In the modern age national security is more than ever conditioned by the quality and quantity of the available intellectual resources, as well as by the ability of the society to arrange and to use those resources in accordance with the national interests. It is known that besides academic institutions and universities, the research centers, or the so-called “think tanks” are considered as an important format of the organization of the intellectual resources. Based on the analysis of the data presented by The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program research it is shown that the intensity of the growth of the number of the think tanks is correlated with the global military and political tendencies. At the same time a conclusion is drawn that think tanks formed at the territory of the former Soviet Union do not always work in accordance with the classical formulation, in the context of “creation of the national interests” and very often they serve the interests of the third countries. But under some circumstances think tanks may play an important role not only in the aspect of serving actual political issues but also to become a kind of “locomotive” for boosting a number of academic areas.

Full version (450 Kb)

It is always useful to speak about the national security, especially in the modern era of global changes when the supranational states and formations, which seemed unshakable, crumbled like sand castles before the eyes of one generation. On their ruins newly independent states were formed and the nations with different civilizational heritage experienced a kind of revival of the national consciousness, thus stimulating searches of national identity and reflections about the national security. On the other hand, under the great pressure of globalization and a number of geopolitical factors, nation states are being undermined. Such classical formulations as “nation state”, “national security” and other closely-related concepts are becoming defused. Here are those poles, at the intersection of which the current dialectical process of developments round our independence, national consciousness and national security is unfold.

Full version (639 Kb)

The road to the 21st century, to a new global world order should be based on a common memory of wars and violence which had a great impact on Europe in the 20th century. While scrutinizing the political discourses where the category of memory is a central guideline, it becomes clear that historical responsibility only indirectly, i.e. in the form of special kind of amenability to the victims, is a responsibility for persecutions and violence, wars and evictions. On the other hand the European policy of memory refers to such aspects as abuse of power, shortcomings of democracy, and images of enemy in politics. In such policy a common, binding, global memory is formed. Here the softening and settlement of the conflict potentials come to the fore and this is a big threat which Armenians and Armenian history face.

Full version (162 Kb)

The most difficult situation in the aspect of implementation of the “Eastern Partnership” programme today emerges in the region of the South Caucasus. Partially it can be explained by the fact that despite their political, economic and cultural differences, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are very often wrongly perceived in the European Union as something homogenous and even as an integral whole. Besides, the region, which is of crucial importance for Europe from the point of view of energy security provision and military and political stability, constantly tests to the limit the commitment of the Europeans to the ideals of the human rights protection, including the one in the international relations. Taking into account the preserving contradictions between republics, the success of the initiative today is mostly dependant on the ability of the EU to involve the countries of the region in the collective format of cooperation. Probably, today taking decision to change the basic guidelines of the “Eastern Partnership” initiative and to create really working and efficient partnership make sense.

Full version (127 Kb)

The key issue of this study is to identify the relationship between the principle of state sovereignty and internationally recognized human rights in armed conflicts. The study supports the hypothesis that the norm of sovereignty and noninterference in internal affairs of the state are not absolute but limited features, framed by the decline of legitimacy of the central government in the face of largescale and systematic human rights violations, including systematic ethnic cleansings. The study also shows that the sovereignty now stands for "responsibility", and a refreshed approach to the norm of sovereignty in the effective world order, and is increasingly incorporated into the UNSC resolutions that have binding effect upon international relations and international law.

Full version (225 Kb)

Retrospective view of the relations between Turkey and Georgia reveals their complicated and very often discrepant nature. Generally, it can be stated that historically, Turkish-Georgian relations, despite their mixed assessment, still remain the forming aspect of the further development of the relations between Turkey and Georgia, which in the modern stage are passing on within the strategic framework. While presenting the retrospection of the Turkish-Georgian relations, it is also necessary to take into consideration the history of the peoples and countries which were directly involved in those relations and not to try to present them in a one-sided negative and non-constructive plane.

Full version (115 Kb)

Intelligence activities are, in essence, continuation of the foreign and domestic policy carried out by the leadership of foreign states. The aim of the intelligence activities is conditioned by the foreign policy of the states, their strategy of security, military doctrine of the given state as well as by the level and quality of the bilateral relations with the states in regard of which this policy is carried out. In the age of the world which is open for the information flows, foreign states more often and eagerly implement the practice of using actions of intelligence-information influence. Currently many foreign states cardinally reconsider their views concerning the form and ways of warfare. Military experts of those countries more often consider information space as a sphere of warfare. Thus, informational dominance is requisite condition for victory in modern war. In particular, mass media, public statements of the politicians, open information resources, Internet are actively used by Azerbaijan and Turkey for intelligence and informational influence and are directed to the undermining defence capability and national security of the Republic of Armenia, as well as for misrepresentation of the world community. We should constantly remember about it and try to show selective and cautious approach to any “information flows”, thus not identifying them with the reality.

Full version(148 Kb)