Category: The Conversation

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alvina Hoffmann, Lecturer in Diplomatic Studies, Department of Politics and International Studies, SOAS, University of London

The United States has imposed sanctions against the UN’s special rapporteur in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese. It’s an unprecedented situation. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, cited as the reason her direct engagement with the International Criminal Court “in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel”.

The statement also described Albanese’s “threatening letters to dozens of entities worldwide, including major American companies” as an escalation of her strategies. The sanctions were framed as preventing “illegitimate ICC overreach and abuse of power” and as part of Trump’s Executive Order 14203 on imposing sanctions on the ICC.

This raises the question: who are special rapporteurs and why would Albanese’s performance of her role elicit such a strong reaction from the US? Special rapporteurs are independent human rights experts, part of the UN Human Rights Council’s special procedures system established in 1979. There are 46 “thematic mandates” on issues such as extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and the environment, and 14 “country mandates”, including in Palestine.

Experts on human rights from academia, advocacy, law and other relevant professional fields are appointed to fulfil a variety of tasks. These include undertaking country visits, sending communications to states about individual cases of human rights violations, developing international human rights standards, engaging in advocacy and providing technical cooperation based on their legal and thematic expertise.

In 1967, 22 years after it was set up, the United Nations established institutional provisions for independent experts on human rights. This happened first in 1967 when it appointed an ad hoc working group of experts on apartheid and racial discrimination in southern Africa. In 1968 the same group of experts was appointed to investigate “Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories”. This is still in place today.

Neither South Africa nor Israel allowed experts to enter their territories to inspect their human rights record at the time. But in 2003, nearly a decade after it first held democratic elections, South Africa issued a standing invitation to all thematic special procedures, meaning they committed themselves, at least in theory, to always accept requests to visit from rapporteurs.

Attacks on individual rapporteurs

Albanese, a specialist in international human rights law, is the eighth rapporteur since the creation of her mandate in 1993. She was appointed to this pro bono position in 2022 for three years, and her mandate was recently renewed for another period of three years.

It was her most recent report from June 30 which led to her being sanctioned by the US. The report focused on the role of the corporate sector in “colonial endeavours and associated genocides” and named over 60 companies as “complicit”.

A host of institutions and leading human rights figures have come to her defence. Agnes Callamard, a former special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, now the secretary general of Amnesty international noted the “chilling effects for all special rapporteurs” of the US decision. Top UN human rights officials denounced this dangerous precedent and called for its reversal.

In February 2024, the government of Israel declared Albanese persona non grata in response to her remark that “the victims of the October 7 massacre were not murdered because of their Jewishness, but in response to Israeli oppression”. As with the newly imposed sanctions, she called this step a distraction and called upon the world to keep their focus on Gaza.

Diplomatic immunity

Special rapporteurs are granted diplomatic immunity which, in theory, should enable them to speak up or write critical reports without the fear of reprisals. But in 1989 and 1999 the ICJ had to intervene with an advisory opinion on two cases when this status was jeopardised after the home countries of two special rapporteurs tried to restrict their freedom of speech. This involved Romanian national Dumitru Mazilu, tasked with writing a report on “Human rights and youth”, and Malaysian national Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

Special rapporteurs wrote a collective letter denouncing the second case, when the Malaysian government filed several legal proceedings against Cumaraswamy. The body of experts called this “judicial harassment of a special rapporteur” and “a challenge to the status of the United Nations as a whole, its officials and its experts on mission”.

Special rapporteurs occupy an ambiguous institutional position. They take their mandate from the Human Rights Council, but they act in their personal capacity, and hence are not considered to be UN officials. In practice, they need to balance relations carefully between the UN secretariat, civil society, state representatives and, at times, their own countries.

The advisory opinions helped clarify that it was the secretary general, as the head of the United Nations, that entrusts them with the privileges of diplomatic immunity. The arrangement also leaves the door open for national courts to disagree with the secretary general. This enabled individual countries in some cases to exercise some form of control over their own nationals.

The recent attack on Albanese adds to the broader budgetary crisis of the UN, as the Trump administration is withholding funds of about US$1.5 billion (£1.2 billion) in addition to other countries such as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. These are serious challenges for the UN human rights and humanitarian aid programmes. As past cases of attacks against individual rapporteurs have shown, it is important for all rapporteurs to stand together as one body and defend the integrity of the system as a whole.

Despite these attacks on her integrity and person, Albanese maintains faith in the human rights law instruments. As she stated during a public talk I attended at SOAS University of London in November 2024, we are yet to unlock the full potential of these instruments. This can only be done as a collective.

Alvina Hoffmann has previously been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (UKRI).

– ref. The US has sanctioned UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese – here’s why she’s the wrong target – https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-sanctioned-un-special-rapporteur-francesca-albanese-heres-why-shes-the-wrong-target-261788

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University

Protests have erupted in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities against a new law that threatens the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions. The legislation was hastily passed on July 22 by parliament and signed by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, that same day.

It places Ukraine’s national anti-corruption bureau and its special anti-corruption prosecutor’s office under the direct control of the prosecutor general, one of Zelensky’s appointed officials. Zelensky has argued that the measure was necessary to address Russian infiltration of anti-corruption bodies.

Critics of the measure, however, believe the real purpose of the law is to give the president the power to quash ongoing investigations into alleged corruption by members of his inner circle. These include his close ally and former deputy prime minister, Oleksiy Chernyshov.

Politicians from opposition parties and civil society activists also regard the new law as an example of the president attempting to take advantage of wartime conditions to silence critics and consolidate power.

The protests have involved thousands of ordinary people. This includes veterans of the war against Russia’s invasion, some with visible war injuries such as missing limbs. Anger at the attempt to curb the independence of anticorruption bodies has broken the informal agreement between the government and Ukrainian society to show a united front to the world while the war continues.

The protests may be the most serious domestic political challenge Zelensky has faced since he was elected president in 2019.

Formally, Zelensky’s political position is secure. His Servant of the People party holds the majority of seats in parliament and governs without the constraints of coalition partners. Zelensky and his party will also not face voters anytime soon. There is a ban on holding elections during martial law, which is due to continue for the duration of the war.

