Human trafficking and the exploitation of labour that are closely connected to migration flows (especially, illegal migration) are among the most serious challenges that modern society faces today. Russia, with its geographic and socio-economic situation, is not a stranger to this problem and has become one of the most active participants in these processes. In the meantime, Russian legislation lacked the term human trafficking, and the state institutions did not pay much attention to this problem. This led to its further aggravation in the 1990s–2000s, coupled with the general social transformation in the country. Common victims of human trafficking and labour exploitation are migrants with no official status in the receiving countries, and this situation is familiar to modern Russia. Clearly, the state cannot manage the huge migration flows, especially these of an illegal nature. Today, with the spread of corruption and in the conditions of the migrant-dependent economy, based on the labour of immigrants – mostly from Centeal Asia – who are deprived of their basic rights, the situation remains negative for the growing number of human trafficking victims. This presents a negative image of Russia abroad and, most importantly, has a destructive influence on the Russian society. The article studies the problems of human trafficking and labour exploitation of immigrants in Russia. The author aims to assess the scope and discover the reasons and forms of human trafficking and labour exploitation in Russia. The author concludes that the current state of development of the Russian legislation on the matter is not without its flaws, which turns labour migrants into human trafficking and encourages labour exploitation from the part of unprincipled employers and criminals. The author also suggests possible ways to solve the problem of human trafficking and labour exploitation in Russia.

The article analyses opportunities and constrains for combining humanist intentions and national interests of states. Do values frame foreign policy of the states? When do considerations of state pragmatism prevail? Does the contemporary foreign policymaking become more human-centered? While looking for answers, the author of this article explored Canadian sources and policies, which confirm that the promotion of humanitarian principles to the foreign policy agenda is a complicated and contradictory process, closely associated with economic, political, military and cultural dimensions of IR. Canada was selected as a pattern for its long-term traditions, broad experiences and innovative initiatives in the humanitarian area. Foreign policy of states is defined by national interests and integrates a core set of national values. Normally there is a consistent and verified public consensus around values related to the behavior of  state in IR. However, states have proven to be pragmatic in their commitments to humanism, and sacrifice human rights obligations to trade and commerce promotion. Whenever humanitarian principles do not coincide or compete with political and commercial interests of the state or of the political elite, they will be moved away to the background, give priority to achieving pragmatic goals, and used for justification or as subordinate means. The contemporary humanitarian agenda presents a combination of traditional and new dimensions. There has been certain success achieved in such established fields as the development of humanitarian law, international development programs, and peacekeeping. However, recently the focus of the debates is being shifted to new issues – e.g. protection of civilians in armed conflicts – which appeared to be extremely complex, controversial and lacking solutions. Humanitarian interventions proved that contemporary conflicts cannot be managed exclusively by military force. Normalization of the situation depends on various peacebuilding efforts. Evidently, military and humanitarian methods are meshing, accompanied by the growing significance of soft power as a component of conflict resolution.

We present a historical overview of the development of management in Universities from their establishment in medieval Europe until modern times. Our key aim is to evaluate the influence that has been exercised by students, teachers and administrators in different managerial configurations. We attempt to determine how reliant their influence has been on the social functions of the University in different periods and how expectations of the relevant social communities have been reflected in its management. We begin the study with the creation of the Bologna University in the 11th century, which was established as a student corporation aimed at protecting their interests. In its turn, Paris University, recognized as such in the early 13th century ,was a union of teachers and senior students with the aim of promoting higher education. These two models corresponded to the main perspectives on the University as a social institution. The Bologna model was based on the premise that the main goal is the education of professionals, and the Paris model considered that its key function is building conditions for scholarship and that education is merely a secondary goal. In subsequent periods, it was the choice between these two priorities that determined the content of all ensuing models. In the Napoleonic model of higher schools, the choice was made in favor of education, in the Humboldtian model – in favor of research. The latter became the most influential model by the end of the 19th century mainly because it provided a balance between the two functions, even though it affirmed the primary role of research. In the second half of the 20th century, it was the American University that took the place of the most influential model. It relied on the commercial approach to the management of a University and made efficiency one of its central themes. At the same time, it added new functions: apart from research and professional training, the University became involved in mass higher education and expert evaluation of important social processes. Although the resulting structure appears overly complex, separation of functions does not increase efficiency and may deprive University of public support. The overview of history shows that efficient University management can be achieved by finding a stable combination of its functions and by balancing the interests of the three main stakeholders.

