    Sakartvelos Respublika. 1918b. Newspaper (August 18). Tbilisi, Georgia.

    Sargsyan, Yervand. 1995. Conspiracy Deal. Armenia-Russia-Turkey. Yerevan: Hayastan.

    Tumanyan, Mikael. 2012. Diplomatic History of the Republic of Armenia 1918-1920. Yerevan: Institute of History of NAS RA, National Archives of Armenia [Туманян, Микаел. 2012. Дипломатическая история Республики Армения 1918-1920 годов. Ереван: Институт истории НАН РА, Национальный архив Армении].

    Vagharshyan, Arthur. 2012. The System of the Executive Power of the First Republic of Armenia (1918-1920). Yerevan: YSU Publishing House.

    Vem. 1934. Monthly (September-October). Paris.

    Vem. 1938. Monthly (Vol.1). Paris.

    Vratsyan, Simon. 1924. Disruptions. Regarding Hovhannes Kajazoun's book “ARF has Nothing to Do Anymore”. Boston.

    Vratsyan, Simon. 1962. Old Papers for a New History. Beirut: Mshak.

    Zang. 1918a. Newspaper (August 7). Yerevan, Armenia.

    Zang. 1918b. Newspaper (December 1). Yerevan, Armenia.

    Zavriev, David. 1947. Contemporary History of the North-East Vilayets of Turkey. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University named after Stalin (in Russian) [Завриев, Давид. 1947. К новейшей истории северо-восточных вилайетов Турции. Тбилиси: Тбилисский государственный университет имени Сталина].

    Zohrabyan, Edik. 2000. The Inter-Ethnic Battles in Yerevan Province in 1918. Yerevan: Hayagitak.

  • Regional Policy

    Erdogan against Turkey։ Stalemate of “Patriot-F-35-S-400” triangle

    Hayk Gabrielyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    After the attempted military coup in 2016, Turkey began to show interest in the Russian S-400 systems, and initially there was an impression that Turkey was only bluffing, was simply using Russia in its relations with the United States (as it had previously done with China (CPMIEC) in the same matter) and was seeking to show the US that it had an alternative (S-400). However, Turkey showed its persistence, and was able to buy these systems quite quickly, despite the fact that the United States strongly opposed it. In this context, this study aims to clarify the main reasons for Turkey's persistence on this issue, taking into account the personal factor of Erdogan. 

    The article also analyzes the authoritarian strengthening of militarism and Erdogan’s personal factor for buying the S-400, who was the beneficiary of buying the S-400 systems. This article shows that sometimes Erdogan’s personal interests and Turkey’s state interests should be separated from each other, that in some cases Erdogan’s personal interests and Turkey’s state interests may or may not coincide partially or completely․ It is emphasized that in each case of conflict of interests, Erdogan’s personal interests prevail, that the problems should be examined first of all from the perspective of Erdogan’s personal interests and not from Turkey’s state interests, otherwise many things remain unclear and unexplained.

    Focusing on Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 systems, this study also asks why NATO member Turkey even after the purchase has not given up those Russian systems and why it still continues to persist․ The topic is also actual for Armenia, as it is related to the sphere of the Turkish Air Force and the defense capability of Turkey in general, its prospects. The article describes the brief history of Turkey’s purchase of S-400 systems, analyzes the motives of that move from territorial, temporal, cause-and-effect, and other perspectives, and presents Turkey’s attempts to get out of the existing situation. This study aims to identify the main trends underlying the conflict between Erdogan and the Turkish political elite over the purchase of the S-400.

    References

    Cross, William, and André Blais. 2012. “Who selects the party leader?” Party Politics 18 (2): 127-150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068810382935.

    Green, Jeffrey Edward. 2008. “Max Weber and the Reinvention of Popular Power.” Max Weber Studies 8 (2): 187-224.

    Gulmez, Didem Buhari. 2020. “The resilience of the US-Turkey alliance: divergent threat perceptions and worldviews.” Contemporary Politics 26 (4): 475-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2020.1777038.

    Guo, Xiaoli. 2017. “Is Turkey Acting Fairly? - Turkey’s Choice in T-LORAMIDS.” Asian Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies 11 (2): 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/25765949.2017.12023302.

    Harmel, Robert, and Lars Svåsand. 1993. “Party leadership and party institutionalisation: Three phases of development.” West European Politics 16 (2): 67-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402389308424961.

    Kasapoğlu, Can, and Sinan Ülgen. 2019. “Strategic weapons systems in the Turkey-Russia-US triangle.” EDAM, Foreign Policy & Security 2 (January): 1-9:

    Kasapoğlu, Can. 2021. “Türk Hava gücünün en zor on yılı: Hava harp trendleri, tehdit ortamı analizi ve türk hava kuvvetleri’nin 5. nesil geleceği.” EDAM, Dış Politika & Güvenlik 2 (Ocak): 1-29.

    Kaynar, Ayşegül Kars. 2022. “Post-2016 military restructuring in Turkey from the perspective of coup-proofing.” Turkish Studies 23 (3): 383-406. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2021.1977631.

