When displaying course information:

Under the identifiers of some special courses, on a blue background, is the year when it is read (was read).

By clicking on the blue icon below the identifier for some special courses, you can get additional information about the day and time of the classes, as well as other information provided by the lecturer.

Management of final qualifying works

Political development of the Great Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod principality in the middle-second half of the XIV century.
Release year: 2015

Rostov hierarchical chair at the end of the 14th - the first half of the 15th century in the context of the church-political struggle of the North-Eastern Russian lands
Author of the work: Ruchkin Alexey Alexandrovich
Release year: 2018
Job Type: Bachelor's Job

The doctrine of the strigolniks in the context of the church-political situation of the XIV century.
Author of the work: Makhtarova Ksenia Aleksandrovna
Release year: 2014
Type of work: specialist work

Church and political relations in the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod principality (mid-second half of the XIV century)
Author of the work: Pchelintsev Anton Igorevich
Release year: 2017
Job Type: Master's Job

Mentioned in the news on the website

On May 29-30, 2019, representatives of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University spoke at the scientific conference "How the "modern" Middle Ages, or Medievalism Studies" is created, organized by the Laboratory for Medieval Studies of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, the A.V. Poletaev Institute for Humanitarian Historical and Theoretical Studies (IGITI) HSE and the journal "Vox medii aevi"

On July 5–8, 2018, employees of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University took part in the III International Russian-Belarusian scientific and practical conference "Forever in the memory of the people. Patriotism in the security system of the Union State of Russia and Belarus"

On June 17, 2018, the head of the Department of History of Russia until the beginning of the 19th century of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor N.S. his role in the history of Rus'

May 24, 2018 at the Department of Russian History until the beginning of the XIX century, another student round table, dedicated to the topic "Russian rulers of the 9th - 18th centuries and their subjects: between power and anarchy". Since 2012, such events have been organized by Ph.D., Associate Professor, Deputy Head of the Department T.A.Matasova and Ph.D., Art. teacher A.E. Tarasov.

March 11, 2017 Head of the Department of History of Russia until the beginning of the 19th century, Doctor of History, Professor. N.S.Borisov gave a lecture "The Political Art of Ivan III" at the State Historical Museum as part of the lecture hall "Historical Saturdays"

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Head of the Department of History of Russia until the Beginning of the 19th Century, Professor N.S. Borisov and Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Church History P.V. Kuzenkov took part in the work on the documentary film "Dmitry Donskoy . Save the World", which was recently released on the TV channel "Russia 1"

Birthday July 29, 1952

Russian historian specializing in the Old Russian period

Biography

Born in the city of Essentuki. Before entering the University and discovering the potential of a historian, he worked as a locksmith for some time. In 1974 he graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov (diploma - "Socio-political content of the literary activity of Metropolitan Cyprian"). In 1977 he defended his dissertation "Russian culture and Tatar-Mongol yoke"(Scientific supervisor of both works - B. A. Rybakov). In 2000 he defended his doctoral dissertation, which was published at the same time as a book - “The Politics of the Moscow Princes. End of the 13th - first half of the 14th centuries.

The main scientific interests are the history of culture, the church, the life of medieval Rus', the political history of medieval Rus', local history, the history of architecture.

In 1999, he won the Metropolitan Macarius Memorial Prize for the book “The Politics of the Moscow Princes. End of the 13th - first half of the 14th centuries.

He is also interested in writing. In scientific works, he often resorts to lyrical digressions. Nevertheless, the style of Borisov's work is quite academic.

Borisov teaches at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. He laid the foundation for systematic trips of students-historians to the Solovetsky Museum-Reserve. The style of lecturing is also distinguished by the presence of lyrical digressions, at the same time, N. S. Borisov's seminars on the history of Russia until the end of the 18th century are distinguished by consideration of the historical process (of the indicated period) not only in the source study and factual, but also in the historisophical aspect.

At the end of 2007, after the death of L.V. Milov, he headed the Department of the History of Russia until the 19th century of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov.

Married. owns English language. Leads the program “History of Russia. Lectures” on the TV channel “Bibigon”. Interview with Borisov is included in documentary"Who Killed Ivan the Terrible" (BBC). Borisov's books were published in the ZHZL and " Everyday life humanity."

