Category: Academic Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Clodagh Harrington, Lecturer in American Politics, University College Cork

“If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. No early exits. No nothing.” This is what US president Donald Trump announced in the Oval Office in the last week in August. Ever the master media manipulator, America’s communicator-in-chief issued this as an executive order.

An executive order is issued by the president and doesn’t need to be passed by Congress. They are, however, expected to relate to existing law. Trump so far has signed 196. His latest directive, which aims to restore “respect, pride and sanctity” to the US flag, instructs the Department of Justice to investigate instances of burning the nation’s insignia under particular circumstances.

While the practice of flag burning as protest has a long history in the US, dating back to the US civil war, it is not a regular occurrence, and has been constitutionally permitted for decades.

The issue is already creating divisions among Republicans. There are three broad categories of GOP reaction. First, the Maga faithful are unlikely to complain. Unconditional support for their leader is a key trait of this group. And the executive order includes language with guaranteed appeal to those for whom terms such as “American patriots” and “foreign nationals” are predictable triggers. The president has long excelled at rallying his supporters on flag-related matters.

Beyond red-meat-for-the-base appeal, both the executive order and GOP support for it get a little more complex. Traditional conservatives, including Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, are a group that may have strongly negative feelings about flag burning, but their adherence to the first amendment and associated freedom of expression would generally override this.

Those who hold constitutional principles in high regard are increasingly concerned about a president demonstrating his desire for expansive power. And, the US Supreme Court has clearly ruled on more than one occasion that the act, however distasteful, is constitutionally permitted.

Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice and noted constitutional textualist, famously stated that “if it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag”. But, he added: “I am not king.” Alongside the more centrist Anthony Kennedy, these justices upheld the right to burn the US flag in the 1989 landmark case of Texas v Johnson, despite Scalia’s personal distaste for the act. In his writings, Scalia differentiated between the form of expression that was flag burning, and an act of insurrection, which, he noted, was “something quite different”. The first amendment, as he understood it, allowed for symbolic political protests, regardless of how offensive such expressions might be to patriotic sensibilities.

Already, analysts have highlighted how the president’s efforts to sidestep the constitution are laden with problems. Executive orders cannot override a Supreme Court ruling. Even Donald Trump should know that.

Getting around current law

What the executive order does attempt to do is to get around the law that allows flag burning. To do so, it focuses on associated crime such as property destruction, open burning violations and disorderly conduct. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, was instructed to pursue cases against those who “incite violence or otherwise violate our laws while desecrating this symbol of our country”. So, when someone is (legally) burning a flag, they may be acting illegally at the same time by, for example, committing a hate crime. And this could trigger prosecution.

Furthermore, the executive order nods to a key flashpoint of the current climate by leveraging immigration law, and potentially facilitating the deportation of non-citizens who engage in flag-burning. Beyond the smoke-filled headlines, what this ruling does is circumvent the core ruling of Texas v Johnson by focusing on the circumstances surrounding any flag burning, rather than the act itself. A further aspect will involve the extent to which the courts could expand existing first amendment exceptions. This can only make for nervous constitutional conservatives.

The third group who mostly reside on the Trumpian side of the partisan fence are libertarians such as Republican senator Rand Paul. In a similar vein to their conservative counterparts, their worldview would sit uncomfortably with the president’s foray into testing constitutional principles, and not standing up for more wide-ranging free speech.

Flags and freedom

Libertarians tend to feel strongly about freedom of expression. And when their president picks a fight with the first amendment for no apparent reason beyond a mention he made of it on the campaign trail, he may end up aggravating more supporters than he pleases.

Writing on Reason.com, libertarian journalist Robby Soave argued that Trump is the “last person who should confuse protected speech with incitement to violence”. He added: “Any administration that purports to care about freedom of speech should easily reach the conclusion that criminalizing provocative yet nonviolent acts of political expression is a violation of this principle.”

For a president who deliberately and controversially appointed “Scalia-like” judges during his first term, his latest executive order seems at odds with this vision. Such inconsistency, for what may involve more Justice Department smoke than actual fire, may not serve the president well if many conservatives remain uncomfortable with the move.

To misquote a famous phrase attributed to Voltaire, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that whatever a majority of the justices think of those who actually want to burn the US flag, they will all but defend to the death your right to burn it.

The waters are further muddied now that a self-described combat veteran has set fire to the flag in response to the executive order. It is unlikely he is a “sandal-wearing weirdo”. Hence, the president’s patriotic script may end up somewhat singed around the edges.

