English – Page 327 – MIL Submissions Engine

July 24, 2025

Always on, always tired, sometimes rude – how to avoid the ‘triple-peak trap’ of modern work

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marc Fullman, Docotoral Researcher in Organisational Behaviour, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex

A groaning inbox by 6am? Nanci Santos Iglesias/Shutterstock

If your first task of the day is triaging a bulging inbox at 6am, you are not alone. A recent Microsoft report headlined “Breaking down the infinite workday” found that 40% of Microsoft 365 users online at this hour are already scanning their emails – and that an average worker will receive 117 emails before the clock rolls around to midnight.

But that’s not all. By 8am, Microsoft Teams notifications outstrip email for most workers, and the typical employee is hit with 153 chat messages during the day.

The report states that, while meetings swallow the prime 9am–11am focus window, interruptions arrive every two minutes throughout the day. This perpetual work overload means a third of professionals reopen their inbox to answer more emails at 10pm.

In short, Microsoft’s telemetry of this “triple-peak” day (first thing, mid-morning and late at night) paints a vivid picture of a work rhythm that never stops.

From an occupational psychology perspective, these statistics are more than curious trivia. They signal a cluster of psychosocial hazards.

Boundary Theory holds that recovery depends on clear and solid boundaries – both psychologically and in terms of time – between work and the rest of life. Microsoft’s findings show those limits dissolving. This includes 29% of users checking email after 10pm.

Similarly, a four-day diary study of Dutch professionals found that heavier after-hours smartphone use predicted poorer psychological detachment and exhaustion the next day.

This can have wider consequences. When people are busy, rushed or harried, one of the first things to suffer is their regulation of online behaviour. Large-scale survey research shows that ambiguous or curt digital messages occur when we are depleted. These can obviously sap wellbeing in recipients.

In a 2024 study of workers in the UK and Italy, incivility in emails between colleagues predicted work-life conflict and exhaustion via “techno-invasion”, as workers reported being exposed to an ongoing torrent of unpleasant messaging.

shocked man sitting staring at a laptop screen — So-called ‘techno-invasion’ could lead to work-life conflict and emotional exhaustion.
fizkes/Shutterstock

My ongoing doctoral research examines how workers respond to messages they receive, and exposes the nuance on different communication platforms. Among the 300 UK workers involved, identical messages were rated as more uncivil on email than on Teams, particularly when they were informal. Frustration on the part of a recipient (in terms of how they interpret a message) accounted for nearly 50% of perceived incivility on email, but only 30% on Teams.

These findings suggest that choice of platform significantly influences how messages are received and interpreted. Using these insights, organisations can make informed decisions about communication channels, and potentially reduce workplace stress and improve employee wellbeing in the process.

Microsoft suggests that AI “agent bosses” will rescue workers. These tools could summarise inboxes, draft replies and free up humans for higher-order work.

The data, however, exposes a cultural contradiction. Managers tell staff to switch off, yet their appraisal spreadsheets tell a different story. In one set of experiments, the same bosses who praised weekend digital detoxing also ranked the detoxers as less promotable than colleagues who were glued to their inboxes.

Little wonder Microsoft’s own data shows the same late-night peak, despite widespread wellbeing guidance to switch off after hours. Without changing how commitment is signalled and rewarded, faster tools risk accelerating the treadmill rather than dismantling it.

What organisations can do

1. Individual level – let people feel they have control

Encourage “quiet hours” and teach employees to disable non-urgent notifications. Boundary-control research shows that when workers feel they have control over connectivity, it creates a buffer against fatigue caused by after-hours email.

2. Team level – communication charters

Teams should agree explicit norms for communication. This could include capping the numbers invited to meetings and insisting on agendas. Simple charters along these lines restore predictability for workers and cut “decision fatigue”.

3. Organisational level – redesign metrics

Organisations could shift from visibility (green dots and instant replies) to outcome-based metrics for productivity. This removes the incentive for workers to stay online and aligns with evidence that autonomy is a key resource.

4. Technological level – AI for elimination, not acceleration

Workplaces should deploy AI assistants to remove low-value tasks (for example, sorting email or drafting minutes), not just speed them up. Then they should conduct workload audits to ensure the time saved is reinvested in deep work, not simply swallowed up by extra meetings.