Major writings

• Socio-political content of the literary activity of Metropolitan Cyprian. // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Story. M.: MGU, 1975. No. 6.
• Sovereigns are great governors. M .: Young Guard, 1991. (Almanac "Feat". Issue 38).
• The Russian Church in the political struggle of the XIV-XV centuries. M., 1986.
• Ivan Kalita. M., 1996
• Politics of the Moscow princes. The end of the XIII - the first half of the XIV centuries. M., 1999.
• Ivan III. M .: Young Guard, 2000. (ZhZL).
• Sergius of Radonezh. M .: Young Guard, 2001. (ZhZL).
• Daily life of medieval Rus' on the eve of the end of the world. Moscow: Molodaya Gvardiya, 2004. (Living History: Everyday Life of Mankind).
• History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. Textbook for the 10th grade of high school. M.: Education, 2005.
• Neighborhood

Nikolai Sergeevich BORISOV was born in the city of Essentuki. Before entering the university and discovering the potential of a historian, he worked as a locksmith for some time. In 1974 he graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov (diploma - "Socio-political content of the literary activity of Metropolitan Cyprian"). In 1977 he defended his dissertation "Russian culture and the Tatar-Mongolian yoke" (supervisor of both works - B. A. Rybakov). In 2000 he defended his doctoral dissertation, which was published at the same time as a book - “The Politics of the Moscow Princes. End of the 13th - first half of the 14th centuries.

The main scientific interests are the history of culture, the church, the life of medieval Rus', the political history of medieval Rus', local history, the history of architecture.
In 1999, he won the Metropolitan Macarius Memorial Prize for the book “The Politics of the Moscow Princes. End of the 13th - first half of the 14th centuries.

Borisov teaches at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. He laid the foundation for systematic trips of students-historians to the Solovetsky Museum-Reserve. The style of lecturing is also distinguished by the presence of lyrical digressions, at the same time, N. S. Borisov's seminars on the history of Russia until the end of the 18th century are distinguished by consideration of the historical process (of the indicated period) not only in the source study and factual, but also in the historiosophical aspect.

At the end of 2007, after the death of L. V. Milov, he headed the Department of the History of Russia until the 19th century of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov.

Married. Speaks English. Leads the program “History of Russia. Lectures” on the TV channel “Bibigon”. The interview with Borisov is included in the documentary Who Killed Ivan the Terrible (BBC). Borisov's books were published in the series "Life of Remarkable People" and "Everyday Life of Mankind" (publishing house "Young Guard", Moscow).

Source: WIKIPEDIA The Free Encyclopedia

Nikolai Sergeevich BORISOV: interview

Nikolai Sergeevich BORISOV (born 1952)- Historian, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of History of Russia until the beginning of the 19th century, Faculty of History of Moscow State University, laureate of the Metropolitan Macarius Prize of the III degree:.

LABOR AND MIRACLE

Looking at the richest history of Russia, at its harsh climate and at the same time at everything that surrounds us - at countless beautiful cities and villages, cultivated fields, gigantic factories, glancing with a swift gaze - if only it is possible! - the entire treasury of Russian culture, from The Tale of Igor's Campaign to magnificent examples of art of the 20th century, even an inexperienced person will be amazed by the strength, talent and hard work of the Russian people. Did nature help our ancestors to create all this, did nature help them to live and survive the way it helps people to live without much effort in a warm climate and on the shores of gentle seas? Nature helped us only in the sense that it made us stronger, taught us to work incessantly and strain our mind and will. Everything we have today is not a gift of nature and fate. This is the fruit of the labor and talent of millions of people, this is the fruit of their great love to your homeland!

- Nikolai Sergeevich, how do you think labor and miracles correlate in Russian history?
- Labor is a concept, on the one hand, physical, on the other - moral. And when you look at our old rulers, ascetics, you see that their whole life is at the same time a huge tension physical strength, and constant spiritual labor. Of course, there is a relationship here. Physical meaningful labor, when, for example, St. Sergius of Radonezh digs a garden, is a cleansing labor that brings a person closer to the foundations of life and at the same time to the foundations of Christianity. "He who does not work, let him not eat," as the apostle says. In addition, the work of such a person as Abbot Sergius, who, due to his position in the hierarchy, could not have worked, is not just work, but symbolic work that brings him closer to the people, to those “working and burdened”, about whom he speaks Savior.