Zelensky is not unpopular in Ukraine. According to a survey conducted in June by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, Zelensky’s personal popularity was running at 65%. This is down from the heady heights of 90% in the first few months after Russia’s 2022 invasion, but up significantly from 52% in December 2024.

However, Zelensky was quick to respond to the street protests by promising to reverse the new law. He said he would submit a new bill to parliament to restore independence to the agencies. The speed of his response reveals the sensitivity of the president – and indeed most Ukrainian politicians – to criticism on the corruption issue.

Why corruption is a big issue

Corruption is a topic that resonates strongly with Ukrainian society. Anger at the corruption of Viktor Yanukovych’s presidency fuelled the Maidan protests of 2013 and 2014, which began in response to his decision to break off negotiations with the EU and instead pursue closer political and economic ties with Russia.

The “revolution of dignity” that followed robustly rejected Yanukovych’s leadership and his policies, and ultimately saw him ousted from power. The revolution was a resounding demonstration of the strength of Ukraine’s civil society and its determination to hold its elected officials to account.

Any suggestion that Ukraine is failing to address corruption is also a matter of great concern for Ukraine’s international supporters. This is especially the case for major lenders such as the International Monetary Fund. Its willingness to disperse the large loans that help keep the Ukrainian economy functioning depends on Kyiv reaching the good governance milestones it sets.

European leaders have expressed concern at the new law and the possibility that Zelensky may be taking a backwards step when it comes to dealing with corruption.

President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, phoned Zelensky to express her strong concerns and ask for an explanation for diluting the independence of anti-corruption bodies. French and German leaders have also indicated that they intend to hold discussions with Zelensky about the issue.

Meanwhile, Russia has been quick to take advantage of the protests in Ukraine. According to intelligence from Ukraine’s ministry of defence, Moscow has already distributed doctored photographs of the protesters that show them holding pro-Russian signs. It has falsely claimed that Ukrainians are coming on to the streets to demand an immediate end to the war.

So far, there are no indications that these protests will spill over from demanding the reversal of one controversial piece of legislation into calls for a change of government. Some protesters have even been explicit in their remarks to the media that they are broadly supportive of Zelensky, but are calling on him to take action on this specific issue.

However, Zelensky cannot afford to be complacent. He needs to act quickly to keep his domestic and international supporters on side. A great deal of effort has been expended to demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to democratic values and its suitability to join western institutions like the EU and Nato. Any hint of backsliding on anti-corruption could undermine that message.

Ukrainians continue to be remarkably united in their support for the war effort and their approval of the armed forces. But the mobilisation process is itself tainted with corruption. Ordinary citizens are reluctant to respond to the state’s call for more soldiers when it is widely known that the family members of powerful and wealthy Ukrainians are able to avoid military service and instead lead comfortable lives abroad.

Zelensky cannot afford to let dissatisfaction with corruption grow. Even if it does not threaten his hold on power today, society’s anger at corrupt practices and the inequalities they create is already damaging the war effort. Ukraine’s political leaders need to demonstrate that their commitment to democracy is as strong as that of the society that they lead.

Jennifer Mathers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Ukrainian protests: Zelensky faces biggest threat to his presidency since taking power – https://theconversation.com/ukrainian-protests-zelensky-faces-biggest-threat-to-his-presidency-since-taking-power-261876

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marcel Vondermassen, Scientific Coordinator and Deputy Executive Manager of the IZEW, University of Tübingen

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, recently signed a decree to withdraw from the Ottawa convention banning the use of anti-personnel landmines. This move follows the example of Finland, Poland, Estonia and Lithuania, who all quit the treaty in recent months.

The logic behind these states withdrawing from the treaty is mostly because of the threat posed by Russia. At first glance landmines seem like a cost-effective way to deter or slow an invader. Proponents see them as a necessary evil to protect national sovereignty against the threat from a much larger conventional force deployed by an aggressive neighbour.

But this short-term thinking can be dangerous, because it doesn’t consider the long-term cost of putting explosive devices into the ground. According to the Landmine Monitor for 2024, more than 110,000 people were killed by landmines and explosive remnants of war in the past 25 years, and over 5,700 died just last year. Eight out of ten of those killed were civilians, many of whom were children.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

Although it is cheap to lay landmines, demining is expensive and creates a financial burden for future generations. The UN estimates that it can cost between five and 100 times more to clear a mine than to lay one, depending on the circumstances.

In Angola, for example, demining efforts continue nearly 50 years after the civil war broke out and 23 years after it ended. Encouragingly, Angola has reduced the threat with help of Halo Trust, a UK-based nongovernmental organisation. In 30 years they destroyed over 123,000 landmines. But to get Angola landmine free will require about US$240 million (£177 million) in additional funding.

While Angola aims to be landmine-free within a few years, the current scale of contamination in Ukraine will pose a deadly hazard to civilians for generations, as Sarah Njeri – a landmines expert at SOAS, University of London, wrote in 2023.

Looking through the prism of peace

What Europe needs today is better analysis and more public awareness of the current crisis and its long-term effects. This is a tricky task, especially for the media, because the violence is “asynchronous”. This means that mines can be laid years before anyone is harmed by them. It’s important to have open and honest conversations in public so that both politicians and the public have something clear and trustworthy to rely on when making these fateful decisions.

This means accepting that the concerns of the Baltic nations, Poland and Finland are valid. Their actions are a response the threat posed by Russia and the uncertainty surrounding America’s future role on the world stage. But there’s also an opportunity. Nobody in these countries takes the decision to use landmines lightly. This means, that if their European allies can provide credible security guarantees, these countries might change their plans.

Nevertheless, the Peace Report 2025, compiled by four leading German peace research institutes, highlights that this way of thinking remains rooted in a military mindset. The planned increase in military budgets among Nato countries should be complemented by greater investment in diplomacy, peace research and peace building.

The Peace Report lists nine recommendations for a more peaceful world, which are not pacifist. They recognise the need to close the gaps in European defence capabilities – but this is not enough. To create a peaceful Europe the legitimate security interests of all sides need to be considered. This includes Russia. At the same time, the report emphasises the need to strengthen, not weaken, the rules-based order. Abandoning the Ottawa treaty will further weaken that order.