Clodagh Harrington 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. Why Donald Trump’s plans to prosecute flag burning divides his supporters – https://theconversation.com/why-donald-trumps-plans-to-prosecute-flag-burning-divides-his-supporters-264059

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dervla Kelly, Associate Professor, Pharmacology, University of Limerick

Vitamin D supplements could help protect the caps on our chromosomes that slow ageing, sparking hopes the sunshine vitamin might keep us healthier for longer, a recent study suggests.

The researchers discovered that taking 2,000 IU (international units, a standard measure for vitamins) of vitamin D daily helped maintain telomeres – the tiny structures that act like plastic caps on shoelaces, protecting our DNA from damage every time cells divide.

Telomeres sit at the end of each of our 46 chromosomes, shortening every time a cell copies itself. When they become too short, cells can no longer divide and eventually die.

Scientists have linked shorter telomeres to some of our most feared diseases of ageing, including cancer, heart disease and osteoarthritis. Smoking, chronic stress and depression all appear to speed up telomere shortening, while inflammatory processes in the body also take their toll.

Beyond strong bones

It is well known that vitamin D is essential for bone health, helping our bodies absorb calcium. Children, teenagers and people with darker skin or limited sun exposure particularly need adequate levels to build and maintain strong bones.

But vitamin D also powers our immune system. A review of evidence found that vitamin D supplements can cut respiratory infections, especially in people who are deficient.

Early research even suggests it might help prevent autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and multiple sclerosis, though more trials are needed.

Since inflammation damages telomeres, vitamin D’s anti-inflammatory effects could explain its protective role.

In this recent study, from Augusta University in the US, the researchers followed 1,031 people with an average age of 65 for five years, measuring their telomeres at the start, after two years, and after four years. Half took 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily, while the other half received a placebo.

The results showed that telomeres were preserved by 140 base pairs in the vitamin D group, compared with a placebo. To put this in context, previous research found that telomeres naturally shorten by about 460 base pairs over a decade, suggesting vitamin D’s protective effect could be genuinely meaningful.

This isn’t the first promising finding. Earlier studies have reported similar benefits, while the Mediterranean diet – rich in anti-inflammatory nutrients – has also been linked to longer telomeres.

The catch

But there are some important points to note. Some researchers warn that extremely long telomeres might actually increase disease risk, suggesting there’s a sweet spot we don’t yet understand.

There’s also no agreement on the right dose. The Augusta researchers used 2,000 IU daily – much higher than the current recommended intake of 600 IU for under-70s and 800 IU for older adults. Yet other research suggests just 400 IU might help prevent colds.

Experts say the optimal dose probably depends on individual factors, including existing vitamin D levels, overall nutrition and how the vitamin interacts with other nutrients.

Although these findings are exciting, it’s too early to start popping high-dose vitamin D in the hope of slowing ageing. The strongest evidence for healthy ageing still points to the basics: a balanced diet, regular exercise, quality sleep, not smoking and managing stress, all of which naturally support telomere health.

However, if you’re deficient in vitamin D or at risk of poor bone health, supplements remain a sensible choice backed by decades of research. As scientists continue unravelling the mysteries of ageing, vitamin D’s role in keeping our cellular clocks ticking may prove to be just one piece of a much larger puzzle.

Dervla Kelly 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. Can vitamin D supplements really slow ageing, as a recent study suggests? – https://theconversation.com/can-vitamin-d-supplements-really-slow-ageing-as-a-recent-study-suggests-263680

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mary-Ann Ball, Senior Lecturer, Fashion Sustainability and Marketing, Nottingham Trent University

As a fashion sustainability researcher, finding the ReTuna shopping mall in Eskilstuna was a delightful surprise. Stepping into this Swedish shopping centre felt refreshingly different – it is the first in the world to sell only secondhand and repurposed items.

During numerous visits to the shopping mall over the last 18 months, I have spoken to customers, managers and employees – all of whom seemed excited by ReTuna’s innovative business model.

The mall instantly feels very different to the cluttered charity shops or vintage boutiques most of us associate with pre-owned retail. There is a wide range of products on sale – fashion, sports equipment, household items, children’s toys, antiques – and even an Ikea secondhand store selling previously used and repaired furniture.

This is not just a retail space. It is a municipality-led experiment in circular consumption, where everything sold has been donated by the public.

ReTuna was established in 2015 as part of Eskilstuna’s climate and waste reduction strategy. Built alongside the city’s recycling centre, it includes a dedicated drop-off point called The Return, where residents donate unwanted items. These are sorted and redistributed to the retailers in the mall, creating a low-cost, low-waste circular system.

The model is only possible because of public funding and local government support – a reminder that circular innovation often requires structural investment, not just consumer goodwill.

However, what makes ReTuna so distinctive is not just its inventory but its atmosphere. Consumers describe it as “accessible”, “curated” and “convenient”. The mall’s layout and product displays mirror conventional retail spaces, making secondhand shopping feel stylish and enjoyable.

