adrian Brisku | Charles University, Prague - Academia.edu

Skip to main content

adrian Brisku

Charles University, Prague, Department of Russian and East European Studies, Faculty Member

Charles University, Prague, Department of Russian and East European Studies, Faculty Member |

European History

Address: Prague, Hlavni mesto Praha, Czech Republic

less

160 Followers | 73 Following | —Total Views

Papers

Empires of Conquest and Civilization in Georgian Political and Intellectual Discourse since Late Nineteenth Century

Intersections, 2016

This article explores understandings of the concept of empire in Georgian political intellectual ... more This article explores understandings of the concept of empire in Georgian political intellectual discourses in the pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet Georgian contexts. Beginning with an elaboration of contemporary political and scholarly understanding of empire, the article then – drawing on the approaches of intellectual and transnational history – distils two meanings: empire of conquest and of civilisation. Both meanings are mainly attributed to the Russian State in its political incarnations as an empire, as the fulcrum of the Soviet Union and more recently as an entity in search of a Eurasian Union. The article argues that while for most of the nineteenth century, the concept of empire embodied by the Russia state was invested with both meanings, particularly by the end of the Soviet period, it came to be singularised to that of conquest. More generally, it suggests that while in contemporary international relations empire, as a political entity, remains discredited morally and legally, the Neo- Gramscian concept of hegemony in IR scholarship elucidates why and when some hegemonic states act as empires of conquest, and while some others can do both, thus mustering their ‘structural power’ as well as ‘soft power’.

Adrian Brisku, "Realizmi dhe Idealizmi i Ismail Qemal bej Vlorës" Shqiptarët në Perandorinë Osmane, Përpjekja, nr. 36-37 (2020), fq. 215-227

Adrian Brisku, "Realizmi dhe Idealizmi i Ismail Qemal bej Vlorës" Shqiptarët në Perandorinë Osmane, Përpjekja,, 2020

Rreth figurës dhe veprimtarisë politike të Ismail Qemal bej Vlorës (1844-1919) tashmë ekziston nj... more Rreth figurës dhe veprimtarisë politike të Ismail Qemal bej Vlorës (1844-1919) tashmë ekziston një literaturë me gamë të gjërë e në rritje. Kjo është e vërtetë sidomos për periudhën postkomuniste ku tendenca ka qënë për ta mitizuar figurën e tij si "babai i kombit" por dhe pëpjekje janë bërë për ta vendosur atë në kontekstin e kohës. Ky artikull mundohet të bëjë të dytën duke shqyrtuar pozicionimin e Ismail Qemal bej Vlorës në politikën e jashtme të Perandorisë Osmane në dekadat e fundit të saj, një teme jo fort e rrahur në historiografinë shqiptare e cila është marrë me periudhën e pragut dhe pas shpalljes se Pavarësisë së Shqipërisë. Pozicionimi i tij, ndryshe nga realizmi kohës së Pavarësisë mbart elemente realizmi dhe idealizmi.

Modern Georgia (Oxford University Press), 2020

Arguably, an account of modern Georgia is one about the country’s emergence as a political nation... more Arguably, an account of modern Georgia is one about the country’s emergence as a political nation (independent republic and nation-state) in the region of the Caucasus—geographically straddled in between the Eurasian landmass—and the challenges of redefining, developing, and preserving itself. It is also about how it was forged under and often against its powerful neighbors, most notably the tsarist Soviet and Russian state, and about its equally uneven interactions with other neighboring nations and nationalities within its political borders. And while one cannot put a precise date on the cultural and political processes as to when this modern Georgia emerged, the late 19th century is that period when people within the two tsarist governorates of Tbilisi and Kutaisi interacted more intensively among themselves, but also within the imperial cultural and political centers of St. Petersburg and Moscow as well as beyond the imperial confines, in Central and Western European capitals. This in turn—following impactful events: the 1861 tsarist Emancipation of Serfs, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the First World War, the February and October Revolutions of 1917, the brief making of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (1918)—led to a diffusion of and reaction to political, economic, and cultural ideas from European and imperial metropoles that on May 26, 1918, culminated with the establishment, for the first time, of Georgia as a nation-state: the Georgian Democratic Republic. A social democratic nation-state in its political content, the political life of this first republic was cut short on February 25, 1921, by the Red Army of a re-emerging Russian (Soviet) state. In the ensuing seventy years in the Soviet Union—initially, from 1922 to 1936, as a constitutive republic of the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic and then as a separate Soviet Socialist Republic until the implosion of the union in 1991—the republic and its society experienced the effects of the making and unmaking of the Soviet Marxist-Leninist modernization project. Especially impactful for the republic and its society was the period of the 1930s and 1940s under the hyper-centralized rule of the Georgian-born Soviet Communist Party leader Joseph V. Stalin: a period marked by implementation of a centrally planned economic model and political purges as well as a consolidation of the nation’s ethnocultural and territorial makeup. Also important was the late Soviet period, particularly that under the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, whereby thanks to the economic and political reforms undertaken in the later 1980s, calls for the recovering of the republic’s political independence were intensified and ultimately realized. This happened on April 9, 1991—with the first Georgian president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, declaring the independence of the Republic of Georgia before the Soviet Union’s dissolution on December 26, 1991—and its international recognition would come easily and fast. But what would prove difficult and slow, from the outset, was building a European-style nation-state—meaning a liberal democratic order based on the rule of law and a market society—as was the case in the brief presidency of Gamsakhurdia (1991–1992). The latter’s term was marred by an ethnopolitical war in the South Ossetian region and brought to an end by a civil war fought in the capital city of Tbilisi and the Megrelian region. It continued to be difficult during the long and interrupted presidency of the former Georgian Communist Party boss, Eduard Shevardnadze (1995–2003)—the 1995 Constitution established a semi-presidential system of government—in which an ethnopolitical war with Abkhazia started and ended (1992–1993), state institutions stabilized, and a pro-Euro-Atlantic as opposed to a pro-Russian foreign policy was articulated, but state corruption also thrived. A European-style republic appeared closer during the full-term “hyper-presidency” of the Western-educated president Mikheil Saakashvili (2004–2013), marked by concrete steps toward Euro-Atlantic integration (NATO membership and EU partnership/toward membership) and a distancing from Russia as well as top-down neoliberal domestic reforms. But the republic was scarred by a war with Russia in August 2008 and a growing authoritarianism at home. It remains so despite a shift, since 2013, from a presidential to a parliamentary republic with the last directly elected president being the first woman president, Salome Zurabishvili (2018–). Since 2012, the Georgian Dream Party—established by billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili (prime minister, 2012–2013)—governs the republic by pursuing Western-oriented domestic reforms, EU and NATO integration, and a nonconfrontational position against Russia. The latter continues to undermine the country’s territorial integrity, having recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s independence in 2008 and maintaining its military bases there.