    Kazan, Isil. 2005. “Turkey: Where Geopolitics still matters.” Contemporary Security Policy 26 (3): 588-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260500500906.

    Kemp, Herb. 2020. “Strategic Security in Northern Europe: The Implications of Russian Anti-Access/Area Denial Strategies in Developing Complex Threat Environments.” Journal of Strategic Security 14 (1): 78-91.

    Kibaroğlu, Mustafa. 2019. “On Turkey’s Missile Defense Strategy: The Four Faces of the S-400 Deal between Turkey and Russia.” PERCEPTIONS (Autumn-Winter) XXIV (2-3): 159-174.

    Kilker, Ernest. 1989. “Max Weber and Plebiscitarian Democracy: A Critique of the Mommsen Thesis.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 2 (4): 429-465.

    Klein, Steven. 2016. “Between Charisma and Domination: On Max Weber’s Critique of Democracy.” The Journal of Politics 79 (1): 179-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/687323.

    Magalhães, Pedro T. 2022. “Charisma and Democracy: Max Weber on the Riddle of Political Change in Modern Societies.” Topoi 41: 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-021-09761-2.

    Radomyski, Adam. 2021. “Development of the russian anti access/anti denial (A2/AD) concept as a threat to NATO and Poland.” Torun Internatonal Studies 1 (14): 41-54. https://doi.org/10.12775/TIS.2021.004575/TIS.2021.004.

    Shaw, Tamsin. 2008.“Max Weber on Democracy: Can the People Have Political Power in Modern States?” Constellations 15 (1): 33-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.2008.00472.x.

    Shcherbak, Svetlana. 2021. “Max Weber and the Modern Plebiscitary Democracy: Weber’s legacy: at the crossroads of traditions.” Filosofska Dumka 1: 135-148. https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2021.01.135.

    Strom, Kaare. 1990. “A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 565–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111461.

    Surkov, Nikolay Yu. 2020. “Charismatic Leadership in the Middle East and North Africa in the 21 st Century: Regional Specifics and Prospects for the Evolution of the Phenomenon.” MGIMO Review of International Relations 13 (2): 123-140. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2020-2-71-123-140.

    Triantama, Febry, Cancera Triane Berliana, and Muhammad Yusril I’za. 2022. “The failure of the United States coercive diplomacy in the era of President Donald Trump: Turkey’s persistence in buying S-400.” Masyarakat, Kebudayaan dan Politik 35 (1): 58-68․ https://doi.org/10.20473/mkp.V35I12022.58-68.

    Vicentini, Giulia, and Andrea Pritoni. 2021. “The Rise and Fall of Party Leaders: Exploring Leadership Selection, Re-Selection, and De-Selection Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica 51 (3): 373-388. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2021.6.

    Willner, Ann Ruth, and Dorothy Willner. 1965 “The Rise and Role of Charismatic Leaders.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 358: 77-88.

    Zvyagelskaya, Irina. 2019. “Symbols and Values in International Relations in the Middle East.” Polis. Political Studies 1: 105-123.

Comparative politics

  • Comparative politics

    Mapping Political Populism in the European Post-Transitional Periphery

    Nane Aleksanyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    This article comparatively analyzes the manifestations and various factors of political populism in the European post-transitional periphery. The main difficulty in mapping political populism in the European post-transitional periphery and defining populist parties most accurately is that, unlike most political forces in developed democracies, such parties do not belong to traditional parties. Moreover, their ideology combines the positions of both right and left parties, which makes it extremely difficult to place them on the classical right-left scale of the party spectrum.

    The political agenda of the populist parties of the European post-transition peripheral countries has a different content, but it usually comes down to updating issues that are hushed up by the political establishment: protecting national and cultural identity, taking tough measures aimed at combating corruption and crime, protecting traditional family values, and even harsh criticism of the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the EU and their institutions. A distinctive feature of the populist forces was also that in their majority they called for the protection of the rights and interests of ordinary people and the wider use of the instruments of direct democracy, and thus directly opposed one of the fundamental principles of liberal democracy, taking into account the opinion of the minority.

    The article analyzes the emergence of a populist environment, where the responsibility, trust and dignity of politicians are distorted, which in turn leads to a crisis of understanding and civiliarchic culture. The influence of populist parties has grown and most European post-transitional peripheral countries have at least one successful populist party, and populists are among the most influential parties. It is noteworthy that civil society organizations have identified the activities of populist leaders and their parties as the main threat facing the Eastern Partnership countries. Using populist technologies, mainly in the context of an election campaign, leaders and their political groups seek to manipulate public opinion and change the alignment of political parties in the European post-transitional periphery.

    References

    Albertazzi, Daniele, Bonansinga, Donatella, and Davide Vampa. 2021. “Introduction.” In: Populism and new patterns of political competition in Western Europe, edited by Daniele Albertazzi and Davide Vampa, 1-18. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

    Arato, Andrew, and Jean L. Cohen. 2021. Populism and Civil Society: The Challenge to Constitutional Democracy. Oxford University Press.

    Arditi, Benjamin. 2005. “Populism as an Internal Periphery of Democratic Politics.” In: Populism and the Mirror of Democracy, edited by Francisco Panizza, 72-98. New York, London: Verso.

