Новый вид рода Ranunculus из Западного Тянь-Шаня

This article is devoted to the foreign policy of the Republic of Uzbekistan. At present, the foreign policy of the Republic of Uzbekistan towards the countries of Central Asia, namely Kazakhstan, is of special interest and discussion among the expert community. And this is no coincidence. Since 2016, after the accession of Sh. Mirzieyev to the post of President, the foreign policy of the state began a new stage of development. In the Action Strategy in five priority areas in 2017-2021 and the Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026, the President of the country outlined the main foreign policy priority - Central Asia, thereby setting the goal of creating a belt of good neighborliness and mutually beneficial cooperation, stability and harmonious neighborhood in the region . The author of the article considers the main directions of foreign policy at the present stage of development, noted in a separate direction of the Strategy, focusing on and analyzing the main achievements in the relationship between the Republic of Uzbekistan and the Republic of Kazakhstan, by applying methods such as historical, comparative and content analysis. These methods allowed the author to fully analyze and identify the main factors contributing to the strengthening and development of friendly relations between the Republic of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The main purpose of this article is to analyze the foreign policy of the Republic of Uzbekistan and summarize the results achieved by Sh. Mirzieyev in cooperation with a neighboring state. The author came to the conclusion that Uzbekistan, being an equal subject of international relations, pursues an active foreign policy at the regional level, develops and strengthens mutually beneficial relations with the Republic of Kazakhstan.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union five new states emerged in Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Adjacent to China and traditionally being viewed as part of Russia’s sphere of influence, Central Asia not only has vast natural resources, but also occupies important geostrategic position, which lures the international powers to engage in the area’s affairs. By military presence emerged after September 11 event, the US found a way to counteract the influence of Russia and China in Central Asia. Consequently, Central Asia has become the focus of international politics. Applying a geopolitical and national interest approaches to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) established by Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in 2001, the thesis examines the origins and prospects of the SCO as well as the economic and security cooperation within its framework. It is also explores how the national interests of Russia and other member states drive their policies towards the interaction within the SCO, in particular, of those Russia and China. The SCO serves as a useful forum for its member states in balancing interests between each other. As well as being an instrument for pursuing key interests between Russia and China, the SCO also functions as a consolidating factor in the Russian-Chinese relationship by offering a vehicle for managing their affairs. For Russia, the SCO provides an opportunity for strengthening its political, military and economic ties with Central Asian countries and for constraining the growth of China’s influence in the region while at the same time balancing US influence. Russia’s most important concern about possible future developments in the SCO is China’s policy of using the organization as a vehicle for the economic penetration of Central Asian countries. Russia will strive for a balanced distribution of power within the SCO, thus hindering China’s aspirations to win greater influence in Central Asia through the organization. It should be appealing for Russia to establish itself as a “bridge” between the SCO and Euro-Atlantic institutions, such as the EU or NATO, which have manifested their increasing interest in Central Asia. This move could serve to emphasize Russia’s unique geopolitical position as a link between Europe and Asia, and raise its standing within the SCO itself.

Bilateral cooperation between the Republics of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are discussed in the article. The Republic of Uzbekistan and the Republic of Kazakhstan are on the threshold of a new relationship, which will be aimed at creating a stable economic situation throughout Central Asia, which will make us an economically powerful region of the world. Also, in the article the economic and human potential of both states are analyzed, common historical roots and long-standing friendship are examined. The authors come to the conclusion that the main task of the Republic of Uzbekistan is to maximize the potential of Kazakh-Uzbek cooperation to achieve strategic benefits for the two countries

