Presentation of the SCRAE Research Project

By

Dr Thomas Albert Gilly

 

 

 

 

In many regards our conference in Sofia (October 24-27 2007) was a great successful event. We took the final resolution to create the SCRAE Center in Sofia.

 

It is our duty to inform the readers of our journal about our major concerns.

 

 

Need to engage in the value debate in regard to threat facing our societies?

 

Partial in EU politics, total in regard to the European criminological mainstream  debate, the value eclipse is undoubtedly the major cause of what happened and had to happen to the scientific community which, when facing the new crime and insecurity complexity, demonstrated its inability to take up the challenge. .

In this regard, the intellectually sophisticated and otherwise exciting “cacophony” that marries the post-modern variant of the moralizing “Robin Hood” to the “ decimal criminology” constitutes the most dearly celebrate witness in the history of European criminology and deviance sociology.  

 

For historical and demographic reasons, many European countries, namely France, the UK and Germany, have been facing many phenomena threatening dangerously our social cohesion and offending the laws of the Republic. Also, these countries, for exactly the same reasons, are more than any other EU member state, facing urban violence and riots, the renewal of nationalist demands, xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism as well as interethnic and inter-religious conflicts.

On that account those countries hold for a paradigm.

 

But it would be an error to believe that such problems are specifically European problems. Globalization holds for global problems and requires global solutions, though the phenomena vary as a function of the diverse national, political, economical and social environments. Many problems which develop actually in Europe have been experienced by other countries of the world long before European political leadership, mass media and public opinion began to demonstrate concern. This is in particular true for the United States of America.  

Here in Europe the topic is just beginning to come to the fore of the public debate.

 

Thanks to the politics that have been initiated and conducted by several governments, the leadership member states of the EU, proud and strong of their long tradition, have regained their historical destiny to exert their influence by means of their ability and their power to offer a model to Europe and other parts of our world that lives on the synergy between the respect of human rights and the protection of that fundamental right which is named security.   

 

It’s the duty of the scientific community to support a political program that is constantly and genuinely committed to build a balanced relationship between the respect of human rights and the respect of that fundamental right which is the citizen’s right for security. How to support such a political program? By developing innovative research programs and scientific methods that impact positively and in a highly constructive manner a social cohesion that has become frail and that is increasingly put at risk of deterioration if not explosion;.

 

 

 

What’s about our program?

 

Since our creation we are engaged in in the project that is aimed at the reinforcement of social cohesion, and we are working with success. Our success is due to our capability of innovation within the framework of our research priorities. The development of strategies aimed at the reinforcement of social cohesion in social environments that are characteristic of ethnic, cultural and religious diversity is central to our scientific concerns

 

 

The program « Social cohesion enforcement » consists of two main roads,

-          applied ethics:

-          risk management as means of crime prevention and of inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflict prevention and solution.

 

 

The main road «APPLIED ETHICS» is genuinely aimed to

 

-          test the efficiency and the impact of norms that protect  fundamental values in ethnical, cultural and religious diversity

-          establish the hierarchy of norms that protect fundamental values according to the scheme: general consensus, partial consensus, little or complete lack in consensus;

-          determine the nature of relations between the variations in agreement and in reject of the norms that protect fundamental values within the frame of diverse ethical cultural and religious groups;

-          develop models that are aimed at the reinforcement of social cohesion, these models are to be developed  by means of an approach that allows us to distinguish between those norms that, at the level of descriptive ethics, are accepted and respected, and, at the level of normative ethics, ought to be accepted and respected by all groups ( because of their fundamental nature) and those which are susceptible to be accepted / respected, though the protection of the Republics fundamental values do not necessary require for them.

 

 

Rooted in the methods of empirical social sciences, this empirical and inter-disciplinary research design covers the stream “norms” and the stream “values”. It is aimed to determine

a)      convergence / differences in regard to the acceptance / reject of norms that protect values and regarding the acceptance/ reject of values that are legally protected;

b)       the impact of the diverse ethical, cultural and religious environments upon variants of convergence and difference.

Given the circumstance that the perception of norms and of supporting value systems, to a certain degree (to be determined) varies as a function of cultural and axiological diversity, the research which is conducted under the general frame “Applied Ethics” involves incidentally “Normative Ethics”.