    Berend, Ivan T. 2020. The Economics and Politics of European Integration: Populism, Nationalism and the History of the EU. London and New York: Routledge.

    Breyfogle, Nicholas B., Schrader, Abby, and Willard Sunderland. 2007. “Russian colonizations: an introduction.” In: Peopling the Russian periphery: borderland colonization in Eurasian history, edited by Nicholas B. Breyfogle, Abby Schrader and Willard Sunderland, 1-18. London and New York: Routledge.

    Carrion, Julio F. 2022. A Dynamic Theory of Populism in Power: The Andes in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press.

    Csehi, Robert. 2021. Routledge Studies in Anti-Politics and Democratic Crisis. London and New York: Routledge.

    de la Torre, Carlos. 2021. “What do we mean by populism?” In: The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism, edited by Howard Tumber and Silvio Waisbord, 29-37. London and New York: Routledge.

    Di Nucci, Ezio. 2021. The Control Paradox: From AI to Populism. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Diesen, Glenn. 2022. Russophobia: Propaganda in International Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1468-3_10.

    Fieschi, Catherine. 2019. Populocracy. The Tyranny of Authenticity and the Rise of Populism. Agenda Publishing.

    Gabrisch, Hubert, Lucjan T. Orlowski, and Toralf Pusch. 2012. “Sovereign default Risk in the Euro-Periphery and the Euro-Candidate Countries.” MPRA Paper 41265. Accessed August 8, 2022. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41265/.

    Gamkrelidze, Tamar. 2019. “The project of Europe: a robust attempt to redefine Georgian identity.” East European Politics 35 (3): 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2019.1613645.

    Gamkrelidze, Tamar. 2022. “Georgia’s external frontier on Russia sedimented and unmalleable: engagement politics and the impact of the three-tier warfare.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2021.2023485.

    Ghaplanyan, Irina. 2018. Post-Soviet Armenia. The New National Elite and the New National Narrative. London and New York: Routledge.

    Glenn, John G. 2019. Foucault and Post-Financial Crises: Governmentality, Discipline and Resistance. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan: 153-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77188-5_6.

    Gräbner, Claudius, and Jakob Hafele. 2020. “The emergence of coreperiphery structures in the European Union: A complexity perspective.” ZOE Discussion Papers 6. ZOE: Institut für zukunftsfähige Ökonomien, Bonn. Accessed August 8, 2022. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/224134/1/172895116X.pdf.

    Graney, Katherine. 2019. Russia, the Former Soviet Republics, and Europe Since 1989: Transformation and Tragedy. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190055080.001.0001.

    Gregor, A. James. 2021. “Populism of the Russian Federation.” In: Political Populism In The Twenty-First Century: We The People, edited by Maria Hsia Chang, and A. James Gregor, 21-39. Cambridge Scholars Publishing,.

    Heinisch, Reinhard, and Oscar Mazzoleni. 2016. “Introduction.” In: Understanding Populist Party Organisation: The Radical Right in Western Europe, edited by Reinhard Heinisch, and Oscar Mazzoleni, 1-18. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58197-6_1.

    Heinisch, Reinhard, Massetti, Emanuele, and Oscar Mazzoleni. 2020. “Populism and ethno-territorial politics - conclusions: bridging legacies in understanding party mobilization.” In: The people and the nation: populism and ethno-territorial politics in Europe, edited by Reinhard Heinisch, Emanuele Massetti, and Oscar Mazzoleni, 280-290. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

    Huber, Robert A., and Christian H. Schimpf. 2017. “Populism and democracy - theoretical and empirical considerations.” In: Political Populism: A Handbook, ed. by Reinhard C. Heinisch, Christina Holtz-Bacha, and Oscar Mazzoleni, 329-344. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

    HURI. 2021. “Contextualizing Putin’s “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard University. Accessed August 8, 2022. https://huri.harvard.edu/news/putin-historical-unity.

    Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira, and Lisa Zanotti. 2021. “Populism and the welfare state.” In: Handbook on Austerity, Populism and the Welfare State, edited by Bent Greve, 41-53. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Kim, Seongcheol. 2021. Discourse, Hegemony, and Populism in the Visegrád Four. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

    Kinsella, Stephen. 2012. “Conventions and the European Periphery.” Accessed August 8, 2022. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2155577.

    Klobucka, Anna. 1997. “Theorizing The European Periphery.” Symplokē 5 (1/2): 119-35.

    Krekó, Péter. 2021. “Populism in Power: The Tribal Challenge.” In: The Psychology of Populism: The Tribal Challenge to Liberal Democracy, edited by Joseph P. Forgas, William D. Crano, and Klaus Fiedler, 240-257. London and New York: Routledge.

    Lane, Philip R. 2012. “The European Sovereign Debt Crisis.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (3): 49-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.3.49.

    Lieven, Anatol. 2000. “Against Russophobia.” World Policy Journal 17 (4): 25-32.

    Luostarinen, Heikki. 1989. “Finnish Russophobia: The Story of an Enemy Image.” Journal of Peace Research 26 (2): 123–37.

