Hamazasp Danielyan | Yerevan State University (original) (raw)

Papers by Hamazasp Danielyan

Diaspora Studies, 2016

ABSTRACT The article examines and compares the institutional structures of Armenian diasporas of ... more ABSTRACT The article examines and compares the institutional structures of Armenian diasporas of Russia and Lebanon with the intention of identifying factors that could explain the diverging outcomes in institution building and identity preservation in these communities. The study also aims to contribute to the current understanding of how different diasporic communities of the same diaspora can have discrepancies in terms of their characteristics, institutional structures and policy outcomes. Based on the existing theoretical literature, the article explores the main factors that influence the characteristics of particular communities, including discussion of conditions in the hostland, the origins of community as well as the level of institutionalization of diasporic organizations. The article also explains the role of each of these factors and triangulates them with the results of in-depth interviews conducted with the representatives all core diasporic institutions in both countries. Concentrating on the characteristics of existing diasporic institutions, the article emphasizes the importance of interconnection and cooperation of those institutions in implementation of strategies and practices of identity preservation in the diaspora. The existing literature on the Armenian diaspora tends to either portray it as a homogenous entity or concentrate on case studies, that is, communities and subgroups. Hence, comparative studies of different communities within a single diaspora are understudied.

Diaspora Studies, 2017

he article examines and compares the institutional structures of Armenian diasporas of Russia and... more he article examines and compares the institutional structures of Armenian diasporas of Russia and Lebanon with the intention of identifying factors that could explain the diverging outcomes in institution building and identity preservation in these communities. The study also aims to contribute to the current understanding of how different diasporic communities of the same diaspora can have discrepancies in terms of their characteristics, institutional structures and policy outcomes. Based on the existing theoretical literature, the article explores the main factors that influence the characteristics of particular communities, including discussion of conditions in the hostland, the origins of community as well as the level of institutionalization of diasporic organizations. The article also explains the role of each of these factors and triangulates them with the results of in-depth interviews conducted with the representatives all core diasporic institutions in both countries. Concentrating on the characteristics of existing diasporic institutions, the article emphasizes the importance of interconnection and cooperation of those institutions in implementation of strategies and practices of identity preservation in the diaspora. The existing literature on the Armenian diaspora tends to either portray it as a homogenous entity or concentrate on case studies, that is, communities and subgroups. Hence, comparative studies of different communities within a single diaspora are understudied.

ABSTRACT The article examines and compares the institutional structures of Armenian diasporas of... more ABSTRACT

The article examines and compares the institutional structures of Armenian diasporas of Russia and Lebanon with the intention of identifying factors that could explain the diverging outcomes in institution building and identity preservation in these communities. The study also aims to contribute to the current understanding of how different diasporic communities of the same diaspora can have discrepancies in terms of their characteristics, institutional structures and policy outcomes. Based on the existing theoretical literature, the article explores the main factors that influence the characteristics of particular communities, including discussion of conditions in the hostland, the origins of community as well as the level of institutionalization of diasporic organizations. The article also explains the role of each of these factors and triangulates them with the results of in-depth interviews conducted with the representatives all core diasporic institutions in both countries. Concentrating on the characteristics of existing diasporic institutions, the article emphasizes the importance of interconnection and cooperation of those institutions in implementation of strategies and practices of identity preservation in the diaspora. The existing literature on the Armenian diaspora tends to either portray it as a homogenous entity or concentrate on case studies, that is, communities and subgroups. Hence, comparative studies of different communities within a single diaspora are understudied.
KEYWORDS: Armenian diaspora, Lebanon, Russia, institutions, identity, church

Two thirds of ethnic Armenians live outside of Armenia. Armenian communities are scattered throug... more Two thirds of ethnic Armenians live outside of Armenia. Armenian communities are scattered
throughout the world – from Canada to Australia and from Argentina to Siberia. The genesis
of the Armenian Diaspora (“Spyurq”) started in the Middle Ages, but the majority of Armenian
exodus from their homeland occurred as a result of two events: the 1915 Genocide in Western
Armenia carried out by the Government of the Young Turks, and the Sovietization of Eastern
Armenia (1920) which was previously part of the Russian Empire. Despite the chain of events,
and the wide geographic range of emigration they caused, Armenian communities have developed
and sustained themselves globally.
The aim of this paper is (1) to evaluate the influence of Diaspora on the state building process
in the newly independent Republic of Armenia and (2) to analyze the Government of Armenia’s
(GoA) position on the inclusion of the Diaspora in the Armenian political processes. The
historical perception of Diasporan politics towards Armenia will be presented first, including
the role of the Diasporan political parties in reinventing the independence and building new
statehood in Armenia at the end of 1980s and the beginning of 1990s. Since independence,
relations between Armenia and the Diaspora have evolved through more than a decade long
intensive interactions. The opportunity to obtain dual citizenship was proposed to Diasporan
Armenians through amendments made to the Constitution of Armenia in 2005. Despite this action,
it remains unclear to what extent Diasporan Armenians are committed to repatriation or
a stronger presence in the political life of Armenia. This paper will then focus on a case study of
Diasporan organizations’ reaction to the post-electoral developments that unfolded in Armenia
in February–March 2008.