The article discusses the features of the demographic development of Russia and Kazakhstan in modern conditions and the medium term. The scientific problem of the study is to identify the features of the current stage and prospects of demographic development and the contribution of migration to the formation of the population and labor resources of Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan. It was revealed that Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan became the two largest countries for the reception of migrants in the Eurasian space. The prerequisites for large-scale and active labor migration to these states are demographic trends, growing labor requirements and the relatively successful economic development of the two countries. The key labor donors for both countries are currently Central Asian states. So, between the countries of the region on the one hand, Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan, on the other hand, the Eurasian migration corridor has formed, which is currently one of the largest on a global scale. In both countries, it is necessary to strengthen the direction of migration policy associated with attracting labor migrants as a resource for demographic development. Despite the temporary stay in the host countries, many labor migrants pass into the category of permanent residents of Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan. Russia, as the main host country, has not yet fully benefited from the demographic advantages of the Euro-Asian migration corridor. The country's migration policy remains quite tough and inadequate in the demographic situation. Although the approach seems to be declared at the state level that migration should be one of the development resources, many obstacles to the integration of migrants, including migrants from Central Asian countries, the main donor region, remain in the system of migration policy itself, in its mechanisms and implementation tools. The Republic of Kazakhstan, although it has not yet encountered the demographic problem in a form like Russia, can already consider labor migration as a resource for future development in pragmatic interests. It is noted that both Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan, as countries receiving labor migrants, should emphasize in their migration policy the integration of part of labor migrants into the host society.

The article discusses the features of the demographic development of Russia and Kazakhstan in modern conditions and the medium term. The scientific problem of the study is to identify the features of the current stage and prospects of demographic development and the contribution of migration to the formation of the population and labor resources of Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan. It was revealed that Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan became the two largest countries for the reception of migrants in the Eurasian space. The prerequisites for large-scale and active labor migration to these states are demographic trends, growing labor requirements and the relatively successful economic development of the two countries. The key labor donors for both countries are currently Central Asian states. So, between the countries of the region on the one hand, Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan, on the other hand, the Eurasian migration corridor has formed, which is currently one of the largest on a global scale. In both countries, it is necessary to strengthen the direction of migration policy associated with attracting labor migrants as a resource for demographic development. Despite the temporary stay in the host countries, many labor migrants pass into the category of permanent residents of Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan. Russia, as the main host country, has not yet fully benefited from the demographic advantages of the Euro-Asian migration corridor. The country's migration policy remains quite tough and inadequate in the demographic situation. Although the approach seems to be declared at the state level that migration should be one of the development resources, many obstacles to the integration of migrants, including migrants from Central Asian countries, the main donor region, remain in the system of migration policy itself, in its mechanisms and implementation tools. The Republic of Kazakhstan, although it has not yet encountered the demographic problem in a form like Russia, can already consider labor migration as a resource for future development in pragmatic interests. It is noted that both Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan, as countries receiving labor migrants, should emphasize in their migration policy the integration of part of labor migrants into the host society.

This book undertakes the first comparative constitutional analysis of the Kyrgyz Republic and Republics of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in their cultural, historical, political, economic and social context. The first chapter provides a general overview of the diverse and dynamic constitutional landscape across the region. A second chapter examines the Soviet constitutional system in depth as the womb of the Central Asian States. A third chapter completes the general picture by examining the constitutional influences of the ‘new world order’ of globalisation, neo-liberalism and good governance into which the five states were thrust. The remaining five chapters look in turn at the constitutional context of presidents and governments, parliaments and elections, courts and rights, society and economy, and culture and identity. The enquiry probes the regional patterns of neo-Sovietism, plebiscitary elections, weak courts and parliaments, crony capitalism and constraints on association, as well as the counter-tendencies that strengthen democracy, rights protection and pluralism. It reveals the Central Asian experience to be emblematic of the principal issues and tensions facing contemporary constitutional systems everywhere.

The article notes the aggravation of water supply problems in Central Asia, especially in the perspective of reducing the main river flows in the Republic of Kazakhstan. A comprehensive study of water diplomacy institutions for water resources management in the Republic of Kazakhstan (ROK) and the Central Asian region (CA) in a cross-border context, which are key elements of regional stability and security in Central Asia (CA). The relevance of the study lies in the fact that water scarcity is a worldwide problem. The situation is complicated by the uneven distribution of clean and usable water over the earth's surface. As a rule, rivers and large bodies of water are transboundary. There are two rivers on the territory of Central Asia, the volume of which is insufficient to meet all the needs of the region. In addition, the Amu Darya and the countries of the upper and lower reaches of the Syr Darya have different interests. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan use these rivers to generate electricity, while Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan use water resources to grow agricultural and agricultural crops. Energy companies are interested in storing water in summer for use in winter for electricity generation, while agricultural enterprises require water in summer during the irrigation season. The problem of water quality remains relevant and is one of the main ones that require attention. The environmental policy of the states provides for the examination of water quality and assessment of the degree of its pollution. Solving the problems of joint water resources management plays an important role in the implementation of an effective regional policy on water pollution control. Keywords: water diplomacy, regulation of water security, transboundary water resources, Central Asia, canal Qush-Tepa, hydro-hegemon.