Caucasus Survey , 2020

The TDFR represented a fleeting triumph of the idea of multi-layered interdependence and interact... more The TDFR represented a fleeting triumph of the idea of multi-layered interdependence and interactions among the nationalities of the Caucasus, an idea that had been on the minds of people both inside and outside of the region. This idea preceded the TDFR’s emergence and lingered on after it collapsed – but did not seem to appeal to all of the contemporaries of the
region or to have been viable for a longer duration given the specific challenges of the period.

Who wanted the TDFR? The making and the breaking of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic

Caucasus Survey , 2020

During the brief period between 22 April and 26 May 1918, the leading Armenian, Azerbaijani and G... more During the brief period between 22 April and 26 May 1918, the leading Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian political forces of the early twentieth century, having established the shared federative structures of the Transcaucasian Commissariat and the Seim in the preceding months, declared an independent Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (TDFR). Emerging as it did from the ruins of an imploding tsarist empire and the still glowing embers of the First World War, and facing the imminent threat of invasion from the Ottoman army and the power ambitions of incipient Soviet Russia, the TDFR seemed both to the actors at the time and to later scholars of the region to be unique, contingent, and certainly unrepeatable.

The Transcaucasian democratic federative Republic (TDFR) as a “Georgian” responsibility

Caucasus Survey, 2020

This article looks at the historical perspectives and positions of key Georgian political figures... more This article looks at the historical perspectives and positions of key Georgian political figures – mostly leading Social Democrats such as Noe Zhordania and Akaki Chkhenkeli, as well as National Democrats such as Niko Nikoladze – on the making and unmaking of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (TDFR) by analyzing their reflections on the most heated political concepts of the first two decades of the twentieth century: nationality, nationalism, the nation-state, federation, economic development, and socialism in the Georgian, Transcaucasian and imperial contexts, given the rapidly shifting geopolitics of the region triggered by the onset of the Great War and aggravated by the Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917. The article demonstrates that already having conceptualized the socio- economic and cultural needs of the nation as developing outside of the framework of the nation-state, Zhordania and Chkhenkeli viewed these instead within a regional federative context under a revolutionarily transformed imperial centre, while assuming that the Social Democrats would hold the commanding political position in Georgia. This prepared them to take responsibility for establishing de facto federative political institutions for Transcaucasia. That responsibility facilitated the making and unmaking of the short-lived, independent TDFR.

Renegotiating the Empire, Forging the Nation-State: The Albanian Case through the Political Economic Thought of Ismail Qemali, Fan Noli, and Luigj Gurakuqi, c. 1890–1920s

Cambridge University Press (Nationalities Papers), 2020

This article examines historical positions regarding the question of the small nation-(state) of ... more This article examines historical positions regarding the question of the small nation-(state) of Albania remaining “in” the larger Ottoman supranational entity and “out” as independent nation-state during the late 19th and early 20th century. It does so mainly, but not only, through the language of political economy (wealth creation and redistribution) as articulated in the thoughts and deeds of three founding intellectual and political figures of the Albanian nation-(state): Ismail Qemali, Fan Noli, and Luigj Gurakuqi. While lacking a clear political-economic perspective for this emerging nation in the late Ottoman period, all the three figures maintained that as an independent, small nation-state, Albania could survive and perhaps thrive if its wealth and national economic development remained anchored within a larger political and economic space. More than Qemali, Gurakuqi, and Noli envisaged a greater state role in the country’s “national economy-building” process. But while Gurakuqi was more of a “nationalist” on wealth creation, Noli sought to pursue a more “radical,” redistributive path to national development.

Ottoman-Russian Relations

Ottoman-Russian Relations (Oxford University Press), 2019

Four-centuries-long encounters between the Ottoman Empire and the Grand Duchy of Muscovy/Russian ... more Four-centuries-long encounters between the Ottoman Empire and the Grand Duchy of Muscovy/Russian Empire point to complex relations that have been triggered and defined mostly by territorial, trade disputes, and wars, and maintained by diplomatic rivalry and occasional military alliances. Starting as friendly encounters during Sultan Bayezid II reign at the beginning of the 16th century, these relations, essentially and persistently asymmetrical, reveal an initial and long Ottoman dominance over the Muscovy/Russian side; one that lasted from the early 16th to the late 18th century—whereby the two sides shared no direct borders, traded and did not fight each other until the late 17th century—followed by a late 18th-century and mid-19th-century Russian ascendency. This ascendency was achieved largely thanks to the military reform that Tsar/Emperor Peter the Great undertook, namely, the establishment of a standing and professional army and consequentially due to the many wars that Russia won throughout the 19th century; the decisive ones being those fought during the reign of Empress Catherine the Great. The mid-19th century and the early 20th century—which witnessed the implosion of the Russian Empire due to the Bolshevik Revolution and the break-up of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France—was a long period that saw few and brief military alliances, contested trade relations and yet continued wars. It was ultimately marred by an Ottoman drive to counterbalance Russia’s dominance, while the latter sought to preserve it, by involving other European powers (British and French)—the most crucial moment being the British, French, and Ottoman armies defeating the Russian one in the Crimean War (1853–1856)—transforming their bilateral interactions into multilateral but unsustainable relations

Brisku. The Political Economy of the First Republic of Georgia (1918-1921)

Akaki Horava, aktori i preferuar i Stalinit, që luajti rolin e Skënderbeut

Akaki Horava, aktori i preferuar i Stalinit, që luajti rolin e Skënderbeut, 2018

Është aktori gjeorgjian Akaki Horava, i cili mishëroi portretin e Gjergj Kastriotit, por fare pak... more Është aktori gjeorgjian Akaki Horava, i cili mishëroi portretin e Gjergj Kastriotit, por fare pak njihet nga shqiptarët. Pedagogu i historisë intelektuale pranë Universitetit të Karlit në Pragë, Adrian Brisku, i nxitur nga Viti i Skënderbeut, nga debatet në mediat shqiptare rreth kësaj figure, ka bërë disa kërkime më tepër rreth figurës së aktorit gjeorgjian, që rezulton të jetë një nga më të njohurit jo vetëm në Gjergji, por në gjithë Bashkimin Sovjetik.