    Manucci, Luca. 2022. “Populism and Collective Memory.” In: The Palgrave Handbook of Populism, edited by Michael Oswald, 451-468. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80803-7_28.

    Payaslian, Simon. 2011. The political economy of human rights in Armenia: Authoritarianism and Democracy in a Former Soviet Republic. London, New York: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd.

    Pejović, Astrea, and Dimitar Nikolovski. 2022. “Introduction: Memory politics and populism in Southeastern Europe - toward an ethnographic understanding of enmity.” In: Memory politics and populism in Southeastern Europe, edited by Jody Jensen. 1-11. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

    Schwörer, Jacob. 2021. The Growth of Populism in the Political Mainstream: The Contagion Effect of Populist Messages on Mainstream Parties’ Communication. Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72449-8.

    Stengel, Frank A., MacDonald, David B., and Dirk Nabers. 2019. “Conclusion: Populism, Foreign Policy, and World Politics.” In: Populism and World Politics: Exploring Inter- and Transnational Dimensions, edited by Frank A. Stengel, David B. MacDonald, and Dirk Nabers, 365-372. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04621-7_14.

    Van Herpen, Marcel H. 2021. The end of populism: Twenty proposals to defend liberal democracy. Manchester University Press.

    Vorländer, Hans. 2019. “Populism and Modern Democracy - An Outline.” In: The Comeback of Populism: Transatlantic Perspectives, edited by Jurgen Gebhardt, Heike Paul, and Ursula Prutsch, 13-27. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter GmbH.

    Wilson, Carter A. 2021. Trumpism: Race, Class, Populism, and Public Policy. Lanham: Lexington Books.

  • Comparative politics

    Reflections on the Transformation of the World Order: Emerging Trends and Impending Perspectives

    Karine Khojayan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    The article analyzes the latest trends of the started process of transformation of world order, trying to explain it by various concepts, bringing forward by researchers and scientists, substantiating for many decades the urgent need for the existence of a dominant state - a hegemon which plays a role of a stabilizer of the international relations.  The article focuses on the concept of hegemonic stability, arguing that existence of hegemon especially in the political and economic system is a necessary condition for maintaining global peace and stability.  

    Special attention is paid to the conditions that contribute to the decline of hegemony. Drawing parallels between today's realities and the concepts, highlighted by Charles Kindleberger, Robert Gilpin, Immanuel Wallerstein and other researchers, the article proves that even based on the concepts of the mentioned researchers who for many years justified the “stabilizing role” of the US hegemony, after the global fanatical crisis of 2008 a new phase of development is becoming more and more noticeable. Referring to the point of view of I. Wallerstein, the article concludes that even maintaining dominance to a certain extent in a number of areas, such as military, political, the unipolar world order has already gone down in history.

    References

    Daye, Chu. 2019. “Russia and India can challenge SWIFT hegemony.” Global Times, October 22. Accessed July 26, 2022. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1168382.shtml.

    Eichengreen, Barry, and Masahiro Kawai, еd. 2015. Renminbi Internationalization. Achievements, Perspectives and Challanges. Tokyo, Washington, D.C.: Asian Development Bank Institution, Brookings Institution.

    Eurostat. 2022. “Share of European Union EU27 in world trade.” Accessed July 27, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/EXT_LT_INTROEU27_2020__custom_3009927/settings_1/table?lang=en.

    Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Gilpin, Robert. 2001. Global Political Economy, Understanding the International Economic Order. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Hanemann, Thilo, Daniel H. Rosen, Mark Witzke, Steve Bennion, and Emma Smith. 2021. Two-Way Street: 2021 Update US-China Investment Trends. The US-China Investment Project Report, New York: Rhodium Group, National Committee on US-China Relations.

    Hopkins, Terence K., and Immanuel Wallerstein. 1982. World-Systems Analysis: Theory and Methodology. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.

    International Monetary Fund. 2021. “Special drawing rights (SDR).” Accessed July 27, 2022. https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/01/14/51/Special-Drawing-Right-SDR.

    International Monetary Fund. 2022. “International financial statistics. Currency composition of official foreign exchange reserves (COFER).” Accessed July 27, 2022. https://data.imf.org/regular.aspx?key=41175.

    Kindleberger, Charles. 1973. The World in Depression, 1929-39. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Krasner, Stephen D. 1976. “State Power and the Structure of International Trade.” World Politics 28 (3): 317-347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009974

    Kwon, Roy. 2011. “Hegemonies in the World-System: An Empirical Assessment of Hegemonic Sequences from the 16th to 20th Century.” Sociological Perspectives 54 (4): 593-617. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2011.54.4.593.

    McNally, Christopher A. 2022. “Saudi Arabia’s Oil Exports and the Yuan.”Accessed July 26, 2022. https://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/saudi-arabias-oil-exports-and-the-yuan.

    Mishra, Rahul. 2016. “Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: An Assessment.” India Quarterly 72 (2): 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974928416643582.

    United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2022. “World Investment Report 2022, FDI flows, by region and economy, 2016-2021.” New York: UNCTD. Accessed July 27, 2022. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2022_en.pdf.

    Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1980. The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750. New York: New York Academy Press.

    Winecoff, William K. 2020. ““The persistent myth of lost hegemony,” revisited: structural power as a complex network phenomenon.” European Journal of International Relations 26 (1): 209-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120952876.

    World Bank data. 2022. “GDP annual growth.” Accessed July 27, 2022. https://databank.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG/1ff4a498/Popular-Indicators#.

    World Bank data. 2022. “Nominal Gross Domestics Product (GDP) data.” Accessed July 27, 2022. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2020&locations=US-CN-JP&start=1960&view=chart.

    World Bank. 2022. “World Bank Group Finances. Top 8 countries voting power.” Accessed July 27, 2022. https://finances.worldbank.org/Shareholder-Equity/Top-8-countries-voting-power/udm3-vzz9.

    World’s Top Exports. 2022. “Crude oil export by countries.” Accessed July 27, 2022. https://www.worldstopexports.com/worlds-top-oil-exports-country/.

    World’s Top Exports. 2022. “Crude oil import by countries.” Accessed July 27, 2022. https://www.worldstopexports.com/crude-oil-imports-by-country/.

Public Policy

  • Public Policy

    Civic Journalism as a Phenomenon of Digital Civilization

    Greta Gevorgyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    This article explores the role of citizen journalism in terms of promoting civil society and democracy. Civic journalists, as well as citizen journalists, contribute to public discussion and try to voice and address many issues that have been ignored by traditional journalism. This study aims to explore the relevance of citizen journalism in the modern world. In addition, a negative phenomenon that is widespread in social networks and infringes on human rights, fake news and hate speech on social networks is investigated. Combining qualitative discourse analysis, comparison and description, the study shows that the role of citizen journalism is growing in many countries. However, hate speech and fake news on social media hinder the development of citizen journalism. To this end, further legislative and democratic measures must be taken. However, the most effective way to combat the obstacles to citizen journalism is to promote media literacy, which will enable everyone to comparatively analyze information, check the message and develop critical thinking.

    References

    Ahmad, Nyarwi, and Ioan-Lucian Popa. 2014. “The Social Media Usage and the Transformation of Political Marketing and Campaigning of the Emerging Democracy in Indonesia.” In: Social Media in Politics. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 13, edited by Bogdan Pătruţ, and Monica Pătruţ, 97-125. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04666-2_7.

    Ahva, Laura. 2011. “What is ”public” in public journalism?” Estudos em Comunicação -Communication Studies 9:119-142.

    Ahva, Laura. 2013. “Public journalism and professional reflexivity.” Journalism 14 (6): 790-806. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884912455895.

    Allcott, Hunt, and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 31 (2): 211-236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211.

    Barnes, Corinne. 2012. “Citizen journalism vs. traditional journalism: A case for collaboration.” Caribbean Quarterly 58 (2-3): 16-27.

    Bayer, Judit, Natalija Bitiukova, Petra Bárd, Judit Szakács, Alberto Alemanno, and Erik Uszkiewicz. 2019. Disinformation and propaganda - impact on the functioning of the rule of law in the EU and its Member States. Brussels: Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union. Accessed July 2, 2022. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/608864/IPOL_STU(2019)608864_EN.pdf.

    Bentley, Clyde H. 2011. “Citizen journalism: Back to the future?” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 3 (1): 103-118.

    Campbell, Vincent. 2015. “Theorizing citizenship in citizen journalism.” Digital Journalism 3 (5): 704-719.

    Haciyakupoglu, Gulizar, Jennifer Yang Hui, V. S. Suguna, Dymples Leong, and Muhammad Faizal Bin Abdul Rahman. 2018. Policy Report: Countering fake news: a survey of recent global initiatives. Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyan. Accessed July 5, 2022. https://www.think-asia.org/bitstream/handle/11540/8063/PR180307_Countering-Fake-News.pdf?sequence=1.

    Kulesza, Joanna. 2014. “Social Media Censorship vs. State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations.” In: Social Media in Politics. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 13, edited by Bogdan Pătruţ, and Monica Pătruţ, 259-280. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04666-2_15.

    Macharashvili, Nino. 2012. “Citizen Journalism and Traditional Media: 5Ws & H.” MA thesis. University of Warwick. https://pdfslide.net/documents/citizen-journalism-and-traditional-media-5ws-h.html?page=2.

    McGonagle, Tarlach. 2017. ““Fake news”: False fears or real concerns?” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 35 (4): 203-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0924051917738685.

    McNair, Brian. 2018. Fake News: Falsehood, Fabrication and Fantasy in Journalism. London and New York: Routledge.

    Miller, Michael. 2019. Fake News: Separating Truth From Fiction. Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books.

    Mutsvairo, Bruce, and Susana Salgado. 2022. “Is citizen journalism dead? An examination of recent developments in the field.” Journalism 23 (2): 354-371.

    Noor, Rabia. 2017. “Citizen journalism vs. mainstream journalism: A study on challenges posed by amateurs.” Athens Journal of Mass Media and Communications 3 (1): 55-76.