Withdrawing from the landmine treaty is not just a military calculation, and it affects more than just eastern European countries. It’s an issue that presents a real challenge to Europe as a whole. Laying mines would litter future farmland and forests with an indiscriminate threat that recognises no ceasefire and cannot distinguish friend from enemy, combatant from civilian or adult from child.

If we don’t learn from the past, future reports will still be counting thousands of child casualties, but from the landmines laid in the 2020s.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Marcel Vondermassen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Ukraine joins other Russian neighbours in quitting landmines treaty: another deadly legacy in the making – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-joins-other-russian-neighbours-in-quitting-landmines-treaty-another-deadly-legacy-in-the-making-261684

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Petra Alderman, Manager of the Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science

There has been a dramatic escalation in a long-running border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia. On July 23, five Thai soldiers from a border patrol unit in Ubon Ratchathani province were seriously injured after stepping on a land mine – a second such incident in a week.

This prompted the Thai government to expel Cambodia’s ambassador from the country and recall its own ambassador from Cambodia. The following morning, Cambodia retaliated by expelling the Thai ambassador and recalling its embassy staff from Bangkok. Both sides have exchanged increasingly lethal fire.

Cambodia has fired rockets and artillery across the Thai border into several provinces, killing at least 11 civilians and one soldier. Thailand launched air strikes at Cambodia in return, reportedly targeting military bases in the disputed area around the Preah Vihear Hindu temple. Verified information is currently scarce as both sides are blaming each other for starting the fight.

The current flare-up started in late May, when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a exchange of fire between the two armies. But the roots of the conflict date back to the colonial era in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Before European powers expanded their colonial interests to south-east Asia, the concept of a bordered nation-state was alien to local rulers. Life in pre-colonial south-east Asia was organised into loosely structured polities that had no clear boundaries.

There were several larger cities, which served as important centres of power and trade, and many smaller towns and villages that maintained relations with these cities. The further these towns and villages were from the cities, the less control and influence the cities had over them.

The British and French introduced the concept of nations with borders to mainland south-east Asia, drawing the first official maps of Thailand (then known as Siam) and Cambodia. In the case of Thailand, the only south-east Asian nation never to be formally colonised, the mapping was also done at the request of the Siamese kings.

Thailand’s current borders were shaped by several different maps and treaties that followed the 1893 Paknam incident, during which two French gunboats sailed up the Chao Praya River and blockaded Bangkok.

To preserve its sovereignty as an emerging nation, Siam ceded considerable territorial claims to France after this incident. This included several provinces in present-day Cambodia, which are home to ancient temples.

A 1907 map drawn by the French defined these territories, although with a considerable degree of vagueness. The map became a sore point in Cambodia-Thai relations following Cambodia’s independence in 1953, especially in regard to disputes over the Preah Vihear temple.

Preah Vihear temple

Following France’s withdrawal from south-east Asia in 1954, Thailand occupied Preah Vihear. Cambodia raised the issue of Thai occupation with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled in 1962 that the temple belonged to Cambodia based on the French map. Thailand reluctantly accepted the ruling, but continued to dispute the area surrounding the temple.

The conflict flared up again in 2008 when the UN world heritage body Unesco awarded the temple world heritage status. Cambodia’s application initially received support from the then new Thai government of prime minister Samak Sundaravej, a close ally of the recently ousted Thaksin Shinawatra.

Anti-Thaksin groups used the government’s support to drive an ultra-nationalist campaign against the Samak government. This eventually contributed to large-scale domestic political protests that saw Samak’s government and that of his successor, Somchai Wongsawat, both ousted from power in 2008 in a series of judicial coups.

The period from 2008 to 2011 was marked by high tensions between the two countries, with sporadic armed clashes between their respective armies in the areas surrounding the temple.

The newly appointed Thai government of Abhisit Vejjajiva was sympathetic towards the ultra-nationalist anti-Thaksin groups. So there was no de-escalation of the conflict from the Thai side. Hun Sen, who was then Cambodia’s prime minister, also benefited from the conflict as it helped buttress his nationalist credentials.

But a particularly violent round of armed clashes followed in February 2011, resulting in at least eight civilian fatalities, 20 injured soldiers and many displaced civilians on both sides. Hun Sen then raised the issue of Cambodian sovereignty over the temple and its surrounding area with the ICJ.

The ICJ issued a provisional ruling favouring Cambodia and ordered both sides to withdraw military personnel from the area. Despite the initial refusal of Thai troops to leave, the two countries agreed to withdraw their forces in December 2011.

The final ICJ ruling came in late 2013, again affirming Cambodia’s sovereignty of the area. It coincided with another period of domestic political instability in Thailand. The government of Yingluck Shinawatra, Thaksin’s younger sister, was facing mass public protests from anti-Thaksin groups.

While the ruling did not play a decisive role in the eventual downfall of her government, it added fuel to the already explosive political environment. The border conflict went largely dormant after the 2013 ICJ ruling, until the new round of clashes broke out in May 2025.

Given the history of tensions and armed disputes over territory between Cambodia and Thailand, the recent escalation is not without precedent. What is new, though, is that this round is as much between two countries as it is between two ruling families.

Over the past 20 years, a close personal relationship formed between Hun Sen and Thaksin. But this relationship unravelled when Hun Sen, who remains a hugely influential figure in Cambodian politics, released a private audio recording of his call with Thaksin’s daughter, Paetongtarn. The leak put her premiership on the line.

Paetongtarn has since been suspended from office pending a court ruling, with Cambodia-Thai relations reaching new lows. Given the intermixing of personal animosities, a quick diplomatic resolution to the escalating conflict seems unlikely.

Read more:
A border conflict may cost the Thai prime minister her job

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Petra Alderman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Thailand and Cambodia’s escalating conflict has roots in century-old border dispute – https://theconversation.com/thailand-and-cambodias-escalating-conflict-has-roots-in-century-old-border-dispute-261873

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Mabon, Professor of International Relations, Lancaster University

In the past two months, more than 1,000 people seeking food have been killed, according to the UN Human Rights Office. While the figure has been disputed by Israel and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation which was set up to distribute aid, 28 nations this week condemned the “horrifying” killing of Gazans trying to get food.

As the Israel Defense Forces continues its assault in the city of Deir al-Balah in central Gaza, including an attack on the staff residence of the World Health Organization on July 21, UN bodies are warning that the besieged strip’s last lifelines are collapsing.

Already around 60,000 Gazans have been killed and growing numbers are now dying from hunger and malnutrition, according to the Hamas-led Gaza Health Ministry. More than 90% of the private homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed.

For all the talk of a ceasefire – one that is long overdue – there is little hope. Israeli military operations continue and Gazans must risk their lives in search of food and aid.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

Malnutrition is rife. According to the IPC’s report in May – the international organisation that monitors food security – “goods indispensable for people’s survival are either depleted or expected to run out in the coming weeks” with nearly 500,000 people considered to be facing “catastrophe”, with a further 1.1 million in an “emergency” risk category.

For the IPC, the catastrophe category is one of extreme food shortages, critical malnutrition leading to starvation and high death rates. The emergency category is one of severe food shortages, very high malnutrition and even death.

Israeli officials continue to speak of moving Gazans into what has been termed a “humanitarian city” but what former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert described as a “concentration camp”. In the same interview Olmert called decision to move Gazans into the camp as “ethnic cleansing”.

All the while, the world’s leaders look on. Most are apparently content to condemn – but little action has been taken.

The clamour for Israel’s allies to take a harder stance on its actions in Gaza is growing louder by the day. On July 23, a group of 38 former EU ambassadors published an open letter to EU heads of states and senior officials accusing Israel of taking “calculated steps towards ethnic cleansing” and calling out the EU’s failure to “respond meaningfully to these horrific events”.

But what do actions look like? Pressure must be applied to the Netanyahu government. In the UK, both prime minister Keir Starmer and foreign minister David Lammy have been quick to stress that the UK has urged Israel to respect international law.

They point to the sanctions the UK has imposed on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, two rightwing ministers in Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government, as a result of their repeated incitements of violence against Palestinians. While Lammy suggests that further sanctions could follow if Israel does not change its behaviour in Gaza and bring about an end to the suffering, the atrocities continue.

Practical steps to pressure Israel

Pressure is growing on the UK government to recognise Palestine as a state – something that I was told by a contact in the Labour government more than a year ago was on Labour’s agenda before October 7. Lammy insists the government is committed to a two-state solution, but this is not diplomatically viable given that the UK only recognises one state involved in these events.

The state of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign entity by 147 other members of the UN. That’s 75% of all members.

Other steps could be a full arms embargo, something that has long been called for but rejected by the UK government, which has banned some, but by no means all arms sales to Israel. A number of countries have properly banned arms sales to Israel since October 2023, including Italy, Spain, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and Japan.

There are other more incendiary options. One would be for the UK and others to properly adhere to their obligations under international law.

The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, in November 2024. There are 125 countries that have signed up to the ICC (the US isn’t one of them). They could arrest Netanyahu if he enters their countries.

There are a range of other things that could be tried. A look at what the international community did to make South Africa a pariah during the later years of apartheid would be worthwhile.

EU should use its diplomatic muscle

As Israel’s biggest trading partner, the EU has the potential to wield considerable clout, so the question must be asked: why has so little been done, beyond mere words.

In June, the EU found Israel to be in breach of its human rights commitments under the terms of the EU-Israel association agreement. Yet to date there have been as yet no moves to suspend trade.

Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief declared that “all options remain on the table if Israel doesn’t deliver” on its pledges. These include full or partial suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, sanctions on members of government, military or settlers, trade measures, arms embargoes, or the suspension of academic cooperation – including the prestigious Horizon Europe Research and Innovation programme.

Of course, getting all 27 member states to agree to such an approach is easier said than done. And national leaders will obviously have to consider that taking steps to put pressure with Israel could damage relations with the Trump administration in the US.

But all the while, the situation on the ground is deteriorating, with the world watching while Gaza burns. The failure by Israel’s allies to take meaningful steps to pressure Israel to prevent the wanton killing and displacement is a stain on humanity.

After the horrors of the second world war, Rwanda, Myanmar and Srebrenica, the world said “never again”. Without action, there’s a risk it will shrug its shoulders and say “never mind”.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Simon Mabon receives funding from Carnegie Corporation of New York and The Henry Luce Foundation.

– ref. Gaza is starving – how Israel’s allies can go beyond words and take meaningful action – https://theconversation.com/gaza-is-starving-how-israels-allies-can-go-beyond-words-and-take-meaningful-action-261783

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Holly Ingram, Senior Midwifery Lecturer, Anglia Ruskin University

Are you a woman who exercises regularly? If so, here’s a vital question: do you train your pelvic floor muscles as part of your routine?

If the answer is no, now’s the time to start. It’s never too late to protect yourself from pelvic floor dysfunction – and the benefits go far beyond avoiding leaks.

The pelvic floor is a complex hammock of muscles and ligaments stretching from the front of your pelvis to your tailbone. It weaves around the urethra, vagina and anus, supporting the pelvic organs and helping them stay in the right place.

These muscles are essential for bladder and bowel control, sexual function and core stability. In fact, your pelvic floor works alongside the diaphragm, abdominal muscles, and back muscles in what’s known as the “core canister” or “core rectangle.” Together, they help stabilise the spine, protect internal organs, and support movement, especially in high-impact or strength-based activities.

How does sport affect pelvic floor health?

Many sports rely heavily on core strength. Running, jumping, lifting and full-contact sports like rugby all demand stability, control and muscular endurance. But they also place significant strain on the pelvic floor.

That’s why pelvic floor dysfunction is surprisingly common among sportswomen. Around one in two women in the UK will experience pelvic floor symptoms at some point in their lives – but rates are even higher among female athletes. A 2024 study of female rugby players found that 63% experienced pelvic floor dysfunction serious enough to affect both their performance and daily life, often requiring physiotherapy or specialist support.

Movements such as jumping, running, landing and breath-holding during exertion all increase intra-abdominal pressure, which pushes down on the pelvic floor. Without proper conditioning, these muscles can become strained or fatigued, especially if they’re weaker than the surrounding core muscles.

Endurance sports can also take their toll, causing the pelvic floor to repeatedly contract under pressure. Like any muscle, the pelvic floor is susceptible to overuse injuries and needs time to recover.

Pelvic floor dysfunction can show up in several ways, including leaking urine or faeces during exercise, coughing or sneezing; disrupted bowel habits; a heavy or dragging feeling in the lower abdomen or vagina; pain during sex; a bulging sensation or visible tissue in the vaginal area; and pelvic organ prolapse.