Një figurë emblematike e aktrimit, mbajtës i shumë titujve, aktor i preferuar i Stalinit, Akaki Horava do të vinte në Shqipëri për të realizuar filmin “Luftëtari i Madh Skënderbeu” dhe do të ruante kujtime të bukura nga ky vend i largët. Prishja e marrëdhënieve me Bashkimin Sovjetik ia zbehu shkëlqimin filmit, i cili shfaqej rrallë e më rrallë në Shqipërinë komuniste. Figura e Akaki Horavës vjen mes debateve për Skënderbeun, mes mitit dhe historisë.

The Middle Eastern Studies's Review of my book, Political reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires: a comparative approach, by Metin Atmaca

"Georgiens langer und schwieringer weg ‘nach Europe’” .pdf

Internalizing Europe: Albanian Perceptions of the Continent in Historical Perspective (1878–2008)

Journal of Educational Media, Memory, and Society, 2009

Renegotiating the empire, forging the nation(- state): the Bohemian/Czechoslovakian case through the political–economic thought of Thomas G. Masaryk and Karel Kramář, c. 1890–1920s

This article explores the dilemma of the small Bohemian Lands/Czechoslovak nation(-state) in stay... more This article explores the dilemma of the small Bohemian Lands/Czechoslovak nation(-state) in staying “in” or “out” of the larger Habsburg supranational entity in the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century. It does so mainly through the language of political economy (on national wealth creation and redistribution) articulated in the opinions and political actions of Czechoslovakia’s two founding statesmen, the first
president, Thomas G. Masaryk, and the first prime minister, Karel Kramař. The article argues that their choice of staying “in” the large imperial space was premised upon renegotiating a better political and political–economic deal for the Bohemian Lands, whereas the option of abandoning it and of forging the Czechoslovak nationstate was essentially based on political reasons. And while both advocated an interventionist role for the state in the economy during the imperial period, they considered such a prerogative even more essential for their new nation-state.

Oksidentalizmi i se shkuares dhe Orientalizmi i se tashmes: Identiteti 'Europian' sipas shkrimtarit Ismail Kadare dhe Presidentit Alfred Moisiu

ADRIAN BRISKU * Empires of Conquest and Civilization in Georgian Political and Intellectual Discourse since Late Nineteenth Century

This article explores understandings of the concept of empire in Georgian political intellectual ... more This article explores understandings of the concept of empire in Georgian political intellectual discourses in the pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet Georgian contexts. Beginning with an elaboration of contemporary political and scholarly understanding of empire, the article then – drawing on the approaches of intellectual and transnational history – distils two meanings: empire of conquest and of civilisation. Both meanings are mainly attributed to the Russian State in its political incarnations as an empire, as the fulcrum of the Soviet Union and more recently as an entity in search of a Eurasian Union. The article argues that while for most of the nineteenth century, the concept of empire embodied by the Russia state was invested with both meanings, particularly by the end of the Soviet period, it came to be singularised to that of conquest. More generally, it suggests that while in contemporary international relations empire, as a political entity, remains discredited morally and legally, the Neo-Gramscian concept of hegemony in IR scholarship elucidates why and when some hegemonic states act as empires of conquest, and while some others can do both, thus mustering their 'structural power' as well as 'soft power'.

Imazhi i fese islame ne tekstet shkollore te historise

So fern und doch so nah. Das Europabuild in Georgien: Eine Ideengeschischte

Renegotiating the empire, forging the nation-state: the Georgian case through the political economic thought of Niko Nikoladze and Noe Zhordania, c. 1870–1920

This article begins with an observation of a contemporary and yet reoccurring political dilemma t... more This article begins with an observation of a contemporary and yet reoccurring political dilemma that small nation-states face with respect to larger states in being either inside or outside of supranational political entities regarding political and economic asymmetries. Employing an intellectual history approach, the article explores this dilemma with reference to the Georgian nation in late-nineteenth century Tsarist Russia and the early twentieth century, when that territory briefly became a nation(state): it explores this through the language of political economy articulated in the thoughts and actions of two founding Georgian national intellectual and political figures, the statesman Niko Nikoladze and Noe Zhordania, who was one of the first prime ministers. It argues that conceiving of the nation(state) primarily in economic terms, as opposed to exclusively nationalist ones, was more conducive to the option of remaining inside a supranational space.

Keywords: Georgian nation-state; political economy; Russian empire; small versus large nation-states; Nikoladze; Zhordania

Occidentalising the Past and Orientalising the Present: Ismail Kadare and President Moisiu's Albanian 'European' Identity

With the rise of Albania’s prospects for joining the European Union, the discourse of Europeannes... more With the rise of Albania’s prospects for joining the European Union, the discourse of Europeanness of Albanian identity has been gaining a strong momentum within political and intellectual discourses in Albania. While such discourses of approximating Albanian identity to a perceived European one represent nothing new, little attention has been paid as to its nature and implications within Albanian political and intellectual space and how much it reflects contemporary discourse outside Albania. By employing a conceptual analysis method, this paper analyzes the meanings behind two recent texts of Albanian President, Alfred Moisiu, and of the internationally acclaimed writer, Ismail Kadare. The paper maintains that the “European” Identity of Albanians as perceived by Kadare and Moisiu is Eurocentric, essentialist, fundamentalist and anti-modernist. Europe is seen as a Christian cultural space, positively constructed, yet a static and religiously intolerant entity, exclusive towards the Other. Such discourses are unproductive and unnecessary in the contemporary Albanian and European context.

Empires of Conquest and Civilization in Georgian Political and Intellectual Discourse since Late Nineteenth Century

Intersections, 2016

This article explores understandings of the concept of empire in Georgian political intellectual ... more This article explores understandings of the concept of empire in Georgian political intellectual discourses in the pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet Georgian contexts. Beginning with an elaboration of contemporary political and scholarly understanding of empire, the article then – drawing on the approaches of intellectual and transnational history – distils two meanings: empire of conquest and of civilisation. Both meanings are mainly attributed to the Russian State in its political incarnations as an empire, as the fulcrum of the Soviet Union and more recently as an entity in search of a Eurasian Union. The article argues that while for most of the nineteenth century, the concept of empire embodied by the Russia state was invested with both meanings, particularly by the end of the Soviet period, it came to be singularised to that of conquest. More generally, it suggests that while in contemporary international relations empire, as a political entity, remains discredited morally and legally, the Neo- Gramscian concept of hegemony in IR scholarship elucidates why and when some hegemonic states act as empires of conquest, and while some others can do both, thus mustering their ‘structural power’ as well as ‘soft power’.

Adrian Brisku, "Realizmi dhe Idealizmi i Ismail Qemal bej Vlorës" Shqiptarët në Perandorinë Osmane, Përpjekja, nr. 36-37 (2020), fq. 215-227

Adrian Brisku, "Realizmi dhe Idealizmi i Ismail Qemal bej Vlorës" Shqiptarët në Perandorinë Osmane, Përpjekja,, 2020

Rreth figurës dhe veprimtarisë politike të Ismail Qemal bej Vlorës (1844-1919) tashmë ekziston nj... more Rreth figurës dhe veprimtarisë politike të Ismail Qemal bej Vlorës (1844-1919) tashmë ekziston një literaturë me gamë të gjërë e në rritje. Kjo është e vërtetë sidomos për periudhën postkomuniste ku tendenca ka qënë për ta mitizuar figurën e tij si "babai i kombit" por dhe pëpjekje janë bërë për ta vendosur atë në kontekstin e kohës. Ky artikull mundohet të bëjë të dytën duke shqyrtuar pozicionimin e Ismail Qemal bej Vlorës në politikën e jashtme të Perandorisë Osmane në dekadat e fundit të saj, një teme jo fort e rrahur në historiografinë shqiptare e cila është marrë me periudhën e pragut dhe pas shpalljes se Pavarësisë së Shqipërisë. Pozicionimi i tij, ndryshe nga realizmi kohës së Pavarësisë mbart elemente realizmi dhe idealizmi.

Modern Georgia (Oxford University Press), 2020

Arguably, an account of modern Georgia is one about the country’s emergence as a political nation... more Arguably, an account of modern Georgia is one about the country’s emergence as a political nation (independent republic and nation-state) in the region of the Caucasus—geographically straddled in between the Eurasian landmass—and the challenges of redefining, developing, and preserving itself. It is also about how it was forged under and often against its powerful neighbors, most notably the tsarist Soviet and Russian state, and about its equally uneven interactions with other neighboring nations and nationalities within its political borders. And while one cannot put a precise date on the cultural and political processes as to when this modern Georgia emerged, the late 19th century is that period when people within the two tsarist governorates of Tbilisi and Kutaisi interacted more intensively among themselves, but also within the imperial cultural and political centers of St. Petersburg and Moscow as well as beyond the imperial confines, in Central and Western European capitals. This in turn—following impactful events: the 1861 tsarist Emancipation of Serfs, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the First World War, the February and October Revolutions of 1917, the brief making of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (1918)—led to a diffusion of and reaction to political, economic, and cultural ideas from European and imperial metropoles that on May 26, 1918, culminated with the establishment, for the first time, of Georgia as a nation-state: the Georgian Democratic Republic. A social democratic nation-state in its political content, the political life of this first republic was cut short on February 25, 1921, by the Red Army of a re-emerging Russian (Soviet) state. In the ensuing seventy years in the Soviet Union—initially, from 1922 to 1936, as a constitutive republic of the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic and then as a separate Soviet Socialist Republic until the implosion of the union in 1991—the republic and its society experienced the effects of the making and unmaking of the Soviet Marxist-Leninist modernization project. Especially impactful for the republic and its society was the period of the 1930s and 1940s under the hyper-centralized rule of the Georgian-born Soviet Communist Party leader Joseph V. Stalin: a period marked by implementation of a centrally planned economic model and political purges as well as a consolidation of the nation’s ethnocultural and territorial makeup. Also important was the late Soviet period, particularly that under the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, whereby thanks to the economic and political reforms undertaken in the later 1980s, calls for the recovering of the republic’s political independence were intensified and ultimately realized. This happened on April 9, 1991—with the first Georgian president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, declaring the independence of the Republic of Georgia before the Soviet Union’s dissolution on December 26, 1991—and its international recognition would come easily and fast. But what would prove difficult and slow, from the outset, was building a European-style nation-state—meaning a liberal democratic order based on the rule of law and a market society—as was the case in the brief presidency of Gamsakhurdia (1991–1992). The latter’s term was marred by an ethnopolitical war in the South Ossetian region and brought to an end by a civil war fought in the capital city of Tbilisi and the Megrelian region. It continued to be difficult during the long and interrupted presidency of the former Georgian Communist Party boss, Eduard Shevardnadze (1995–2003)—the 1995 Constitution established a semi-presidential system of government—in which an ethnopolitical war with Abkhazia started and ended (1992–1993), state institutions stabilized, and a pro-Euro-Atlantic as opposed to a pro-Russian foreign policy was articulated, but state corruption also thrived. A European-style republic appeared closer during the full-term “hyper-presidency” of the Western-educated president Mikheil Saakashvili (2004–2013), marked by concrete steps toward Euro-Atlantic integration (NATO membership and EU partnership/toward membership) and a distancing from Russia as well as top-down neoliberal domestic reforms. But the republic was scarred by a war with Russia in August 2008 and a growing authoritarianism at home. It remains so despite a shift, since 2013, from a presidential to a parliamentary republic with the last directly elected president being the first woman president, Salome Zurabishvili (2018–). Since 2012, the Georgian Dream Party—established by billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili (prime minister, 2012–2013)—governs the republic by pursuing Western-oriented domestic reforms, EU and NATO integration, and a nonconfrontational position against Russia. The latter continues to undermine the country’s territorial integrity, having recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s independence in 2008 and maintaining its military bases there.

Caucasus Survey , 2020

The TDFR represented a fleeting triumph of the idea of multi-layered interdependence and interact... more The TDFR represented a fleeting triumph of the idea of multi-layered interdependence and interactions among the nationalities of the Caucasus, an idea that had been on the minds of people both inside and outside of the region. This idea preceded the TDFR’s emergence and lingered on after it collapsed – but did not seem to appeal to all of the contemporaries of the
region or to have been viable for a longer duration given the specific challenges of the period.