The pet trade with decapod crustaceans has been considered one of the main pathway of introduction of these animals worldwide. As the leading markets in this regards are the Czech Republic, Germany and the USA. Central Asia is not perceived as an important market with ornamental decapod crustaceans. Despite this assumption, we found at least 16 species of freshwater shrimp, crayfish and crab species pet-traded in the Republic of Kazakhstan, the largest country in this region. Considering computed risk assessment, the origin of particular species, their availability on the market, the probability of establishment and further aspects, we identified two crayfish Procambarus clarkii and Procambarus fallax f. virginalis being the seriously hazardous taxa with high potential to threaten native crayfish species as well as inhabited ecosystems. To prevent their introductions and to minimize the risks of mentioned species, similarly as in the case of European Union, we recommend the total ban of import, trade and keeping of these high-risk taxa within Central Asia.

The five countries of Central Asia – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan – became independent states in 1991-1992 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union (see Map 1). Immediately after assuming independence, the Central Asian countries embarked, together with the rest of the former Soviet Republics (the Commonwealth of Independent States – CIS), on a program of reforms intended to achieve a transition from a command economy to an economy more in line with market principles. The reforms in the agricultural sector aimed to eliminate the traditionally wasteful use of resources and thus improve productivity. For countries that in 1990 derived more than 30% of GDP from agriculture, improved agricultural performance was naturally expected to boost household incomes, especially in the poor rural areas. These goals were to be accomplished through the process of land reform and farm restructuring, implemented simultaneously with price and trade policy reforms. The reforms were basically expected to change the producer incentives, strengthening profit orientation and thus increasing personal involvement and motivation. One of the striking features of transition from plan to market in CIS agriculture is the dramatic shift from the predominance of large corporate farms (kolkhozy and sovkhozy, generally referred to as agricultural enterprises) to individual or family agriculture based on a spectrum of small farms (Lerman 2008; Sedik and Lerman 2008). The individual sector, combining the traditional household plots and the new peasant farms that began to emerge after 1992, accounts for most of agricultural production and controls a large share of arable land. This is a dramatic change from the pre-1990 period, when agricultural enterprises produced over 70% of GAO and controlled over 90% of arable land. These changes of farm structure, while consistent with the dominant mode in market agricultures, clash with the traditional Soviet philosophy of economies of scale. They also clash with the inherited ideology that views small family farms as an undesirable and even damaging deviation from the capital-intensive, highly mechanized, and commercially oriented mainstream. We therefore witness an ongoing debate, both among CIS decision makers and within the CIS academic community, as to the performance advantages of the two main organizational forms in agriculture – large corporate farms and small family farms. This continuing debate in effect ignores the well-known theoretical considerations that reveal clearly identifiable advantages of small family farms compared with large corporate farms Allen and Lueck 2002). There is generally no evidence of economies of scale in primary agricultural production, while individual or family farms are easier to organize and operate than corporations. Family farms are free from labor monitoring costs and are not prone to agency problems, contrary to large corporate farms employing hired labor and run by outside managers. These factors highlight the importance of individual incentives for farm efficiency and account for the predominance of family farms in market economies, where a family farm is not necessarily a very small farm: the optimal farm size is determined in each particular case by the managerial capacity of the farmer, and it may be quite large for highly capable individualsIn this study we assemble evidence that, in our opinion, shows that individualization of agriculture is associated with the post-transition recovery in CIS and that small family farms outperform the large enterprises, at least by measures of land productivity. The evidence is presented here for the five countries of Central Asia—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan (Map 1). Previously similar results have been obtained for the Trans-Caucasian states—Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan (Lerman 2006) and to a certain extent also for the European countries of the CIS (Lerman et al. 2007; Lerman and Sutton 2008; Lerman and Sedik 2013). The article is organized as follows. The introduction is followed by Section 1 that sets the regional context by discussing the importance of agriculture in Central Asia. Section 2 describes the three phases of agricultural development in Central Asia (and the rest of the CIS) and introduces the key concept of turnaround point, the year when agricultural production switched from decline to renewed growth. Section 3 discusses individualization of Central Asian agriculture in the process of land reform and examines the sources of renewed growth. Productivity of farms of different organizational types is analyzed in Section 4 and Section 5 establishes a link between policy reforms and agricultural performance. Conclusions present some concluding remarks.

