This article investigates the artistic milieu of the Qajar dynasty through a critical analysis of the distinctive and sophisticated style of Mahmud Khan Malek al-Shuʿarā (1813–93), contextualizing his work alongside that of his contemporaries, with particular emphasis on Kamal al-Mulk (1859–1940), the most renowned painter of the period. Through close analysis of selected paintings, this study reveals the layered complexity of Mahmud Khan’s visual language and underscores the broader interplay between Qajar art and European artistic traditions. Although this inquiry does not seek to provide a reading of modern Iranian art, it contends that Mahmud Khan’s oeuvre warrants serious critical attention—especially within non–Persian language scholarship—as a pivotal yet overlooked juncture in Iranian art history and a missed opportunity for articulating a meaningful continuum between Iran’s classical aesthetic heritage and its modern visual expression.

The cessation of the Russian Federation’s membership in the Council of Europe (CoE) under Article 58 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 8 of the Statute of the CoE is an important decision in the wake of Russian aggression against Ukraine involving serious human rights violations. Consequently, Russia’s disengagement from CoE mechanisms means Russians and other victims of human rights abuses seeking justice are no longer protected by the ECHR, as of September 16, 2022, thus affecting the human rights protection framework in Europe amidst the war. This implies that Russia no longer has a judge in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) under Article 20 of the ECHR. Its citizens will no longer be able to appeal against their government to the ECtHR under the individual ECHR applications mechanism, raising serious concerns about Russians’ lack of access to the ECtHR and the non-implementation of ECtHR judgments, which tests the reach and resilience of Europe’s human rights framework in protecting peace and security in the region.

In this context, the authors argue that since the ECtHR no longer exercises its jurisdiction in Russia, it is necessary to analyze the Rome Statute’s role in this regard. A possible solution can be found in European Union (EU) nations undertaking national investigations through mutual partnerships against the individuals who have committed atrocities of international concern, such as crimes against humanity or war crimes, based on the principle of international jurisdiction, to reestablish international peace and security.

This paper draws upon the theoretical literature on migration policy and health, and empirical data on three European states with differing welfare models – Sweden (social democrat), France (conservative), and the United Kingdom (liberal) – during Covid-19, to highlight the often hidden and contradictory politics through which refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants were forced to navigate during the most uncertain period of the pandemic. Although migrants’ treatment during Covid-19 was generally better in Sweden with a social democrat welfare tradition, we see migration management priorities greatly undermining the extent to which welfare systems function overall for the benefit of population health. Furthermore, Sweden’s recent political shift to the right exacerbates those negative tendencies. As the paper shows, there was considerable effort by civil society and local government to fill the gap where national governments failed to protect this group, stepping in to provide health information, and support.

This paper draws together the connections between the concepts of critical human security and state capacity and explores their relevance as a novel analytical framework for exploring the global pandemic and its aftermath, with a particular focus on Europe and East Asia. The paper highlights the relevance of integrating a ‘state capacity for human security’ analytical lens and policy philosophy to inform an understanding of human (in)security as well as its relevance for concerns around social protection, sustainability, and inequality. We argue that the long-held and taken-for-granted assumption that larger, high-spending welfare states produce greater well-being security can no longer be an automatic supposition given the nature and sources of risk and insecurity in the contemporary world. We argue that that widening the parameters and focus of social policy analysis towards state capacity for critical human security might better highlight the multi-dimensional challenges that welfare states should seek to address.

A museum should be a place where cultures, dialogue, and social relations are enhanced. Given the renewed public interest in the topic, the author poses the question: Is there a need and a possibility to decolonize ethnographic museums? Should we have common and shared practices? In an attempt to eliminate colonial vestiges in museums, an analysis of literature and practices leads the author to analyze five European ethnographic museums in order to understand their merits and shortcomings. The subjectivity of these institutions and the diversity with which colonization can be presented makes the proposal of a single generalized solution not preferable. An objective analysis, based on actions and variables, drives the author to determine, however, that in order to revitalize museum practices, there is a need to create a sharable framework. The design of minimum standards can help museums set clear and measurable goals to achieve a higher level of decolonization.

