Chabad v. Russian Federation: A Case Study in the Use of American Courts to Recover Looted Cultural Property

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bazyler ◽  
Seth M. Gerber

AbstractDisplaced and nationalized cultural property remains hidden in the vast holdings of museums, libraries, and archives around the world. Some governments holding these “trophies” of war and conquest refuse to return such cultural treasures to their rightful owners even when their provenance has been identified. They assert that the collections were obtained through expropriation and nationalization, and that divestiture of a museum, library, or archive would jeopardize the existence of these institutions and cause societal discord.This article discusses the struggle of an orthodox Jewish organization to recover from the Russian Federation a collection of sacred, irreplaceable books and manuscripts seized in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution and during World War II. The story of Agudas Chasidei Chabad's efforts to recover these core religious texts of its spiritual leaders has involved appeals by U.S. presidents, congress, and the U.S. Helsinki Commission, as well as lawsuits in the Soviet Union/Russia and United States.After prolonged litigation in the United States, a federal court of appeals in Washington DC ruled in 2008 that American courts have jurisdiction over Chabad's suit against the Russian Federation to recover its religious texts. This ruling may pave the way for the resolution of this dispute and also lead to the filing of other suits in American courts seeking to recover looted cultural property, even if that property is located outside U.S. borders.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandon C. Halaychik

The Russian Federations drive to reestablish itself as a global power has severe security implications for the United States, its Arctic neighbors, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a whole. The former Commander of United States Naval Forces Europe Admiral Mark Ferguson noted that the re-militarization of Russian security policy in the Arctic is one of the most significant developments in the twenty-first century adding that Russia is creating an “Arc of steel from the Arctic to the Mediterranean” (Herbst 2016, 166). Although the Russian Federation postulates its expansion into the Arctic is for purely economic means, the reality of the military hardware being placed in the region by the Russians tells otherwise. Implementation of military hardware such as anti-air defenses is contrary to the stipulated purposes of the Russian Government in the region. Therefore is the Russian Federation building strategic military bases in the Arctic to challenge the United States hegemony due to the mistreatment against the Russians by the United States and NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union.


Author(s):  
Andrey Bocharnikov ◽  
Viktor Shagaev

The article deals with some issues of using the possibilities of cinema in the information and propaganda confrontation in the United States, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 81-110
Author(s):  
Paweł Bielicki

The aim of this article is to describe the most important conditions and implications that characterise relations between Russia and Libya from the Arab Spring to the present day. The main thesis of this article assumes that the Kremlin is striving to play a significant role in the Middle East, seeing this as an opportunity to depreciate the importance of the United States, which Russia treats as its main political opponent in Europe. I have decided to present this topic as a result of the discussions in the scientific discourse on the instruments with which the Russian Federation wants to strengthen its political position in the Middle East and North Africa. Initially, this article discusses the relations of the two entities from the end of World War II to the outbreak of social protests in the Middle East in 2011, focusing on their contacts during the Cold War. Later in this article, the mutual ties between the countries after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and the increased involvement of the Kremlin in the Libyan issue are described. Additionally, the article presents the goals of the growing activity of the Russian authorities in Libya from 2014 to 2018, as evidenced by the support of Russian politicians for General Khalif Haftar’s actions and the presence of the Wagner group aimed at supporting him. In this context, it is indispensable to mention the importance of the events in Syria for the strategy adopted by Moscow in the Libyan conflict. Moreover, the article tries to trace the rivalry between Russia and Turkey in Libya, which has been growing stronger in 2019 and 2020, by analysing its broad international context. The issue of economic contacts between Moscow and Tripoli is also worth attention. In conclusion, the article attempts to answer the question of whether the Russian Federation’ activities in Libya should be expected to intensify in the near future in the era of the progressive coronavirus pandemic and whether the global position of the United States should be expected to weaken.


Author(s):  
D.S. Yurochkin ◽  
◽  
A.A. Leshkevich ◽  
Z.M. Golant ◽  
I.A. NarkevichSaint ◽  
...  

The article presents the results of a comparison of the Orphan Drugs Register approved for use in the United States and the 2020 Vital and Essential Drugs List approved on October 12, 2019 by Order of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 2406-r. The comparison identified 305 international non-proprietary names relating to the main and/or auxiliary therapy for rare diseases. The analysis of the market of drugs included in the Vital and Essential Drugs List, which can be used to treat rare (orphan) diseases in Russia was conducted.