Questions of evolution, diffusion, and socialization of international norms have been the primary focus of constructivist norm research for almost two decades now. The rich analytical and empirical material gathered during this time has been undergoing a constant process of re-evaluation and improvement thanks to the introduction of new theoretical concepts and the expansion of analytical and country scope. Currently, norm research has developed into an independent research program within Western international relations theory. This article, thus, aims at providing a brief summary of Western constructivist approaches to the dynamics of international norms’ diffusion, socialization and internalization, and at their critical assessment with regard to the most recent studies. Despite the fact that classical constructivist models (the “norm life cycle” model, the ‘spiral model’ of human rights’ change and the internalization/socialization model) have determined the development of future research for years to come, they are still not free from certain limitations and drawbacks. These include the rather narrow interpretation of “norms”, as well as the linearity and even implicit determinism of classical models, which have traditionally treated norm evolution as a teleological process of promoting “good” norms, and conceived of socialization as a topdown process of instilling standards of appropriate behavior on the part of norm-promoters without any regard for the cultural and historical specificity of norm-takers. Taking into account the contributions from the most recent empirical studies and the newest conceptual approaches, one can define three central challenges currently facing constructivist norm development and diffusion models. First of all, they include the “decoupling” of human rights rhetoric and actual political behavior of states; second, the over-simplification of the “acceptance-rejection” dichotomy which cannot fully capture the dynamics of national and local reactions towards external norms; and finally, the problem of re-definition and contestation and the associated regress of already established international norms. Despite the existence of multiple unresolved issues, the epistemological openness of constructivist norm research has allowed them to make a number of rather successful attempts at synthesizing rationalist and constructivist approaches and, thus, determined the intensive process of critical reflection and creation of updated or new analytical models – a process which will surely be continued in the future.

The latest developments in Syria raised the question about the core reasons of the recent political crises in the Middle Eastern countries. Its bibliography is already filled with the image of the civil war as a sectarian conflict within the Syrian multi-confessional society. Tensions of this kind indeed exist, however, the country had been previously avoiding serious conflicts among the different groups of society. Yet, in 2011, they took the most unpleasant form shortly after the rise of the protest movement. Without underestimating the significance of confessional differences in Syria, it seems perfectly clear that they were not the cause of the Syrian crisis. At the same time, the existing differences of a cultural and regional nature fueled the social protest in the first place, and this protest was quickly turned into a military confrontation. Thus, the Syrian social protest – as well as the protests in the other Arab spring countries – was a tool for achieving political gains. The article analyses the reasons for the Syrian conflict, which are compared to the Arab Spring in other countries, most of which have seen regime change. The author concludes that nowadays there has been a growth of importance in the technologies of social protest management. They have become an important factor of all the ‘democratic’ revolutions. Although these revolutions may take different shapes, including sectarian tensions or calls for political and economic reforms, these grievances are not at the core of conflicts. The author believes that a full understanding of the actual motives of the warring parties may help realize what path the Syrian crisis might take in future.