Appeals to “decolonize” now range widely, from decolonizing the university to decolonizing Russia. This article poses the question of what work the concept of decolonization can and cannot do. It underscores how much can be learned about how decolonization came about if one explores the different goals that activists sought in their time. It suggests that if instead of looking for a colonial “legacy,” we explore historical trajectories of colonization and decolonization, we can reveal how political, economic, and social structures in both ex-colonies and ex-metropoles were shaped and reshaped over time. Finally, it brings into conversation with the literature on the decolonization of the empires of Western European states more recent scholarship on Russia and the Soviet Union, pointing to different forms of imperial rule and imperial collapse and also to the possibility of “reimperialization,” of reconstituting empire in new contexts.

Archaeologists have long investigated the rise of inequality in prehistoric Europe. I argue that images of steadily increasing inequality are usually based on cherry-picking outstanding cases and selectively interpreting the results. Based on a large-scale qualitative assessment of the Central Mediterranean, I make two claims. First, a broad review of evidence suggests that social inequality was not a major organizing principle of most prehistoric societies. Instead, throughout prehistory, inequality formed part of a heterogeneous, heterarchical social order. Second, this was not simply due to historical chance or stagnation. As my outline of the “people’s history” of prehistoric Europe suggests, many of the archaeologically most visible developments in every period were actively aimed at undermining, encapsulating, or directing the potential development of hierarchy. In this sense, Europe’s long prehistory of limited and ambiguous hierarchy does not represent a failure of social evolution but rather widespread success in developing tactics for maintaining equality.

The aim of this study was to describe how the detection of protozoan and helminth parasites has been affected by the introduction of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and changes in test algorithms. We extracted data about faecal samples tested for parasites (n = 114839) at five Norwegian clinical microbiology laboratories. Samples were classified into prePCR or postPCR depending on whether they were submitted before or after the introduction of PCR, and into diagnostic episodes (n = 99320). The number of diagnostic episodes increased 3.7-fold from prePCR to postPCR. Giardia positive episodes doubled, the positivity rate decreased from 2.0% to 1.3%. Cryptosporidium was hardly detected prePCR and increased to a positivity rate of 1.2%. Entamoeba histolytica was rarely found. Episodes examined for helminths decreased 51%, the number of positive episodes decreased 34%. Samples from immigrants were more likely to be positive for Giardia, E. histolytica, or helminths and less likely to be Cryptosporidium positive. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of Giardia and helminth-positive episodes decreased. Cryptosporidium-positive episodes remained unchanged. The implementation of multiplex PCR for protozoa led to a doubling of Giardia cases and a better test for Cryptosporidium. Fewer microscopy examinations raise concerns that helminth infections may be overlooked.

The caryophyllidean tapeworm Khawia armeniaca has long been regarded as an exceptionally widespread species within its genus, notable for its significant morphological variability. However, with the accumulation of molecular data from different fish hosts, K. armeniaca was suspected to represent a species complex. To clarify the true identity of these parasites, a comprehensive morphological and molecular study (using 18S, 28S and ITS2 ribosomal regions) of K. armeniaca tapeworms from barbels (Barbinae) across the Iberian Peninsula and the Middle East has been conducted. The results revealed two genetically distinct lineages within the K. armeniaca complex. The first lineage, found in Arabibarbus grypus, Barbus lacerta, Capoeta birunii, Carassobarbus luteus, Luciobarbus barbulus, L. esocinus and L. kersin in Iraq and Iran, is genetically congruent with K. armeniaca (Cholodkovsky, 1915), originally described from the Sevan khramulya (Capoeta sevangi) in Armenia. The second lineage, identified in Luciobarbus bocagei (type host), L. comizo and L. guiraonis from Portugal and Spain, is described as Khawia iberica n. sp. In addition to clear molecular divergence, K. iberica can be distinguished from K. armeniaca by notable morphological differences, including variations in the shape, structure and size of the ovary, the anterior extension of the vitelline follicles, the testes and several morphometric parameters.