Keywords: Armenia Diaspora relations, state building, democratization

Preface (pp. 3-4) Before presenting the actual contents, a little about how the measurement of ... more Preface (pp. 3-4)

Before presenting the actual contents, a little about how the measurement of people’s attitude toward democracy is done in contemporary political science.
During the third wave of democratization, namely during the last decade one of the most important directions in comparative political science is the measurement of democratic regimes. In the series of these measurements an important role is given to the research done on the basis of survey, which has the aim to discover the attitude of citizens of different countries toward the regime of their country, measure the levels of political participation and so on. These researches have theoretical and practical meanings:
• These researches give an opportunity to discover through concrete criteria what is the attitude of the population towards the regime (which in most cases is the transition to democracy) and how much the population is FOR Democracy.
• Periodical researches of public opinion give political scientists an opportunity through empirical data to measure and do important calculations about the stability of different countries. This is particularly important in the case of studying young and transition regimes.
• These studies can provide important information (to political leaders, as well) about the attitude of the society towards reforms and other public/social processes.
• As an important privilege, we should also note, that such surveys give an opportunity to elaborate and check the theories on democracy consolidation. We can say that the study of public opinion gives a wide range of opportunities for studying the dynamics of democratic regimes.
It is worth to mention that such surveys are very common and spread in different parts of the world and often have a periodical character which gives an opportunity do comparative analysis. Such surveys are often called “Barometers”. “Eurobarometer”, “Latinobarometer”, “Afrobarometer”, “South-East Asian Barometer” and others are known. On the level of regional research mostly the surveys are conducted by the same principles and questionnaires and express the peculiarities of the given region. In general, such researches have a lot in common, which gives the opportunity to compare the countries located in different parts of the world.
In Central and Eastern Europe as well as the countries of CIS, a number of such researches have been conducted starting from the 90-ies in frames of “Eurobarometer”. But from the end of the 90-ies the direction of such researches was changed and the focus was the Euro union and the NATO as well as the candidate countries to enter the UN or the NATO. From CIS countries, surveys are conducted in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine. Until 1997, such surveys were conducted in Armenia, too, but unfortunately the results are not accessible.

Therefore, it is very needed to conduct such a survey in the Republic of Armenia. The results will help to do certain analysis and comparison with the countries in the region.

Methodology(pp.4-5)

From March 1st to April 10th of 2004 a sociological survey was conducted in the city of Yerevan and in marzes Shirak, Lori, Tavush, Kotayk and Armavir. The sponsor organization was the CEP.
Participants:
sociologist – 1 person
interviewers – 5 people

The survey consisted of the following phases
1. Preparatory phase
• Program of the research
 Selecting the object and the subject of the research.
The object of the research was the population of the Republic of Armenia who are above 18 in their age.
The subject of the research is the attitude of population of Armenia toward Democracy and toward the public institutions.
 Description of the purpose of the research
The main purpose of the project is to find out the attitude of Hayastantsis towards democracy.
The derivative purposes are to find out the opinion of the population of the Republic of Armenia towards political and public institutions and the opinion about the level of corruption in those institutions.
 Selection of the method of gathering information
The method of gathering information is questionnaire interview.
• Instrument (questionnaire) of the research
• Sampling
Multi-level, stratified territorial sampling, which represents the population of Yerevan, Shirak, Lori, Tavush, Kotayk, Armavir above 18. The stratification was realized on the basis of the following 2 criteria:
- administrative-territorial
- the location of the house – by the principle of being close-far from the central streets.
The first step of sampling is to choose the streets by the principle described.
Second step – choose the buildings of the houses.
The sample counted 400 respondents. The selection was done by the principle of random sampling. The maximal mistake for sampling will not be over 6.5 % in case of 0.95 possibility of trustworthiness.
Third step – choose the respondents.
2. Pilot survey and editing
3. Field - gathering the information
4. Primary information analysis (preparing the information for the analysis).
5. Secondary analysis
6. Analyzing and presenting the results.

Results (pp.11-18)

1. Do you prefer to live in Soviet regime?

• Yes 25%
• Probably yes 13%
• Probably no 22 %
• No 39%
• Can’t answered 1%
2. What is your opinion about the regime that was established after 1991?
• Very Satisfied 3.5%
• Satisfied 29 %
• Not satisfied 67.5 %
3. Do you think you are for democracy?
• Yes 54%
• Probably yes 17%
• Probably no 13 %
• No 15%
• Can’t answered 1%
4.Do you think that Armenia should be democratic?
• Yes 69%
• No 4%
• I don’t care 27%
4. Do you think that democracy can solve Armenia’s main problems?
• Yes 37%
• Probably yes 29%
• Probably no 13 %
• No 18%
• Can’t answered 3%

Conclusion (pp.45-46)

This survey had a purpose to study the attitude in Armenian society toward democracy, toward political and public institutions. Starting from 1991, when Armenia started the processes of independence and democratization, the main segment of Armenian population welcomed this idea. During the past years the Armenian society felt the difficulties raised by the transition process, changes have taken place, which have tremendously affected the political consciousness of the society.
The study showed that today Armenian society needs to make a serious decision. From 1991 Armenia went through a very difficult path, and those difficulties affected the opinion of the citizens. If in 1991 the opinions were very optimistic, then now they are very realistic. At the same time the society has a positive opinion about the institutions, that are more or less formed and function satisfactorily.
At the same time, the study shows that the political consciousness is not yet completely formed. The respondents did not have a stabile opinion about certain institutions. In case of some institutions this fact has some objective explanations, but in case of others – it was conditioned by indifference and lack of knowledge.
By concluding the results we consider it worthy to note that this study and the studies alike are very important for studying the political consciousness of Armenian society. At the same time the surveys like this give a chance to get information not about separate institutions, but about the power in general. At the same time we are talking here not about personified power, but about this or that branch of power as an official
institution.

This is not a pure academic article but rather a policy paper. The overall aim of this work is to... more This is not a pure academic article but rather a policy paper. The overall aim of this work is to analyze the development process of the electoral system in NKR, identify past achievements and current shortcomings in that area, define the most important obstacles to
its further development and provide general recommendations as well as very specific steps that to overcome those challenges. More specifically it is intended to contribute to the renewed public discourse on electoral reform by providing professional legal analysis of current NKR Electoral Code based on good international practices.