One shop manager told me customers often mistake the secondhand items for new, a testament to how fashionability and design are used to make reuse attractive without increasing cost. At ReTuna, the clean, calm environment helps make ethical consumption feel desirable and emotionally rewarding. As one shopper put it: “It’s not just ethical, it’s beautiful.”

Retailers use low-cost stock and infrastructure to create visually appealing stores. The result is a pleasurable shopping experience that challenges the stigma of secondhand. While affordability and environmental values remain central, ReTuna also reimagines what sustainable retail can look and feel like.

Demand for pre-loved

Consumer interest in “pre-loved” fashion is accelerating, with the secondhand market growing 2.7 times faster than the broader apparel market, according to one recent industry report. Globally, it is projected to reach US$367 billion (£272 billion) by 2029.

And it is not only pre-owned fashion that is growing. Another market research report forecasts the wider secondhand products market will reach US$1.04 trillion by 2035, growing at a compound annual rate of 17.2%.

In a YouGov survey spanning 17 markets, 43% of secondhand buyers favoured instore purchases, compared with 39% who preferred online (19% were undecided). ReTuna is part of this shift – not as an outlier, but a glimpse of what mainstream retail could become.

This pioneering Swedish mall turned ten this year. It has grown from a local government initiative to an internationally recognised model of circular retail. The mall’s success shows that secondhand shopping does not have to feel like a compromise – it can be stylish, convenient and socially meaningful.

Circular retail is not just about what we buy, but how and where we buy it. ReTuna demonstrates that with the right infrastructure, design and public support, sustainable consumption can be embedded into everyday life – not as a chore but a rewarding experience.

---

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.

---

Mary-Ann Ball 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. How Sweden’s ‘secondhand only’ shopping mall is changing retail – https://theconversation.com/how-swedens-secondhand-only-shopping-mall-is-changing-retail-260459

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Phelps, Commissioning Editor, International Affairs, The Conversation

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

---

A video broadcast earlier this week captured the horrifying moment rescuers and journalists were killed in a “double-tap” strike on the Nasser hospital in southern Gaza. They had rushed to the scene of an initial Israeli attack, only for the same location to be bombed minutes later. Five journalists and several medical staff were killed by the second strike.

The attack prompted a wave of international condemnation. UK foreign secretary David Lammy wrote on social media: “Horrified by Israel’s attack on Nasser hospital. Civilians, healthcare workers and journalists must be protected. We need an immediate ceasefire”.

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, initially called the strikes a “tragic mishap”. He added: “Israel values the work of journalists, medical staff and all civilians”. But the strikes have now been characterised by Israel as a targeted attack on Hamas fighters.

An initial inquiry by Israel’s military says “it appears” its troops “identified a camera that was positioned by Hamas in the area of the Nasser hospital that was being used to observe the activity of IDF troops” in order to direct attacks against them.

Whether or not charges relating to the attacks are ever brought remains to be seen. But James Sweeney of Lancaster University’s School of Law, believes there should be no doubt that the double tap tactic falls into the category of acts of war that are prohibited by the law of armed conflict.

Sweeney examines how international law operates in situations like this, identifying four fundamental rules on methods that govern the conduct of hostilities: humanity, necessity, distinction and proportionality.

He says the Israeli strikes almost certainly breached the rule on distinction, which requires that only lawful objectives should be targeted for attack. He explains that there are very limited circumstances in which a hospital or its medical staff could ever be a lawful target. The same goes for journalists. Both are protected under the Geneva Conventions.

Sweeney also sees Israel’s attack as violating the rule on proportionality, which says expected “collateral damage” should not be excessive to the expected military advantage of the attack. Even if the claim that the hospital was being used by Hamas to stage attacks on Israeli forces stands up, thus possibly making it a lawful target, the collateral damage was likely going to be vast.

---

Read more:
Was the ‘double tap’ attack on Gaza’s Nasser hospital a war crime? Here’s what the laws of war say

---

Excessive collateral damage has been a grim theme of the war. Israeli government officials consistently say their military works hard to keep civilian harm to a minimum, for example by making phone calls and sending text messages to those residing in buildings designated for attack.

However, Israel’s own numbers cast doubt on this claim. Figures from a classified Israeli military intelligence database, reported by the Guardian last week, indicate that 83% of the Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza have been civilians. This is a rate of civilian killing far higher than other modern wars, says Neta Crawford of the University of Oxford.

Crawford, an expert on international relations, reports that western militaries began to take steps to minimise inadvertent harm to civilians after the Vietnam war in 1975. These practices, which include making collateral damage estimates prior to carrying out a strike, have not always been adhered to.