These symptoms may appear during exercise – or at rest – and often worsen over time without the right support or training.

Exercise can help with pelvic floor dysfunction – only if the pelvic floor is actively and effectively engaged. Many workouts target the abs or general core, but if the pelvic floor isn’t included with the same intensity, muscular imbalances can develop. Combined with gravity and high-impact movement, this puts the pelvic floor at greater risk of dysfunction.

The good news? The pelvic floor responds well to training. With regular, focused practice, these muscles become stronger, more coordinated and more resilient – helping to prevent dysfunction and even aiding recovery after childbirth.

How to train your pelvic floor

Not sure where to start? Here’s a simple exercise:

1. Imagine you’re holding in wind – gently contract your anus.

2. Next, squeeze your urethra as if stopping a flow of urine.

3. Now, lift upwards through the vagina.

4. Hold the contraction for a few seconds (or as long as you comfortably can), then release.

That’s one pelvic floor contraction: well done!

Try doing a few reps at a time, and gradually build up. You can incorporate these into your run, add them to your core workout, or practise them during rest days or cool-downs. The goal is to make pelvic floor training a regular part of your routine.

Your pelvic floor deserves just as much attention as your abs, glutes or quads. If you’re a woman who exercises, training these deep core muscles can boost your performance, reduce your risk of injury and support your overall health now and in the future.

So next time you lace up your trainers or hit the gym, don’t forget your pelvic floor. Your body will thank you.

Holly Ingram does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Pelvic floor training can help active women avoid exercise-related symptoms – https://theconversation.com/pelvic-floor-training-can-help-active-women-avoid-exercise-related-symptoms-259711

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

In an unexpected twist in the fight against cancer, humble kitchen bacteria and a plant best known for sweetening tea could one day help in treating one of humanity’s deadliest diseases, new research suggests.

A group of scientists in Japan has discovered that fermented stevia, a plant commonly used as a calorie-free sweetener, may hold intriguing anti-cancer properties. While these findings are early and need much more research, they hint at a potential future role for stevia in tackling pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most difficult cancers to treat. Symptoms typically appear only after the disease has spread, and conventional therapies like chemotherapy rarely result in a cure. The outlook is bleak: fewer than 10% of patients survive five years beyond diagnosis.

This urgent need for more effective and less toxic treatments has driven researchers to explore plant-based compounds. Many chemotherapy drugs already used today have botanical origins – including paclitaxel, derived from the bark of the Pacific yew tree, and vincristine, sourced from the Madagascar periwinkle – offering a proven pathway for discovering new cancer-fighting agents.

Read more:
Chemotherapy can be a challenging treatment – here’s how to deal with some of the side-effects

Stevia, a leafy plant native to South America, is widely known for its natural sweetness. It’s a familiar presence on supermarket shelves, but few think of it as a medicinal plant.

Stevia leaves are rich in bioactive compounds, some of which have shown hints of anticancer and antioxidant activity in previous research. The challenge has been harnessing this potential, as unfermented stevia extracts are only mildly effective in laboratory settings, often requiring high doses to affect cancer cells.

That’s where fermentation comes in. Known for creating yogurt, kimchi and sourdough bread, fermentation is more than a culinary technique. I’s a form of microbial alchemy that can transform plant compounds into new, bioactive molecules.

Researchers at Hiroshima University asked a simple but innovative question: what if stevia was fermented with the right bacteria? They experimented with a strain called Lactobacillus plantarum SN13T, a relative of a bacteria commonly found in fermented foods. Fermentation produced a compound called chlorogenic acid methyl ester (CAME), which showed much stronger anti-cancer effects than raw stevia extract.

In lab tests, the fermented stevia extract caused pancreatic cancer cells to die in large numbers but left healthy kidney cells largely unharmed. Further analysis revealed that CAME was responsible for this effect. It worked by blocking cancer cells at a specific phase of their life cycle, preventing them from multiplying and by triggering apoptosis, a natural process where cells self-destruct when damaged or no longer needed.

CAME seems to alter the genetic programming of cancer cells. It activates genes that promote cell death while simultaneously suppressing those that help cancer cells grow and survive. This double hit both slows cancer progression and encourages malignant cells to kill themselves.

The power of fermentation

Fermented stevia extract was also found to be a stronger antioxidant than its unfermented counterpart. Oxidative stress – an imbalance of potentially harmful moelcules known as free radicals in the body — is linked to cancer and other diseases. By neutralizing these free radicals more effectively, the fermented extract may offer extra protection for healthy cells.

This is not the first time fermentation has been shown to unlock hidden benefits. Fermented soy and ginseng have been found to offer enhanced health properties compared to their raw forms.

But the stevia findings stand out because of the compound’s selectivity. Killing cancer cells while sparing healthy ones is the holy grail for cancer researchers.

It’s important to note that these results come from lab-grown cells, not from animal or human studies. Many substances that look promising in petri dishes fail in clinical trials due to the complexity of the human body. Still, the discovery is exciting and warrants further exploration.

This research highlights the potential of everyday foods and their natural microbes as untapped sources of new medicines. It also reflects growing interest in “microbialbiotransformation” – using beneficial bacteria to create powerful compounds from plants.

In the case of stevia, a simple quest for a natural sweetener has evolved into something potentially far more profound: a stepping stone toward a cancer therapy that’s natural, targeted and cost-effective.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Justin Stebbing does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. From sweetener to cancer fighter? Fermented stevia shows promise in pancreatic cancer study – https://theconversation.com/from-sweetener-to-cancer-fighter-fermented-stevia-shows-promise-in-pancreatic-cancer-study-261599

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dylan Ryan, Lecturer in Mechanical & Energy Engineering, Edinburgh Napier University

Solar power is the fastest growing source of electricity globally. Normally, anyone wanting to tap into it would have to rely on roof-mounted panels. But in many parts of Europe, people have found a simple alternative in the form of “plug-in panels” that can be arranged on balconies.

Instead of having to be wired into the house, you can feed the power generated by these panels into an inverter and a standard plug. Is this something that might catch on in the UK? Let’s investigate.

