The present contribution pays tribute to the late Professor Janusz Symonides by examining the position of United Nations Security Council towards international terrorism. The analysis concentrates on how the phenomenon is perceived by the main political organ of the United Nations, and offers some cursory remarks on its reactions (both actual and potential).

Taking into account that terrorism has grown in recent years, the EU institutions decided to update the legal framework which provides for fighting this phenomenon. Consequently, the Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA was replaced by the EU Directive 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating terrorism, which should be implemented by the Member States by 8 September 2018. This new act contains a long list of terrorist offences, offences related to a terrorist group, and offences related to terrorist activities. It also stipulates penal sanctions for terrorist offences and provides measures of protection, support and assistance for terrorism victims. This article is a commentary on these groups of provisions and compares them to the previously binding ones. Thus, it indicates the legal changes introduced by the Directive which have to be taken into account by the Member States while implementing it. The comparison of these new provisions with the previously binding ones is also helpful in answering the question posed in the title: Can the Directive 2017/541 be treated as a new chapter in combating terrorism by the European Union?

The contemporary warfare seems to have great influence on the way social sciences position themselves within the socio-political contexts of today. This is being implemented in many cases by the geopolitical context of 9/11 and the fall of former centers of power (end of the Cold War). Cultural anthropology, which shared a similar dilemma in the formative period of its own history provides us today with one of the most controversial examples in this matter. The program initiated by US Army back in 2006 called Human Terrain System started a wide spread debate on ethical issues regarding doing ethnographic fieldwork in a militarized landscape. HTS became thus a field of intellectual and political polemics between certain groups of researches. The academic and political debate on HTS seems to be put in a post-colonial context as a new form of mixing of science and ideology. This paper tackles the problem of emergence of a new type of anthropological understanding of the cultural other and as well its own methods and ethical standards in a situation, where crisis seems to be a permanent state of the discipline and the world its trying to describe.

Asma Jahangir, the prominent Pakistani lawyer and human rights activist, who had received several awards for her courageous work, passed away on February 11, 2018. Her untimely death at the age of 66 was mourned by a wide public, not only in Pakistan. The newspaper obituaries particularly highlighted her accomplishments and campaigns on behalf of women, children, religious minorities, poor and disenfranchised communities. The deceased “voice of the voiceless” is probably best known for her advocacy on the rights of the most vulnerable and disempowered sections of society and her uncompromising commitment to democratic principles. However, another aspect of Asma Jahangir’s legacy, her thoughts and insights on political power mechanisms in Pakistan and beyond, has so far been rather neglected. With her long-term experience as a lawyer, an activist, and a UN Special Rapporteur, Asma Jahangir often offered useful reflections on the main causes of human rights abuses in Pakistan and the neighbouring countries. Among other things, she pointed to the detrimental effects of the politics of sectarianization and securitization, and also stressed the ongoing aspiration of a great part of the population in the global South to live a dignified life. On the basis of selected publications, reports, and interviews, this paper will provide a number of Asma Jahangir’s explanations for national, regional, and international shortcomings and structural problems (fragile democracies, undermined rule of law; the influence of militant non-state actors; regional/international interconnections and constraints, etc.) which remain relevant under the current conditions.

This article attempts to formulate a new interpretation of the mysterious messianic character marked "Forty and Four" from the Vision of Priest Piotr in Adam Mickiewicz's poetic drama Dziady ( Forefathers' Eve), Part III. After a review of earlier readings of this crux and its symbolism, the author of the article presents his own proposal, which contextualizes the enigmatic number in three historical frameworks. The first of them is ancient history, and, more specifically, 'Forty four' is seen as a reference to the Ides of March in 44 B.C., the date on which Julius Caesar was assassinated by a group of conspirators led by Brutus. The other two relevant contexts are the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, and the high tides of modern history culminating in tyrannicide. In effect, the 'Forty four' passage is seen as an affirmation or even a sacralization of tyrannicide, symbolized by not only by inexplicit references to Brutus and the Israelite heroine Judith. It is a theme which reverberates not only in Dziady but also throughout Adam Mickiewicz's work.