TRANSITIONS OUT OF EMPIRE IN CENTRAL AND SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE. MATERIALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE. UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB, SEPTEMBER 23-24, 2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 162-174
Author(s):  
Tatiana Fadeeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Southeastern Europe ◽  
Habsburg Monarchy ◽  
Administrative Practices ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
International Conference ◽  
Social Elites ◽  
Gender Regimes ◽  
Central And Southeastern Europe

Recent studies of Habsburg Monarchy after 1917/1918, as a focus of attention, offer reinterpretations of both the transition out of empire and also of specific Habsburg legacies and practices that remained influential in the region long after 1918. In an attempt to shed more light on both of these aspects, an international conference in Zagreb was organised. The aim is to present papers on all aspects of the transition out of empire, on continuities and breaks among social elites, state institutions, administrative practices, legal codes, forms of citizenship, gender regimes, and welfare practices covering the period until the late 1930s.

scholarly journals Sprawozdanie z międzynarodowej konferencji „The War That Never Ended. Postwar Continuity and New Challenges in the Aftermath of the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, 1918–1923”, Kraków-Przemyśl, 24–26 X 2019 r.

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomasz Pudłocki
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Southeastern Europe ◽  
Habsburg Monarchy ◽  
International Conference ◽  
Nation States ◽  
History Of ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
New Nation

Międzynarodowa konferencja pt. „The War That Never Ended. Postwar Continuity and New Challenges in the Aftermath of the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, 1918–1923”, zorganizowana w dn. 24–26 X 2019 r. w Krakowie i w Przemyślu, była doskonałą okazją do dyskusji nad fenomenem kluczowych lat 1918–1923 w dziejach państw, które powstały na gruzach Monarchii Habsburgów i Imperium Otomańskiego. Rozejm w Compiègne (11 XI 1918), jak już niejednokrotnie wcześniej udowodniono w historiografii, miał dla Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej i Południowo-Wschodniej jedynie symboliczne znaczenie i nie przyniósł rozstrzygających decyzji dla regionu. Obszar ten stał się miejscem licznych konfliktów o granice, tarć etnicznych i społecznych, przesiedleń ludności, zaangażowania intelektualistów w politykę czy wręcz przemocy, mającej na celu fizyczną eliminację całych grup i społeczności. Okazuje się, że nowe państwa narodowe w tym okresie formacyjnym mocno korzystały z dziedzictwa imperialnego swoich poprzedników, mimo deklaracji wytyczania nowych dróg. Konferencja zgromadziła prawie 40 prelegentów z wielu europejskich krajów oraz z Kanady i Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki. Report on the international conference “The War That Never Ended. Postwar Continuity and New Challenges in the Aftermath of the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, 1918–1923”, Kraków –Przemyśl, 24–26 October 2019. International Conference “The War That Never Ended. Postwar Continuity and New Challenges in the Aftermath of the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, 1918–1923”, organized on 24–26 October 2019 in Krakow and Przemyśl, it was an excellent opportunity to discuss the phenomenon of key years 1918–1923 in the history of countries that arose from the ruins of the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire. The truce in Compiegne (11.11.1918), as has been proven many times in historiography, had only symbolic significance for Central and Eastern and Southeastern Europe and did not bring decisive decisions for the region. This area became a place of numerous conflicts over borders, ethnic and social friction, resettlement of people, the involvement of intellectuals in politics or even violence aimed at physical elimination of entire groups and communities. It turns out that the new nation-states in this formation period strongly benefited from the imperial heritage of their predecessors, despite the declaration of paving new roads. The conference gathered almost 40 speakers from many European countries as well as from Canada and the United States of America.