Who wanted the TDFR? The making and the breaking of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic

Caucasus Survey , 2020

During the brief period between 22 April and 26 May 1918, the leading Armenian, Azerbaijani and G... more During the brief period between 22 April and 26 May 1918, the leading Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian political forces of the early twentieth century, having established the shared federative structures of the Transcaucasian Commissariat and the Seim in the preceding months, declared an independent Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (TDFR). Emerging as it did from the ruins of an imploding tsarist empire and the still glowing embers of the First World War, and facing the imminent threat of invasion from the Ottoman army and the power ambitions of incipient Soviet Russia, the TDFR seemed both to the actors at the time and to later scholars of the region to be unique, contingent, and certainly unrepeatable.

The Transcaucasian democratic federative Republic (TDFR) as a “Georgian” responsibility

Caucasus Survey, 2020

This article looks at the historical perspectives and positions of key Georgian political figures... more This article looks at the historical perspectives and positions of key Georgian political figures – mostly leading Social Democrats such as Noe Zhordania and Akaki Chkhenkeli, as well as National Democrats such as Niko Nikoladze – on the making and unmaking of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (TDFR) by analyzing their reflections on the most heated political concepts of the first two decades of the twentieth century: nationality, nationalism, the nation-state, federation, economic development, and socialism in the Georgian, Transcaucasian and imperial contexts, given the rapidly shifting geopolitics of the region triggered by the onset of the Great War and aggravated by the Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917. The article demonstrates that already having conceptualized the socio- economic and cultural needs of the nation as developing outside of the framework of the nation-state, Zhordania and Chkhenkeli viewed these instead within a regional federative context under a revolutionarily transformed imperial centre, while assuming that the Social Democrats would hold the commanding political position in Georgia. This prepared them to take responsibility for establishing de facto federative political institutions for Transcaucasia. That responsibility facilitated the making and unmaking of the short-lived, independent TDFR.

Renegotiating the Empire, Forging the Nation-State: The Albanian Case through the Political Economic Thought of Ismail Qemali, Fan Noli, and Luigj Gurakuqi, c. 1890–1920s

Cambridge University Press (Nationalities Papers), 2020

This article examines historical positions regarding the question of the small nation-(state) of ... more This article examines historical positions regarding the question of the small nation-(state) of Albania remaining “in” the larger Ottoman supranational entity and “out” as independent nation-state during the late 19th and early 20th century. It does so mainly, but not only, through the language of political economy (wealth creation and redistribution) as articulated in the thoughts and deeds of three founding intellectual and political figures of the Albanian nation-(state): Ismail Qemali, Fan Noli, and Luigj Gurakuqi. While lacking a clear political-economic perspective for this emerging nation in the late Ottoman period, all the three figures maintained that as an independent, small nation-state, Albania could survive and perhaps thrive if its wealth and national economic development remained anchored within a larger political and economic space. More than Qemali, Gurakuqi, and Noli envisaged a greater state role in the country’s “national economy-building” process. But while Gurakuqi was more of a “nationalist” on wealth creation, Noli sought to pursue a more “radical,” redistributive path to national development.

Ottoman-Russian Relations

Ottoman-Russian Relations (Oxford University Press), 2019

Four-centuries-long encounters between the Ottoman Empire and the Grand Duchy of Muscovy/Russian ... more Four-centuries-long encounters between the Ottoman Empire and the Grand Duchy of Muscovy/Russian Empire point to complex relations that have been triggered and defined mostly by territorial, trade disputes, and wars, and maintained by diplomatic rivalry and occasional military alliances. Starting as friendly encounters during Sultan Bayezid II reign at the beginning of the 16th century, these relations, essentially and persistently asymmetrical, reveal an initial and long Ottoman dominance over the Muscovy/Russian side; one that lasted from the early 16th to the late 18th century—whereby the two sides shared no direct borders, traded and did not fight each other until the late 17th century—followed by a late 18th-century and mid-19th-century Russian ascendency. This ascendency was achieved largely thanks to the military reform that Tsar/Emperor Peter the Great undertook, namely, the establishment of a standing and professional army and consequentially due to the many wars that Russia won throughout the 19th century; the decisive ones being those fought during the reign of Empress Catherine the Great. The mid-19th century and the early 20th century—which witnessed the implosion of the Russian Empire due to the Bolshevik Revolution and the break-up of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France—was a long period that saw few and brief military alliances, contested trade relations and yet continued wars. It was ultimately marred by an Ottoman drive to counterbalance Russia’s dominance, while the latter sought to preserve it, by involving other European powers (British and French)—the most crucial moment being the British, French, and Ottoman armies defeating the Russian one in the Crimean War (1853–1856)—transforming their bilateral interactions into multilateral but unsustainable relations

Brisku. The Political Economy of the First Republic of Georgia (1918-1921)

Akaki Horava, aktori i preferuar i Stalinit, që luajti rolin e Skënderbeut

Akaki Horava, aktori i preferuar i Stalinit, që luajti rolin e Skënderbeut, 2018

Është aktori gjeorgjian Akaki Horava, i cili mishëroi portretin e Gjergj Kastriotit, por fare pak... more Është aktori gjeorgjian Akaki Horava, i cili mishëroi portretin e Gjergj Kastriotit, por fare pak njihet nga shqiptarët. Pedagogu i historisë intelektuale pranë Universitetit të Karlit në Pragë, Adrian Brisku, i nxitur nga Viti i Skënderbeut, nga debatet në mediat shqiptare rreth kësaj figure, ka bërë disa kërkime më tepër rreth figurës së aktorit gjeorgjian, që rezulton të jetë një nga më të njohurit jo vetëm në Gjergji, por në gjithë Bashkimin Sovjetik.

Një figurë emblematike e aktrimit, mbajtës i shumë titujve, aktor i preferuar i Stalinit, Akaki Horava do të vinte në Shqipëri për të realizuar filmin “Luftëtari i Madh Skënderbeu” dhe do të ruante kujtime të bukura nga ky vend i largët. Prishja e marrëdhënieve me Bashkimin Sovjetik ia zbehu shkëlqimin filmit, i cili shfaqej rrallë e më rrallë në Shqipërinë komuniste. Figura e Akaki Horavës vjen mes debateve për Skënderbeun, mes mitit dhe historisë.