Teaching Documents by Hamazasp Danielyan

Dissertation by Hamazasp Danielyan

Ð³Ù³½³ëå ¶ñÇ·áñÇ ¸³ÝÇ»ÉÛ³Ý ²ñï³ùÇÝ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÇ ³½¹»óáõÃÛáõÝÁ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³óÙ³Ý ... more Ð³Ù³½³ëå ¶ñÇ·áñÇ ¸³ÝÇ»ÉÛ³Ý ²ñï³ùÇÝ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÇ ³½¹»óáõÃÛáõÝÁ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³óÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝÃ³óÇ íñ³ ²ï»Ý³ËáëáõÃÛáõÝ AE. ¶. 00.02 - §ø³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ÇÝëïÇïáõïÝ»ñ ¨ ·áñÍÁÝÃ³óÝ»ñ¦ Ù³ëÝ³·ÇïáõÃÛ³Ùµ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ã»ÏÝ³ÍáõÇ ·Çï³Ï³Ý ³ëïÇ×³ÝÇ Ñ³ÛóÙ³Ý Ñ³Ù³ñ ·Çï. Õ»Ï³í³ñ` ÷ÇÉ. ·Çï. Ã»ÏÝ³Íáõ, ¹áó»Ýï ²É»ùë³Ý¹ñ Ø³ñ·³ñáí ºñ¨³Ý 2008 Üºð²ÌàôÂÚàôÜ Üºð²ÌàôÂÚàôÜ Üºð²ÌàôÂÚàôÜ Üºð²ÌàôÂÚàôÜ Ð»ï³½áïáõÃÛ³Ý Ã»Ù³ÛÇ Ññ³ï³åáõÃÛáõ Ð»ï³½áïáõÃÛ³Ý Ã»Ù³ÛÇ Ññ³ï³åáõÃÛáõ Ð»ï³½áïáõÃÛ³Ý Ã»Ù³ÛÇ Ññ³ï³åáõÃÛáõ Ð»ï³½áïáõÃÛ³Ý Ã»Ù³ÛÇ Ññ³ï³åáõÃÛáõÝÁ ¨ ³ñ¹Ç³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ: ÝÁ ¨ ³ñ¹Ç³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ: ÝÁ ¨ ³ñ¹Ç³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ: ÝÁ ¨ ³ñ¹Ç³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ: Ð³Û ÅáÕáíñ¹Ç å³ïÙáõÃÛ³Ý ³ñ¹Ç ÷áõÉÇ ·»ñ³Ï³ ÑÇÙÝ³ËÝ¹ÇñÝ»ñÇó Ù»ÏÝ ¿ ë»÷³Ï³Ý ½³ñ·³óÙ³Ý ×³Ý³å³ñÑÇ ÁÝïñáõÃÛáõÝÁ` Ù³ëÝ³íáñ³å»ë, Ñ³Ûáó å»ï³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³Û³óáõÙÁ ¨ Ñ³ÛÏ³Ï³Ý å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³éáõóáõÙÁ: 1991 Ãí³Ï³ÝÇó ëÏë³Í` Ñ³Û ÅáÕáíñ¹Ç Ñ³Ù³ñ ÑÝ³ñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝ ëï»ÕÍí»ó áñáß»Éáõ, Ã» ÇÝãåÇëÇÝ ¿ ÉÇÝ»Éáõ Ñ³ÛÏ³Ï³Ý å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý µÝáõÛÃÁ ¨ ÇÝã ÙÇçáóÝ»ñáí ¿ ³ÛÝ ÉáõÍ»Éáõ Çñ ³éç¨ Í³é³ó³Í ÑÇÙÝ³ËÝ¹ÇñÝ»ñÁ: Ð³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý ëï»ÕÍÙ³Ý Ñ»Ýó ³é³çÇÝ ûñ»ñÇó ß»ßï³¹ñí»ó ¨ ûñ»Ýë¹ñ³Ï³Ý Ù³Ï³ñ¹³ÏáõÙ Ý³Ë³Ýßí»ó, áñ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ »ññáñ¹ Ñ³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛáõÝÁ å»ïù ¿ ÉÇÝÇ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³Ï³Ý ¨ ³½³ï ßáõÏ³Û³Ï³Ý Ñ³ñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ íñ³ ÑÇÙÝí³Í »ñÏÇñ: ²Ûë ³éáõÙáí ³é³Ýóù³ÛÇÝ Ýß³Ý³ÏáõÃÛáõÝ áõÝÇ å³ñ½»É, Ã» áñù³Ýáí ¿ñ ³Ûë §½³ñ·³óÙ³Ý ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³Ï³Ý áõÕáõ¦ ÁÝïñáõÃÛáõÝÁ ·Çï³Ïóí³Í ¨ áñù³Ýáí ¿ñ Ñ³Ù³å³ï³ëË³ÝáõÙ Ý»ñùÇÝ å³Ñ³ÝçÝ»ñÇÝ, ÇëÏ áñù³Ýáí ¿ÇÝ ³Û¹ ÁÝïñáõÃÛáõÝÁ ¨ ¹ñ³ Ñ»ï³·³ Çñ³Ï³Ý³óáõÙÁ å³ÛÙ³Ý³íáñí³Í ³ñï³ùÇÝ ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñáí: Ø³ëÝ³íáñ³å»ë, ³ÛÝ Ñ³ñó³¹ñáõÙÁ, Ã» ³ñï³ùÇÝ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÁ áñù³Ýáí ¨ ÇÝãå»ë »Ý ³½¹»É Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³óÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝÃ³óÇ íñ³ ÏÉÇÝÇ ³ï»Ý³ËáëáõÃÛ³Ý áõëáõÙÝ³ëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý ³é³ñÏ³Ý áõëáõÙÝ³ëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý ³é³ñÏ³Ý áõëáõÙÝ³ëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý ³é³ñÏ³Ý áõëáõÙÝ³ëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý ³é³ñÏ³Ý: ÀÝ¹Ñ³Ýñ³å»ë, ³ñï³ùÇÝ ¹»ñ³Ï³ï³ñÝ»ñÇ ÏáÕÙÇó ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ëñ³ËáõëÙ³Ý áõÕÕáõÃÛ³Ùµ ³ñíáÕ ù³ÛÉ»ñÁ Ýáñ ã»Ý, ³í»ÉÇÝ` Ñ³ïÏ³å»ë í»ñçÇÝ »ñÏáõ ï³ëÝ³ÙÛ³ÏáõÙ ³Ûë ù³Õ³ù³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ ¹³ñÓ»É ¿ ³ñ¨ÙïÛ³Ý »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³ñ¨áñ³·áõÛÝ Ù³ë: ÐÛáõëÇë³ÛÇÝ ²Ù»ñÇÏ³ÛÇ ¨ ²ñ¨ÙïÛ³Ý ºíñáå³ÛÇ ÙÇ ß³ñù »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ Ï³é³í³ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ, ÙÇçÏ³é³í³ñ³Ï³Ý ¨ áã Ï³é³í³ñ³Ï³Ý Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ÑëÏ³Û³Ï³Ý ÙÇçáóÝ»ñ »Ý Í³ËëáõÙ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ ³ÛÉ »ñÏñÝ»ñ §³ñï³Ñ³Ý»Éáõ¦ Ýå³ï³Ïáí: ê³ ß³ñáõÝ³Ï³Ï³Ý ·áñÍÁÝÃ³ó ¿, áñÁ ÙÇßï ã¿, áñ ·ïÝíáõÙ ¿ Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý áõß³¹ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ï»ÝïñáÝáõÙ, ë³Ï³ÛÝ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï ³é Å³Ù³Ý³Ï ¿³Ï³Ý Çñ³¹³ñÓáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ëïÇåáõÙ »Ý ùÝÝ³ñÏ»É ³Û¹ ·áñÍáõÝ»áõÃÛ³Ý Ù³Ýñ³Ù³ëÝ»ñÁ, ·Ý³Ñ³ï»É ¹ñ³ ³ñ¹ÛáõÝùÝ»ñÝ áõ Ñ»ï¨³ÝùÝ»ñÁ: ÄáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý ï³ñ³ÍÙ³Ý ¨ Ëñ³ËáõëÙ³Ý ³Ûë ù³Õ³ù³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ µ³½Ù³½³Ý ¹ñë¨áñáõÙÝ»ñ ¿ ëï³ÝáõÙ. ÙÇ³ÛÝ í»ñçÇÝ ï³ñÇÝ»ñÇÝ Ù»Ýù ³Ï³Ý³ï»ë »Õ³Ýù ÙÇ ù³ÝÇ »ñÏñÝ»ñáõÙ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ý»ñ¹ñÙ³Ý é³½Ù³Ï³Ý ÷áñÓ»ñÇ, áñáÝóÇó ³Ù»Ý³ó³ÛïáõÝ ûñÇÝ³ÏÝ»ñÝ »Ý ²ýÕ³ëï³Ý ¨ AEñ³ù Ý»ñËáõÅáõÙÝ»ñÁ: ²ÏÝÑ³Ûï ¿, áñ í»ñÁ Ýßí³Í ¹»åù»ñáõÙ é³½Ù³Ï³Ý ÙÇçáóÝ»ñáí ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ëñ³ËáõëÙ³Ý ù³Õ³ù³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï¨áõÙ Çñ³Ï³ÝáõÙ Ã³ùÝí³Í ¿ÇÝ Ý³Ë³Ó»éÝáÕ áõÅ»ñÇ ³ßË³ñÑ³ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ß³Ñ»ñÁ: ØÇÝã¹»é Çñ³Ï³Ý Ýå³ï³ÏÝ»ñÇ ·Ý³Ñ³ïÙ³Ý ³éáõÙáí ³í»ÉÇ Ñ³Ï³ë³Ï³Ý ¿ÇÝ Ñ»ïÏáÙáõÝÇëï³Ï³Ý µ³½Ù³ÃÇí »ñÏñÝ»ñáõÙ ·ñ³Ýóí³Í, ³Ûëå»ë Ïáãí³Í, §·áõÝ³íáñ Ñ»Õ³÷áËáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ¦` ³Û¹ ÃíáõÙ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ Ñ³ñ¨³Ý ìñ³ëï³ÝáõÙ, ²äÐ ³Ý¹³Ù àõÏñ³ÇÝ³ÛáõÙ ¨ ÔñÕ½ëï³ÝáõÙ ¨ ³Û¹ ·áñÍÁÝÃ³óÝ»ñáõÙ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÇ ³½¹»óáõÃÛáõÝÁ: Ð³ñÏ ¿ ß»ßï»É, áñ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³óÙ³Ý íñ³ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÁ áõëáõÙÝ³ëÇñ»Éáõ ï»ë³ÝÏÛáõÝÇó é³½Ù³Ï³Ý ÙÇçáóÝ»ñáí ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ëñ³ËáõëÙ³Ý ù³Õ³ù³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ ³é³ÝÓÝ³ÏÇ Ñ»ï³ùñùñáõÃÛáõÝ ãÇ Ý»ñÏ³Û³óÝáõÙ: ÜáõÛÝÁ ãÇ Ï³ñ»ÉÇ ³ë»É ·áõÝ³íáñ Ñ»Õ³÷áËáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ¨ ¹ñ³ÝóáõÙ Ý»ñ·ñ³íí³Í ³ñï³ùÇÝ ¹»ñ³Ï³ï³ñÝ»ñÇ Ù³ëÇÝ, áñáÝó áõëáõÙÝ³ëÇñáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÑÝ³ñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝ Ïï³ å³ñ½»É, Ã» ÇÝãå»ë Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÁ Ï³ñáÕ³ó³í Ëáõë³÷»É ¹ñ³ÝóÇó: ê³Ï³ÛÝ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³óÙ³Ý íñ³ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÁ áõëáõÙÝ³ëÇñ»Éáõ ï»ë³ÝÏÛáõÝÇó Ñ³ïÏ³å»ë Ï³ñ¨áñ ¿ »íñ³ÇÝï»·ñÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝÃ³óÁ: AEÝãå»ë »íñ³ÇÝï»·ñÙ³Ý áõÕÇÝ ÁÝïñ³Í ß³ï ³ÛÉ »ñÏñÝ»ñáõÙ, ³ÛÝå»ë ¿É Ð³Û³ëï³ÝáõÙ ï»ÕÇ áõÝ»ó³Ý ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý ³Ùñ³åÝ¹Ù³ÝÝ áõÕÕí³Í ½·³ÉÇ ÷á÷áËáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ` ëÏë³Í ë³ÑÙ³Ý³¹ñ³Ï³Ý µ³ñ»÷áËáõÙÇó ÙÇÝã¨ ³Ù»Ý³ï³ñµ»ñ ÁÝÃ³ó³Ï³ñ·»ñÇ Ñ³Ù³å³ï³ëË³Ý»óáõÙ »íñáå³Ï³Ý ã³÷³ÝÇßÝ»ñÇÝ: ²Ù»Ý³Ñ³Ù»ëï Ñ³ßí³ñÏÝ»ñáí ï³ñ»Ï³Ý ÙÇ ù³ÝÇ ÙÇÉÇ³ñ¹ ¹áÉ³ñ ¿ Í³ËëíáõÙ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý ³ç³ÏóáõÃÛ³ÝÝ áõÕÕí³Í Íñ³·ñ»ñÇ íñ³: üÇÝ³Ýë³Ï³Ý ½·³ÉÇ ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ ³éÏ³ÛáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý ³ç³ÏóáõÃÛ³ÝÝ áõÕÕí³Í ·áñÍáõÝ»áõÃÛáõÝÁ ¹³ñÓ»É ¿ ·áñÍáõÝ»áõÃÛ³Ý ·ñ³íÇã ÙÇ áÉáñï, áñï»Õ Ý»ñ·ñ³íí³Í »Ý ï³ñµ»ñ Í³·áõÙ ¨ Ýå³ï³ÏÝ»ñ áõÝ»óáÕ Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ, ½³Ý³½³Ý Ù³ëÝ³·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ áõÝ»óáÕ ³ÝÑ³ïÝ»ñ: ê³ áñáß³ÏÇ ¹Åí³ñáõÃÛáõÝ ¿ ëï»ÕÍáõÙ Çñ³íÇ×³ÏÇ ×³Ý³ãÙ³Ý ¨ í»ñÉáõÍáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³Ù³ñ, ë³Ï³ÛÝ ïíÛ³É ¹»åùáõÙ ³í»ÉÇ Ï³ñ¨áñ ¿ å³ñ½»É, Ã» Çñ³Ï³ÝáõÙ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³óÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝÃ³óÇÝ Ýå³ëï»Éáõ ³éáõÙáí áñù³Ýáí ¿ ³ñ¹ÛáõÝ³í»ï ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý ³ç³ÏóáõÃÛ³ÝÝ áõÕÕí³Í ³Û¹ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ ¨ Çñ³Ï³ÝáõÙ áñù³Ýáí ¿ Í³é³ÛáõÙ ³ÛÝ Ýå³ï³ÏÝ»ñÇÝ, áñáÝù Ñéã³ÏíáõÙ »Ý ³Û¹ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ Çñ³Ï³Ý³óÝáÕÝ»ñÇ ÏáÕÙÇó: ÊÝ¹ÇñÝ ³ÛÝ ¿, áñ ÑÝ³ñ³íáñ ã¿ ³Ûë ù³Õ³ù³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÙÇ³Ýß³Ý³Ïáñ»Ý ·Ý³Ñ³ï»É: Ü³Ë¨³é³ç Ñ³×³Ë ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý ËÃ³ÝÙ³Ý ù³Õ³ù³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý í»ñÉáõÍáõÃÛáõÝÁ óáõÛó ¿ ï³ÉÇë, áñ ³ÛÝ Ñ»ï³åÝ¹áõÙ ¿ Ý³¨ ³ÛÉ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý Ýå³ï³ÏÝ»ñ: ´Ý³Ï³Ý ¿, áñ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ëñ³ËáõëÙ³Ùµ ½µ³ÕíáÕ »ñÏñÝ»ñÁ, áñ ½·³ÉÇ ÙÇçáóÝ»ñ »Ý Í³ËëáõÙ ³Û¹ Ýå³ï³Ïáí, Ó·ïáõÙ »Ý Ý³¨ ³å³Ñáí»É ë»÷³Ï³Ý ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ß³Ñ»ñÁ ß³Ñ³éáõ »ñÏñÝ»ñáõÙ, ÇÝãÁ »ñµ»ÙÝ Ï³ñáÕ ¿ ¨ Ñ³Ï³ë»É Çñ³Ï³Ý ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ëñ³ËáõëÙ³ÝÁ: ²Ûëå»ë. »ñµ»ÙÝ Ù»ñÏ³óíáõÙ »Ý ²ØÜ-Ç Ï³é³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý ÏáÕÙÇó ýÇÝ³Ýë³íáñíáÕ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ëñ³ËáõëÙ³Ùµ ½µ³ÕíáÕ Ï³éáõÛóÝ»ñÇ ¨ ³ÝÑ³ïÝ»ñÇ ·áñÍáÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ, áñáÝó ÑÇÙÝ³Ï³Ý Ýå³ï³ÏÁ ³Ù»Ý¨ÇÝ ¿É ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ëñ³ËáõëáõÙÁ ã¿: ÄáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ëñ³ËáõëÙ³Ý ù³Õ³ù³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ·Ý³Ñ³ïÙ³Ý ÙÛáõë ¹Åí³ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ ³ÛÝ ¿, áñ ³Ûë áÉáñïÇÝ í»ñ³µ»ñáÕ ÑÇÙÝ³Ï³Ý ï»Õ»Ï³ïíáõÃÛáõÝÁ Ï³ñ»ÉÇ ¿ Ñ³ÛÃ³ÛÃ»É ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý ³ç³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ùµ ½µ³ÕíáÕ ·áñÍ³Ï³ÉáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ, ½³Ý³½³Ý Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ñ³ßí»ïíáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇó, áñáÝù ¿É Çñ»Ýó Ñ»ñÃÇÝ Ó¨³íáñíáõÙ »Ý ï³ñµ»ñ Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ, ÏáÝÏñ»ï Íñ³·ñ»ñ ¨ Ý³Ë³Ó»éÝáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ Çñ³Ï³Ý³óÝáÕÝ»ñÇ Ñ³ßí»ïíáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇó: ÜÙ³Ý Ù»Ë³ÝÇ½ÙÁ µ³í³Ï³Ý ³ñ¹ÛáõÝ³í»ï ¿ Í³Ëëí³Í ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ, ß³Ñ³éáõÝ»ñÇ, Å³ÙÏ»ïÝ»ñÇ ¨ ³ÛÉ ïíÛ³ÉÝ»ñ ³Ù÷á÷»Éáõ ³éáõÙáí. ³ÛëÇÝùÝ` ù³Ý³Ï³Ï³Ý ïíÛ³ÉÝ»ñÁ Ý»ñÏ³Û³óíáõÙ ¨ í»ñ³ÑëÏíáõÙ »Ý: ê³Ï³ÛÝ ³Ûë ï»ë³Ï ½»ÏáõÛóÝ»ñÝ áõ Ñ³ßí»ïíáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ Ù»Í³Ù³ë³Ùµ ã»Ý ³Ù÷á÷áõÙ ï»Õ»ÏáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ ³Û¹ Íñ³·ñ»ñÇ Çñ³Ï³Ý ³½¹»óáõÃÛ³Ý, 6 ·áñÍáÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ³ñ¹ÛáõÝ³í»ïáõÃÛ³Ý ·Ý³Ñ³ïÙ³Ý í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É, ã»Ý å³ñáõÝ³ÏáõÙ áñ³Ï³Ï³Ý í»ñÉáõÍáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ: ÐÇÙÝ³ËÝ¹ñÇ ³ñ¹Ç³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³ñ¨áñ óáõó³ÝÇßÝ»ñÇó Ù»ÏÝ ¿É Ï³ñ»ÉÇ ¿ Ñ³Ù³ñ»É Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý ·ÇïáõÃÛ³Ùµ ½µ³ÕíáÕ Ù³ëÝ³·»ïÝ»ñÇ ³×áÕ áõß³¹ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³óÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝÃ³óÝ»ñÇ íñ³ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÇ ³½¹»óáõÃÛ³Ý ÝÏ³ïÙ³Ùµ: ¸ñ³ íÏ³ÛáõÃÛáõÝÝ »Ý µ³½Ù³ÃÇí ·ñù»ñÁ, Ñ³ÛïÝÇ ·Çï³Ï³Ý ³Ùë³·ñ»ñÇ ³ÙµáÕç³Ï³Ý Ñ³Ù³ñÝ»ñÁ, Ñ³×³Ë³ÏÇ Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåíáÕ ·Çï³Ï³Ý ÏáÝý»ñ³ÝëÝ»ñÁ ¨ ³ÛÉÝ: ²í»ÉÇÝ, Ñ³×³Ë ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ëñ³ËáõëÙ³Ùµ ½µ³ÕíáÕ Ï³éáõÛóÝ»ñÁ ËáñÑñ¹³ïíáõÃÛáõÝ »Ý ËÝ¹ñáõÙ ù³Õ³ù³·Çï³Ï³Ý Ñ»ï³½áïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ Çñ³Ï³Ý³óÝáÕ Ï³éáõÛóÝ»ñÇó, ³ÝÑ³ï ù³Õ³ù³·»ïÝ»ñÇó ¨ Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñáí ½µ³ÕíáÕ ³ÛÉ Ù³ëÝ³·»ïÝ»ñÇó: ê³ Ï³ñáÕ ¿ µ³ñÓñ³óÝ»É ÇÝãå»ë ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ëñ³ËáõëÙ³ÝÝ áõÕÕí³Í Íñ³·ñ»ñÇ ³ñ¹ÛáõÝ³í»ïáõÃÛáõÝÁ, ³ÛÝå»ë ¿É ù³Õ³ù³·»ïÝ»ñÇÝ ïñ³Ù³¹ñ»É ÑëÏ³Û³Ï³Ý ¿ÙåÇñÇÏ ïíÛ³ÉÝ»ñ` ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³óÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝÃ³óÁ µ³ó³ïñáÕ ï»ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ëïáõ·»Éáõ ¨ Ï³ï³ñ»É³·áñÍ»Éáõ Ñ³Ù³ñ: ´³óÇ ·Çï³Ï³Ý ³ñ¹Ç³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÇó` áõëáõÙÝ³ëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý ³é³ñÏ³Ý ·ïÝíáõÙ ¿ Ý³¨ Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý áõß³¹ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ï»ÝïñáÝáõÙ: Ð³ÛïÝÇ ¿, áñ ß³ï Í³Ûñ³Ñ»Õ »Ý áõëáõÙÝ³ëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý ³é³ñÏ³ÛÇÝ ³éÝãíáÕ ÙÇ ß³ñù ËÝ¹ÇñÝ»ñÇ ÝÏ³ïÙ³Ùµ Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý Ùáï»óáõÙÝ»ñÁ: ØÇ³Ýß³Ý³Ï ã¿ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ëñ³ËáõëÙ³Ùµ ½µ³ÕíáÕ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ·áñÍáõÝ»áõÃÛ³Ý ·Ý³Ñ³ï³Ï³ÝÁ. ³ÛÝ ï³ï³ÝíáõÙ ¿ ËáñÁ ùÝÝ³¹³ïáõÃÛáõÝÇó ÙÇÝã¨ á·¨áñÇã ·áí³ë³Ýù: ²Ûë ËÇëï Í³Ûñ³Ñ»Õ Ùáï»óáõÙÝ»ñÝ ³é³í»É ï³ñ³Íí³Í »Ý Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý ßñç³Ý³ÏÝ»ñáõÙ, ÙÇÝã¹»é ³Ï³¹»ÙÇ³Ï³Ý ¨ ·Çï³Ï³Ý Ù³Ï³ñ¹³ÏáõÙ ³Û¹å»ë ¿É Ñ³Ù³ÉÇñ å³ï³ëË³Ý ãÇ ïñí»É ³ÛÝ Ñ³ñóÇÝ, Ã» ÇÝãåÇëÇ ³½¹»óáõÃÛáõÝ »Ý áõÝ»ó»É ¨ ß³ñáõÝ³ÏáõÙ »Ý áõÝ»Ý³É ³ñï³ùÇÝ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÁ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³óÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝÃ³óÇ íñ³: ²í»ÉÇÝ, ¹Åí³ñ Ã» Ï³ñ»ÉÇ ¿ ÙÇ³Ýß³Ý³Ïáñ»Ý ¨ ÝáõÛÝáõÃÛ³Ùµ ·Ý³Ñ³ï»É ³ÛÝåÇëÇ µ³½Ù³½³Ý ¨ µ³½Ù³ß»ñï ÇñáÕáõÃÛáõÝ, ÇÝãåÇëÇÝ ¿ ï³ñµ»ñ Í³·áõÙ ¨ ÏáÝÏñ»ï 7 Íñ³·ñ³ÛÇÝ Ýå³ï³ÏÝ»ñ Ñ»ï³åÝ¹áÕ, ýÇÝ³Ýë³íáñÙ³Ý ï³ñµ»ñ ³ÕµÛáõñÝ»ñ áõÝ»óáÕ, ï³ñµ»ñ »Õ³Ý³ÏÝ»ñáí ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³óÙ³ÝÁ Ýå³ëïáÕ Íñ³·ñ»ñ Çñ³Ï³Ý³óÝáÕ Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ·áñÍáõÝ»áõÃÛáõÝÁ: ØÇÝã¹»é Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý É³ÛÝ ß»ñï»ñáõÙ ³Ûë Ñ³ñóÇ í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É ÁÝÏ³ÉáõÙÝ»ñÁ µ³í³Ï³Ý ÙÇ³ÏáÕÙ³ÝÇ »Ý ¨ ÁÝ¹Ñ³Ýñ³óí³Í: ÜáõÛÝ Ùï³Ñá·áõÃÛáõÝÁ í»ñ³µ»ñáõÙ ¿ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ, ³í»ÉÇ ÏáÝÏñ»ï` »íñáå³Ï³Ý Ï³éáõÛóÝ»ñÇÝ ÇÝï»·ñÙ³ÝÁ ¨ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝáõÙ »íñáå³Ï³Ý ã³÷³ÝÇßÝ»ñÇ Ý»ñ¹ñÙ³ÝÁ: ²Ûë ¹»åùáõÙ ÝáõÛÝå»ë ³Ï³Ýï»ë »Ýù ÉÇÝáõÙ Í³Ûñ³Ñ»Õ µ¨»é³óí³Í Ùáï»óáõÙÝ»ñÇ` ëÏë³Í ÉÇ³Ï³ï³ñ Ñ»ñùáõÙÇó` ³ÛÝ ¹Çï³ñÏ»Éáí áñå»ë Ù³ñï³Ññ³í»ñ ³½·³ÛÇÝ ÇÝùÝáõÃÛ³Ý å³Ñå³ÝÙ³ÝÁ áõ ³éÏ³ ÑÇÙÝ³ËÝ¹ÇñÝ»ñÇ å³ï×³éÁ, ÙÇÝã¨ ÙÇ³Ýß³Ý³Ï ¨ ³é³Ýó ùÝÝ³¹³ïáõÃÛ³Ý ÁÝ¹áõÝáõÙ` áñå»ë ÙÇ³Ï ÁÝ¹áõÝ»ÉÇ ×³Ý³å³ñÑ` µÝ³Ï³ÝáÝ ½³ñ·³óÙ³Ý Ñ³Ù³ñ: ÜÙ³Ý³ïÇå µ¨»é³óí³Í ¨ ËÇëï Í³Ûñ³Ñ»Õ Ùáï»óáõÙÝ»ñÁ, µÝ³Ï³Ý³µ³ñ, ã»Ý Ýå³ëïáõÙ ËÝ¹ñÇ ×³Ý³ãÙ³ÝÁ ¨ å³ïß³× ·Ý³Ñ³ïÙ³ÝÁ: àõëïÇ, ³Ûë ³ßË³ï³ÝùÇ Ï³ñ¨áñ Ó»éùµ»ñáõÙÝ»ñÇó Ù»ÏÝ ¿É ³ÛÝ ¿, áñ ·Çï³Ï³Ý áõëáõÙÝ³ëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý ÙÇçáóáí ÷áñÓ ¿ ³ñíáõÙ å³ï³ëË³Ý»Éáõ Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý áõß³¹ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ï»ÝïñáÝáõÙ ·ïÝíáÕ ÙÇ ß³ñù Ñ³ñó»ñÇ` Ç í»ñçá Ñëï³Ï»óÝ»Éáí ³ÛÝ ¹»ñÁ, áñ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÁ Ë³ÕáõÙ »Ý ¨ Ï³ñáÕ »Ý Ë³Õ³É Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³óÙ³Ý ·áñÍáõÙ: ÐÇÙÝ³ËÝ¹ñÇ ·Çï³Ï³Ý Ùß³Ïí³ÍáõÃÛáõÝÁ: ÐÇÙÝ³ËÝ¹ñÇ ·Çï³Ï³Ý Ùß³Ïí³ÍáõÃÛáõÝÁ: ÐÇÙÝ³ËÝ¹ñÇ ·Çï³Ï³Ý Ùß³Ïí³ÍáõÃÛáõÝÁ: ÐÇÙÝ³ËÝ¹ñÇ ·Çï³Ï³Ý Ùß³Ïí³ÍáõÃÛáõÝÁ: Â»¨ ËÝ¹ÇñÝ ³ñ¹Ç³Ï³Ý ¿, áõÝÇ Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý ÑÝã»ÕáõÃÛáõÝÁ ¨ ·ïÝíáõÙ ¿ Ñ»ï³½áïáÕÝÝ»ñÇ ÏáÕÙÇó ³ÝÁÝ¹Ñ³ï ³×áÕ áõß³¹ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ï»ÝïñáÝáõÙ, ³ÛÝ, ÁÝ¹Ñ³Ýáõñ ³éÙ³Ùµ, µ³í³ñ³ñ áõëáõÙÝ³ëÇñí³Í ã¿: ÊÝ¹ñÇ Ûáõñ³Ñ³ïÏáõÃÛáõÝÁ Ý³¨ ³ÛÝ ¿, áñ Ñ»ï³½áïáÕÝÝ»ñÇ ÏáÕÙÇó ³ÛÝ »ñÏ³ñ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï »Õ»É ¿ ³Ýï»ëí³Í: ²í»ÉÇÝ, Ù³ëÝ³·Çï³Ï³Ý ·ñ³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ù»ç »ñÏ³ñ ï³ñÇÝ»ñ ÁÝ¹áõÝí³Í ¿ »Õ»É ³ÛÝ ï»ë³Ï»ïÁ, áñ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³óÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝÃ³óÝ»ñÁ áñ¨¿ »ñÏñáõÙ Ý»ñùÇÝ ½³ñ·³óáõÙÝ»ñÇ ³ñ¹ÛáõÝù »Ý, ¨ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÁ áñ¨¿ ¿³Ï³Ý Ýß³Ý³ÏáõÃÛáõÝ ã»Ý áõÝ»ó»É ³Û¹ 8 Ñ³ñóáõÙ 1 : ²ÝÑñ³Å»ßï ¿ Ý³¨ ß»ßï»É, áñ Ù³ëÝ³·»ïÝ»ñÁ ËÝ¹ñÇÝ áõß³¹ñáõÃÛáõÝ ¹³ñÓñÇÝ ÙÇ³ÛÝ ³ÛÝ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï, »ñµ Çñ³Ï³Ý ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ¨ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ Ñ³ñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñáõÙ ï»ÕÇ áõÝ»ó³Ý ½·³ÉÇ ï»Õ³ß³ñÅ»ñ, áñáÝó ³ñ¹ÛáõÝùáõÙ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÁ ëÏë»óÇÝ ³é³í»É Ù»Í Ýß³Ý³ÏáõÃÛáõÝ áõÝ»Ý³É áñ¨¿ »ñÏñÇ Ý»ñëáõÙ ï»ÕÇ áõÝ»óáÕ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ·áñÍÁÝÃ³óÝ»ñÇ íñ³: ²Û¹...

