When public employees make administrative decisions affecting individuals, they exercise governmental power. The subjects affected by these decisions are often in a vulnerable position, generating an asymmetrical power relationship, which is why reason-giving – justifications – for administrative decisions serves a central role in communicating why a certain decision was taken. The aims of this article are to clarify the legal and philosophical reasons why public authorities have an obligation to justify the decisions they make and explore whether providing reasons for decisions can be seen as a human right. We do this by critically examining the obligation's legal and moral foundations, and we subsequently discuss to what extent it is reasonable to consider it a human right to have decisions justified. We conclude that when sufficient reasons for a decision are missing, the affected individual is deprived of crucial information, impairing their capacity to assess on what grounds the decision was taken, which we argue is a violation of their right to moral autonomy and self-government, and ultimately a violation of their right to justification.

Geographers have long addressed the spatial dynamics of injustice, examining how various processes shape inequitable geographies. Despite extensive research by geographers into the causes of injustice, however, there is a notable absence of specific analyses of its opposite, justice, by geographers, as intuitive assessments of justness tend to take priority over more robust analytical frameworks. In an effort to address this lacuna, this article introduces a methodological framework and toolkit aimed at more comprehensively evaluating justice within geographic and geography-adjacent research. Through a three-step process-describing geographical conditions of injustice, relating these descriptions to justice theories, and normatively evaluating the qualities of justice and injustice - the methodology facilitates a deeper understanding of justice in geographical contexts. Our intention behind this framework is to encourage scholars to critically assess justice and injustice as a dialectic within their research foci, and in doing so, more effectively assert the relative justness of a given set of geographical circumstances.

This Perspective suggests six conceptual propositions to advance care-centric planning and governance in support of SDG 11. By prioritizing relationships, responsiveness, and collective well-being, while also integrating empowerment, environmental stewardship, and cultural diversity, a care-centric approach fosters more inclusive and sustainable cities. Drawing on selected practice-based examples, we illustrate care’s potential to inspire novel governance approaches, and to stimulate discussion about urban planning for more just and resilient urban environments.

The political environment in Belarus has been notably turbulent since the 2020 presidential election, which was marred by extensive protests and accusations of electoral fraud. This period has seen an intensifying suppression of dissent, profoundly impacting multiple facets of society, especially the academic sector. State-led oppressive measures, including detentions, dismissals, threats, and surveillance, have severely restricted fundamental human rights and academic freedoms, forcing numerous academics to either leave the country or drastically change their career paths. This paper examines the repercussions of the political unrest in Belarus following the 2020 presidential election on the academic community, particularly focusing on scholars who have sought exile in Lithuania, Poland, Sweden, and Germany. Employing surveys and interviews, the study explores how diminished academic freedoms and increased state surveillance have impacted these academics’ ability to engage in and contribute to democratic discourses and practices. The research analyses how the exile of these scholars influences knowledge production and dissemination, both within Belarus and across Europe. This study seeks to understand how exiled scholars continue to uphold academic and democratic values despite facing significant challenges, thereby highlighting the roles of repression, resilience, and rights in shaping the academic landscape. The findings address the immediate needs of displaced scholars and envision the establishment of a democratic academic culture in Belarus, contributing significant insights into the dynamics of academic migration within the EU, particularly concerning scholars - at all academic levels - at risk. The paper also discusses strategies to mitigate the impact of political repression on academic freedom and integrity.

This Uppsala Forum and ENLIGHT initiation workshop will be held at the Institute of Russian and Eurasian Studies (IRES), Uppsala University. Its aim is to become the inaugural event for establishing a network to facilitate regular joint educational and research activities on Belarus among the involved universities. A relatively large country in Eastern Europe, Belarus is profoundly affected by the intricacies of security and confrontations at various levels, including domestic, regional, across broader Europe, across the entire continent and globally. These complex social and security situations impact not only Belarus but also neighboring countries and broader Europe. Therefore, it is essential to develop effective interdisciplinary tools to understand the complexities of Belarus and its society. Equally crucial is expanding our knowledge on it through research networks and university curricula.

The workshop brings together experienced scholars, early-career researchers (PhD candidates and postdocs) and students from five ENLIGHT universities. It will connect Uppsala University with Ghent University (Ghent Institute for International and European Studies), University of Göttingen (Centre for Modern East Asian Studies, Seminar for Slavic Philology), University of Groningen (Department of European Languages and Cultures) and University of Tartu (Institute of Cultural Research).