Autor představuje biografii generála a vojenského diplomata Čeňka Kudláčka (1896-1967), který prošel za první světové války československými legiemi v Rusku a Francii, za druhé světové války domácím a zahraničním odbojem (v jeho rámci byl vyslán získávat podporu krajanů v Kanadě a Brazílii) a po komunistickém převratu v roce 1948 se zpravodajsky angažoval v západním exilu. Recenzent se zastavuje zvláště u jeho roční diplomatické mise v polovině třicátých let v Bolívii, kterou Československo vojensky podporovalo ve válce s Paraguayí, a oceňuje, že čtenářská atraktivita se v knize spojuje s odbornou kvalitou., The book under review is a biography of Čeněk Kudláček (1896-1967), a general and military attaché, who fought in the First World War as a member of the Czechoslovak Legions in Russia and France, was in the resistance at home and abroad during the Second World War (sent to gain the support of Czechs and Slovaks living in Canada and Brazil), and was involved in intelligence work as an exile following the Communist takeover in February 1948. The reviewer focuses on Kudláček´s year on a diplomatic mission to Bolivia in the mid-1930s, a country that Czechoslovakia supported militarily in the war against Paraguay. On the whole, he appreciates that the book is both highly readable and truly scholarly., [autor recenze] Pavel Kreisinger., and Obsahuje bibliografii a bibliografické odkazy
We introduce the comments of the last four directors of Academy institutes, who were asked these three questions: In which direction will they lead the development of their institutes? What are they doing to achieve excellence in science? How will they evaluate the work in accordance with the new statutes governing Public Research Institution? The rubric was very successful and we sould like to express out thanks to all the directors who were willing to provide us their responses to our questions. and Odpovědi 4 ředitelů ústavů AV ČR na otázky redakce (pokračování)
We introduce the comments of four other directors of Academy institutes, who were asked these three questions: In which direction will they lead the development of their institutes? What are they doing to achieve excellence in science? How will they evaluate the work in accordance with the new statutes called Public Research Institution?
In the summer issue of Academic Bulletin, 53 directors of all Academy institutes were introduced. They will be in charge of their institutes during the next five years. In this issue, we have asked them three questions: In which direction they will lead the development of their institute? What are they doing to reach excellence in science? If they can lead the institutions in accordance with the new statutes called "Public Research Institutions".
This month we continue with the comments of the directors of all the Academy institutes, who were asked these three questions: In which direction they will lead the development of their institutes? What are they doing to achieve excellence in science? Can they evaluate the work in accordance with the new statutes called Public Research Institution?
We continue in introduction the comments of three additional directors of Academy Institutes, who were asked three questions. and Odpovědi 3 ředitelů ústavů AV ČR na otázky redakce ( pokračování)
The paper examines theoretical discourses of ethnicity and has three main objectives: (1) to categorize and compare three academic approaches to-wards ethnicity, nation and nationalism, (2) to identify the core distinction between ethnic and national identity, and (3) to analyze the differences between approaches through activity and objectivity of ethnicity. The traditional distinction between primordialist and modernist/situationist approaches is enhanced by adding the ethicist approach to the interjacent boundary. There are three core lines of distinctions between these approaches. Firstly, it is, more or less, the dis-tinction between primordiality of ethnicity and modernity of nation, not primordiality and modernity itself, which divides the discussed approaches. Secondly, most academic theories, regardless of their background, interpret the ethnicity (nation) as situational rather than objective or subjective phenomenon. Lastly, it is the scale of activity of ethnicity (activity of individuals - components - systems) which differs among the theories.