Other Docs by Hamazasp Danielyan

Preserving Armenian identity in Lebanon and in those countries where traditional Armenian diaspor... more Preserving Armenian identity in Lebanon and in those countries where traditional Armenian diaspora institutions exist has been much easier than in Russia. Given the fact that Russia is hosting the largest number of ethnic Armenians? it is utterly important to understand the root-causes and implications for high degree of assimilation of Armenians in Russia? Naturally many factors weigh in the above-mentioned divergent outcomes of Armenians identity preservation in various countries. A big portion of these factors is predetermined by the realities of particular host country (political system, history and geography and etc), and are beyond the influence of Armenian communities of both Lebanon and Russia. However, the research conducted in these two countries showed, there are also factors that influence identity preservation that are within the scope of influence of Armenians. This research sets to claim that the existence of effective and interconnected web of institutions is one of the key reasons behind the success of Lebanese Armenians in keeping their identity strong and thriving. On the contrary, the lack of such sustainable institutions and the experience of sporadic mobilizations have been the characteristic features of the Russian Armenian communities. Based on the lessons learned from the experience of Lebanese Armenians institutions the research has developed a set of policy recommendations that can hopefully enhance the capacity of Russian Armenian institutions and increase the effectiveness of identity preservation efforts in Russia. Some of those recommendations, naturally, are targeting those institutions that exist in various Armenian communities of Russia. Consolidation of Armenian institutions and synchronization of their activities, as well as experience sharing within and beyond Russian Armenians, will positively affect identity preservation efforts among Armenian communities in Russia. However, taking into account the importance of the matter as well as the existing structures and opportunities, (re)organization and institutionalization of Russian Armenians should attract greater attention of the other actors as well; pan-Armenian institutions such as Armenian Apostolic Church and pan-diasporic organizations should do more to assist the efforts of Armenians residing in Russia. Most importantly the Armenian state should have more proactive role in mediating the existing grievances, mistrust and lack of institutional resources in Russian Armenian communities, especially taking into account the fact that there are a number of state institutions mandated with that task, Ministry of Diaspora being the main one.

Քաղաքագետ հասկացության սահմանման և քաղաքագետների էթիկայի ուղեցույցի մշակման անհրաժեշտության մասին... more Քաղաքագետ հասկացության սահմանման և քաղաքագետների էթիկայի ուղեցույցի մշակման անհրաժեշտության մասին http://www.lragir.am/index.php/arm/0/country/view/58319 Ներքին կյանք Երեքշաբթի, 27 Դեկտեմբերի 2011, 17:17 Հայտնի փաստ է, որ քաղաքագիտությունը երիտասարդ գիտական ուղղություն է ոչ միայն Հայաստանում, այլև հետխորհրդային բոլոր պետություններում։ Հայտնի է նաև, որ այսօր մեր իրականությունում քաղաքագետ են անվանում բոլոր նրանց, ովքեր հրապարակային կարծիք են հայտնում քաղաքական զարգացումների վերաբերյալ, իսկ երբեմն անգամ քաղաքական գործիչներն են հանրությանը ներկայանում որպես քաղաքագետներ։ Կրկին հարկ է ընգծել, որ թե լրագրողների, և թե որպես քաղաքագետ հանդես եկող ոչ քաղաքագետների կողմից այս բառի նման գործածությունը զուտ հայաստանյան երևույթ չէ, և դրան կարող ենք հանդիպել նաև հետխորհրդային մի շարք պետություններում։

Volumes & books by Hamazasp Danielyan