The Microsoft dataset is enormous, but there are two important points to note. First, European jurisdictions with “right to disconnect” laws may be missing from the figures. Second, some metrics (for example, interruptions) are calculated on the most active fifth of users, potentially overstating a typical experience.

But if the numbers in Microsoft’s report feel familiar, that is precisely the point. The technology designed to liberate workers is now scripting their day minute-by-minute. Occupational psychology researchers warn that without deliberate boundary setting, rising digital job demands will continue to tax wellbeing and dull performance.

AI can be a circuit breaker, but only if it is accompanied by cultural and structural change that gives employees permission to disconnect.

The infinite workday is not a law of nature, it is a design flaw. Fixing it will take more than faster software – it will demand a collective decision to prize focus, recovery and civility as fiercely as workers currently prize availability.

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.

Marc Fullman 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. Always on, always tired, sometimes rude – how to avoid the ‘triple-peak trap’ of modern work – https://theconversation.com/always-on-always-tired-sometimes-rude-how-to-avoid-the-triple-peak-trap-of-modern-work-261514

July 24, 2025

Online Safety Act: what are the new measures to protect children on social media?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jess Scott-Lewis, PhD Candidate, Sheffield Institute of Social Sciences, Sheffield Hallam University

Technology platforms operating in the UK now have a legal duty to protect young people from some of the more dangerous forms of online content. This includes pornography, content that encourages, promotes, or provides instructions for violence, promotion of self-harm and eating disorders. Those failing to comply face hefty fines.

Until now, parents have had the unenviable role of navigating web content filters and app activity management to guard their children from harmful content. As of 25 July 2025, the Online Safety Actputs greater responsibility on platforms and content creators themselves.

In theory, this duty requires tech organisations to curb some of the features that make social media so popular. These include changing the configuration of the algorithms that analyse a user’s typical behaviour and offer content that other people like them usually engage with.

This is because the echo chambers that these algorithms create can push young people towards unwanted (and crucially, unsolicited) content, such as incel-related material.

The Online Safety Act directly acknowledges the impact of algorithms in targeting content to young people. It forms a key part of Ofcom’s proposed solutions. The act requires platforms to adjust their algorithms to filter out content likely to be harmful to young people.

It’s yet to become clear exactly how tech companies will respond. There has been pushback over negative attitudes to algorithms, though. A response from Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, to Ofcom’s 2024 consultation on protecting children from harms online counters the idea that “recommender systems are inherently harmful”.

It states: “Algorithms help to sort information and to create better experiences online and are designed to help recommend content that might be interesting, timely or entertaining. Algorithms also help to personalise a user’s experience, and help connect a user with their friends, family and interests. Most importantly, we use algorithms to help young people have age-appropriate experiences on our apps.”

Age verification

A further safety measure is the use of age checks. Here, Ofcom is enforcing platforms to make “robust age checks” and, in the case of the most serious of content creation sites, these must be “highly effective”.

Users will need to prove their age. Traditionally, age-verification checks involve the submission of government-issued documents – often accompanied by a short video to verify the accuracy of the submission. There have been technological advances which some platforms are embracing. Age-estimation services involve uploading a short video or photo selfie which is analysed by AI.

Teenage boy taking selfie — Age verification can include uploading a selfie that is analysed by AI.
Miljan Zivkovic/Shutterstock

If enforced, the Online Safety Act may not only restrict access to pornography and other recognised extreme content, but it could also help stem the flow of knife sales.

Research shows exposure to knife crime news on social media is linked to symptoms similar to PTSD. Research by one of us (Charlotte Coleman) and colleagues has previously shown that negative effects of seeing knife imagery may be more severe for girls and those who already feel unsafe.

Even on strongly regulated platforms, though, some harmful material can seep through the algorithm and age checks net. Active moderation is therefore a further requirement of the act. This means platforms need to have processes in place to look at user-generated content, assess the potential harm and remove it if appropriate to ensure swift action is taken against content harmful to children.

This may be through proactive moderation (assessing content before it is published), reactive moderation based on user reports, or more likely, a combination of the two.

Even with these changes, invisible online spaces remain. A host of private, encrypted end-to-end messaging services, such as messages on Whatsapp and snaps on Snapchat, are impenetrable to Ofcom and the platform managers, and rightly so. It is a vital fundamental right that people are free to communicate with their friends and family privately without fear of monitoring or moderation.