The Middle Eastern Studies's Review of my book, Political reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires: a comparative approach, by Metin Atmaca

"Georgiens langer und schwieringer weg ‘nach Europe’” .pdf

Internalizing Europe: Albanian Perceptions of the Continent in Historical Perspective (1878–2008)

Journal of Educational Media, Memory, and Society, 2009

Renegotiating the empire, forging the nation(- state): the Bohemian/Czechoslovakian case through the political–economic thought of Thomas G. Masaryk and Karel Kramář, c. 1890–1920s

This article explores the dilemma of the small Bohemian Lands/Czechoslovak nation(-state) in stay... more This article explores the dilemma of the small Bohemian Lands/Czechoslovak nation(-state) in staying “in” or “out” of the larger Habsburg supranational entity in the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century. It does so mainly through the language of political economy (on national wealth creation and redistribution) articulated in the opinions and political actions of Czechoslovakia’s two founding statesmen, the first
president, Thomas G. Masaryk, and the first prime minister, Karel Kramař. The article argues that their choice of staying “in” the large imperial space was premised upon renegotiating a better political and political–economic deal for the Bohemian Lands, whereas the option of abandoning it and of forging the Czechoslovak nationstate was essentially based on political reasons. And while both advocated an interventionist role for the state in the economy during the imperial period, they considered such a prerogative even more essential for their new nation-state.

Oksidentalizmi i se shkuares dhe Orientalizmi i se tashmes: Identiteti 'Europian' sipas shkrimtarit Ismail Kadare dhe Presidentit Alfred Moisiu

ADRIAN BRISKU * Empires of Conquest and Civilization in Georgian Political and Intellectual Discourse since Late Nineteenth Century

This article explores understandings of the concept of empire in Georgian political intellectual ... more This article explores understandings of the concept of empire in Georgian political intellectual discourses in the pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet Georgian contexts. Beginning with an elaboration of contemporary political and scholarly understanding of empire, the article then – drawing on the approaches of intellectual and transnational history – distils two meanings: empire of conquest and of civilisation. Both meanings are mainly attributed to the Russian State in its political incarnations as an empire, as the fulcrum of the Soviet Union and more recently as an entity in search of a Eurasian Union. The article argues that while for most of the nineteenth century, the concept of empire embodied by the Russia state was invested with both meanings, particularly by the end of the Soviet period, it came to be singularised to that of conquest. More generally, it suggests that while in contemporary international relations empire, as a political entity, remains discredited morally and legally, the Neo-Gramscian concept of hegemony in IR scholarship elucidates why and when some hegemonic states act as empires of conquest, and while some others can do both, thus mustering their 'structural power' as well as 'soft power'.

Imazhi i fese islame ne tekstet shkollore te historise

So fern und doch so nah. Das Europabuild in Georgien: Eine Ideengeschischte

Renegotiating the empire, forging the nation-state: the Georgian case through the political economic thought of Niko Nikoladze and Noe Zhordania, c. 1870–1920

This article begins with an observation of a contemporary and yet reoccurring political dilemma t... more This article begins with an observation of a contemporary and yet reoccurring political dilemma that small nation-states face with respect to larger states in being either inside or outside of supranational political entities regarding political and economic asymmetries. Employing an intellectual history approach, the article explores this dilemma with reference to the Georgian nation in late-nineteenth century Tsarist Russia and the early twentieth century, when that territory briefly became a nation(state): it explores this through the language of political economy articulated in the thoughts and actions of two founding Georgian national intellectual and political figures, the statesman Niko Nikoladze and Noe Zhordania, who was one of the first prime ministers. It argues that conceiving of the nation(state) primarily in economic terms, as opposed to exclusively nationalist ones, was more conducive to the option of remaining inside a supranational space.

Keywords: Georgian nation-state; political economy; Russian empire; small versus large nation-states; Nikoladze; Zhordania

Occidentalising the Past and Orientalising the Present: Ismail Kadare and President Moisiu's Albanian 'European' Identity

With the rise of Albania’s prospects for joining the European Union, the discourse of Europeannes... more With the rise of Albania’s prospects for joining the European Union, the discourse of Europeanness of Albanian identity has been gaining a strong momentum within political and intellectual discourses in Albania. While such discourses of approximating Albanian identity to a perceived European one represent nothing new, little attention has been paid as to its nature and implications within Albanian political and intellectual space and how much it reflects contemporary discourse outside Albania. By employing a conceptual analysis method, this paper analyzes the meanings behind two recent texts of Albanian President, Alfred Moisiu, and of the internationally acclaimed writer, Ismail Kadare. The paper maintains that the “European” Identity of Albanians as perceived by Kadare and Moisiu is Eurocentric, essentialist, fundamentalist and anti-modernist. Europe is seen as a Christian cultural space, positively constructed, yet a static and religiously intolerant entity, exclusive towards the Other. Such discourses are unproductive and unnecessary in the contemporary Albanian and European context.

Kritika's Review (2021) of Brisku's Political Reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires: A Comparative Approach (Bloomsbury, 2017)

Leikin, Julia. "From Comparative to Entangled Histories." Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Project MUSE, 2021

Adrian Brisku’s book picks up where an older historiography left off, with an exposition on two s... more Adrian Brisku’s book picks up where an older historiography left off, with an exposition on two sets of political reform projects of the 19th cen- tury in the Russian and Ottoman empires, and the underlying question of the evolutionary paths these two polities took to join the “European” 19th century (1–6). Simultaneously comparing the language of reforms and thehistoriographies of these projects, Brisku argues that Russian and Ottoman westernizing reforms were “an integral part of” the legacy of the “European” 19th century. Not only the reform projects but also their nuances are the subject of comparison, and the similarity of themes across reforms in both polities lie at the forefront of his discussion.

Review of Political Reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires: A Comparative Approach in H-Net Reviews (April 2020)

Beilinson on Brisku, 'Political Reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires: A Comparative Approach', 2020

the book presents a highly readable comparative account of the ultimately unsuccessful trajectori... more the book presents a highly readable comparative account of the ultimately unsuccessful trajectories of political reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires. The parameters of investigation are clearly defined and
thoroughly followed. While the book contains little new to specialists in either field, it is a good introduction to students and nonspecialists seeking to learn the basic narrative and gain some comparative insight into top-down reform projects in the nineteenth century. More than anything, the book shows that valuable work is still left to be done in the comparative field, and Brisku is to be commended for his valuable contribution.