- You are talking about the symbolism of labor. How should a ruler work in order to be understood by the people?
- This question is very delicate. The main thing here is a sense of proportion. Symbolism should not turn into a farce. In this regard, I recall the review of academician M. N. Tikhomirov on the script for the film "Alexander Nevsky". Its authors, wanting to show the closeness of the prince to the people, imagined how he, together with fishermen, pulls nets from Lake Pereyaslavl and, wiping sweat from his face, receives messengers with important political news. Tikhomirov wrote that the prince could not do this under any circumstances. It is not necessary to understand such work in a simplified way: the ruler is the ruler, and the commander is the commander, and everyone has his own work. In medieval society, there was a certain style of behavior that depended on the social status of a person. One was supposed to work, the other was to command, the third was to paint icons, etc. But, on the other hand, there were undoubtedly certain ritual labor actions that were performed by the ruler as a sign that he was uniting with his people, with his land . Unfortunately, there is very little information about this in the sources. It seems to me that Skrynnikov's interpretation of the chronicle episode, how Ivan the Terrible in his youth plowed arable land in Kolomna, while the troops were gathering for another campaign against the Tatars, seems convincing. There was symbolism in this: since the Sovereign himself begins plowing, it means that there should be a good harvest. Such things, I think, have always been, but they are very secret, and information about them has to be collected bit by bit. I don’t even know how much they were church-ritual, but how traditional-ritual.

Eat famous image Simon Ushakov "Tree of the Russian State". At the base is the icon of the Mother of God of Vladimir and two people are depicted: St. Peter, Metropolitan of Moscow, and Ivan Kalita, who are cultivating this tree. In your book dedicated to Ivan Kalita, this process is shown. Could you briefly formulate what this art of "nurturing" the state consists of and what is the ideal ruler in Rus'?
- What is a Russian ruler? By what criteria can it be judged? professional level"? In Russia, with its complexities and peculiarities, it is very difficult to rule, and there must be a person adequate to the country. I think our Russian ruler has a number of more or less unchanging tasks. First of all, it is protection from external enemies. Then there is the problem of relations with the ruling class. Our entire political history develops in the triangle "monarchy - aristocracy - people." The ruler must control the ruling class. If this is not done, the mechanism of egoism of the ruling class comes into force, when the latter begins to pull more property, more power onto itself, a distortion occurs, and the state falls into a state of decline or internal conflicts. But without a ruling class, a monarch cannot exist. What is it, saying modern language? These are governors, generals, production managers, without whom it is impossible. Lenin tried to create a society without a ruling class: he destroyed the old one - a new one began to grow. Nothing succeeded. So there must be a ruling class, but the ruler can make a kind of deal with him: you have certain privileges, but in return you have to do this, that, and that. And the ruler must be strong enough to enforce these rules of the game. This is a very dangerous job, because at the slightest careless movement, a situation of conflict between the monarch and the ruling class sets in. And it is resolved either through terror, as under Ivan the Terrible (the ferocious destruction of a significant part of this class) or by the fact that the ruling class destroys this ruler. We know both Paul and Peter III - there are many examples.

Therefore, it is better not to lead to a conflict, but to rule in such a way that this class respects the ruler and observes the rules that the monarch imposes on the ruling class in the interests of the whole society. In my opinion, this is the most difficult task for every ruler in Russia, perhaps even more difficult than governing the common people, although this task also exists. The people should have their own piece of bread, and the ruler is obliged to provide this, to give people the opportunity to earn money by hard work. Ultimately, our entire political history is a play of forces within this triangle. If we, relatively speaking, take all power as 100 percent, then in each specific reign they are distributed differently between the monarchy, the aristocracy and the people. But the main thing is that this proportion should not be critical, that this whole triangle should not overturn, that the whole society should not collapse. And here the monarch should have a flair and experience that is being developed. In this regard, the one who was taught by his father is happy, because there are no textbooks here and there cannot be, except for the “Sovereign” by Machiavelli. In our history, a lot has been achieved by people who were well prepared or were themselves so talented and receptive that they prepared themselves quickly. Ivan III went through such a school (at the age of 7 he became co-ruler with his father, and at 22 he began to rule), he knew everything and everyone, all the problems, his father gave him everything. This is a wonderful situation that has allowed him to take such a long step forward. Or, on the contrary, the situation with Grozny, who started almost from scratch. Thus, the ruler must control the ruling class, ensure independence and provide subjects with the opportunity to have a chicken in their pot at least once a week, as the French king Henry IV said. It is a difficult job, but almost all of our rulers had, among other things, a sense of great religious responsibility. This feeling was, in particular, among the creators of the Muscovite state, and this is one of the main thoughts of my work on the XIV century. The creators of the Muscovite state were not unprincipled bloody villains (although there was enough blood - the times were such that one could not do without it), but nevertheless, at the core, they were deeply religious people who understood their political activity as serving their people, the Mother of God ( Moscow as the third throne of the Mother of God), the Savior. Here, first of all, there is a sense of religious responsibility before God for one's deeds. It gave these people strength, allowed them to rise after falling. Everyone had it, even the Romanovs. This feeling, it seems to me, fettered Nicholas II, preventing him from making any sudden movements that might have been necessary to get out of the crisis, but he was afraid of doing harm, feeling that he was responsible for Russia and therefore did not has the right to be wrong. This feeling was also in our very first rulers. And then the time came for random people who did not have this feeling - our Soviet period.

What do you think, is there, say, a kind of state order in modern Russia for the appearance of people of the type that you just talked about? And does the modern state power, the ruling class, understand that if such figures are not nominated, then this ruling class simply will not exist?
- Of course, I am not a specialist in modernity, but I think that our current situation is due to the fact that there is no system of education, selection, training of truly state people. This is not due to the fact that someone did not invent it, but to the fact that, firstly, our current ruling class is new, it has been formed in the last 10-15 years and has recently become aware of itself as a new ruling class. Another thing is that there are many representatives of the old ruling class in it, but the very system of property relations and power has changed so much that the new ruling elite still does not quite understand itself, its interests, it has not yet “satisfied itself”. This desire to gorge on power, to gorge on property at any cost dominates their behavior. They have not yet understood that it is necessary to think that not only you, but also your son and your grandson will eat while living in this country; so that he lives like a man here, and not somewhere in California. Therefore, our current ruling class, I would say, is still green, not mature, not fully aware of itself and its tasks. This is the first.

The second is that the formation of state people occurs through certain educational systems, public institutions, and here we must not forget that we, in fact, are in a situation of repeating the Tatar-Mongol yoke. Just as the Golden Horde once hung over Russia and watched so that too strong leaders, too authoritative, did not appear, and when they did, they different ways eliminated. In the same way, the current Golden Horde hangs over us now in the form of NATO or the United States, at least the West in the broadest sense, which seeks (and this is natural) to control our country, its political life, power structures, because Russia is such a country where everything is decided at the top, in a rather narrow circle. And they make sure that talented people do not appear there, and if they appear, they must be bought, and if they are not for sale, they must be destroyed. That is, practically what was done during the time of Ivan Kalita. But there is hope that nevertheless, the Lord is merciful, a person like Ivan Kalita will appear. We now need a person who would not shout from the threshold that I will disperse you all here now, but who would bow, go to some NATO session three times a year, and quietly, carefully begin here with the very foundations of picking up our spirituality, our human potential. That is, we need a very cunning person who, on the one hand, has the idea of ​​serving the people, the state, and, on the other hand, very tough pragmatism. This unique combination of idealism and pragmatism creates great people in history. There are many idealists in the world, and even more pragmatists. Perhaps the example is not the best, but Lenin is Lenin because he combined a fanatic and a pragmatist, and in this he is higher than both Stalin and Trotsky: the first was a pure pragmatist, the second a pure fanatic, and Lenin combined both of them. and the other, so he is head and shoulders above them all. They only opened their mouths when he made the well-known zigzags of his policy. We need a person of this type who would serve Russia, but this service should be hidden, like chains, it should not be in plain sight.