First, solar installations usually come under “permitted development” with regard to planning permission. But you still might need to apply, particularly if you live in a shared development or a listed building.

For example, some apartment blocks are insured collectively; if solar panels are going to affect the building’s insurance, it’s going to affect the whole block. There may also be rules regarding what you can put on your balcony, so consult your building manager.

The UK government is promising to ease restrictions on solar balconies, but we shall have to see how it addresses these issues.

There are also safety concerns. The power generated by the panel has to be balanced with consumption. Which, in practice, may restrict their use to a circuit that only connects to low-power devices (lights, TVs or computers are fine, but not ovens or kettles).

So you need to be aware of what the panels are connected to, particularly if you have an older home which may have been built before modern electrical safety standards. Also, to connect the panels, you would need a weatherised external plug, which not all flats have.

How much power could you get?

As luck would have it, I have a south-facing balcony, so let us run the numbers.

I came across a 800W system online that sells for £499 (with supports that would allow me to mount it). It has an area of 3.95m² and is made of a thin photovoltaic film (about 10-12% efficient).

The optimum angle for a solar panel in Edinburgh where I live is 37.6 degrees. Mounting them vertically (draped over the railing of a balcony, as is often the case) will reduce performance, with typical losses of 30-45%. My balcony is also completely shaded for half of the day due to a neighbouring building, so a panel will generate little power at those times.

The position of the sun varies as it moves across the sky during the day, as well as seasonally, as does the solar energy received. We can input this data plus our location into an online calculator, which will account for hourly and seasonal variations.

This estimates output for a vertically mounted panel at 132 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr). Assuming electricity costs of £0.24/kWh, that means a payback period of 15.7 years (thin film solar systems typically last between ten and 20 years).

If we could orientate the panel at the optimum angle of 37.6° (tilt them out from the edge of the balcony), the power generated would rise to 182 kWh/yr (a payback period of 11.4 years, although this could fall foul of planning rules).

Free from the shading of my neighbour on the top floor and angled optimally, output from a plug-in panel could rise to 370 kWh/yr (payback 5.6 years). But this is for south-facing balconies. An east- or west-facing balcony would produce 30% less power and a north-facing panel, half as much or less.

Is it worth it?

Another issue is that you can only use the generated electricity when you are in the house. If, for example, I’m out half the time the panels are generating power (which is likely), the payback period doubles – so they will probably never pay for themselves. A battery could help store power for use later, but that adds costs plus the hassle of wiring everything up.

Let’s look at a monocrystalline panel (these last longer than film and are more efficient) that is roof-mounted at the optimum angle (so it’s clear of any obstructions) and wired up to feed into the grid so any power you don’t use, you can sell it to the network.

Assuming a 4kW monocrystalline array at an installation cost of £5,500, the online calculator estimates generation of 2,970 kWh/yr for a payback period of 7.7 years (on a system that will last 25-30 years). And that’s not even considering any possible grants that you might be eligible for.

Whether or not balcony solar is feasible is going to be very site-specific. If you have a balcony with an uninterrupted view south and you are not going to fall foul of any planning or electrical issues, it might be worth it.

If you face north, or there’s another building in the way, or your fuse box looks like a prop from Downton Abbey, less so. In many cases, a solar generator mounted at an optimum angle and exporting electricity to the grid might be a better idea, even if the initial installation costs are higher.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Dylan Ryan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Plug-in solar panels are the latest green energy trend – here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/plug-in-solar-panels-are-the-latest-green-energy-trend-heres-what-you-need-to-know-260467

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

Israel has never officially confirmed or denied having nuclear weapons and has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Instead, even as evidence has emerged about its nuclear capabilities, Israel has maintained a policy of nuclear ambiguity.

The origins of this opacity lie in a secret deal forged in a one-on-one meeting between Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir, and the US president, Richard Nixon, at the White House in September 1969.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Avner Cohen, professor of non-proliferation studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterrey in the US, about that 1969 deal and why it has endured for more than 50 years. Cohen is the author of Israel and the Bomb, considered the definitive work on Israel’s nuclear programme, and has been interrogated by the Israeli state for his research.

Cohen tells us that the understanding between Meir and Nixon meant the US accepted Israel as a special kind of nuclear weapon state. In turn, Israel committed to restraint, not to test nuclear weapons, and not to be the first to introduce them to the region. Neither side has confirmed the existence of a deal, and there are only hints at it in the historical record. Cohen explains:

 Once you realise that there is actually a deal, it explains a great deal of the situation. Why the US [is] looking the other way, why the issue is determined to be removed from the diplomatic agenda, and why many other countries, especially in the west, prefer not to see the Israeli nuclear issue.

Listen to the conversation with Avner Cohen on The Conversation Weekly podcast.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware with assistance from Katie Flood and Ashlynne McGhee. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Newclips in this episode from CNN, AP Archive, BBC News and ABC.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Avner Cohen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Origins of Israel’s nuclear ambiguity lie in a secret deal forged between Richard Nixon and Golda Meir – podcast – https://theconversation.com/origins-of-israels-nuclear-ambiguity-lie-in-a-secret-deal-forged-between-richard-nixon-and-golda-meir-podcast-261789

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

Russia and Ukraine met in Istanbul on July 23 for a third round of talks since face-to-face negotiations resumed in May. Expectations were low. Two previous rounds have yielded very few concrete results, apart from agreements on prisoner exchanges the return of the bodies of soldiers killed in action.

The latest meeting was the shortest yet, lasting just 40 minutes. The negotiating teams were led by former Ukrainian defence minister Rustem Umerov and Vladimir Medinsky, a senior aide to Russian president Vladimir Putin. They agreed on another exchange of prisoners and on setting up three working groups on political, military and humanitarian issues to engage online rather than in face-to-face meetings.

But if the talks have achieved very little, they have demonstrated two things. First, that the two sides remain very far apart on what they would consider acceptable terms for a ceasefire, let alone a peace agreement. And, second, that neither side is prepared to walk away from the negotiations, worried about incurring the wrath of the US president, Donald Trump.

A fourth round of negotiations has not been ruled out, but it is unlikely to involve either Vladimir Putin or Volodymyr Zelensky, given that their negotiating positions still offer little hope of a deal ready to be signed at a leaders’ summit.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

The latest round of talks, however, took place in a different context to the earlier two meetings. Earlier in July, Trump set a deadline of 50 days, ending on September 2, for the fighting to stop.