Prof. Virginia H. Aksan's review of my book in the American Historical Review

American Historical Review of Political Reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires: A Comparative Approach, 2019

'We are in a critical moment in the history of the American empire and in the future of global li... more 'We are in a critical moment in the history of the American
empire and in the future of global liberalism and
the modern state, prompting historians to revisit the
origins of a modern malaise surrounding this moment.
Adrian Brisku’s Political Reform in the Ottoman and
Russian Empires: A Comparative Approach adds to an
impressive list of works in Bloomsbury’s series
Europe’s Legacy in the Modern World, whose authors
address how “notions like democracy, populism and
totalitarianism came to be intertwined” (quoted on the
frontispiece). Examining the lives and writings of key
contributors to transformation in the last days of the
Romanov and Ottoman dynasties, Brisku finds that the
two empires took “mirror-like paths” and faced similar
challenges, such as a globalizing economy, the colonial
practices and rivalries of France and Britain, and
multiple regional crises.'

Review of Political Reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires: A Comparative Approach by Александр Томилин ИА REGNUM - Как реформировать империи: Российскую и Османскую. Попытка сравнения - ИА REGNUM.pdf

Как реформировать империи: Российскую и Османскую, 2018

Несмотря на то, что работа ограничена, неполна, рассматривает отдельные явления с позиции некотор... more Несмотря на то, что работа ограничена, неполна, рассматривает отдельные явления с позиции некоторых концепций, её новизна заслуживает одобрения. Перед нами оригинальный, но слабый труд, который можно принять к сведению как одну из попыток сравнительной истории реформ и модернизации в России и Турции, но ничего нового российскому исследователю он не скажет.

Подробности: https://regnum.ru/news/innovatio/2526484.html
Любое использование материалов допускается только при наличии гиперссылки на ИА REGNUM.

The English Historical Review on Political Reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires: A Comparative Approach, by Adrian Brisku

The English Historical Review (Oxford Academic), 2018

It should be intuitively obvious to historians that the fates of the Russian and Ottoman Empires ... more It should be intuitively obvious to historians that the fates of the Russian and Ottoman Empires throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries would demonstrate striking parallels, since both monarchies were in constant military and diplomatic rivalry which fuelled their administrative reforms and Westernisation processes. Still, one would be hard pressed to find a comprehensive monograph proposing either integrative or comparative histories of these empires, primarily owing to the difficulty involved in the mastery of language and sources in both contexts. Michael Reynolds’s Shattering Empires (2010; rev. ante, cxxvii [2012], 1,565–7) was a first in comparing the collapse of these polities by analysing their final decade, and Adrian Brisku’s book now appears as a welcome follow-up which deals with political reform...

The Middle Eastern Studies review of my book, Political reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires: a comparative approach, by Metin Atmaca

The Russian Review's review of my book, Political Reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires: A Comparative Approach, by prof Kemal H. Karpat

"A Tangled Path to Europe": Review of Bittersweet Europe in New Eastern Europe

Bittersweet Europe offers a masterful juxtaposition of Georgian and Albanian discourses towards E... more Bittersweet Europe offers a masterful juxtaposition of Georgian and Albanian discourses towards Europe in addition to the accompanying insecurities over Europe and Europeanness in both countries. This in
conjunction to the decentring effect gained through the added context leads the reader to a better understanding of Georgia’s history and relationship to Europe - something needed now more than ever.

European History Quarterly Review of Bittersweet Europe, by prof. Ronald Grigor Suny

Brisku’s review of the historical discourses on Europe has a relevance in our own time, as both A... more Brisku’s review of the historical discourses on Europe has a relevance in our own time, as both Albania and Georgia negotiate their current and future relationship with the West. Will they be full members of Europe at some point soon? The desire is there on the part of Albanians and Georgians, but as tantalizing as Europe remains, not all of its various meanings are inviting to small nations that wish to preserve something of what they conceive as their essence. Europe’s modernity is a solvent in which the particular might potentially be lost in another’s universal.

Slavic Review of Bittersweet Europe by prof. Keith Hitchins

Slavic Review, 2014

The Albanian and Georgian debates about Europeanness are valuable case studies of a general phen... more The Albanian and Georgian debates about Europeanness are valuable case studies
of a general phenomenon of the time and place. Yet we may wonder at the perseverance
of Albanians and Georgians in their pro-Europe stance, despite the history
of the great powers’ indiff erence to their fate since the nineteenth century. The title
Brisku has chosen for his book, Bittersweet Europe, seems apt

The Ottoman and Russian Empires’ political reforms as reactions to revolution and wars

This paper explores comparatively how threats or real impacts of wars and revolutions in the two ... more This paper explores comparatively how threats or real impacts of wars and revolutions in the two empires during the nineteenth century pressured respective political elites to embark on fundamental projects of political reform. These projects were articulated in terms of and aimed at establishing permanent laws and new institutions, constitutional monarchies and economic regimes that vacillated between free trade and protectionist policies as well as strategies for remaining part of a rule-based European order. This language of political reform would lose traction in both cases once revolution, communist in the Russian and nationalist in the Ottoman case, engulfed these imperial centres, becoming thus the new political pivot on which the political future was imagined and acted upon. By way of conclusion, the paper will, nevertheless, shed light into how the language of reform was articulated in the first decade of revolutionary Soviet Union and Turkish Republic.

The Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic of 1918 Federal Aspirations, Geopolitics and National Projects

The Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic of 1918 Federal Aspirations, Geopolitics and National Projects, 2021

The Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (TDFR) was a unique, bottom-up, and a fleeting ... more The Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (TDFR) was a unique, bottom-up, and a fleeting display of political unity and federalism among the main Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian political factions between 22 April 1918, when it declared its independence, and 26 May 1918, when it was dissolved and replaced by the three nation-states of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Focusing on a crucial but poorly understood moment in the modern history of the Caucasus at the end of the First World War, this book offers a systematic, contextually-rich, and multi-perspectival—Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, Ottoman, German, British, American, Italian, Bolshevik, Ukrainian and North Caucasian—account of the TDFR, drawing on contributions (with the new material from archives in Tbilisi, Grozny, Yerevan, Baku, Istanbul, Berlin, London, Washington D.C.) by a new generation of historians and scholars working on the region.

The book argues that despite its month-long existence in this geopolitically volatile region, the TDFR, with and its federative nature and the various discussions about federalism and federation that it provoked, continued to have an appeal for Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians as well as for the Great Powers well beyond its dissolution. Moreover, the experience of the TDFR reifies federalism as a key political concept in the modern history of the Caucasus.

The chapters in this book were originally published as a special issue of the Caucasus Survey.

