The article examines the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the development of center-regional relations on the example of the Italian Republic. The pandemic has become a serious test of the effectiveness and strength of interaction between central governments and regions, and analysis of the socio-political results of almost two years of the difficult test makes it possible to clarify the understanding of the nature of modern Italian regionalism, and allows us to present a forecast for its further development. The study of this research is inscribed in a broad analytical and historical context. The conceptualization of analytical tools has been clarified, including the concepts of decentralization, regionalization, federalization, devolution, separatism, irredentism, autonomism. Political decentralization in Italy is considered in a historical retrospective by analyzing the goals, drivers and main milestones of the emergence and development of autonomist and separatist projects, including taking into account the study of the "North-South" issue. Various alternatives for the further evolution of center-periphery relations are considered, taking into account the negative impact of the pandemic. The conclusion is argued that the central government as a whole has demonstrated the ability to mobilize and pursue a flexible policy that meets social demand in key parameters, as a result of which society has rallied around the anti-crisis agenda and increased support for the central government. At this stage, it is considered that a relative public agreement has been reached taking into account the increase of current problems in case of active support of separatist political actors. Provided that the national government develops a further effective policy that keeps in mind the needs of the regions, it will help maintain the stability of the center-regional relations for the future.

The article analyzes the phenomenon of the small steps tactics in the peace process. An attempt is made to demonstrate how the systematic interaction of the parties to resolve non-politicized issues allows either to avoid another "freeze" of the negotiation process, or, at least, to maintain an informal dialogue when negotiations are not conducted at the political and diplomatic level. This approach is adjacent to the Track II diplomacy or one-and-a-half track diplomacy, as well as to the concepts of sustainable dialogue and confidence building measures. Reconciliation and finding a reliable formula for settlement is impossible in cases of protracted and smoldering conflicts without creating a sufficient level of mutual trust, at least between those social groups of representatives of the parties who form the political agenda and who are at the negotiating table. The study allowed the author to identify the similarity of confidence building measures and the "small steps" tactics, as well as conceptual differences that allow us to talk about its innovative nature. The article reviews the positive narratives of the "small steps" tactics and identifies limitations for its application. For this purpose, archival documents of the negotiation process, reports of the OSCE and foreign ministries of the parties to the conflict, statements of the involved participants, as well as the personal experience of the author, who was involved for a number of years in the negotiation process on the Transdnistrian settlement in the "5+2" format. The paper concludes that the "small steps" tactic is not able to resolve the conflict or build a settlement model, but, thanks to the principle of mutual security of behavior models, it makes it possible to achieve a change in the relations of the parties to the conflict, to transfer them from confrontational to cooperative, thus influencing the situation in the conflict zone.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has become known for its active engagement in the drafting and promotion of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The success of the campaign is related to the fact that not only other anti-nuclear non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but also a number of state figures and diplomats have joined the campaign. ICAN is a "transnational advocacy network" (TAN) that has managed to engage a significant pool of state and non-state stakeholders (actors). This paper aims to explore the ICAN phenomenon and identify the features of this transnational advocacy network. The study is based on documents and materials drawn from the official ICAN website, working papers from the NPT Review Conferences, as well as interviews with representatives of anti-nuclear NGOs. The novelty of the study consists in the fact that a new interpretation of the concept of "transnational advocacy network" was introduced into Russian academic discourse and the main instruments and principles of TAN were identified on the basis of the ICAN example. The research of ICAN was carried out according to three bullet-points: (1) analysis of NGO activities in the NPT negotiation process; (2) identification of the features of ICAN as a TAN, the main trends and methods of work; (3) problems and limitations of ICAN. A hallmark of today's TANs is that they combine advocacy and examination, allowing such coalitions to work successfully with international organizations and states. ICAN is an interesting case study because there has been a convergence of interests between a number of states and anti-nuclear NGOs. However, the question still remains how long will it be able to keep functioning in the TAN format and continue to frame the agenda of the NPT Conferences? The drive to ban nuclear weapons, and then to lobby for the signing and ratification of the NPT, demonstrated that ICAN had moved from public activity to direct diplomacy. Nevertheless, there is reason to assume that ICAN and its coordinating role in the NPT negotiation process may become less important as the focus and interests of states shift back to public outreach activities.

