Volume: 2 Issue: 1 (2024) Serial Number: 2

The article examines the structural crisis of the neoliberal university model through a systematic analysis of how market logic erodes academic autonomy in contemporary higher education. The research employs a mixed-method critical-analytical approach that combines a structured synthesis of peer-reviewed literature published between 2015 and 2023, comparative documentary analysis of institutional indicators from the European University Association Autonomy Scorecard and the Academic Freedom Index time-series, and analytical decomposition of governance, financing, and labour regimes across European and Anglo-American higher education systems. The central finding is that the erosion of academic autonomy operates through four coupled mechanisms — financial dependency, managerial governance, evaluative metrification, and discursive recasting of the academic subject — which form a self-reinforcing system rather than independent policy choices. The empirical pattern reveals a structural paradox in which higher education systems with the highest formal scores on institutional autonomy frequently exhibit the most intensive precarity of academic labour and the steepest declines on substantive indicators of academic freedom. The original contribution of this article is the introduction of the analytical framework of coupled mechanisms of autonomy erosion, which clarifies why isolated reforms targeting only one dimension of neoliberalisation systematically fail to restore substantive autonomy. The paper closes with implications for European Higher Education Area policy, arguing that genuine restoration of academic autonomy requires simultaneous intervention across all four mechanisms rather than incremental adjustments. Methodological limitations include reliance on aggregate institutional data and the English-language concentration of the source literature

The article develops a critical analysis of how anthropocentric paradigms structurally constrain the contemporary discourse on climate justice and ecological justice. The research employs a mixed-method critical-analytical approach that integrates a structured synthesis of peer-reviewed literature published between 2015 and 2023, comparative documentary analysis of major institutional indicators including the most recent planetary-boundaries assessment, the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II, and the most recent Lancet Countdown report on health and climate change, and a conceptual decomposition of dominant ethical frameworks across philosophy, environmental humanities, environmental politics, and Earth-system governance. The central finding is that anthropocentric ethics produces three structurally coupled disjunctions in climate-justice discourse — a species disjunction that separates the moral status of humans from that of non-human beings, a temporal disjunction that subordinates the standing of future generations to present preferences, and a spatial disjunction that decouples local moral obligations from planetary ecological dynamics — and that no one disjunction can be ethically resolved without resolving the other two. The empirical pattern documented in the institutional indicators reveals that the failure of climate governance to deliver substantive justice is not a contingent implementation failure but a structural consequence of the persistence of these three disjunctions in dominant ethical frameworks. The original contribution of this article is the introduction of the analytical framework of threefold ethical disjunction, which clarifies why isolated reforms within anthropocentric ethics cannot reconstruct ecological justice and which specifies the conditions under which a non-anthropocentric, multispecies, intergenerational, and planetary ethics could ground a substantive climate-justice imperative. Methodological limitations include reliance on aggregate indicators and the English-language concentration of the source literature.

The article develops a critical analysis of how Foucault's inherited conceptual apparatus — disciplinary power, biopower, and governmentality — must be reconfigured to account for contemporary pandemic surveillance practices that operate simultaneously through corporate platform infrastructures, algorithmic data flows, and necropolitical distributions of harm. The research employs a mixed-method critical-analytical approach that integrates a structured synthesis of peer-reviewed literature published between 2015 and 2023, comparative documentary analysis of the World Health Organisation's interim public-health surveillance guidance and the leading critical sociotechnical case studies of contact-tracing applications, biometric monitoring systems, and digital health passes, and conceptual decomposition of how the Foucauldian inheritance has been mobilised, contested, and extended in the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. The central finding is that contemporary pandemic surveillance operates through four structurally coupled layers — disciplinary surveillance of the individual body, biopolitical regulation of populations through statisticalepidemiological mechanisms, platform-mediated algorithmic surveillance produced by corporate technology actors, and necropolitical distribution of vulnerability across racialised, classed, and politically marginalised populations — and that no one layer can be analytically grasped in isolation from the others. The empirical pattern documented in the institutional indicators reveals that the surveillance practices instituted during the pandemic have not receded with the passing of the acute health emergency but have become naturalised through the recursive coupling of the four layers. The original contribution of this article is the introduction of the analytical framework of four-layer pandemic surveillance, which clarifies why classical accounts that mobilise only one or two of these layers cannot capture the structural specificity of contemporary biopolitical surveillance. The paper closes with implications for surveillance studies and political theory. Methodological limitations include reliance on aggregate institutional indicators and the English-language concentration of the source literature.