In modern studies of interest groups, three main types of interest representation are identified, each of which corresponds to one of the systems of political organization: pluralism, elite pluralism and neocorporatism. These types are determined by the role, priority, impact and involvement of interest groups in the political process. The European Union can be defined as a dualism of pluralism and neocorporatism. Such a system of political representation of interest groups is at the same time a balanced and dynamic one. This dualism of interest representation systems can be explained by the desire of the EU to increase the level of transparency in decision-making process and to overcome the democratic deficit. Analyzing the logic of access to the key EU institutions, the author highlights the structural and functional capabilities of lobbyists to influence decisions. The author focuses on the European Commission, European Parliament, Council of Ministers, the Committee of Permanent Representatives, the Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions. Depending on the available resources and activities, interest groups lobby different institutions in order to ensure the adoption of favorable decisions for themselves. In this scheme, institutions represent a black box in which interest group requests are converted into concrete measures and actions. Therefore, to a certain extent, institutions are interested in interest group participation in the decision-making process. The institutional structure of the European Union is heterogeneous: not only do the institutions themselves differ from each other in their policy, but they often lack coherence within their own structures. Hence, lobbyists have to adapt to each institution separately and find specific approaches and methods of interaction. However, the European Commission does not seek to use strict measures of control in relation to interest groups because they are the main source of information and expertise. On the contrary, the Commission encourages the development of networks between interest groups whose positions have something in common. These are the main features in the logic of access to the EU institutions.

Southeast Asia represents a concentration of the most promising countries from the economic point of view, and at the same time is the center of an insolvable territorial dispute that continues to poison intraregional relations. The conflict is developing over the gas- and oil-rich Paracel and Spratly Islands. However, a dispute over natural resources is only the tip of the iceberg. The true motives that move the parties to the conflict are deeper than that and stem from the geostrategic needs of the states concerned, with the latter seeing their interests ensured in the South China Sea region as a guarantee of their security. Thus, Beijing’s ambitions of asserting its sole control in the region cause even more tensions not only among the smaller states participating in the dispute, but also among great powers. The attempts of some of the countries concerned to make the conflict an issue of international law are doomed to failure from the point of view of settling the dispute. At the same time, there is a general understanding that exacerbating tensions, which may lead to a military conflict, is not an option. Each of the parties concerned practice its own strategy, meanwhile, the gap between the smaller states policies to draw international mediators and the Chinese efforts to keep the conflict within the region cannot be bridged, bringing negotiations to a stalemate. The article examines territorial disputes in the South-China Sea between China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei. In light of the lack of tangible results of the negotiation process and the recent escalation of tensions over the disputed islands, the article analyzes the prospects for the development of the situation. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the parties’ goals and strategies. System analysis used in the context of the problem shows that the opposing sides, in view of the strategic differences of their objectives, have practically no common ground on which the conflict could be resolved through negotiations. Analysis of the parties’ strategies reveals great dependence of the ways of the conflict’s possible resolution from the position of the international community.

The Middle East is a traditional sphere of interest for great powers due to its rich oil and gas resources and geostrategic position. At the same time, the situation in this region has always been quite explosive and controversial. During the last few years, most of the key regional players that were influencing the situation in the Middle East during the 20th century started to alter their approaches to the region and their ways of behavior. On the other hand, we are witnessing the growing influence of several regional actors, while traditionally influential states have found themselves in a rather complicated situation. Thus, new regional realities cause an escalation in the struggle for spheres of influence between the key players. The vulnerability of the situation caused by a lack of state control and security became fertile soil for the spread of new forms of terrorism and violence across the region. This article considers revolutions in the Arab world described as «the Arab Spring» or «the Arab awakening» and their effect on relations between main regional and world powers. It describes the ways great powers in their turn can influence or affect the processes in the Middle East. The main attention in this regard is paid to the role of the United States, the most influential power in the region. Its historical dominance and close ties with key players such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia used to be tenants of political balance in the region, but over the last decade this «frugal superpower’s» regional policy has been catalyzing terrorism and jeopardizing the clash between Shia and Sunni. At the same time, Russia as another traditional player in the region has been demonstrating a balanced position based on respect of the sovereignty of states and the right of peoples to choose their fate. Taking into account the current circumstances, that position proved to be wise. Russian efforts in enhancing ties with new governments and keeping relations with traditional authorities are efforts to promote stability and could be a good example for others. The article analyses the way new tendencies and old issues influence the balance of power in the Middle East. It evaluates the goals and real abilities of the key regional and world players, thus forecasting how the current situation may develop.

A book review: Angela Stent. The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in the Twentieth Century. Princeton University Press, 2014. 384 p.

A book review: SOLINGEN, Etel. Comparative Regionalism: Economics and Security. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. 304 p.