However, that right may also be abused. Negative content, bullying and threats may also be circulated through these services. This remains a significant problem to be addressed and one that is not currently solved by the Online Safety Act.

These invisible online spaces may be an area that, for now, will remain in the hands of parents and carers to monitor and protect. It is clear that there are still many challenges ahead.

Charlotte Coleman has previously received funding from UKRI to understand the negative online experiences of UK police staff.

Jess Scott-Lewis 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. Online Safety Act: what are the new measures to protect children on social media? – https://theconversation.com/online-safety-act-what-are-the-new-measures-to-protect-children-on-social-media-261126

July 24, 2025

Nipple-covered sea creatures and aquariums filled with tears – Sea Inside’s alternative perspective on oceans in crisis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Pandora Syperek, Tutor, History of Design, V&A/Royal College of Art, and Teaching Fellow, Institute for Creative Futures, Loughborough University

There has been a conspicuous turn to the sea as inspiration for art and exhibitions since the mid-2010s. This is a trend we have charted in our ongoing collaborative research project, Curating the Sea. So prolific has this become, that there are even gallery spaces dedicated entirely to the sea in contemporary art.

The sea has, of course, been the subject of art throughout history. However, our investigation into contemporary art and exhibitions has revealed a shift from celebrations of oceanic abundance and wonder towards more political projects.

In our research, we have argued for the importance of curation as a way to confront the issues facing the oceans today. So it was only natural that we turn our hands to curating our own exhibition about the sea, based on our extensive collaborative research.

Sea Inside is part of the current season at the Sainsbury Centre in Norwich, which asks, “can the seas survive us?”

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Western art has tended to frame the ocean as an unfathomable and formidable force in the tradition of the sublime: art that produces or is inspired by the strongest emotions the mind is capable of feeling, often arising from the encounter with the natural world. Sea Inside counters this perspective. Collectively, artworks in the exhibition portray the sea not as a surreal or alien space, but as an entity that is intimately connected to humans.

Many Indigenous and diasporic communities have long been aware of the profound human connection to the sea. In our exhibition, Shuvinai Ashoona’s coloured pencil drawings illustrate the intermingling of Inuit mythology with everyday life in the Canadian Arctic. In one scene, mythical marine creatures populate a dentist’s office.

Meanwhile, Tyler Eash’s sculpture features a shell of the critically endangered abalone mollusc. They are known as “grandmother shells” among North American west coast Indigenous cultures as they are commonly passed down through families by female elders. The work speaks to ties of kinship (human and animal), their fragility and resilience.

A new sculpture we commissioned by the artist Gabriella Hirst explores tales of men being swallowed by whales alongside the industrial exploitation of whales in the 19th century. This inside-out journey from the whale’s belly to lighting up European cities (as whale blubber was used in oil lamps) aligns the perceived threat of these animals with capitalistic justifications for their slaughter. The sculpture is made from agricultural plastic, itself a product of the petrochemical industry that largely replaced whaling as a source of energy, lighting and everyday objects.

Beyond eco-realism

The perspective Sea Inside offers is found not only in the artworks’ subject matter but also their approach.

There has been a tendency towards a documentary approach within ecologically oriented exhibitions. This risks relegating art to a tool of climate communication and even replicating the sort of technological interventions into the landscape – and seascape – that the respective artworks and exhibitions call into question.

The artworks in Sea Inside examine the uses and limits of visual mediums for understanding the sea. Hiroshi Sugimoto’s photograph of a natural history diorama reframes this three-dimensional reconstruction of a seabed from hundreds of millions of years before the advent of humans, whereas Kasia Molga’s miniature aquaria entangle human tears and marine life.

Artists in the exhibition play with historical display practices and their ability to bring ocean life into human spaces while endeavouring to overcome the sense of detachment they have at times created.

In a video work by El Morgan, the artist aligns jellyfish breeding in a lab with her own experience of assisted reproduction. In doing so she momentarily suspends the distance from such radically different lifeforms and expands our understandings of gestation.

Likewise, Laure Prouvost’s speculative “cooling system” for global warming – a beautiful Murano glass shower-head that looks like an amorphous sea creature covered in nipples – reimagines models of care as both more-than-human and global.