Članak razvija kritičku analizu načina na koje su identitet, kolektivno sećanje i transgeneracijska trauma strukturno spregnuti u postkonfliktnim društvima Zapadnog Balkana, sa posebnim fokusom na Bosnu i Hercegovinu, Srbiju, Hrvatsku i Kosovo. Istraživanje primenjuje mešoviti kritičko-analitički pristup koji integriše strukturiranu sintezu recenzirane literature objavljene u periodu 2015-2023, komparativnu dokumentarnu analizu institucionalnih pokazatelja postkonfliktnog upravljanja sećanjem — uključujući zakonske memorijske režime, dugoročna istraživanja psihičke distres-traume preživelih, te studije slučaja komemorativnih praksi vezanih za Srebrenicu, Prijedor, Vukovar i Kosovo — i konceptualnu dekompoziciju postojećih analitičkih okvira u memory studies, transitional justice studies i postkonfliktnoj sociologiji. Centralni nalaz jeste da identitet, sećanje i kolektivna trauma u postkonfliktnim društvima regiona ne deluju kao paralelne, već kao rekurzivno spregnute dimenzije postkonfliktne reprodukcije, i da nijedna dimenzija ne može biti analitički ili politički razrešena u izolaciji od preostale dve. Empirijski obrazac dokumentovan u institucionalnim pokazateljima i u sintetizovanoj literaturi otkriva da postkonfliktne reformske inicijative — od međunarodno nametnutih zakona o sećanju do domaćih politika tranzicione pravde — sistemski podbacuju upravo zato što ciljaju jednu dimenziju ostavljajući druge dve nepromenjenim, što vodi kompenzatornom intenziviranju neizmenjenih dimenzija. Originalan doprinos rada jeste uvođenje analitičkog okvira trijade postkonfliktne reprodukcije, koji rastavlja postkonfliktnu dinamiku regiona na tri spregnute komponente — etnopolitičko sećanje, identitetsku konsolidaciju i transgeneracijsku traumu — i specifikuje povratne sprege kojima svaka komponenta intenzivira preostale dve. Rad zaključuje implikacijama za politike pomirenja u Zapadnom Balkanu, argumentujući da suštinsko pomirenje zahteva istovremenu intervenciju na sve tri komponente trijade, a ne uzastopne ili izolovane reforme. Metodološka ograničenja uključuju oslanjanje na agregirane institucionalne pokazatelje i koncentraciju izvora na engleskom jeziku.

This article reopens an old question with new tools. What is the ontological status of the intentional object, once we accept neither Brentano’s reading of mental directedness as the immanent in-existence of an object nor Husserl’s relocation of that object into the ideal correlate of an act? The recent revival of Brentano scholarship has shown that the standard immanentist picture rests on a misattribution, while contemporary work on phenomenal intentionality, nonexistent objects, and naturalised content has multiplied positions without supplying theoretical psychology with a usable ontology of aboutness. The analysis develops a single original contribution: a framework I call stratified intentional realism, which transposes the Brentano–Husserl problematic into the stratified ontology of critical realism—the distinction between the intransitive and transitive dimensions of inquiry and the domains of the real, the actual, and the empirical. On this account the intentional object is neither an intramental particular nor a mind-independent thing but a transitive-dimension relational structure: real because it is causally relevant within psychological generative mechanisms, yet non-substantial because it carries no existence commitment regarding its relatum. A two-axis typology classifies nine post-Brentanian positions by ontological locus and by whether directedness is construed transitively or intransitively. Applied to theoretical psychology, the framework dissolves three standing problems—the reification of mental representations, the realism–antirealism split over content, and the disciplinary fragmentation diagnosed by realist metatheorists. The method is conceptual and comparative, drawing on primary sources and on the 2019–2023 literature. The principal limitation is that the framework is defended analytically rather than through empirical modelling, and its causal-relevance claim awaits operationalisation