 

The main road « RISK MANAGEMENT » is principally and genuinely aimed to

 

 

- determine, at the level of social communication in ethnic, cultural and religious diversity, those elements and factors which favor

    a) the development of inter-community violence;

    b) the development of deficient social communication.

Deficient social communication engenders criminal behavior, deviance and anti-social behavior both at the level of inter-community relations and within the diverse communities

 

 

 

- manipulate these social communication structures as well as the social, ethnic, religious and cultural environments in order to reduce the bad social risk (development of delinquency) and to maximalize the good social risk (prevention and communication).

The “good social risk” is realized by means of the manipulation of those elements that, at the level of social communication structures in ethic, religious and cultural diversity, favor the predisposition of the communication participants towards delinquency, violence, anti-social behavior and open conflict as a good risk.

This assumes that the good social risk develops when delinquency, open conflict and anti-social behavior and violence are considered by the communication participants as bad risk (has become through manipulation of social communication structure and of its environment a bad risk)

 

 

Our innovation and our major cards?

 

Our major innovation consists of the building of the Communicative Risk Theory. It is a brand new paradigm. And it furnishes the theoretical and empirical framework to our research.

 

It is a major innovation in this the theory is capable of the development of strategies that are aimed at the synergy between social prevention, crime prevention and inter-community conflict prevention and solution;

 

We are the authentic creators of that paradigm and we have developed it and we continue developing it with success. Insofar we are the pioneers in this area.

 

Our dense research network that consists of Directors of Research Institutes, outstanding university professors and research officers – personalities celebrated nationally and internationally, provides the best guarantee to our capability of innovation and to the excellence of our scientific research

 

The scientific international community, by granting us with one of the most distinguished awards, honors our innovation and our outstanding research, while encouraging us to continue.

 

We have been granted with the very prestigious “Distinguishes Paper Award” by the International Scientific Committee of the 2nd International Conference “Democracy and Global Security which hosted about 1000 participants, academics, government and security actors (http://www.istanbulconference.info/Pages/2ndIstanbulConference.aspx)

 

Given the importance, the outstanding scientific quality and the organization of this major scientific event, considering its impact upon the development of security strategies in democracy and in the world, there is hardly need to tell that we are proud to be among the few who have been awarded.

This distinction supports our expansive strategy that we have already developed with great success and it encourages our future efforts.

 

 

 

 

Our goals

 

(i)                  Develop an international scientific pole “APPLIED ETHICS – SOCIAL COHESION AND RISK PREVENTION” – SCRAE -SOCIAL COMMUNICATION, RISK AND APPLIED ETHICS CENTER(Homeland Security, Global Security, Crime Prevention, Prevention of inter-community conflicts), this pole consisting in a highly dense and concentrated administrative structure and a research staff, not big but rather middle level, Staff members are selected among the scientists that are actively involved in our network.

(ii)                (ii) Build world leadership in interdisciplinary and applied research in our specialization;

(iii)                Concentrate our efforts in regard to the development of scientific knowledge and “know how” transfer and exchange (transatlantic, Western, Central and Eastern Europe, Russia) in a European capital; make a substantial contribution to the development of social control, crime prevention that impact, at the national as well as international and global level, security an safety politics as well as risk management policies.

(iv)               Develop a scientific pole in Sofia, Bulgaria (for reasons develop below) which covers the whole gamut of our activities for the Balkan region a well as Central and Eastern Europe.

 

 

 

Why establish in Bulgaria?

 

 

Bulgaria like some other EU member states,, though, though in another degree, holds for a paradigm:

Bulgaria is at the heart of the Balkans, region that is the historical and actual scene of interethnic and inter-religious. Given the seriousness and the persistence and the wide ranging repercussions of these conflicts, the paradigm translates, at the level of the western political jargon, as “Balkanization. Secondly, Bulgaria is a country with different religious and ethnic groups that often contradict each other and are potentially conflictive, and Bulgaria has just become a full member state of the EU. Thus Bulgaria constitutes a laboratory for testing both the reliability of our research methods as well as the impact of our paradigm and the integration potential and ability of Western legal norms and values in that risk environment

 

 

Target groups

 

Our activities are praxis-orientated in this they

- are targeted at risk populations as well as at the principal security actors, the institutions of social control and actors of interethnic, intercultural and inter-religious conflict prevention and solution management;

- provide scientific and ethical means and support to strategies that are aimed at the reinforcement / reconstruction of social cohesion; provide scientific and ethic milestones to the political decision makers and justice;

-  contribute to the development of scientific knowledge exchange and know how transfer, at the multilateral and international level;

- act in favor of the peace in the world by means of dialogue.