At the core of area studies lies the idea that studying discrete regions in terms of their political, linguistic, and cultural differentiations is a valid approach. However, there can be a tendency towards inconsistency in the definition of certain areas. Furthermore, there can be an inclination towards the peripherization of certain regions when being treated as part of a wider “area” whose core lies elsewhere. Central Asia is a prominent example of both. Firstly, there is much variance in the spatial use of the term. Depending on who is writing, the term “Central Asia” might refer to the area from Afghanistan to Mongolia and from Xinjiang to the Black Sea, or it might be used to refer to the five post-Soviet republics Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, at times including Afghanistan. Secondly, it is rarely studied of itself, rather it is often treated as peripheral to a perceived core lying elsewhere. Thus, the task of the field of Central Asian studies is to subvert this, placing the people in the region, their history, culture, practices, and politics as the centre of focus. Transcultural approaches have criticized treating discrete areas as bounded units of study, suggesting instead to look for relationships, interconnectivities, and entanglements across regions. Therefore, there is no reason why Central Asia should be treated as peripheral to more established disciplines, ignoring its internal complexity, language diversity, history, political distinct paths, global relationships, and cultural productions. Transcultural methods go beyond monolingual research and political boundaries, their strength is to zoom into micro-processes and out to address larger entanglements, to look at the sudden events and long-term processes. This demands an in-depth knowledge of the subject and of several regions, a challenge that is time and resource consuming. Historically, Central Asia remains relevant to all area studies in Asia but contemporary approaches are not the simple continuation of former empires. Rather, political ruptures, religious orientations, and economic relationships require different approaches for Central Asia since the twentieth century. Transcultural approaches have criticized treating areas as discrete units of study and suggested to look for relationships, interconnectivities, and entanglements across regions. Therefore, there is no reason why Central Asia should be treated as peripheral to more established disciplines, ignoring its internal complexity, language diversity, history, political distinct paths, global relationships and cultural productions. Transcultural methods go beyond monolingual research and political boundaries, their strength is to zoom into micro-processes and out to address larger entanglements, to look at the sudden events and long-term processes. This demands an in-depth knowledge of the subject and of several regions, a challenge that is time and resource consuming. Historically, Central Asia remains relevant to all area studies in Asia but contemporary approaches are not the simple continuation of former empires. Rather, political ruptures, religious orientations, economic relationships require different approaches for Central Asia since the twentieth century.