    Nuernbergk, Christian. 2022. “Public Sphere Conceptions: Public Sphere Theory.” In: Handbook of Media and Communication Economics: A European Perspective, 1-24. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

    Örnebring, Henrik. 2013. “Anything you can do, I can do better? Professional journalists on citizen journalism in six European countries.” International Communication Gazette 75 (1): 35-53.

    Posetti, Julie, Cherilyn Ireton, Claire Wardle, Hossein Derakhshan, Alice Matthews, Magda Abu-Fadil, Tom Trewinnard, Fergus Bell, and Alexios Mantzarlis. 2018. Journalism, Fake News and Disinformation: Handbook for Journalism Education and Training. Paris: UNESCO.

    Predmerská, Anna K. 2019. “On the Highway to Multiplatform Journalism.” Communication Today 10 (1): 158-160.

    Romero, Leocadia D. (2014). On the Web and Contemporary Social Movements. In: Social Media in Politics. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 13, edited by Bogdan Pătruţ, and Monica Pătruţ, 19-33. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04666-2_2.

    Ruusunoksa, Laura. 2006. “Public journalism and professional culture: Local, regional and national public spheres as contexts of professionalism.” Javnost-The Public 13 (4): 81-98.

    Simons, Greg. 2016. “The impact of social media and citizen journalism on mainstream Russian news.” Russian Journal of Communication 8 (1): 33-51.

    Tworek, Heidi. 2017. “Political Communications in the Fake News Era: Six Lessons for Europe.” Policy Brief: Transatlantic Academy (February): 1-10.

    Vargo, J. Chris, Lei Guo, and Michelle A. Amazeen. 2018. “The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016.” New media & Society 20 (5): 2028-2049. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448177120.

    Walters, Kendle. 2011. “Comparative and critical analysis: The roles of civic and traditional journalism.” UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1377. http://doi.org/10.34917/3275266.

    Wardle, Claire, and Hossein Derakhshan. 2017. “Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.” Accessed April 10, 2022. https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c.

    Wu, Yan, and Matthew Wall. 2019. “Prosumers in a digital multiverse: An investigation of how WeChat is affecting Chinese citizen journalism.” Global Media and China 4 (1): 36-51.

Political Philosophy

  • Political Philosophy

    How to Reconcile Equality with Freedom? On the Two Ways in Liberalism

    Naira Mkrtchyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    The article examines the relationship between the two central political ideas and values, equality and freedom, and its implications within the theories of two liberal thinkers Isaiah Berlin and John Rawls. The current debate around basic income and COVID-19 around the world, alarmist predictions about the future of humanity, and possible other issues, both global and local, provide enough incentive to reconsider this issue. While making some general remarks on both theories, and especially highlighting the rival nature of the relationship of equality with freedom, the article uses the method of comparative analysis to explore how these liberal thinkers reconcile these two central political ideas in their own way. Two different ways of reconciliation, developed by Isaiah Berlin and John Rawls, show a discrepancy with the initial attitudes of the authors. And, finally, equality and freedom demonstrate paradoxical relationships, both contradictory and mutually supportive.

    References

    Berlin, Isaiah. 2002. “Introduction.” In Liberty, edited by Henry Hardy, 3-54. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Berlin, Isaiah. 2002. “Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century.” In Liberty, edited by Henry Hardy, 55-93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Berlin, Isaiah. 2002. “Two Concepts of Liberty.” In Liberty, edited by Henry Hardy, 166-217. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Berlin, Isaiah. 1979. “Equality.” In Concepts and Categories, edited by Henry Hardy, 81-102. New York: The Viking Press.

    Cohen, Gerald. 2006. “Are Freedom and Equality Compatible?” In Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology, edited by Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit, 416-423. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Jahanbegloo, Ramin. 2007. Conversations with Isaiah Berlin. London: Halban.

    Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.

    Pogge, Thomas. 2007. John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice. Translated by Michelle Kosch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Rawls, John. 2005. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Rawls, John. 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Rawls, John. 1999. “Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory.” In Collected Papers, edited by Samuel Freeman, 303-358. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Ryan, Alan. 2007. “Liberalism.” In A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, edited by Robert E. Goodin, Philip Pettit and Thomas Pogge, 360-382. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Shklar, Judith N. 1989. “The Liberalism of Fear.” In Liberalism and the Moral Life, edited by Nancy L. Rosenblum, 21-38. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Book Review

  • Book Review

    Lebanidze, Bidzina. 2020. Russia, EU and the Post-Soviet Democratic Failure. Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. XV, 329 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26446-8

    Hayarpi Drmeyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    This book is devoted to a comparative study of the democratization of the political regimes of the post-Soviet countries, as well as the main factors in the failure of post-Soviet democracy. In different chapters of the book, special attention is paid to the integration and democratization political processes, based on the results of which the author uses the concept of the post-Soviet puzzle. The problem of formation of democratic institutions, promotion of EU democratic strategies in the post-Soviet states, protracted conflicts in this region continue to pose complex questions for the researcher about the instruments of effective influence on these countries.

