Serbian contemporary fringe Right Wing groups have seen scant interest in scholarship. In this article, we tackle what we have dubbed the militant orthodox fringe Right Wing, namely by investigating their political programs. The groups confronted here are Obraz, 1389, SNP Naši, and the newest addition to the Serbian Right Wing political scene, the Serbian Right. Their political programs will be tackled via their own bullet points, then to be contrasted to existing theoretical scholarship on the Right Wing.

Mainstream pundits and media commentators saw the crisis in US-Turkey relations and the collapse of the Turkish currency in the crucial 2018-19 juncture as a result of Turkey’s refusal to hand over to the US an American Evangelical priest. The analysis here shows that the roots of the conflict in times of crisis contexts, uncertainty and hegemonic instability, go far beyond political epiphenomena. They involve the weaponization of the US Treasury in the service of global power-politics.

Human dignity has been the foundational principle of choice of both international human rights law and domestic constitutional rights provisions since the end of the Second World War. However, in spite of widespread international consent on the importance of this principle, there is a significant degree of confusion regarding its true meaning. Much of this confusion steams from loose usage of the term and its inherent imprecision. This article analyses different meanings of the notion of dignity from semiotic, linguistic, historical, philosophical and social perspective. It takes into account its dual significance in modern times: first, it is the widespread claim that human dignity represents a foundational on which human rights are based on, and second that dignity has obviously power to serve as indirect motivation for numerous and quite different protest movements, which claim to originate from the indisputably deep and often unspecified frustration. The key hypothesis is that the notion’s imprecision is what enables its pervasive use in the public sphere and for different causes. In other words, this article aims at disclosing the paradox of dignity due to the fact it is a highly subjective concept, to a high degree a delicate constituent of (classical) understanding of a person, as well as an element of the (modern) concept of human rights. Furthermore, it is a robust component of the social upheavals across the globe

Drawing upon the extensive literature on populism that has accumulated since the 1960s, this article first tries to characterize contemporary Western populist movements. Having identified “civic” nuances among populist currents of the Left as well as of the Right, and in between them a moderate populist vote expressing disenchantment with government parties, it hypothesizes (on the basis of secondary analysis of existing studies) that the centre of gravity of the populist nebula in the West resides in a reference to the demos, rather than ethnos or plebs, and that the balance of forces within the populist support base is in its favour. It goes on to probe the causes of growing citizen alienation – the main source of populism. It suggests (based on fifteen unstructured interviews) that while the social aspect – the destabilization of the lower/middle classes induced by the neo-liberal order – is important, it does not exhaust the issue. Systems of representative democracy, put in place over two centuries when the masses were uneducated, are not aging well now that average education have considerably increased and majorities want to make themselves heard. Should that demand be ignored, the problem raised would become structural – and more acute: institutional reform in the direction of redefining the relationships between elites and grassroots, majority and minorities, is thus in order – the sooner the better.

In medical language, an iatrogenic disease is one that resulted from the treatment of some other disease. About one sixth of the hospital patients in Scandinavia lie there for diseases that they have gotten from the treatment, often at the hospital. This may sound bad, but actually signifies a great improvement: it is only a century ago since the probability of survival if taken to hospital became greater than if not. There are several factors behind this development. Medical practice has improved, with the idea of Ignaz Semmelweiss that medical staff should wash their hands between different operations as a first major breakthrough (it spread quicker among midwifes than among his doctor colleagues). Medical research and theory has taken great steps ahead, dramatically improving the prognoses of formerly lethal diseases. Medical practice and medical theory have moved from being virtually separate fields to close interaction. Medical ethics has given increasing emphasis to the illegitimacy of the doctor putting his own interests before those of the patient. So while there is still a long road to travel in medicine, the road already travelled is impressive. This paper discusses the effects of attempts by international intervention to “cure” domestic conflicts in various countries in what has been described as an age of globalization. Has any progress been made that is comparable to that in medicine? What can we expect? What results do we actually find?

Globalisation and modernisation were expected to transform the Middle East, by ending regional conflicts and spreading democracy, freedom, prosperity and peace. However, the oil reserves of the Gulf have been the main stake in Western policies that led to wars, not only to benefit the hegemon, but also the health of the world capitalist economy. Instead of democracy and prosperity, neoliberalism has fostered inequality, unemployment, poverty, mass migration and terrorism. Globalisation makes security interdependent; terrorism, gun crime and illegal migration are spill over effects of structural, political and economic insecurity. Iraq today shows how globalisation incites rebellion and radicalisation. The advancement of the neoliberal agenda by industrialised states through globalisation has failed to deliver the economic stability and growth it promised. Through a process of macro-securitisation, relationships, agendas and security dynamics have been consolidated. Globalisation coupled with a universalist narrative have constructed a neoliberal system of economic and ideological dominance, with clearly defined threats to it, regionally and globally. It is those security threats the War on Terror was designed to fight and eliminate, through the neoliberal, universalist narrative of a hegemonic social, political and economic culture. Thus was achieved the implementation of policies and procedures, ideas and cultures, that promote the structures and ideologies that will maintain hegemony.

The Brexit has been just one practical expression of the numerous disintegrative movements that engulfed the EU. It has offered a unique opportunity for questioning the TINA principle both in the European core and its periphery. The paper aims at elaborating the Left case against the EU, and particularly the Lexit, as it is seen generally and from the position of the left-wing movements in Europe and the Balkans. The paper focuses on a few key questions: what is the meaning of ‘L/Exit’? What are the key arguments of the leftwing critique of the EU? If another (progressive) Europe is possible, where is the place of the Balkans in that new architecture? These issues have gained in urgency and importance especially since the 2019 October summit of the EU when the enlargement policy has been put on hold due to the French ‘Non’ to Albania and Macedonia.