This chapter deals with the emergence and the development of the pressure knapping technique in Central Asia (republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan). The specific context of the processes of neolithization is particularly significant for understanding the development of pressure blade technology in Central Asia as well as the reasons linked to its adoption and application in different cultural entities. The additional information provided here enriches this discussion for the neighboring regions of Russia, the Caucasus, Iran, and Afghanistan. The technological study of the major lithic assemblages recovered from Upper Paleolithic to Chalcolithic contexts across dispersed parts of Central Asia points out significant results. Thus, the emergence of the use of the pressure knapping technique during the Early Holocene in this part of Asia was associated with the appearance of microblade technology and, to some extent, bladelet production. The pressure technique appeared in Mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups that contrast sharply with the previous Paleolithic stone reduction traditions. Two concepts have been identified: the first one, called here the Yubetsu method, is closely related to the technical tradition from the Far East (Sibero-Sino-Mongolia area), and the second one linked to a bullet-shaped core and the more “classical” method, is most often associated with geometrical microliths. With the appearance of agropastoral Neolithic societies like the Jeitun culture in Southern Turkmenistan (7th–6th millennia B.C.), the pressure knapping technique was used for the production of regular blades employing the bullet-shaped core method. A more interesting and specific case in Central Asia is found among three societies involved in the process of neolithization. The Kel’teminar culture (Uzbekistan, 7th–4th millennia B.C.) illustrates the beginning of the settlement process; the subsistence strategies were marked by a focus not only on hunting and gathering but also with the appearance of domestic cattle. Its technical tradition came mainly from the local Mesolithic background. The lithic industry has evidence of several production systems (microblades, bladelets, and blades) employing at least two techniques: a very well-controlled indirect percussion and the bullet-shaped core method using a pressure technique. The Atbasar culture (Kazakhstan, 5th–4th millennia B.C.) developed from the local Mesolithic, retaining microblade production using the pressure knapping technique (bullet-shaped cores). The introduction of few regular blades (detached by indirect percussion or pressure knapping technique?) and new formal tools can be observed. The Hissar culture (Tajikistan, 7th–4th millennia B.C.) shows the exploitation of both domestic and wild animals, with a higher proportion of the latter, suggesting a short-distance form of mobile pastoralism. The lithic assemblage presents the continuation of the earlier Mesolithic tradition (pressure microblade technology according to the Yubetsu method) together with the introduction of new Neolithic components such as a blade production using the indirect percussion. During the Chalcolithic/Eneolithic period, pressure knapping tends to disappear gradually from Central Asia. Following the emergence of the first Bronze Age communities, it is seen only in the shaping process of bifacial tools and projectile points.

The article discusses the history of the creation and development of the overall concept of information security, the current state of the information security, as well as the appropriate legal and regulatory framework in the countries of Central Asia on the example of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Introductory part of the article analyzes and provides a brief overview of the development of information and communication technologies. Particular attention is given to information security concepts in the framework of international valuation standards. The author investigates and lists the main sources of global information security threats, as well as explaining the history of the creation of a geopolitical term - Central Asia. In the main part of the article on the example of Kazakhstan one of the leading Central Asian countries, highlights issues of formation and development of the concept of information security, provides a brief overview of the history of development of information and communication technologies in the country. In this part the author conducts a detailed analysis of the legislation and the concept of the state with respect to the issue of information security, in the investigation highlights the major key issues of information security in the Republic of Kazakhstan. It also analyzes the development strategy of the Republic of Kazakhstan till 2030 (the "Kazakhstan-2030" Strategy), provides a brief overview of the state of laws and programs in the field of information security in the Republic of Kazakhstan. In conclusion, the author comes to the conclusion that today Kazakhstan is just beginning to form their own information security protection mechanisms and leads appropriate recommendations to achieve the objectives of the state.