Works such as these provide playful and humorous approaches to thinking through a topic with a serious undercurrent: our fragile ocean ecologies.

The artworks in Sea Inside offer ways of engaging with the existential threats facing our oceans that are emotive, imaginative and often very funny. They reflect on material culture, architecture and technology to acknowledge the aesthetic dimensions of an era that has been termed the Anthropocene, after the human impact on the planet, and even the Hydrocene in recognition of the centrality of water to our current epoch.

These subtler responses to the sea within offer visions of promise for the oceans’ and our own mutual survival.

Sea Inside is on show at the Sainsbury Centre, Norwich, until October 26 2025.

Sarah Wade works in the Department of Art History & World Art Studies, University of East Anglia, based at the Sainsbury Centre. Her ocean related research has received funding from University of East Anglia and the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art. She is a member of the Museums Association.

Pandora Syperek 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. Nipple-covered sea creatures and aquariums filled with tears – Sea Inside’s alternative perspective on oceans in crisis – https://theconversation.com/nipple-covered-sea-creatures-and-aquariums-filled-with-tears-sea-insides-alternative-perspective-on-oceans-in-crisis-260146

July 24, 2025

Gaza and Ukraine are both waiting for action

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

For the past few weeks the headlines about Gaza have focused on the hundreds of people who have been killed while queueing for food. The aid distribution system put in place in May, backed by the US and Israel and run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, has proved to be chaotic and allegedly resulted in violence, with both Israel Defense Forces personnel and armed Palestinian gangs blamed for killing about 1,000 people in the two months the new system has been operating.

Now the headlines are focusing on the growing number of people dying of starvation.

Harrowing reports from the Gaza Strip report almost daily on the children dying of malnutrition in hospitals and clinics that simply don’t have the food to keep them alive. Writing in the Guardian this week, a British volunteer surgeon working in one of Gaza’s hospitals, Nick Maynard, described patients who “deteriorate and die, not from their injuries, but because they are too malnourished to survive surgery”.

The UK and 27 other countries this week has condemned the “drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians” who are trying to get food and water. And yet, writes Simon Mabon, still the world’s leaders look on: “Most are apparently content to condemn – but little action has been taken.”

Mabon, a professor of international relations at Lancaster University, quotes the latest report from the IPC, which monitors food security in conflict situations. It estimates that 500,000 people in Gaza are considered to be facing “catastrophe”, while a further 1.1 million fall into the “emergency” risk category. Both categories anticipate a steadily rising death rate among civilians in Gaza.

So how can Israel’s allies apply pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to bring an end to the violence and allow Palestinian civilians access to the food, water and medical supplies they so desperately need?

Mabon canvasses a range of options. First of all, countries that have yet to recognise the state of Palestine can do so. It’s nonsense, Madon believes, to talk of a two-state solution – as the UK government does – when you haven’t actually recognised the second state in the equation.

Then they could stop selling arms to Israel. Many countries already have. But the US still issues export licenses for some weapons that are sold to Israel.

There are a plethora of other things world leaders could do to pressure Israel. Mabon recommends having a look at what the world did to isolate South Africa during the apartheid years, measures which eventually helped bring about meaningful change there.

As for Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister is reported to be considering an early election. In previous months this looked like a move freighted with jeopardy. An election loss brought on by a disenchanted electorate, heartbroken at the hostage situation and exhausted by the conflict, would probably mean having to face the charges of corruption which have hung over him for more than five years.

But recent polls have suggested a bump in popularity following his 12-day campaign against Iran. Netanyahu is nothing if not a clever political manipulator. But Brian Brivati, a professor of contemporary history and human rights at Kingston University, believes that to have a chance of winning, the prime minister will need to fight a campaign on three narratives of his government’s success: securing the release of the hostages, defeating Hamas and delivering regional security. “It is a tall order,” Brivati concludes.

Anyone following the situation in Gaza over the past 18 months will have encountered Francesca Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur for Palestine’s occupied territories. For three years she has monitored the human rights situation in Gaza and the West Bank, delivering trenchant criticism of Israel’s conduct and those who, by their inaction – and sometimes contrivance – have enabled it.