But when they have been followed, the rate of civilian killing has been reduced. In American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Crawford reports, civilian casualty rates were 68% and 26% respectively – far lower than in Gaza.

“Given the kind of war Israel is fighting – using large, indiscriminate weapons to destroy buildings and failing to distinguish between combatant and noncombatant – it has unsurprisingly produced high civilian casualty rates,” she says.

---

Read more:
Gaza: civilian death toll outpaces other modern wars

---

Peacekeeping in Lebanon

The UN security council, meanwhile, is voting today on whether to extend a long-running peacekeeping mission in Lebanon for one final time. Vanessa Newby and Chiara Ruffa of Monash University and Sciences Po respectively reported earlier this week that the mission, which has patrolled Lebanon’s southern border with Israel since 1978, is at risk of being discontinued.

The Trump administration wants to reduce US financial commitments to UN peacekeeping. It argues that expensive and longstanding missions should be downsized to cut costs. Israel has, at the same time, insisted that the mission has been ineffective in addressing the existential threat posed by Hezbollah.

Newby and Ruffa are critical of this latter assessment. They write that the mission’s mandate has never been to disarm Hezbollah directly. Instead, it is tasked with creating and maintaining a space free of armed groups in southern Lebanon by supporting the Lebanese armed forces.

The council is reportedly expected to adopt a French draft resolution that sees the operation continue until the end of 2026. It will then begin a year-long “orderly and safe drawdown and withdrawal” – a compromise with the US.

This is a welcome outcome. Dismantling the peacekeeping mission would, in Newby and Ruffa’s view, create a dangerous security vacuum along the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Lebanon’s army remains weak, so a sudden withdrawal risks a surge in Hezbollah activity in the south. This would increase the prospect of another direct conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, they say, and another Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

---

Read more:
US and Israel push to end UN peacekeeping mandate in south Lebanon risks regional chaos

---

‘Fortress belt’

Russia is continuing to pound Ukrainian towns and cities, most recently launching strikes on Kyiv that killed at least 17 people. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has accused Moscow of choosing “ballistics instead of the negotiating table”, while UK prime minister Keir Starmer says Russia’s continuing attacks are “sabotaging hopes of peace”.

Talks on ending the war have been taking place for several weeks, though there has been no breakthrough. Russian leader Vladimir Putin is demanding that Kyiv cede control of the entirety of its Donetsk oblast, a region in eastern Ukraine, to Russia.

The Trump administration, keen for the war to end, seems to back this idea. When asked a question recently about Russia keeping territory it has seized, vice-president J.D. Vance remarked that “every major conflict in human history” has ended “with some kind of negotiation. Chris Smith, a historian at Coventry University, interrogates the truth of this claim here.

---

Read more:
J.D. Vance is wrong about history – here’s why this matters for Ukraine

---

Kyiv is unsurprisingly resistant to Putin’s demands. Rod Thornton and Marina Miron, security experts at King’s College London, say this would effectively be tantamount to an acceptance of overall defeat for Ukraine. Kyiv would be giving up its principal defensive barrier against further Russian encroachment into the rest of the country.

Thornton and Miron stress the strategic importance of Ukraine’s so-called “fortress belt” – the name given to the complex series of defensive lines established between towns and cities in the west of the Donetsk region. Russia has largely been unable to break through these lines, so has been prevented from surrounding any major urban area there.

Gaining control of western Donetsk is the key to winning the war, write Thornton and Miron. So Putin, unable to break through the fortress belt, is now trying to acquire it through a peace deal brokered with US assistance. This would settle the war, but in Russia’s favour.

---

Read more:
Forcing Zelensky to hand Putin Ukraine’s ‘fortress belt’ in Donetsk will lose it the war

---

Meanwhile a far larger belt of fortifications is taking shape across eastern Europe, as Russia’s neighbours race to protect themselves in light of the war in Ukraine. Natasha Lindstaedt, a specialist in authoritarian regimes at the University of Essex, believes the recent shift in US foreign policy and its telegraphed move away from being Europe’s security guarantor, has prompted countries including Finland, the Baltic states and Poland to take extra precautions.

As Lindstaedt explains, these border defences will be using the latest technology and early warning systems and artillery units. The project is going to require a high level of cooperation between these countries to ensure that there are no loopholes which could be exploited by a Russian offensive.

The hope is that all concerned have learned the lesson of the much-vaunted French Maginot Line, which Germany simply bypassed during the second world war.

---

Read more:
Why a new ‘iron curtain’ is being built across Europe. This time it’s to keep Russia out

---

---

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.

---

– ref. Israel’s ‘double-tap’ hospital strike probably breached rules of war – https://theconversation.com/israels-double-tap-hospital-strike-probably-breached-rules-of-war-264142