This article investigates the impact of various institutional factors on the duration of legislative process negotiations in the European Union. The empirical data consists of EU secondary law directives adopted in 19902019 (1124 directives). We use the methodology of survival analysis (Cox model). We detected that after 2004 the rules of voting in the Council (unanimity or qualified majority) do not affect the duration of the legislative process; this conclusion changes the traditional vision of the functioning of the Council. We prove that of all the EU enlargements, only that of 1995 has influenced the legislative process and slowed it down. Other EU enlargements, including one in 2004 when 10 CEE countries joined the EU, did not show a significant impact. We demonstrate that of all basic treaty reforms that have taken place since 1990 only the Amsterdam Treaty has accelerated the decisionmaking process. In addition, we conclude that the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2007 between the Council and the European Parliament had a stronger impact on the legislative process than most treaty reforms. It favoured the acceleration of decisionmaking by consolidating cooperative practices between EU institutions based on trilogues. Besides, the study confirms some previous conclusions tested on the new dataset: more active involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process (ordinary legislative procedure), the novelty and complexity of the act slow down the decisionmaking process.

The article analyzes the international legal framework for the participation of regional organizations in peacekeeping operations. Based on a review of scientific literature, the author examines the evolution of the legal approaches of the United Nations to international peacekeeping operations, considering the changes in their content in recent decades. The author explores the coupling between the peacekeeping mechanisms of the UN and regional organizations. The main object of the study is the peacekeeping activity of the Collective Security Treaty Organization based on the relevant international treaty. The article is an attempt to assess the political capabilities of a regional organization to expand its influence in the world using formal legal research methods. Three possible formats of a peacekeeping operation based on the Agreement on Peacekeeping Activities of the CSTO are revealed by the author. First, a peacekeeping operation by decision of the Organization within the borders of its member states. Its parameters correspond to the traditional (first generation) peacekeeping missions. Secondly, a peacekeeping operation by decision of the UN Security Council. Its deployment requires a mandate of the international community to endow the CSTO, which allows the implementation of multidimensional (second generation) peacekeeping operation by the forces of a regional organization. The third format of the CSTO peacekeeping operations is the participation of the CSTO in UN peacekeeping operations. The necessary legal framework is established by the recent Protocol on Amendments to the Agreement on the Peacekeeping Activities of the CSTO. The Organization is to endow one of the member states with the mandate to apply its multinational (consolidated) peacekeeping forces to the UN Peacekeeping Capability Readiness System. Thus applied CSTO peacekeeping forces can be involved in solving tasks during the UN peacekeeping operations under the CSTO flag. Based on the analysis of the legal framework for interaction between the United Nations and regional organizations in the field of peacekeeping, the author concludes that the potential for regional organizations to independently conduct multidimensional peacekeeping missions without direct violating state sovereignty or the UN Security Council mandate is significantly limited. The main opportunity for the collective use of the CSTO peacekeeping potential lies in its involvement in UN peacekeeping operations based on the approaches applied within the UN system to the organization of international peacekeeping activities.