1999 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vally Koubi

Because of the nature of modern weapons, significant innovations in arms technology have the potential to induce dramatic changes in the international distribution of power. Consider, for example, the “strategic defense initiative” (SDI), a program initiated by the United States in the early 1980s. Had the program been successfully completed, it might have led to a substantial devaluation of Soviet nuclear capabilities and put the United States in a very dominant position. It should not then come as a surprise that interstate rivalry, especially among super powers, often takes the form of a race for technological superiority. Mary Acland-Hood claims that although the United States and the Soviet Union together accounted for roughly half of the world's military expenditures in the early 1980s, their share of world military research and development (R&D) expenditures was about 80 percent. As further proof of the perceived importance of R&D, note that whereas the overall U.S. defense budget increased by 38 percent (from $225.1 billion to $311.6 billion in real terms) from 1981 to 1987, military R&D spending increased by 100 percent (from $20.97 billion to $41.96 billion). Moreover, before World War II military R&D absorbed on average less than 1 percent of the military expenditure of major powers, but since then it has grown to 11–13 percent. The emphasis on military technology is bound to become more pronounced in the future as R&D becomes the main arena for interstate competition.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (10) ◽  
pp. 149-166
Author(s):  
Dmitry V. Gordienko ◽  

The paper examines the interests of Russia, the United States and China in the regions of the world and identifies the priorities of Russia's activities in Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus, the Asia-Pacific region, the Arctic, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, their comparative assessment with the interests of the United States and China. An approach to assessing the impact of possible consequences of the activities of the United States and China on the realization of Russia's interests is proposed. This makes it possible to identify the priorities of the policy of the Russian Federation in various regions of the world. The results of the analysis can be used to substantiate recommendations to the military-political leadership of our country. It is concluded that the discrepancy between the interests of the United States and China is important for the implementation of the current economic and military policy of the Russian Federation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov

Currently, public hearings are one of the most widespread forms of deliberative municipal democracy in Russia. This high level of demand, combined with critique of legal regulations and the practices for bringing this system to reality – justified, in the meantime, by its development (for example, by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Public Chambers of the Russian Federation) of proposals for the correction of corresponding elements of the legal code – make both the study of Russian experiences in this sphere and comparative studies of legal regulations and practical usage of public hearings in Russia and abroad extremely relevant. This article is an attempt to make a contribution to this field of scientific study. If the appearance of public hearings in Russia as an institution of Russian municipal law is connected with the passing of the Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No.131-FZ, “On the general organisational principles of local government in the Russian Federation,” then in the United States, this institution has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, with mass adoption beginning in the 1960s. In this time, the United States has accumulated significant practical experience in the use of public hearings and their legal formulation. Both countries are large federal states, with their own regional specifics and diversity, the presence of three levels of public authority and different principles of federalism, which cause differences in the legal regulation of municipal public hearings. For this reason, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of Russian and American experiences of legal regulation and practical use of public hearings, on the example of several major municipalities – the cities of Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. A comparison of laws influencing the public hearing processes in these cities is advisable, given the colossal growth in the role of city centers in the industrial and post-industrial eras. Cities in particular are the primary centers for economic growth, the spread of innovations, progressive public policy and the living environment for the majority of both Russian and American citizens. The cities under research are one of the largest municipalities in the two countries by population, and on such a scale, the problem of involving residents in solving local issues is especially acute. In this context, improving traditional institutions of public participation is a timely challenge for the legislator, and the experiences of these cities are worth describing. The unique Russian context for legal regulations of public hearings involves the combination of overarching federal law and specific municipal decrees that regulate the hearing process. There are usually two municipal acts regulating public hearings on general issues of the city district (charter, budget, etc.) and separately on urban planning. In the United States, the primary regulation of public hearings is assigned to the state and municipality level, with a whole series of corresponding laws and statutes; meanwhile, methodological recommendations play a specific role in the organisation of hearings, which are issued by the state department of a given state. It is proposed that regulating the corresponding relationships at the federal subject level will permit a combination of the best practices of legal administration with local nuances, thereby reinforcing the guarantee of the realization of civil rights to self-government. There are other features in the process of organizing and conducting public hearings in the United States, which, as shown in the article, can be perceived by Russian lawmakers as well in order to create an updated construct of public discussions at the local level.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-25
Author(s):  
Greg Simons ◽  
Dmitry Strovsky

There is an increasing amount written on the decline of professional journalism around the world. One of the factors that are used to illustrate the decline of journalism is the interaction and collaboration between journalists and public relations (PR) practitioners in the production of mass media news content. On a theoretical and conceptual level, the aims and goals of the two professions are quite different, even though there are a number of superficial similarities between these forms of mass communication. Studies of the interaction between journalism and PR in the United States reveal a certain underlying tension, yet simultaneous mutual dependency. An indicative survey was conducted across different cities in the Russian Federation to understand the perception of professional journalists and PR practitioners on the current level of interaction between their professions. The answers were remarkably similar and reveal a deep concern for the direction of journalism, which many viewed as being subordinated to PR.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document