Within the past century, international tourists have increasingly sought destinations in their pursuit of relaxation, escape, and adventure. Recognizing the opportunity to earn valuable foreign currency, developing countries have catered to these desires by encouraging tourism development. The interplay between and and the impact of tourism on host communities have been recurring themes in the anthropological literature on tourism, but scholars recognize that these categories have several limitations. The terms gloss over the wide variation that exists in the tourist experience for both guests and hosts, and ignore the important actors known as mediators. This article examines the role of mediators in two post-Soviet Central Asia states: Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. Mediators there are particularly important because neither country is well known in Western countries, and neither country inherited a well-developed tourist infrastructure from the Soviet state. These mediators are cultivating a positive image of Central Asia as a new tourist destination, developing tourist accommodations, and lobbying government institutions to support and regulate tourism. However, the industry is rife with conflict and competition. (Tourism, development, Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan) ********** Within the past century, international tourists have increasingly sought distant, exotic destinations in their pursuit of relaxation, escape, and adventure. Recognizing the opportunity to earn valuable foreign currency, most developing countries have catered to these desires by encouraging international tourism development. Some countries, such as Nepal and Jamaica, have gone so far as to make international tourism a top priority in their national development strategy. The anthropology of tourism emerged in the 1970s as tourists started to appear in places off the beaten path, such as Inuit communities in Alaska and Kuna communities in Costa Rica (Graburn 1976; Graburn 1983; Nash 1981; Smith 1989). The interplay between (locals) and (tourists) and the impact of tourism on host communities have been recurring themes in this growing body of literature. While the twin concepts of hosts and guests are routinely cited, scholars recognize that these categories have several limitations. The use of these terms glosses over the variation that exists in the tourist experience for both guests and hosts, and unfortunately ignores an important group of actors, known as who actively promote and develop tourist destinations. Neither hosts nor guests in any tangible way, the category of mediators includes government officials, tourism planners, travel agents, tour guides, and travel writers (Chambers 2000:30). This article examines the role of mediators in the development of international tourism in two post-Soviet Central Asia states: Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. As the former Soviet republics make the awkward transition from socialism to capitalism, tourism development stands as one possible solution for their cash-flow problems. Tourism is definitely at the forefront of development in the Kyrgyz Republic, a country with exceptional natural beauty but limited trade resources. (1) Tourism is also important in the Republic of Kazakhstan, a country with vast oil and mineral wealth but a need for a more diverse economy. The role of tourism mediators in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan is particularly important because neither country is very well known in the Western tourist-generating countries, and unlike neighboring Uzbekistan, neither country inherited a well-developed tourist infrastructure from the Soviet state. This study of tour operators, an understudied yet important group of mediators, provides a new angle for understanding what Nash (1981) refers to as the touristic process. In addition to cultivating a positive image of a new tourist destination, tour operators in Central Asia work hard to develop adequate tourist accommodations, create tourist itineraries, and influence government institutions that support and regulate tourism. …

Insight into relations between the Dzungar and Kazakh Khanates in the 17th - mid-18th centuries shows the important and essential historical role performed by the Oirats in Central Asia during the period under consideration. At the same time, the once complete and well-established Soviet range of views on the history of Russia’s and Kazakhstan’s peoples, as well as other Central Asian states and nations during the mentioned period, tends to fall to pieces nowadays. This requires deep and critical analysis of the accumulated experience pertaining to contemporary historiographic studies (in Kazakhstan) of Kazakh-Dzungar, Russian-Kazakh, Russian-Dzungar relations, including the issues of organizing research on the history of the Dzungar Khanate and Oirats by Kazakhstan’s scholars who, to a certain extent, revise the existing historical ideas which results in a ‘new reading’ of the Kazakh history and that of other peoples involved in centuries-old mutual relations. Thus, when it comes to Kazakh national historiography, the years of state sovereignty are marked by significant development of ‘historical mythology’. This historiographic world-view is vividly represented in the form of Kazakhstan’s ‘alternative history’ which, following the new trends, re-examines historical events one-sidedly. So, the present-day Kazakh historiography introduces significant ‘corrections’ and distortions into the history of Kazakh-Dzungar relations. The article provides a detailed analysis of a number of contemporary Kazakh historiographic works on the history of the Dzungar Khanate; it notes both positive and negative stereotypes inherent to the historical science of Kazakhstan. The 17th - mid-18th cc. Dzungar-Kazakh relations were a key stage in the development of Kazakh statehood and a crucial direction of international relations in the whole of Central Asia. The topic has been investigated in a number of works by western, Chinese, Japanese and Kazakh researchers. And it is the Kazakh historiography which is abundant in most specific accounts of the period under study. The paper considers some concepts adopted by contemporary Kazakh scientists on the topic of Kazakh-Dzungar relations.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in Central Asia five new independent states –Kazakhstan, Kyrgyztan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – found themselves in a highly globalised international system and a liberalized economic order. One of the reflections of the drastic changes in the dynamics of the region is the growing tension over the waters of Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers. Since 1991, transboundary water management has become one of the most complex security problems among newly independent Central Asian states. This article analyses the efforts to form a regional water regime in the region, within the context of a regional security complex explanation, and explores the role of internal and external dynamics on regional cooperation over water resources.