This paper offers a reading of Aristotle’s view of two-way powers and points out where related views about Aristotle and two-way powers can go wrong. It argues that Aristotelian two-way powers consist in, and are based in, systematic knowledge; that they are all, without exception, principles of change in another, or in oneself as other; and that the topic of voluntary action in Aristotle is a quite different topic. It follows from this that the Aristotelian view of two-way powers has nothing much to do with freedom. The paper also argues that Aristotle’s view of two-way powers is the best in the history of Western philosophy, because it’s the only view on which both contrary exercises of the power are explained as no accident, relative to the power. Subsequent views of two-way powers tend to violate the general principle that powers explain their actualizations as no accident, relative to the power.

In the complex landscape of early twenty-first-century geopolitics, racial ideologies and the concept of the “color line” continue to shape international relations. Charles Henry Pearson, in his seminal work National Life and Character: A Forecast (1893), introduced the idea of “unchangeable limits of the higher races,” theorizing that European “higher races” are bound by natural and climatic constraints that prevent them from fully dominating regions populated by “lower races,” such as Africans, Chinese, Indians, and Indigenous peoples. Pearson predicted that these lower races would eventually outnumber and challenge European dominance, reflecting a deterministic view of global racial dynamics.

This study examines the life and multifaceted legacy of Veled Çelebi İzbudak (1869–1953)—a Mevlevi sheikh, Ottoman bureaucrat, and key figure in Turkish linguistic reform. Positioned at the intersection of tradition and shifting sociopolitical dynamics, İzbudak’s career exemplifies how Sufi intellectuals actively engaged with and negotiated the ideological and administrative transformations from the late Ottoman empire to the early Turkish republic. By situating İzbudak within the broader historical transformations of his era, the article highlights his engagement with significant reforms, such as the closure of Sufi lodges (1925) and the language reform (1928), revealing his dual role as a preserver of religious heritage and a proponent of modern state-building initiatives. Through an analysis of his memoirs, writings, and official correspondence, this research uncovers how İzbudak reconciled his Sufi commitments with the nationalist ideals of the republic, emphasising his advocacy for Turkish linguistic preservation as a bridge between Ottoman Sufi legacies and the emerging cultural identity of modern Turkiye. Challenging the reductive portrayal of Sufi figures as passive in the face of reform, the study argues that İzbudak exemplifies the nuanced agency of Sufi bureaucrats, offering a deeper understanding of their contributions to cultural, linguistic, and political transformations during a pivotal period in Turkish history.

Armed conflicts often spill over from the land to the sea, rendering the law of naval warfare key for governing such conflicts. Against this background, the United States Naval War College developed the Newport Manual on the Law of Naval Warfare (Newport Manual) in 2023, which attempted to codify the existing rules of customary international law. However, this manual differs from the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts (San Remo Manual), adopted in 1994, particularly regarding the rights of neutral coastal States over their exclusive economic zones (EEZs). While the San Remo Manual requires belligerents to have due regard for such rights, the Newport Manual assumes that such due regard is not required under customary international law. These divergences are derived from different understandings of the relationship between the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the law of naval warfare. This article analyses this by examining the two manuals as well as the domestic military manuals of maritime powers. It concludes that due regard should be paid to neutral States’ EEZ rights, but the standard of due regard during an armed conflict differs from that applicable during peacetime.

In this essay, I analyse how practices of press denunciation operated within Hungary and impacted the theatrical landscape during the Cold War era. I examine how this technique of denunciatory criticism was transformed in Hungary with the change from the Stalinist ideocratic field of power to a post-Stalinist, now post-ideocratic, system, and also how denunciatory theatre criticism in the press, in its most severe form in the given circumstances, operated in this system. Adopting a structural approach, my aim is to examine what I am calling the ‘denunciatory article or criticism’ – the published article denouncing a particular artist or work aiming at ‘withdrawing from circulation’ the targeted artist, work or, indirectly, sometimes a whole series of artworks, or an entire movement. I argue that the denunciatory article is part of the system of state cultural control rather than simply aesthetic criticism. I am taking a well-known case in Hungary – the neo-avant-garde artists of Balatonboglár – to explore the operations of sociopolitical and professional power that resulted in the exile of these artists from Hungary in the early 1970s. In an era of ‘fake news’ and of increasing censorship of publications, this operation of power is becoming increasingly relevant and urgent.