After this if there’s no progress towards a ceasefire, the US president will consider imposing hefty secondary sanctions on Russia’s remaining trade partners. The aim would be to starve Moscow’s war economy of crucial foreign income, principally from heavily discounted sales of oil and gas to willing buyers including India and China.

The first ten days of this 50-day ultimatum have now passed. While the talks in Istanbul might be seen as a sign that Kyiv and Moscow are taking Trump seriously, the lack of tangible results suggests otherwise. There is no indication that either Russia or Ukraine have moved from their maximalist demands.

Russia keeps insisting on the recognition of its illegal occupation in Ukraine, on future limits to Ukraine’s military strength, and on a denial of the country’s accession to Nato. Ukraine meanwhile asks for its territory to be restored and its sovereignty – including its ability to determine its alliance arrangements – to be respected.

Playing for time

Developments on and around the battlefields in Ukraine don’t offer any signs that Moscow or Kyiv are ready even for a ceasefire either. Russia continues to make incremental gains along the 1,000km of frontlines in Ukraine.

It also keeps pounding Ukrainian cities, including the capital Kyiv, with nightly drone and missile attacks. These have taken place at unprecedented scales of hundreds of drones that have repeatedly overwhelmed Ukraine’s already stretched air defence systems.

Yet, Ukraine has been buoyed by the promise of more US arms deliveries – paid for by other Nato allies – and the continuing commitments by its international partners to support the country. These include those made at the recent Nato summit in The Hague and the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome.

Add to that Trump’s apparent pivot away from Putin and his recently more constructive relationship with Zelensky, and it becomes clear why Kyiv – like Moscow – thinks that time is on its side.

Both may be proved wrong. Zelensky’s latest efforts to consolidate his power – a large-scale cabinet reshuffle and a decree to curb the independence of two of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies – have caused alarm among EU officials in Brussels. More importantly, they have also triggered rare public protests against the government in Kyiv and other major Ukrainian cities, including Dnipro, Lviv and Odesa.

The protests may not get enough traction to pose a real danger to the government. But they indicate that support for Zelensky is not unconditional.

This is something that the Ukrainian president appeared to acknowledge when he outlined his plans to submit an additional bill to parliament to protect the independence of the embattled anti-corruption agencies. What is widely seen as a power grab by the president’s inner circle also has the potential of undermining public morale at a critical time in the war.

All of this also feeds into a Russian narrative of Zelensky as an illegitimate leader of his country who Russia cannot negotiate with. But it would be a mistake to assume that Russia can simply wait until Ukrainians are simply too exhausted to continue resisting Russia’s invasion or when western support will stop keeping Ukraine in the fight.

Even if Europeans become disillusioned with Zelensky, Russia’s war against Ukraine is too much of an existential question for European security that they will abandon Kyiv just because they do not agree with its anti-corruption policies.

It’s also not clear how long Russia can sustain the intensity of its ground and air campaigns against Ukraine or how long these will provide even the kinds of incremental gains that they currently achieve. Trump’s new plan for arming Ukraine by selling arms and ammunition to European Nato allies who would then deliver them to Kyiv is likely to blunt the effectiveness of the Russian air campaign and stymie its ground offensive.

So playing for time is unlikely to get either Moscow or Kyiv any closer to achieving their war aims. But preventing the other side’s victory – whether that’s on the battlefield or at the negotiation table – may well be enough for now for both Putin and Zelensky.

At the moment, continuing their war of attrition is the second-best solution that both presidents can agree on. The outcome of the third round of talks between their negotiators indicates that they may have reached such an implicit understanding already.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. Russia-Ukraine talks: both sides play for time and wait for Donald Trump’s 50 days to run out – https://theconversation.com/russia-ukraine-talks-both-sides-play-for-time-and-wait-for-donald-trumps-50-days-to-run-out-261793

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Noelia Noël, Senior Lecturer, School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Surrey

Every night, as telescopes around the world open their domes to study the cosmos, astronomers are forced to contend with an unexpected form of pollution: bright white streaks slicing across their images.

These luminous trails are caused by satellites. Specifically, the growing number of “megaconstellations” launched into low Earth orbit (LEO). These mega-constellations consist of many, sometimes hundreds, of satellites. They are intended to work as a system, providing services such as global internet access. Commercial companies that operate mega-constellations include SpaceX, Amazon and OneWeb.

The streaks in astronomy images aren’t just cosmetic. They can corrupt sensitive astronomy data, generate false signals, and even trigger alerts for events that never happened.

There may now be a partial solution to the luminous trails vexing astronomers. An ultra-black coating could be applied to the satellites themselves, dimming the trails that they leave in images. This material, called Vantablack 310, absorbs more than 99.99% of visible light.

Modern astronomical observations rely on long exposure imaging, collecting faint light from distant galaxies, exoplanets, or supernovae over several minutes or hours. When a satellite crosses the field of view during that time, it reflects sunlight into the telescope, creating a saturated streak across the image.

The impact is already substantial. Researchers at the Vera C Rubin Observatory in Chile – a flagship survey telescope set to revolutionise our understanding of the Universe – estimate that over 30% of the telescope’s twilight images already contain at least one satellite trail. And it’s not only visible light astronomy that’s at risk.

Radio telescopes, infrared detectors, and even gravitational wave observatories are reporting increasing interference from satellites – including reflected light, unwanted radio emissions, and other forms of contamination. The ultra-black coating won’t alleviate these issues, of course. Other solutions will need to be found for these other forms of interference.

Read more:
Could the first images from the Vera Rubin telescope change how we view space for good?

A crowded sky

With more than 16,000 active satellites already in orbit and tens of thousands more planned, the skies are becoming increasingly congested. While these constellations offer enormous benefits, including global internet access, disaster response, agricultural monitoring, and climate surveillance, they also threaten the clarity of astronomical observations.

Satellites in low Earth orbit (typically 500km-600km altitude) are often visible to the naked eye shortly after sunset or before sunrise. For sensitive telescopes, they can be ten to 100 times brighter than the recommended limits set by the International Astronomical Union.

