Suchergebnisse

As a new age in the history of Russia was started by the events of 2014, we, the MGIMO alumni pondered deeply both upon the history of our country and upon the history of alma mater. Thus, we see the coincidence of MGIMO's 70th anniversary and of the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War as far more meaningful than just a reason for formal celebration. The establishment of the groundwork of the MGIMO corporate ethic: exigency and amicability, proactiveness and responsibility, openness to the outside world and firmness in defending one's positions - is inseparably connected with the years of the "lieutenant generation", with its first enrollments and first graduations. The main accomplishments of the lieutenant generation of MGIMO graduates took place in 1950's-1970's, in the period of the development and realization of the policy of peaceful coexistence and detente. The policy of peaceful coexistence revealed in full measure both the pursuit of peace and the sober realism based upon the global balance of power. The idea of peaceful coexistence may well be seen as a prototype of the concept of a polycentric world, formulated by the successors of the lieutenant generation at the turn of the XXI century. Hard times did not pass MGIMO by. Fortunately, though, among the merits of the lieutenant generation was the merit of bringing up another MGIMO generation, which preserved the school during the turmoil of the 1990's. In the 1990's-2000's drawing upon its initial traditions, MGIMO became a full-fledged university with manifold international ties both in the West and in the East. Studies dedicated to the Great Patriotic war occupy a particular place in the research activities of MGIMO scholars. These studies have not only historical but also a great educational value, drawing a wide student response and inspiring youth to engage in cross-generation dialogue.

Г.И. Волкова. Испания: государство автономий и проблема территориальной целостности. М.: МАКС Пресс, 2011.328 с.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Philosophy and Social science school of MGIMO has received both nationwide and international recognition. The traditions of the school were laid by two highly respected scientists and science managers, George P. Frantsev, who was the rector MGIMO during the crucial period of its early years, and Alexander F. Shishkin, who was the founder and head of the Department of Philosophy. The former belonged to one of the best schools of antic history studies of the Petersburg (Leningrad) University. Frantsev made a great contribution to the restoration of Russian social and political science after World War II. After graduating from MGIMO, he worked at the Foreign Ministry of USSR, and then served as a rector of the Academy of Social Sciences and chief-editor of the journal "Problems of Peace and Socialism" in Prague. He consistently supported MGIMO scientists and recommended them as participants for international congresses and conferences. Shishkin was born in Vologda, and studied in Petrograd during 1920s. His research interests included history of education and morality. He was the author of the first textbook on ethics in the postwar USSR. Other works Shishkin, including monograph "XX century and the moral values of humanity", played a in reorienting national philosophy from class interests to universal moral principles. During thirty years of his leadership of the Department of Philosophy, Shishkin managed to prepare several generations of researchers and university professors. Scientists educated by Shishkin students consider themselves to be his "scientific grandchildren". The majority of MGIMO post-graduate students followed the footsteps of Frantsev in their research, but they also were guided by Shishkin's ideas on morality in human relations. Philosophy and Social science school of MGIMO played an important role in the revival of Soviet social and political science. Soviet Social Science Association (SSSA), established in 1958, elected Frantsev as its president, and G.V. Osipov as a deputy president. A year later Osipov became president and remained so until 1972.

The article deals with the formulation in France in the early twenty-first century of a new kind of diplomacy - science diplomacy. It studies the reasons for this process and its problems. On the one hand, the French foreign policy doctrine presupposes an ability to exercise certain influence on its international partners. However, its goals in this area are reduced to mere survival under conditions dictated by other countries. Modern trends in the world of science, which lead to integration, force to reconsider the attitude towards staff training, to research itself, and to its place and role in politics and diplomacy. However, an achievement of the French political class is an understanding of the main aspects of what is happening. This understanding leads to the search for ways to adapt to the new situation. At the same time, diplomats can operate only with those resources that are available to them. Competition with the US, China and other countries for scientific personnel and achievements cannot be won by diplomatic means alone, without backing by appropriate legal, economic and other efforts which provide favorable conditions for winning the competition. The main causes of France's unfavorable position in the struggle for an independent science are economic and political. It is they that lead to conditions, which prohibit French scientists to live up to their potential at home.

Traditions of the Ibero-American Studies at MGIMO were laid by generation of professors who taught at the MGIMO University in the late 1940s - early 1950s. Among them were such distinguished scholars as historian L.I. Clove and economic geographer I.A. Witwer. The formation of the first generation of iberoamerican scholars at MGIMO took place in an atmosphere marked by fresh memories of the Spanish Civil War and the convergence of the USSR and the countries of Latin America, with the majority of which diplomatic relations were established. The outbreak of the "cold war" reduced to a minimum soviet relations with the Spanish-speaking countries. The creative potential of students of Zubok and Witwer was fully revealed only in 1960-1970-ies. when the historical fate of Russia and Latin America once again converged and intertwined. A number of graduates students of Ibero-American studies (U.V. Dubinin, M.F. Kudachkin, N. Leonov, K.A. Hachaturov, G.E. Hatters) in those years successfully combined practical and scientific activities. MGIMO graduates have contributed greatly to the establishment of the leading centers of domestic Latin American studies - Institute of Latin America and the journal "Latin America."

The article considers peer review as the main procedure for demarcating scientific knowledge from other kinds thereof, which do not meet the criteria set for research results. The authors examine the history of peer review, which has first been used in early scientific journals and then has become one of the key approaches to distributing funds for research in science foundations, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation. The article also considers the role of peer review in the legal process, wherein observance of this procedure can be seen as the main criteria, which separates scientific evidence from mere testimony. The description of the main elements of the peer review procedure is based on the "Statement of principles for scientific merit review" the summary of the results of the Global Summit on Merit Review, which brought together heads of science funding organizations from more than 50 countries. The Statement listed the following principles: expert assessment, transparency, impartiality, appropriateness, confidentiality, integrity and ethical considerations. Although these principles are seen as a way to guarantee efficient peer review one has to consider the peculiarities of a particular research area, first of all the differences between social and natural sciences. Accordingly the article gives an overview of key traits of peer review in the social sciences and humanities. The authors also consider the main procedural elements - preparation of individual reviews, consideration by panels, anonymity of reviewers. Finally the article addresses the problems of peer review such as non-transparent process, elitism in selecting reviewers, conservativeness of decisions, and possible ways of handling these problems.