Earlier this months, the US government imposed sanctions on Albanese, because – as US secretary of state Marco Rubio insisted – she has engaged with the International Criminal Court (also subject to US sanctions) “in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel”. Also she has written “threatening letters to dozens of entities worldwide, including major American companies”.

Alvina Hoffman, an expert in diplomatic affairs and human rights at SOAS, University of London, explains what a special rapporteur does and why their work is so valuable in the defence of human rights.

Dispatches from Ukraine

To Istanbul, where delegations from Russia and Ukraine met yesterday for their third round of face-to-face talks. All 40 minutes of them. There was another agreement of prisoner swaps and the two sides decided to set up some working groups to look into various political, military and humanitarian issues – but online rather in person.

The brevity of the talks came as no surprise to Stefan Wolff. Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham who has provided commentary for The Conversation throughout the conflict in Ukraine, points out that both sides remain wedded to their maximalist war aims. For Russia, this is for Ukraine to accept Russia’s annexation of Crimea and four provinces of eastern Ukraine, a ban on Ukraine’s membership of Nato and a much reduced military capacity. For Ukraine, it is getting their territory back and Russian acceptance of their national sovereignty, meaning it gets to determine for itself what alliances it seeks.

Donald Trump has told Vladimir Putin that, if there’s no ceasefire in 50 days, he’ll apply harsh secondary sanctions on the countries buying Russian oil and that he plans to supply Ukraine with American weapons (via Nato’s European member states, that is). Wolff believes both sides will now play the waiting game. They will calculate their next move after September 2, when the 50 days run out, and when they know more about what the US president plans to do.

Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, faces pressure from his own people. There have been days of protest at his decision to bring two formerly independent anti-corruption organisations under the direct control of the government. He argues that this was necessary to prevent Russian infiltration, while critics are saying that the Ukrainian president has launched a power grab designed to prevent independent investigation of alleged corruption against people close to him.

Jenny Mathers says these protests, which involve people from all political shades, including people who have fought in the defence of Ukraine since 2022, some with visible injuries, represents a fracture of the “informal agreement between the government and society to show a united front to the world while the war continues”.

Ukrainians protest after Zelensky signs law clamping down on anticorruption agencies.

It’s not as if Zelensky is in clear and present danger of losing his job. His party holds a majority of seats in the Ukrainian parliament, so he governs without having to depend on coalition partners. And the country’s constitution prohibits the holding of elections in wartime – whatever Putin, who regularly insists that Zelensky is an illegitimate leader because he is governing past his term limit, might think. Plus his approval rating sits at 65%.

Zelensky has been quick to soften his stance on this. Mathers says that political corruption is a very sore point in Ukraine, where there was decades of it until the Maidan protests of 2013-14 unseated the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych. As she writes here, “the ‘Revolution of Dignity’ that rejected Yanukovych’s leadership and his policies was also a resounding demonstration of the strength of Ukraine’s civil society and its determination to hold its elected officials to account. Zelensky would be rash not to heed that.

He also knows it’s important for him to present a squeaky clean image to his supporters in the west. So while the protests may not present an immediate threat to his own position, he knows that unless he acts to root out corruption in Ukraine, it’ll be a threat to the future of the country itself.

But ethicist Marcel Vondermassen from the University of Tübingen believes another recent decision by the Ukrainian government is storing up trouble for the future. Ukraine has recently announced its decision to pull out of the Ottawa convention, the treaty that forbids the use of anti-personnel landmines.

In doing so, he’s following the example of Finland, Poland, Lithuania and Estonia which have all also quite the treaty in recent months for fear of Russian aggression.

But as Vondermassen points out, landmines don’t usually switch themselves off when a conflict ends and people are still being killed an maimed in former conflict zones around the world. Often it is farmers at work or children at play who are the victims. If other ways to protect countries from aggression aren’t pursued, as he puts it, in future decades we’ll still be “counting thousands of child casualties … from the landmines laid in the 2020s”.

Thailand-Cambodia: centuries-old dispute flares again

A dispute between the two south-east Asian countries that has been simmering since May flared into life yesterday when five Thai soldiers patrolling the border region were injured after stepping on a landmine – the second such incident in the past week. Both countries have sealed their border and there have been tit-for-tat ambassadorial expulsions.

Cambodia fired rockets and artillery into Thailand, killing 12 civilians. Thailand in turn has launched airstrikes against Cambodia. Both countries are blaming the other for starting it.