Stem Families, Joint Families, and the European Pattern

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siegfried Gruber ◽  
Mikołaj Szołtysek
Keyword(s):  
Eastern Europe ◽  
North Atlantic ◽  
Spatiotemporal Distribution ◽  
Economic Conditions ◽  
Southeastern Europe ◽  
Joint Family ◽  
Atlantic Population ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
European Family ◽  
Central And Southeastern Europe

This article makes a new contribution to the discussion of historical European family forms. Its starting points are two recent contributions by Steven Ruggles in which the author discussed the historical appearances of stem and joint families across the globe. Drawing on most recent developments in census microdata infrastructure from historical Eastern, Central, and Southeastern Europe, the authors pinpoint limitations pertaining to the usage of IPUMS (Integrated Public Use Microdata Series) and NAPP (North Atlantic Population Project) collections for the investigation of European family systems. Using newly acquired materials and refined conceptual tools, they enhance the knowledge about the spatiotemporal distribution of stem- and joint-family arrangements in a broader European context. As the frequency of joint families in the regions under study cannot be fully accounted for by referring to measures of economic conditions and demographic structures alone, the authors speculate about some additional factors which may explain the observed differences in joint-family coresidence across historic Eastern Europe.

scholarly journals Making Modern Social Science: The Global Imagination in East Central and Southeastern Europe after Versailles

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Lebow ◽  
Małgorzata Mazurek ◽  
Joanna Wawrzyniak
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Western Pacific ◽  
Subject Position ◽  
Southeastern Europe ◽  
East Central ◽  
Bronislaw Malinowski ◽  
Professional Meeting ◽  
Participant Observer ◽  
The Western Pacific ◽  
Central And Southeastern Europe

The events of 1914 initiated the redrawing of many boundaries, both geopolitical and intellectual. At the outbreak of the war the London-based anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski was at a professional meeting in Australia. Technically an ‘enemy alien’ (a Pole of Austro-Hungarian citizenship), he was barred from returning to Britain; stranded in Australia, under surveillance by authorities and with insecure finances, Malinowski began fieldwork in the Trobriand Islands that would result in his groundbreakingArgonauts of the Western Pacific(1922).1Argonauts’ influence rested on its compelling portrait of the anthropologist as ‘participant-observer’, the insider/outsider uniquely poised to decode and recode cultures and meanings.2Malinowski thus adeptly retooled his own ambiguous status into a paradigm of the ethnographer’s optimal subject-position – quipping that he himself was particularly suited to this role, as ‘the Slavonic nature is more plastic and more naturally savage than that of Western Europeans’.3

Time interval between final protocol approval (FPA) and inclusion of the first patient into randomized clinical trials (RCTs) performed by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG): A 10-year experience

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6546-6546
Author(s):  
T. Brodowicz ◽  
I. Steiner ◽  
S. Beslija ◽  
T. E. Ciuleanu ◽  
M. Inbar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Southeastern Europe ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Multicenter Trials ◽  
Whole Process ◽  
Final Study ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Central And Southeastern Europe

6546 Background: CECOG has been formed in 1999 to unite centers of clinical oncology from Central and Southeastern Europe and Israel in order to conduct and coordinate multicenter oncology RCTs. Based on the European legislation passed in 2001 (Directive 2001/20/EC), clinical trials must get ethical approval and approval from the competent authorities (CA). However, the duration of these regulatory procedures to initiate a clinical trial is a factor determining the competitive position in clinical research. Methods: Within the last 10 years, CECOG conducted trials in breast, colorectal, esophago-gastric, NSCLC, pancreatic, prostate cancer and GIST. We analyzed the dates of FPA, the approvals by Ethics Review Boards (ERB) and CAs, the letters of agreement between sponsor and site (LoA), the site initiation and the inclusion of the first patient in a total of 6 multicenter trials in 25 CECOG study centers in Austria, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Romania, Serbia, and Slovakia. Results: The average time interval from FPA to the inclusion of the first patient was 18.4 ± 9.4 months. Most of this time has been spent for regulatory procedures, i.e. the approval by ERBs (9.6 ± 7.2 months) and CAs (10.0 ± 6.6 months). The LoA were signed 11.5 ± 9.4 months after FPA. The time interval from approval by the CAs to site initiation was 3.3 ± 3.7 months and the interval between site initiation and the inclusion of the first patient was 4.2 ± 4.5 months. Conclusions: The ‘paper to patient process‘ - the time interval between the approval of the final study protocol and the inclusion of the first patient - required 18.4 months on average in 6 multicenter trials conducted by CECOG. As the regulatory procedures used up more than 50% of duration of the whole process, optimization is necessary and realistic in order to make novel therapies available to patients more quickly. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document