Bittersweet Europe: Albanian and Georgian Discourses on Europe, 1878-2008

Political Reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires: A Comparative Approach

Throughout the 'long 19th century', the Ottoman and Russian empires shared a goal of destroying o... more Throughout the 'long 19th century', the Ottoman and Russian empires shared a goal of destroying one another. Yet, they also shared a similar vision for imperial state renewal, with the goal of avoiding revolution, decline and isolation within Europe. Adrian Brisku explores how this path of renewal and reform manifested itself: forging new laws and institutions, opening up the economy to the outside world, and entering the European political community of imperial states.

Political Reform in the Ottoman and Russian Empires tackles the dilemma faced by both empires, namely how to bring about meaningful change without undermining the legal, political and economic status quo. The book offers a unique comparison of Ottoman and Russian politics of reform and their connection to the wider European politico-economic space .

Welton & Brisku. Contradictory Inclinations? The Role of 'Europe' in Albanian Nationalist Discourse

Contradictory Inclinations? The Role of 'Europe' in Albanian Nationalist Discourse, 2007

In recent times the 'European' nature of the Albanian nation has become an uncontested part of t... more In recent times the 'European' nature of the Albanian nation has become an uncontested part of the intellectual, political and popular discourse within Albania. Albanians consider themselves to be Europeans, not only in terms of their geography but by historically subscribing to European values that they clearly form part of the European family. Considering both rationalist and discursive explainations to this Albania's postcommunist European discourse, this chapter argues that these explanations point to a contradictory nature of this discourse; a contradiction that is found in the widern European scholarly and political dicourses

Brisku.The Political Economy of the First Republic of Georgia (1918-1921)

The First Republic’s Political Economy: Between Wealth Creation and Redistribution, and Labor Protection (In Georgian), 2018

At a very basic understanding, political economy is about the various ways of thinking and availa... more At a very basic understanding, political economy is about the various ways of thinking and available tools that statesmen, political activists and policymakers need to deal with questions of production (wealth creation), redistribution, consumption as well as about considerations of how such processes affect societies. Fundamentally, it also aims at determining the role of the state in national economies: hands off, mediating/intervening or commanding. Georgia’s First Republic, which came to existence in a brief moment in the early twentieth century (1918-1921), was a rare ‘experiment’ in political and political economic terms for post-imperial space as well as within the European Continent. This was because some of its leading statesmen such Noe Zhordania and Niko Nikoladze, discussed at length in article, in their search for economic development of the nation sought to find a balancing role for the state with regard to capital and wealth creation as well as redistribution and labor protection. This was a novelty in the post-imperial space and beyond.

'Politics of Change and Stability' in the Ottoman and Russian Empires, 1815-1914

Empires without Cosmopolitanism? Locating Cosmopolitanism in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman and Russian Empires

Shaping Bridges: Perceptions of Western Engagement in South Caucasus

Islamization Reconsidered: Islam and Muslim Albanians in Albanian History Texts (1973-2006)

The Holy Alliance as ‘An Order of Things Conformable to the Interests of Europe and to the Laws of Religion and Humanity’

This chapter explains how the Holy Alliance—a peace project in the European continent put forward... more This chapter explains how the Holy Alliance—a peace project in the European continent put forward by Russian Emperor Alexander I at the end of Napoleonic wars—has been characterized in various ways as either a reactionary, religious, and conservative tool for legitimizing European monarchical order; as projecting a vision for a ‘United Europe’; or as setting the tone and stage for intra-state cooperation, as with major international peace organizations in the twentieth century. This chapter argues that the Holy Alliance embodied and displayed all these elements. Trumpeting Christian unity and monarchical solidarity in achieving a ‘durable peace’ in Europe, the Holy Alliance was liberal, reactionary, secular and religious, peaceful (through constitutionalism), and militaristic (through collective intervention) platform.

The Czech-(Slovak)-Albanian Relations: One Hundred Years in the Making

The Czech-(Slovak)-Albanian Relations: One Hundred Years in the Making, 2020

Except for those attuned to contemporary diplomatic relations between the Czech Republic and the ... more Except for those attuned to contemporary diplomatic relations between the Czech Republic and the Republic of Albania, few might be aware that the Czech-Albanian relations-with their diplomatic ties established on 5 July 1922-are to reach a hundred years. To mark this approaching centenary, this first international academic conference on the Czech(Slovak)-Albanian relations-organized by the Department of Russian and East European Studies (IMS, Faculty of Social Sciences) and the Department of South Slavic and Balkan Studies (Faculty of Philosophy) of Charles University-brings together ambassadors, historians and scholars from both the Czech Republic and Albania to deliver accounts on historical and contemporary cultural, economic, diplomatic and people to people interactions between the two nations. Drawing on archival material as well as contemporary interactions and experiences, the contributors of this conference will shed light on as to why and how these two geographically non-contiguous European countries-during these one hundred years-have gotten closer, at times cooled off, and rebounded with more dynamic, amicable and entangled interactions.

Conference on the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic

On 22 April 1918, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Georgians and other nationalities in the South Caucasu... more On 22 April 1918, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Georgians and other nationalities in the South Caucasus declared the independence of their first common state, the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic or shortly the Transcaucasian Federation - a state recognized only by the Ottoman Empire. An unprecedented move by leading political activists/representatives of these constitutive nations, it nevertheless is debatable whether this federative state was solely a reactive outcome of the geopolitical imperatives following the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (3 March 1918) or also a materialization of federalist projects circulating for decades among many Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Georgians. During its month-long existence as a state - having a cabinet that sought to draft a constitution, finalize its borders, end the war, stop anarchy within the state and begin land reform - respective national political projects appeared reconciled with this federative project. Yet such projects became the only alternatives succeeding this state's disintegration on 26 May 1918. To what extent then was it undermined by these competing national projects or by unfavorable geopolitical context and warring geopolitical forces?
A largely unexplored historical event in Western scholarship and respective national historiographies, this international conference brings together historians and scholars working on the region and the period to reconstruct several perspectives from this state's constitutive nations: Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian as well as from regional and Great Powers' ones: British, Ottoman, German and Soviet Russian. The conference aims to critically assess this unique moment of political unity/disunity of the early twentieth-century South Caucasian history and to uncover the political language/concepts articulated in the making and the breaking of the first-ever Transcaucasian state. In so doing, it seeks to lay bare the tensions and interactions between national and federal visions in Transcaucasia as well as to untangle the impact of geopolitical forces on the region and on the larger, volatile context of World War I.