Within this chapter the book goes beyond the discussion on the region and EU and provides an examination of how specific positions of CEE countries towards energy and climate policy fit within global energy transitions. It highlights the ability of regional experience to provide insights into global energy transition challenges, and the lessons the region can offer for discussions about how to approach the pathways towards carbon-neutral economies; many challenges of CEE countries are shared internationally. As the region has to adapt to EU climate and energy policies, but is at the same time able to shape these, it provides insights into the process of developing and implementing decarbonisation policy. Our analysis of how EU enlargement has shaped mid- and long-term EU climate and energy policy is a contribution to understanding the EU’s role as an international actor.

This chapter employs statistical analysis to evaluate the historical narrative from the chapter 3 using. The account in chapter 3 generated a sequence of testable implications linking Muslim military conquest to various political outcomes in conquered territories. First, conquest introduced institutions that consolidated political (absolutist) authority in subjugated territories during the initial period of Muslim conquest. Second, these more autocratized structures remained intact thereafter, particularly under Mongol/Turkic and Ottoman rule (up through the 1800s). Third, the prevalence of centralized autocratic institutions affected the European colonial strategy: it incentivized the use of indirect rule by colonial powers and concomitantly reduced European migration to territories conquered by Muslim armies (relative to non-conquered territories). Fourth, upon their independence, Muslim countries largely maintained their autocratic structures, institutions that remain today. This chapter provides statistical evidence examining the initial two steps: the period of Muslim conquest was associated with a centralization of political authority which persisted through the 1800s.

The analytical framework in chapter 2 identified two parameters that affect political violence: variation in rents and the nature of preexisting “sharing” institutions. This chapter aims to explain why so many Muslim countries have institutions that tend to be less sharing compared to non-Muslim societies. The chapter provides a historical narrative for the emergence of an equilibrium of authoritarian power structures in the medieval period associated with the expansion of Islam via military conquest. The chapter describes how Muslim conquest established a set of governing institutions and associated alliances between political actors that set many Muslim societies on a trajectory towards less democratic politics in the contemporary period.

The Conclusion sums up by establishing patterns of how actors order different parts of an arena and create security. It presents the key findings along the four dimensions of the historical legacies of centre–periphery relations, distinctions between inner and outer circles, competition or complementation between stable and fluid ordering forms, and embedding or detaching interventions. My analysis contributes novel answers to questions about local security in conflict-affected countries and an original framework capable of facilitating future comparative analyses on the matter.

Chapter Five uses the Tumu crisis to shed light on two more facets of Ming rulership in east Eurasia. The first is the Ming court’s deep commitment to secure allegiance among neighboring elites, and the second is the striking commensurability between the Ming throne and Mongol (including Oirat) nobles. Both issues throw into relief contemporary awareness that Ming rulership did not occur in isolation but rather coexisted with other centers of power and authority. Ming rulers strove to shape the perceptions and actions of neighboring lords, great and small. Drawing on its military, economic, ritual, and rhetorical resources, the Ming court established itself as east Eurasia’s premier patron. The Oirats’ rise showed that the Ming court’s influence might be challenged, but in the mid-fifteenth century, no one – even Esen – seriously contemplated toppling, much less replacing, the Ming dynasty.

The differences, layers, degrees and generations of legacy in diverse sociocultural contexts problematize the issue of legacy while helping to situate historical, first-generation legatees of Stanislavsky and those of the end of the twentieth century and the opening two decades of the twenty-first. For the historical dimension, emphasis is necessarily on Russia, the United States, due to emigration from the MAT to this continent, and Europe, where the MAT first toured, leaving its lasting impact, especially in Germany and France. Britain too was drawn by the company’s achievements.

For the contemporary dimensions of legacy, the picture peopled primarily by directors rather than actor-teachers is deepened by the particularities of each and the connections between them as they also link to a particular Stanislavsky. One such cluster is Grotowski-Vasilyev-Brook; another has the flagships of Mnouchkine and Barba. Dodin’s is a comprehensive heritage; that of Ostermeier, Sellars and Butusov tied to a selective Stanislavsky of their respective choice. Perceval has his very own, more narrowly defined part of Stanislavsky. British directors shift the view through Dodin. The panorama offered is far from complete, but the question always is: Which Stanislavsky?