    The main task of the author of this study was to analyze the new and transforming old tools used by the EU and the Russian Federation, to identify the main reasons for the failure of post-Soviet democracy. The author comparatively analyzes the role of Russia and the EU in resolving ethnic and political conflicts in the post-Soviet space, exercising economic incentives, as well as other domestic and external factors which leads to the post-Soviet puzzle and the failure of post-Soviet democracy.

    References

    Lebanidze, Bidzina. 2020. Direct external influence: Elections in the post-Soviet states. In: Russia, EU and the Post-Soviet Democratic Failure, 191-245. Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26446-8_9.

    Lebanidze, Bidzina. 2020. Domestic prerequisites for democratization. In: Russia, EU and the Post-Soviet Democratic Failure, 85-109. Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26446-8_6.

    Lebanidze, Bidzina. 2020. European and Russian strategies in the post-Soviet space. In: Russia, EU and the Post-Soviet Democratic Failure, 125-190. Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26446-8_8.

    Lebanidze, Bidzina. 2020. Measuring the external leverage in the post-Soviet states. In: Russia, EU and the Post-Soviet Democratic Failure, 111-124. Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26446-8_7.

    Lebanidze, Bidzina. 2020. Regime outcomes and degree of democracy in the post-Soviet states. In: Russia, EU and the Post-Soviet Democratic Failure, 71-84. Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26446-8_5.

  • Book Review

    Armenia’s Velvet Revolution: Authoritarian Decline and Civil Resistance in a Multipolar World, edited by Broers Laurence, and Anna Ohanyan. London: I.B. TAURIS, 2021. XVI, 271 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781788317214

    Viktorya Melkonyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    The collection was written originally in English and published in 2021. It analyzes the problems of the Velvet Revolution in Armenia in terms of the decline of authoritarianism and civil resistance in the transformation of a multipolar world. The authors of the collection comparatively analyze the internal and external political problems of modern Armenia, the policy of democratization of the political regime, the cycles of political power, the transit of the elite and the leadership of the parties in power, certain aspects of its economic and social development.

    The team of authors prepared this collection and a comprehensive study of the entire system of public regulation of the political life of Armenia, the nature and forms of relations between the public authorities and civil society organizations. The main trends in the foreign policy development of post-Soviet Armenia, primarily in the regional conflict environment and in the European direction, and in connection with the Velvet Revolution, are explored.

    The authors of the chapters highlight the main stages and tasks of the Velvet Revolution in Armenia and civil resistance: when, how and how it was built and with what degree of effectiveness the system of public regulation operated, how its main administrative institutions operated in the center and locally.

    The appeal to this problem is caused by the relevance of studying the subject of the Velvet Revolution in the modern life of Armenia, the need to more fully comprehend the processes taking place in the Armenian environment inside and outside the country.

    The book contains many interesting facts and points of view. Therefore, it will be interesting and useful not only for scientists, but also for everyone interested in the problems of revolution, democratization and civil resistance. It may serve as practical handbook for political scientists, sociologists, journalists as well as students and specialists from the field of human rights,  democratization and international relations, interested in modern revolutions, political technologies, diaspora and civil society studies, etc.

    References

    Baev, Pavel K. 2021. “Preserving the alliance against tall odds: Armenia’s Velvet Revolution as a challenge to Russia.” In: Armenia’s Velvet Revolution: Authoritarian Decline and Civil Resistance in a Multipolar World, edited by Laurence Broers, and Anna Ohanyan, 161-180. London: I.B. TAURIS. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781788317214.0014.

    Broers, Laurence. 2021. “How Serzh Sargsyan and the Republican Party of Armenia lost control of a competitive authoritarian system.” In: Armenia’s Velvet Revolution: Authoritarian Decline and Civil Resistance in a Multipolar World, edited by Laurence Broers, and Anna Ohanyan, 73-99. London: I.B. TAURIS. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781788317214.0010.

    Cavoukian, Kristin. 2021. “Democratization and diaspora: The Velvet Revolution and the Armenian nation abroad.” In: Armenia’s Velvet Revolution: Authoritarian Decline and Civil Resistance in a Multipolar World, edited by Laurence Broers, and Anna Ohanyan, 201-230. London: I.B. TAURIS. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781788317214.0016.

    Giragosian, Richard. 2021. “Armenia’s transition: The challenges of geography, geopolitics and multipolarity.” In: Armenia’s Velvet Revolution: Authoritarian Decline and Civil Resistance in a Multipolar World, edited by Laurence Broers, and Anna Ohanyan, 141-159. London: I.B. TAURIS. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781788317214.0013.

    Ohanyan, Anna. 2021b. “Conclusion: What’s next for Armenia? Authoritarian reserves and risks in a democratic state.” In: Armenia’s Velvet Revolution: Authoritarian Decline and Civil Resistance in a Multipolar World, edited by Laurence Broers, and Anna Ohanyan, 231-252. London: I.B. TAURIS. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781788317214.0017.

    Ohanyan, Anna. 2021а. “Velvet is not a colour: Armenia’s democratic transition in a global context.” In: Armenia’s Velvet Revolution: Authoritarian Decline and Civil Resistance in a Multipolar World, edited by Laurence Broers, and Anna Ohanyan, 25-49. London: I.B. TAURIS. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781788317214.0008.

