BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES

"Regional Transformations And Armenia: Security Shifts" (International Conference)

Grigor Vardanyan — 2025-02-05

On November 28, 2018, the Institute of Oriental Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia (NAS RA), with the support of the All-Armenian Foundation for Armenian Studies, organized the international conference entitled “Regional Transformations and Armenia: Security Shifts.” The event brought together notable researchers from various countries for the first time, including Dareskedar Taye from the Institute of Foreign Affairs in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Hamsa Al-Kasir from Damascus, a PhD candidate at Yerevan State University. Additionally, the conference featured a prominent American expert in international relations and security, Dr. Bahgat Gawadat from the Near East and South Asia Center for Strategic Studies in Washington, D.C.

Parthia During the Time of Mithridates III (58/57-56 B.C.). An Attempt to Reconstruct Historical Events

Ruslan Kobzar — 2025-02-05

In the huge number of scientific works on the history of Parthia, there are no special studies devoted to the activities of the Parthian king Mithridates III (Mithridates IV – according to Assar’s chronology [4:96-97])2 . The exception is the scanty lines (5-10 sentences) in generalizing works on the political history of Parthia [7:83-83;6:42-44;22:31], a number of scientific articles [12:2211;17:57-58:19:168;39:211;4:96-97;44:442-443; 11:212-213] and dissertations [18:108;30:75], which in passing refer to the period of the reign of this king or his action. In all these studies circulates one and the same point of view that the Parthian king Phraates III was killed by his sons – Mithridates and Orodes, after which Mithridates III ascended the throne and started a war with Great Armenia. At the end of the war with Great Armenia, Mithridates III was sentenced by the Parthian Council of Elders to banishment from the kingdom of the “cruelty” he had shown. In his place, his brother Orodes II was appointed king, who was returned from exile by Surena. Interpreting the data of the sources in this way, the researchers did not try to find out what Marcus Justinus meant by Mitridates’s III “cruelty” and what meaning contemporaries of the events put into the notion of “exile”. Meanwhile, a thorough analysis of sources and the correct interpretation of these terms allows us to doubt Orodes II involvement in the murder of his father. Unsolved problems require solutions. At the same time, the lack of detailed studies on the biography of the king Mithridates III and the political history of Parthia in the era of king Mithridates III make this study quite timely.

Establishment of Universal Primary Education System in the Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918-1921)

Irakli Iremadze — 2025-02-05

The access to education as a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of social and political rights represents one of the most significant achievements for the contemporary world. However, until 1917 citizens of Georgia and the broader Caucasus region were denied access to these fundamental rights. After the declaration of Georgia’s independence in 1918 efforts were initiated to establish the universal education system within the newly formed state. This research aims at studying and analyzing the multifaceted process of educational reform during a period marked by military, political, and economic instability. This research addresses the following questions: How were such reforms implemented within the conditions of instability? What forms of political and economic will, as well as the financial resources were requisite for the introduction of a universal education system? Drawing upon archival materials and existing scholarship, this article seeks to explain the dynamics of educational reform, not merely as the construction of an autonomous system, but as an integral component of broader social policymaking. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the historical evolution of education policy in the Caucasus region, highlighting the challenges and opportunities in the pursuit of universal education.

Armenian Melik‘s and Khojas of Transcaucasia during Nādir Shāh’s Rule

Kristine Kostikyan — 2025-02-05

After the wars waged against Ottomans in 1734-1736 Nādir Shāh succeeded in the annexation of the greater part of Transcaucasia to his state. The elite of the local Armenian population consisted of hereditary landlords (melik‘s) and wealthy merchants (khojas and bazzazes)11 once again after the fall of the Ṣafavid rule appeared under the rule of an Iranian state. Being representatives of a similar social group of Iranian society, Armenian meliks were acknowledged by Persian government and encouraged by Nādir to render him assistance during his wars against Ottoman forces in Iran and Transcaucasia. Nādir Shāh rewarded their major assistance with confirmation of their rights as meliks of some regions of Eastern Armenia and also few of them were appointed to high posts in local administration. However, Nādir's generosity ended shortly after his unsuccessful campaigns in Daghestan and western Transcaucasia in 1740s. The heavy taxes and tax extortion, also great fines put on wealthy Armenians and the Armenian Church resulted in their later estrangement from Nādir’s enterprises and lack of any cooperation with him. Inability to pay great fines and extra taxes was observed as signs of disobedience and resulted in persecutions exercised in respect of some representatives of the mentioned social groups. Due to the economic decline observed during Nādir’s reign Armenian merchants faced the difficulties of the unfavourable conditions for trade: insecurity of the trade routes, high taxes and extortion, heavy fines put on the rich merchants with the purpose to take as much money as possible and severe punishments in case of inability to pay the assigned fines and tributes. We have the evidence of contemporary sources about the Armenian wealthy merchants of New Julfa as well as those functioning in the regions of Eastern Armenia in the period that reveal some peculiarities in their activities.

The Dual Alliance Under the Perspective of the Theory of Alliance Dilemma: A Study Centered on Macedonian Reforms (1903-1908)

Gao Jianzhi — 2025-02-05

The Dual Alliance was an important achievement of Germany’s proactive diplomacy, which eliminated the hidden security risk of AustriaHungary’s fall to the hostile countries, and restored Germany’s position of restraining the Austro-Russian relations and its position as a mediator between the two countries. Austria-Hungary improved its relatively fragile position as a Great Power in Europe through the alliance, but at the cost of its foreign policy that was to some extent subject to Germany’s control. The Dual Alliance was in a dilemma at the very beginning. Both Germany and Austria-Hungary had the fears of “abandonment” and “entrapment”, and there were the risks of détente and conflict with hostile countries. In order to improve the internal relations of the alliance, the Austria-Hungary took advantage of Macedonian reforms to adopt a proactive foreign policy. In order to maintain the stability of the alliance, Germany repeatedly supported the policies that carried out by Austria-Hungary at critical moments in the process of Macedonian reforms to show its loyalty to the ally. The relationship between Germany and Austria - Hungary in the alliance gradually changed, which in turn pushed the AustriaHungary to implement a more aggressive foreign policy.

An inquiry into China and Russia strategic partnership from geopolitical perspective

Yang Ming-Xing — 2025-02-05

Since the 1990s, China and Russia have come to forge strategic partnership which is seen as the counterbalance to the U.S. hegemony. Yet, the solidarity between the two largest powers in Eurasia is under the question since the Ukraine crisis has not only caused the unexpected impacts on the global energy and food security, but also the geopolitical dimensions now and beyond. What can Russia expect from China during the ongoing conflict, and how can China offer to Russia’s urgent needs as it has fought alone against the U.S.-led allies? Regarding the question if Beijing has tried “to keep its distance” from Moscow now or afterward, this study asserts that there is a profound historical logic for China-Russia relationship to reach where it is today. As the largest neighbours to each other and the high-level strategic partnership, China and Russia have strong internal dynamics to facilitate the comprehensive strategic partnership in rebuilding a multilateral world order. Beijing is aware of the consequences if China losses Russia as the most effective strategic partner given the prospect of the Global NATO pivoting to the Asia-pacific to merge with the U.S.-Japan axis, AUKUS and the Quad security dialogue. Thus, the rationale behind the policy-making elites in Beijing remains that China-Russia relations is a strategic choice that Beijing has made to realize national rejuvenation and support world multi-polarity based on international laws and the authoritative role of the U.N.