I am one of a team of researchers at the University of Surrey that is exploring Vantablack 310 as a next generation coating to reduce satellite brightness. The trials are being carried out by UK scientists in partnership with the Surrey Space Centre, and materials innovators Surrey NanoSystems.

Originally developed for high-contrast optical systems – such as instruments that need to spot faint signals next to very bright ones – the coating absorbs more than 99.99% of visible light.

In 2026, Vantablack 310 will be tested in orbit for the first time aboard Jovian 1, a CubeSat – a small satellite about the size of a cereal box. It was developed at the University of Surrey and launched as part of the UK’s Jupiter programme, a university-led initiative that trains students in real-world satellite design, testing and operations, while supporting cutting-edge space research.

The mission will assess how the coating performs under the harsh conditions in space, such as temperature swings, ultraviolet radiation, and micro-meteoroid impacts. If successful, it could significantly reduce how bright satellites appear to telescopes – making the streaks they leave behind much fainter and easier to remove from astronomical images.

Ultra-black coatings will not make satellites invisible. Even the darkest object in orbit will reflect some light. But the goal is not invisibility – it is compatibility. Reducing satellite brightness below key thresholds ensures that scientific observations remain viable.

What’s at stake is more than just clean astronomical data. The night sky is one of humanity’s oldest shared resources – a source of scientific insight, cultural heritage, and spiritual meaning across time and geography. From the star lore of indigenous people to ancient navigation systems, the night sky has always helped us understand our place in the universe.

Publicly funded observatories in lower income countries – where many of the world’s darkest skies still exist – are also disproportionately affected, despite those countries having little say in the decisions that affect their skies.

Framing the issue solely as a technical inconvenience for elite institutions misses the point. This is also about equity, access, and environmental justice. Who gets to access the sky, and who decides how it is altered, are global questions that demand inclusive solutions.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

This project was funded with six months of support from the Research England Development Fund (UKRI), focusing on mitigating satellite light pollution, including the in-orbit testing of ultra-black coatings.

– ref. An ultra-black coating for satellites could stop them spoiling astronomy pictures – https://theconversation.com/an-ultra-black-coating-for-satellites-could-stop-them-spoiling-astronomy-pictures-259171

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jacqueline Peel, Professor of Law and Director, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne

Climate change “imperils all forms of life” and countries must tackle the problem or face consequences under international law, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found.

The court delivered its long-awaited advisory opinion overnight. The momentous case opens the door for countries impacted by climate disasters to sue major emitting countries for reparations.

And citizens could seek to hold governments to account for a failure to safeguard their human rights if their own or other countries fail to take adequate action to ensure a safe climate.

Here’s what the court ruled – and the global ramifications likely to flow from it.

Climate change breaches human rights

The ICJ case was instigated by law students at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu in 2019. They successfully launched a campaign for the court to examine two key issues: the obligations of countries to protect the climate from greenhouse gases, and the legal consequences for failing to do so.

The court found a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of many other human rights. As such, it found, the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment.

The ruling confirms climate change is much more than a legal problem. Rather, the justices concluded, it is an:

existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.

Most nations have signed up to global human rights agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The ICJ ruling means parties to those agreements must take measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment.

An advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice is not legally binding. But it is an authoritative description of the state of the law and the rights of countries to seek reparations if the law is breached. As such, it carries great legal weight.

Just as climate science assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have become the gold standard for understanding the causes and impacts of climate change, the court’s ruling provides a clear baseline against which to assess countries’ action, or inaction, on climate change.

Keeping 1.5°C alive?

In recent years, many states’ emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement have seemed to “settle” at levels which would hold global temperature increases to 2°C at best.

But the International Court of Justice ruled the much more ambitious 1.5°C goal had become the scientifically based consensus target under the Paris Agreement.

Some countries argued formal emissions targets should be left to the discretion of each government. However, the court found against this. Rather, each nation’s targets had to be in line with – and make an adequate contribution to – the global goal of holding heating to 1.5°C.

The court found each state’s emissions reduction pledges should be judged against a stringent “due diligence” standard. The standard takes into account each country’s historical contributions to emissions, level of development and national circumstances, among other factors.

The ruling means rich countries, such as Australia, will be required under international law to make more ambitious emission-reduction pledges under the Paris Agreement, such as for the 2035 target currently under consideration by the Albanese government.

The court decision also provides a measure of climate justice for small island states, which have historically low emissions but face a much higher risk of damage from climate change than other nations.

Holding states accountable for inaction

Because climate change is global, it is difficult – but not impossible – to attribute damage from extreme weather to the actions of any one nation or group of nations.

On this question, the court said while climate change is caused by the cumulative impact of many human activities, it is scientifically possible to determine each nation’s total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions.

If a nation experiences damage caused by the failure of another nation, or group of nations, to fulfil international climate obligations, the ruling means legal proceedings may be launched against the nations causing the harm. It may result in compensation or other remedies.

For small, climate-vulnerable nations such as those in the Alliance of Small Island States, this opens more legal options in their efforts to encourage high-emitting nations to properly address climate change.

Importantly, the court made clear nations can be legally liable even if damage from climate change comes from many causes, including from the activities of private actors such as companies.

That means nations cannot seek an exemption because others have contributed to the problem. They must also act to regulate companies and other entities under their jurisdiction whose activities contribute to climate change.

Paris Agreement quitters aren’t safe

One line of argument put to the court by Australia and other states was that climate treaties represented the only obligations to tackle climate change under international law.

But the court found this was not the case. Rather, other international laws applied.

The United States pulled out of the Paris Agreement earlier this year. The court’s opinion means the US and other nations are still accountable for climate harms under other international laws by which all countries are bound.

Could this lead to greater climate action?

The International Court of Justice has produced a truly historic ruling.

It will set a new baseline in terms what countries need to do to address climate change and opens up new avenues of recourse against high-emitting states not doing enough on climate change.

Jacqueline Peel receives funding from the Australian Research Council under her Australian Laureate Fellowship and Kathleen Fitzpatrick Award on ‘Transforming International Law for Corporate Climate Accountability’.

– ref. Historic ruling finds climate change ‘imperils all forms of life’ and puts laggard nations on notice – https://theconversation.com/historic-ruling-finds-climate-change-imperils-all-forms-of-life-and-puts-laggard-nations-on-notice-261848