- Alle tidsskrifter
- Helse- og sosialfag
- Humanistiske fag
- Pedagogikk og utdanning
Since 1989, groups defining themselves as «Legionary» have appeared across Romania while attempting to revitalise Corneliu Zelea Codreanu’s (1899–1938) ultranationalistic Legionary Movement, also known as the Iron Guard and the Legion of Michael the Archangel. Based on original material and interviews, this article explores the neo-Legionary worldview with emphasis on the mythical and religious dimension of the enemy imagery. Quoting Codreanu’s motto «as long as there is one Legionary, the Legion exists», neo-Legionaries reinterpret and adapt the pre-Communist project to a post-Communist situation and call for a national, spiritual revolution to cleanse Romanian society of evil forces. So far, the neo-Legionary project has had limited success, at least in terms of organisation and political influence. Often at loggerheads with each other, the various neo-Legionary actors are nevertheless united by this particular discourse and symbolism, which is an idiosyncratic brand of mysticism, fascism, Romanian folklore, ethnic nationalism, anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, and a version of Romanian Orthodox Christianity.
Relying on quantitative data from the United Nations General Assembly voting records for the period 1992–2011, this study analyses developments in the foreign policy behaviour of the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States. It finds that the general level of disagreement among the member states has increased significantly and that policies have become more radicalized, causing member states to hold directly opposing views still more often. It also finds that a majority of member states, led by Russia, have converged on the foreign policy mean, causing the core of the organisation to become still denser.
This article investigates the migration of students to northern Norway from northern Russia on a quota programme. On finishing their education, the students are expected to repatriate to their home country, but this and earlier studies show that many students do not repatriate. The reasons they migrate and do not leave the country they have moved to are explored. Contrary to the common view on Russian migration, namely that most migration occurs on economic grounds, this study looks into migration as simply lifestyle. Lifestyle migration is viewed as the search for a better country to live in. Through narratives by previous and present students of the programme, the study reflects on the differences between a student’s former country and the new one. We find that there are different reasons for migration, the main ones being adventure and freedom. Free to make their own choices and flexibility in both work and free time, the students are able to make choices they are unable to make in their home country. Furthermore, reasons such as peace and stability are also important. Migration is therefore explained as choice of lifestyle.