    Paturyan, Yevgenya Jenny. 2021. “Armenian civil society: Growing pains, honing skills and possible pitfalls.” In: Armenia’s Velvet Revolution: Authoritarian Decline and Civil Resistance in a Multipolar World, edited by Laurence Broers, and Anna Ohanyan, 101-118. London: I.B. TAURIS. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781788317214.0011.

    Pinckney, Jonathan. 2021. “Donning the Velvet: Non-violent resistance in the 2018 Armenian Revolution.” In: Armenia’s Velvet Revolution: Authoritarian Decline and Civil Resistance in a Multipolar World, edited by Laurence Broers, and Anna Ohanyan, 119-139. London: I.B. TAURIS. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781788317214.0012.

    Shirinian, Tamar. 2021. “Political patriarchy: Gendered hierarchies, paternalism, and public space in Armenia’s ‘Velvet Revolution’.” In: Armenia’s Velvet Revolution: Authoritarian Decline and Civil Resistance in a Multipolar World, edited by Laurence Broers, and Anna Ohanyan, 181-199. London: I.B. TAURIS. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781788317214.0015.

    Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2004. World-systems analysis: An introduction. Duke University Press.

    Zolyan, Mikayel. 2021. “Thirty years of protest: How Armenia’s legacy of political and civic protests prepared the Velvet Revolution.” In: Armenia’s Velvet Revolution: Authoritarian Decline and Civil Resistance in a Multipolar World, edited by Laurence Broers, and Anna Ohanyan, 51-71. London: I.B. TAURIS. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781788317214.0009.

  • Book Review

    Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, edited by Ulrike Ziemer. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020. X, 281 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25517-6_8

    Svetlana Jilavyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    This edited volume provides a comparative analysis of the everyday problems of women in the South Caucasus. The authors of this collection pay special attention to the geopolitical analysis in the region in the context of social changes and civilizational challenges of women. The authors discuss the everyday problems of women during periods of transformation of political systems, regimes and conflicts, thereby explaining the various dimensions of these transits of power and institutions of public authority.

    The role of women in the South Caucasus is steadily growing even in conditions of instability, neither war nor peace. Women are actively employed in almost all spheres of life: in the economy, politics, culture, public life. However, in the South Caucasus, although the idea of protecting women's rights and gender equality has been enshrined at the constitutional level, the problem of how the actual status of women in society complies with constitutional provisions still persists.

    The democratization of the life of the South Caucasian society, the expansion of the information space and the variety of types of communications led to the involvement of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in global processes, in particular, in the implementation of the modernist project to protect the rights and freedoms of women.

    References

    Aleksanyan, Anna. 2020. “Between Love, Pain and Identity: Armenian Women After World War I.” In: Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, edited by Ulrike Ziemer, 103-127. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25517-6_5.

    Aliyeva, Yuliya Gureyeva. 2020. “Exploring Two Generations of Women Activists in Azerbaijan: Between Feminism and a Post-Soviet Locality.” In: Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, edited by Ulrike Ziemer, 225-252. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25517-6_10.

    Arjevanidze, Nargiza. 2020. “Vulnerability and Resilience: Women’s Narratives of Forced Displacement from Abkhazia.” In: Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, edited by Ulrike Ziemer, 155-177. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25517-6_7.

    Curro, Costanza. 2020. “‘Supra Is Not for Women’: Hospitality Practices as a Lens on Gender and Social Change in Georgia.” In: Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, edited by Ulrike Ziemer, 43-70. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25517-6_3.

    Ghazaryan, Shushanik. 2020. “‘We Are Strangers Among Our Own People’: Displaced Armenian Women.” In: Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, edited by Ulrike Ziemer, 129-153. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25517-6_6.

    Gvianishvili, Natia. 2020. “Invisible Battlefield: How the Politicization of LGBT Issues Affects the Visibility of LBT Women in Georgia.” In: Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, edited by Ulrike Ziemer, 205-224. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25517-6_9.

    Krebs, Melanie. 2020. “Women as Bearers of Modernity and Tradition.” In: Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, edited by Ulrike Ziemer, 23-42. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25517-6_2.

    Shahnazarian, Nona, and Ulrike Ziemer. 2020. “The Politics of Widowhood in Nagorny Karabakh.” In: Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, edited by Ulrike Ziemer, 179-201. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25517-6_8.

    Walsh, Sinead. 2020. “Feminism in Azerbaijan: Gender, Community and Nation-Building.” In: Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, edited by Ulrike Ziemer, 253-275. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25517-6_11.

    Ziemer, Ulrike. 2018. “Opportunities for Self-Realisation?: Young Women’s Experiences of Higher Education in Russia.” In: The Palgrave Handbook of Women and Gender in Twentieth-Century Russia and the Soviet Union, edited by Melanie Ilic, 479-494. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54905-1_31.

    Ziemer, Ulrike. 2020. “Women Against Authoritarianism: Agency and Political Protest in Armenia.” In: Women’s Everyday Lives in War and Peace in the South Caucasus, edited by Ulrike Ziemer, 71-100. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25517-6_4.