Petra Alderman, an expert in south-east Asian politics from London School of Economics and Political Science, traces the origins of this row, which go back to the colonial era in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

– ref. Gaza and Ukraine are both waiting for action – https://theconversation.com/gaza-and-ukraine-are-both-waiting-for-action-261894

July 24, 2025

Porn websites now require age verification in the UK – the privacy and security risks are numerous

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Eerke Boiten, Professor of Cybersecurity, Head of School of Computer Science and Informatics, De Montfort University

As of July 25 2025, people in the UK accessing web services with pornographic content will have to prove they are over 18 years of age. This development has been in the works for a while. It was proposed in 2014 by the video-on-demand regulator, and legislated for introduction in 2019 through the British Board of Film Classification.

It is of course important to stop children from accessing inappropriate material online. But, as often with technological solutions to societal problems, all available methods of age checking come with significant downsides in terms of privacy, security and human rights.

A strict separation between sites that do or do not have pornography means the definition of pornography, (not in itself illegal in the UK, becomes crucial. Tech companies are likely to use conservative algorithms (“overblocking”) in response. Historically this has affected sex education online, making it harder for young people to find sexual health advice or explore LGBT+ identities.

The failure to implement the law in 2019 was blamed on an administrative error, but the problems with technological solutions also played a role. Technology in this area has barely progressed, but nevertheless the regulator Ofcom ghas now said that several methods are capable of being highly effective.

The methods Ofcom suggests now come into two categories, which I will describe here as direct and indirect.

With direct methods, visitors will have to prove to the website that they are over 18. The most obvious way is by sharing both photo ID, such as a passport, and then also a selfie as proof that the passport belongs to them (in cybersecurity terminology, the passport is a “credential” and the selfie serves to “bind” the credential to the user).

Most people would obviously object to submitting these to a porn site. Part of the reason for this is that this would fully identify users, and allow the site to associate their identity to their preferences in browsing.

Anonymity on the internet may have got a bad name because of online “trolls”, but it has a serious positive human rights dimension, particularly also for children. Freedom of expression and association can be exercised much more safely if online anonymity is an option.

Anonymous access to any sites relating to sex can be viewed as liberating people to exercise their right to a sex life without interference or shame. Most age verification methods undermine anonymity to some extent, even if not as obviously and completely as passports and selfies do.

Indirect methods use an intermediary organisation to verify the person’s age. There are lobby groups associated with these organisations that have been influential in policy making for UK online safety for the last decade. Another strong influence has been politicians’ belief in the economic potential of the UK “safety tech” sector.

Users prove their age once with the intermediary, leading to a credential that may be used – typically multiple times – on the website without providing personal data. This looks like a nice clean solution, requiring trust in the intermediary but not in the “porn site”, until you consider “binding” – how do you know it’s the same user?

Borrowing or stealing of such credentials may be minor risks, but a black market in them could provide ways for teenagers to circumvent age restrictions (alongside virtual private networks VPNs, an encryption method which stop a user’s internet traffic from being intercepted by third parties).

Any method to “detect abuse” would involve surveillance, such as tracking IP addresses or using information about the person’s electronic device). This raises further challenges about fairness.

Intermediaries do all promise to delete or protect the information used for the proof of age, after varying periods. This limits the associated security and hence privacy risks, but does not eliminate them.

There are also incidental indirect methods, where an existing third party happens to know we are over 18. This includes banks (the “open banking” verification method), credit cards (not allowed under 18 in the UK), or mobile phone companies that can confirm a person has been able to get their porn filter removed, proving they must be over 18.

All indirect methods have so-called “linkability” privacy issues. The credential becomes an identifier, which allows the website, the intermediary, or both to link different visits to the same site or to other sites, and build up a picture like a browsing history that will become more individual and more intrusive over time.

Age estimation

Finally there are methods that do not actually verify your age but only estimate it. One way is via your email address and detecting how much “adult behaviour”, such as buying insurance, it has been involved with.

For most of us who do not use throw-away email addresses, it drives home the extent to which our main email address forms the key to mass online surveillance of everything we do. Maybe we would rather not be reminded. It certainly seems excessive for proving our age.

