The authors consider evolution of the “refugees” concept and of the international system of displaced persons’ rights protection on the basis of broad massive of historical facts and theoretical material. Making of regime for refugees and of respective branch of international law is connected with the Russian émigré community of the 1920s and 1930s. Causes of institutions’ transformation from the League of Nations High Commissioner for refugees to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for refugees and expansion of their authorities as well as of criteria for refugee status receiving are shown. Data on the present day status of refugee issue are adduced.

The split of modernism lied in divergence of opinions in respect of the state appeared within modernism during WWI. Some modernists began to profess the highest value, the Orthodox State, while other modernists maintained (as they had maintained earlier) that the highest value was any individuality that was the beginning of everything and constituted reality. Two forces encountered in one movement but the outcome of this collision was determined not by adversaries’ arguments but by the harsh reality of defeat in the war. The Russian people did not endure hardships and that was the outcome of the internal conflict that tore the modernism down. Neither Orthodox State nor the national identity rose above itself in an attempt to transform the world upon new, just grounds. Destruction of the empire became the destruction of the Russian modernism that had acquired its form and essence during the First Russian revolution of 1905–1907. Yet a seed that fell in the earth will, without fail, spring into the new life because the spirit of individuality, the immortal spirit that seeks for the metaphysical beginning of and justification of life in despite of melancholy and pessimism cannot die.

In 1869 in Yelysavethrad, Kherson Governorate several former members of revolutionary groups of 1860s came into the view of the political police, accused by an author of poison-pen letter of preparation for attempt on the Russian emperor’s life. During the investigation they confessed to attempt to set up a store for illegal publications in the city; “terrorist” version of “the Yelysavethrad affair” changed into “propaganda” version. Some new materials, not encountered in the literature, suggest that S.G.Nechayev, who was in Yelysavethrad and met with the accused of this affair there, probably wrote the poison-pen letter for the purpose of impelling them to conflict with authorities and radicalize their views.

The article examines the events held by governmental and party bodies in the early years of the Soviet Russia in the field of artistic creativity. First and foremost it concerns the activities of Мusic, Theatre and Photo departments of People's commissariat for education. Some specific features are defined as they were caused by the creation of the state of proletarian dictatorship and ongoing Civil war.

The author considers “Story of Dracula”, one of the most interesting monuments of old Russian literature and social thought of the 15th century. Usually researchers interpret this piece of work as an apology of the strong power and justification of repressions undertaken in the interest of state and the common good. It is assumed that appraisal of the “Story” protagonist, the prince of Walachian (Rumanian) state, hospodar Dracula is ambiguous. Dracula connects traits of a despot and sadistic cruelty with valiance, justice, and statesmanship. As the author argues, the appraisal of the protagonist is totally negative and his methods of rule are presented as not just sinful but as maleficent. Ideologically “Story of Dracula” fits in the old Russian tradition and has nothing common with social-political notions of such representatives of the formidable and cruel power as Ivan Peresvetov and czar Ivan the Fourth. The Story’s originality consists not in its author’s position but in means of its expression: the Story’s author prompts his readers to make an effort and understand why Dracula was a despot who served to the devil.

The work on scientific and publishing projects “Stalin’s economic heritage: Plans and discussions (1947–1953)” and “Social heritage of the late Stalinism” goes on the basis of the Russian State archive of social-political history”. This article deals with analysis of the International Economic Conference held of 1952. These materials demonstrate significance of economic aspect for the Soviet leadership’s choice of national economic strategy. Another aspect of the problem is attractive too. Reports of interpreters who worked with foreign delegation provide a unique opportunity to look into the humdrum of Moscow spring of 1952 through the “glance from without”, i.e. impressions of foreigners who tried to form their own attitude to achievements and omissions of Socialism while relying on the picture of common everyday life.

This publication introduces a previously unknown manuscript by Irakli Grigor’evich Tsereteli into scientific turnover. Tsereteli was one of the early 20th century Russian Social-Democracy leaders, a notable public and statesman of all-Russian level who was a member of the Socialist International Operative Executive Committee in 1918–1931. In that capacity Tsereteli represented the Georgian Social-Democracy in a very dignified way. The manuscript was discovered by Doctor of historical sciences, Professor and the Principal of the Parliamentary archive of Georgia I.P.Yakoboshvili. Yakobashvili and his colleagues from the Russian state archive of social and political history, R.M.Gainullina and P.Yu.Savel’ev prepared the manuscript for publication. For readers’ benefit and convenience I.G.Tsereteli’s manuscript will be published in two successive magazine issues.