The withdrawal of troops on 31 August 2021 which was carried out in accordance with the Agreement signed on 29 February 2020 between the U.S. government and the Taliban (an international terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation) marked the end of the international military campaign in Afghanistan which lasted twenty years. Assessing the preliminary outcomes of nearly a quartercentury of the US military and their NATO allies’ presence in Afghanistan, U.S. President Joseph Biden announced the end of “an era of major military operations to remake other countries”. Though the consequences of the Western coalition campaign in the area remain to be evaluated and they are unlikely to turn out to be unequivocal, the Atlantic strategy aimed at rebuilding and democratization of Afghanistan proved itself as bankrupt. Our research focuses on the way the twentyyear military campaign in Afghanistan affected the development of the U.S. private military and security companies (PMSC) industry. For these purposes, we, firstly, studied and traced the transformation of the private military and security services market in the U.S., and examined the changes of approaches and mechanisms used to contract PMSCs. Secondly, we analyzed the way the U.S. authorities addressed the challenges new market evoked, focusing on the measures of legal regulation that were applied to PMSCs, and the way the working of the U.S. institutional mechanisms was transforming. The final part of the research contains conclusions on the perspectives for the development of the American PMSC industry after the withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Afghanistan. We believe that due to its duration and continuity, the Afghan operation ensured a launchpad for the PMSC industry and provided conditions for private military and security companies to acquire and master highend experience which in turn, contributed to the development of a certain market that goes well beyond the involvement of conventional human capital. It provided solutions for the production, utilization, and maintenance of the equipment and technologies, allowing the minimization of the direct participation of specialists in hostilities. Alongside the development of the American PMSC industry itself, the research studies the investigations conducted by the U.S. authorities into the cases of abuse committed by the contractors during their participation in Afghan war. It discusses the way this practice encouraged the transformations of United States procedures and mechanisms aimed at reducing malpractice when performing contracts and launched changes in U.S. legislation. It also demonstrates the lessons learned by the U.S. from the contractual practice with regard to the regulation of PMSCs. The research reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the American policy regarding PMSCs during the whole period of the military conflict in Afghanistan and helps to evaluate the success of the U.S. efforts in monitoring contractors across Afghanistan. To conclude, we reckon that considerable contractual experience acquired in Afghanistan ensures technological and procedural progress of the U.S. PMSC industry. Given the enduring rivalry between the U.S., Russia, and China, including in the military and technological spheres, the twentyyear experience of direct participation in hostilities by U.S. PMSCs boosted its competitive advantage compared to Russia and China, whose PMSCs still lack such an experience.

The authors present complex analysis of US–Russia relations under the Biden Administration. W. Mead’s methodology (typology of foreign policy ideology) and S. Gunnitsky and A. Tsygankov’s theoretical framework (Wilsonian approach) are used. The article examines the motives of Russian and American foreign policies towards each other, as well as the outcomes for the Russia factor in US domestic politics and its impact on the bilateral relations. The authors identify the nature of ideological and political confrontation of the two nations which stems from their mutual perceptions and interpretations of the world order. It is revealed that the strengthening of ideological motivation of US foreign policy under the Biden Administration is aimed to rally Western countries behind the rivalry with illiberal regimes (Russia and China). At the same time, Russia perceives the current confrontation with the United States as an existential threat since it challenges its geopolitical power and national identity. The research looks into such aspects of US–Russia relations as sanctions against Russia, climate change interaction, global security and arms control. The authors conclude that US–Russia ideological confrontation is systematic; steps towards cooperation are aimed at preventing possible escalation. In the near future, US–Russia relations can be considered as a combination (i.e. sanctions, supporting Russian opposition, countering Russia in the post-Soviet region) and selective dialogue and cooperation on such issues as strategic stability, arms control, cybersecurity and climate change. US–Russia relations are not likely to undergo fundamental changes until at least 2024, when new electoral cycles start both in Russia and in the United States. Under current conditions, the management of the US–Russia confrontation remains the major goal for the sides.

Modern trends in world development have significantly pushed the boundaries of modern diplomacy which should be an effective tool for global dialogue. My study is focused on the humanitarian sector of diplomacy. The article reviews main discussions about approaches to the concept of humanitarian diplomacy that arose against the background of the idea of "humanism 2.0", about the spread of the practice of humanitarian negotiations and about the creation of humanitarian spaces. I examine the main approaches of foreign and Russian researchers to the concepts of humanitarian diplomacy. Then I analyze the tools of humanitarian diplomacy and highlight its similarities and differences with traditional official diplomacy. It is established that nonState actors play an important political role in the resolution of modern conflicts and humanitarian negotiations. The role of the UN in creating a humanitarian partnership with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) is noted. I also pay attention to the humanitarian diplomacy of states and note the diversity of national models. The article considers the main motives that encourage states to participate in humanitarian diplomacy and highlights its main directions. I demonstrate shown that today humanitarian practice is acquiring a polymodal, complex character. It includes humanitarian assistance, social policy and economic assistance in the context of the paradigm of sustainable development. The study reveals that the use of diplomatic tools and, above all, negotiations have a positive impact on the effectiveness of humanitarian activities in armed conflicts and crisis situations of an anthropogenic and natural nature.