 

 

Our Philosophy

 

Is outlined Our SCRAE flyer:

 

http://www.erces.com/scrae/

 

 

International Scientific Expert Committee

 

 Our diverse activities – research, programming and scientific consulting meet the highest international standards. In this respect the brand new International Scientific Expert Committee will provide the best guarantee.

The Committee staff consists of outstanding and internationally recognized academics (Directors of research, Professors and research officers).

Many future staff members have already formalized in a highly official manner their engagement to join the board. Among whom: Three outstanding personalities from the US, three others from Russia, two from Israel, two others from Bulgaria, two from Romania, one from France,, two from the Czech Republic, one from Hungary, one from India, one from South Africa and another one from Turkey.

 

 

      Actual Staff of the Scientific Expert Board

 

-          Paul Balahur, PhD; Professor. Al.I Cuza University, Department of    Communication, Bucharest, Romania.

 

-          Dona Balahur, Ph.D. Professor. AL.I Cuza University. Restorative Justice Network, Bucharest, Romania.

     

-          William P. Bloss, PhD. Professor of Criminal Justice. The Citadel. Charleston, South Caroliina, USA

.

-          Vasily Davydov, PhD.Attorney; Management Partner. Davydov’s Tax and Law Consulting. Ministry of Justice; Official Member of the International Barrister’s College, St Petersburg. Russia.

 

-          Sava Petkov Djonev, Doctor Sc..Professor. Social and Organizational Psychology, University of Sofia, Bilgaria

 

-          Yakov Gilinskiy, Doctor in Law, PhD. Professor, St. Petersburg’s Juridical Institute of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Russian Federation.

 

-          Thomas Albert Gilly, Doctor in Law. Director ERCES. Project Manager SCRAE. Research Director IISCB. Editor-in-Chief ERCES Online Quarterly.

 

-          Vladimir Iliev, PhD. Research Director. IISCB, Sofia, Bulgaria.

 

-          K. Jaishankar, Ph.D. (Criminology), Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Cyber Criminology; Lecturer, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Tirunelveli , Tamil Nadu , India .

 

-          Howard B; Kaplan, PhD. Regents Profersdsor. Distinguished Professor of Sociology. Professor of Sociology, Tewas A&M University. USA

 

 Natalia A. Lopashenko, Doctor in Law. Professor.Saratov State LawAcademy, Professor, Saratov cCenter for the Study of Organized Crime and Corruption Problems, Director. Saratov, Russia.

 

Marina Luptakova, PhD. Senior Research Officer. Institute for Criminology and Social Prevention, Prague, Czeck Republic.:

 

-          Dr Cherita Morrison. Department of Communication and Legal Services. Vaal University of Technology. South Africa

 

Gueorgui Ivanov Petkov, PhD. Associate Professor in Nuclear Engineering, Technical University of Sofia, Bulgaria.

 

-          Miroslav Scheinost, PhD. Director,  Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention, Prague, Czeck Republic

-           

-          Eli B. Siverman, PhD. Professor Emeritus John Jay College of Criminal Justice NY

-           

-          Peter Tarlow, Ph.D. Director Tourism and More Inc. Texas, USA.

 

-          Sheryl Van Horme, PhD. Ruthers University

 

-          Ahmet Sait Yayla, Turkish Institute for Police Studies, Denton, Texas, USA and Assistant Director of the the Turkish NationalPolice Anti-Terrorism Department

 

 

 

 

 

 

SCRAE’S Directory Board.

 

 

-Directors

 

Dr Thomas Albert Gilly

Director ERCES

Director of Research IISCB

Editor-in –Chief Erces Online Quarterly Review

 

 

Anelia ILieva,

Director IISCB

 

 

    Co-Director

 

 Eli. B. Silverman, Phd.

Professor Emeritus John Jy College of Criminal Justice, NY..