And what is the general formula for the success of the fight against the Golden Horde? There is such a myth that we dealt with the Horde on the Kulikovo field. But was it only with the help of weapons that she was defeated?
- With this question, you came to one of the most mysterious topics of our national history. And, in my opinion, the riddle lies primarily in the fact that we cannot give ourselves a clear account of what the Tatar-Mongol yoke is, how it was in real everyday life, how it was perceived and whether it was perceived at all in the daily life of people, what were data collection mechanisms. We do not know anything: neither the size of the tribute, nor the collection mechanisms, nor the mechanisms of control, nor the punishment for non-payment, there are only the most general ideas. Some imagine that a Tatar literally stood over everyone with a whip, while others, on the contrary, write that the Tatar yoke is a myth invented by historians to justify the historical backwardness of Russia, as they like to say in the West. Based on what I know and what I have been doing for many years, I cannot find a more accurate comparison, although it is somewhat vulgar, than to compare the Tatar-Mongolian yoke with a kind of gangster "roof" that our entrepreneurs have. This “roof” does not interfere with business: “You do your business, but do not forget that at a certain time you must unfasten 10 percent to us. And don't forget that you have our man in the accounting department, who will let us know if you want to deceive us. And then you'll feel bad." AND whole line such analogies. That is, without interfering in the daily life of Russia, they at the same time very tightly controlled its income and situation, so that the “entrepreneurs” would not unite and throw off the power of this “roof”. I repeat, these are only my assumptions, this mechanism is little known. Accordingly, the mechanism for overcoming the Tatar-Mongol yoke is little known. And the main issue is the proportion. That is, it is clear that two elements were present here: the first is armed resistance, an uprising against the Horde of Russian princes, Russian people, and the second element is the gradual collapse of the Horde itself, which began in 1357, with the death of Dzhanibek and then for 25 years it was 25 khans - "great zamyatnya". It is clear that in conditions of instability in the Horde, the actual fragmentation, it was easier for our people to overthrow power than, say, under Uzbek - then it was unrealistic. But to decide to what extent each factor plays a role, you need to have at least some numbers. We don’t know how many Mamai brought to Kulikovo Field, how many Dmitry. And how many forces did the Tatars have in the 15th century, and how much do we have? But I think that what we now call industry played a huge role, whatever the numbers. That is, Ivan III, in fact, created in Moscow a powerful military-industrial complex at that time. This is artillery, and fortresses, and everything else. The chronicle contains a wonderful, very imaginative and very deep story about how they repelled the invasion of Akhmat in 1472. When he walked along the Oka, the governor, Prince Kholmsky with the Moscow regiments walked along the other bank and did not allow the Tatars to cross. They lined up, were about to cross, and suddenly our regiments came out of the forest, turned around, and the chronicler said: and our regiments shone like a lake under the sun. That is, they were all in iron: in helmets, armor, handrails - they were, like tanks, practically invulnerable to Tatar arrows. And the Tatars, so to speak, "in torn quilted jackets": they had no industry. Therefore, this material base of the Moscow army, created just in the main by Ivan III, undoubtedly played a huge role in the victories of the end of the 15th century.

In your work dedicated to Ivan Kalita, it is shown that Ivan Kalita, following the precepts of St. Peter, built Moscow as a new religious and spiritual center. It was a unique construction: five white-stone churches appear in wooden Moscow in five years. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that anyone, for example, from Suzdal, could say: “Well done, Muscovites, for building these five churches, that you want to become a spiritual center, but I do not recognize you as such.” And suddenly, during the reign of Ivan Kalita, St. Sergius was born, who became the main proof that the work of Ivan Kalita was backed up not only by his unique mind and temperament, but it was also backed up from above. It turns out that construction, which is very tough, pragmatic, can only lead to success if it has the presence of God, if it is backed up from above?
- I think that a miracle is a reward for work. For example, in Karamzin's Notes on New and Ancient Russia, when he talks about the rise of Moscow, there is such a beautiful phrase: “A miracle happened: the town is small and unknown to anyone: it became the capital of Rus' and rose ...” And at the heart of this miracle - the hardest physical and spiritual work of several generations of Muscovites, starting with Prince Daniel. And the reward for this work, not slavish, but spiritualized, directed towards a lofty goal, is a miracle. A miracle in the sense that the result is obtained: a bright, powerful, strong result - the fruit of labor and humility.

Interviewed by Vasily Pichugin, Irina Kapitnikova

An outstanding Russian historian specializing in the Old Russian period, one of the prominent church historians.

Born in the city of Essentuki. Before entering the University and discovering the potential of a historian, he worked as a locksmith for some time. In 1974 he graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov (diploma - "Socio-political content of the literary activity of Metropolitan Cyprian"). In 1977 he defended his dissertation "Russian culture and the Tatar-Mongolian yoke" (supervisor of both works - B. A. Rybakov). In 2000 he defended his doctoral dissertation, which was published at the same time as a book - “The Politics of the Moscow Princes. End of the 13th - first half of the 14th centuries.

The main scientific interests are the history of culture, the church, the life of medieval Rus', the political history of medieval Rus', local history, the history of architecture.

In 1999, he won the Metropolitan Macarius Memorial Prize for his book The Politics of the Moscow Princes. End of the 13th - first half of the 14th centuries.

He is also interested in writing. In scientific works, he often resorts to lyrical digressions. Nevertheless, the style of Borisov's work is quite academic.

Borisov teaches at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. He laid the foundation for systematic trips of students-historians to the Solovetsky Museum-Reserve. The style of lecturing is also distinguished by the presence of lyrical digressions, at the same time, N. S. Borisov's seminars on the history of Russia until the end of the 18th century are distinguished by consideration of the historical process (of the indicated period) not only in the source study and factual, but also in the historisophical aspect.

At the end of 2007, after the death of L.V. Milov, he headed the Department of the History of Russia until the 19th century, the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov.

Married. Speaks English.

The interview with Borisov is included in the documentary Who Killed Ivan the Terrible (BBC). Borisov's books have been published in the ZHZL and Daily Life of Mankind series.

Leads the program History of Russia. Lectures on the Bibigon Canal

Doctor of Law, Professor.

Born in the city of Volgograd.

Graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov in 1991

In 1991–1994 studied in graduate school at the Department of Civil Procedure, Faculty of Law, Moscow State University. In 1994, she defended her Ph.D. thesis at Moscow State University on the topic "Institute of Appeal in Civil Procedure", in 2005 - a doctoral dissertation on the topic "Theoretical Problems of Verification of Judicial Acts in Civil, Arbitration Processes."

She has been working at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University since 1994. She reads a general course of lectures on Russian civil procedure, conducts special courses: “Procedural Documents in Civil and Administrative Litigation” (bachelor’s degree), “Alternative Dispute Resolution” (bachelor’s), “Theory and Practice of Appeal, Cassation , supervision in civil and administrative cases "(magistracy)," Alternative ways Settlement of Disputes" (Master's program), "Revision on newly discovered or new circumstances of judicial acts that have entered into force" (Master's program), "Latin-type Notary" (Master's program), "Problems of appealing judicial acts in civil and administrative proceedings" (postgraduate studies) .

Laureate of the I.I. Shuvalov of the first degree (2006), winner of the competition for awarding grants to support talented students, graduate students and young scientists of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov (2006), winner of the MSU Development Program award (2017)

Prepared ten candidates of sciences (Arabova T.F., Argunov V.V., Bannikov I.A., Budak E.V., Dolova M.O., Efimov A.E., Zaitsev S.V., Ivanova O. V., Malyukina A.V., Nikonorov S.Yu.).

Participated in the development of some chapters of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. She was invited as an expert when considering a number of cases by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

Member of the dissertation council in the specialty 12.00.15 - civil procedure, arbitration process D.501.001.99 at Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov.

Member of the editorial board, editorial board of the journals Vestnik Civil Proceedings, Bulletin of Economic Justice, Legislation, Teise. Vilniaus Universitetas” (“Law. Vilnius University”), “Bulletin of Odessa national university. Series: Jurisprudence.

Member of Scientific Advisory Boards under the General Prosecutor's Office Russian Federation, at the Federal Notarial Chamber.

Priority of scientific interests: history of civil procedural law, verification and review of court decisions, notaries, ADR, foreign civil procedure.