A lot of commercial effort has also gone into face-based age estimation technology. As with human age checking for alcohol in supermarkets, it is very approximate and unfair on people who do not look their age. In both cases, another verification method needs to be added as a backup.

To make the online world safer for kids, technological measures have had adverse effect on freedom that go beyond just removing porn. As a result, additional online surveillance gets put in place for many of us. Creating additional sensitive databases of information also sets up targets for cybercriminals.

Even more seriously, the “database state” offers potential for the kind of repressive mass surveillance that privacy activists have been warning of for decades. In that context, can we really afford to add to internet surveillance?

Eerke Boiten has in the past received funding from various research funding organisations, none of it relating to the topic of this article.

– ref. Porn websites now require age verification in the UK – the privacy and security risks are numerous – https://theconversation.com/porn-websites-now-require-age-verification-in-the-uk-the-privacy-and-security-risks-are-numerous-261592

July 24, 2025

Could climate anxiety be a form of pre-traumatic stress disorder? A psychologist explains the research

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

We are living in an age of anxiety. People face multiple existential crises such as climate change and conflicts that could potentially escalate into nuclear war.

So how do people cope with competing threats like this? And what happens to climate anxiety when wars suddenly erupt and compete for our attention?

Climate change affects our physical and mental health, directly through extreme climate-related droughts, wildfires and intense storms. It also affects some people indirectly through so-called “climate anxiety”. This term covers a range of negative emotions and states, including not just anxiety, but worry and concern, hopelessness, anger, fear, grief and sadness.

A team of researchers led by Caroline Hickman from the University of Bath surveyed 10,000 children and young people (aged 16 to 25 years) in ten countries (Australia, Brazil, Finland, France, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, the UK and the US). They found that 45% of respondents said their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily lives. It was worse for respondents from developing countries.

Climate anxiety can potentially serve a positive function. Anger, for example, can push people to act to help mitigate the effects of climate change.

But it can also lead to “eco-paralysis”, a feeling of being overwhelmed, inhibiting people from taking any effective action, affecting their sleep, work and study, as a result of them dwelling endlessly on the problem.

Climate anxiety is not included in the American Psychiatric Association’s authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders. In other words, it is not officially recognised as a mental disorder.

graphic of woman looking at planet Earth, surrounded by extreme weather — Climate anxiety relates to other forms of clinical anxiety.
Malchevska/Shutterstock

Some say this is a good thing. The author and Stanford academic Britt Wray wrote: “The last thing we want is to pathologise this moral emotion, which stems from an accurate understanding of the severity of our planetary health crisis.”

But if it is not officially recognised, will people take it seriously enough? Will they just dismiss people who suffer from it as “snowflakes” – too sensitive and too easily hurt by the hard realities of life. This is a major dilemma.

I explore how climate anxiety relates to other types of clinical anxiety in my recent book, Understanding Climate Anxiety, recognising that there are adaptive and non-adaptive forms of anxiety.

According to Steven Taylor, a clinical psychologist from the University of British Columbia, adaptive anxiety can “motivate climate activism, such as efforts to reduce one’s carbon footprint”. Maladaptive anxiety, however, may “take the form of anxious passivity”, he warned, where the person feels anxious but utterly helpless.

Identifying different types of climate anxiety, understanding their precursors and how they interact with personality is a major psychological challenge. Identifying ways of alleviating climate anxiety and making it more adaptive, and focused on possible climate mitigation, is a major societal challenge.

But there’s another important issue. Some global leaders, including Donald Trump, don’t believe in human-induced climate change, claiming it’s “one of the great scams”. He seems to view climate anxiety as an overblown reaction to propaganda pumped out by a biased media.

This can make the experience much worse for those who feel anxious but then having their feelings dismissed.

Some psychologists argue that climate anxiety can be a form of pre-traumatic stress disorder. This hypothesis arose from observations of climate scientists and their growing feelings of anger, distress, helplessness and depression as the climate situation has worsened.

In 2015, researchers devised a new clinical measure to assess pre-traumatic stress reactions using items found in the diagnostic and statistical manual for post-traumatic stress disorder, but now focused on the future rather than the past, asking about “repeated, disturbing dreams of a possible future stressful experience”, for example.

They tested Danish soldiers before their deployment in Afghanistan and found that “involuntary intrusive images and thoughts of possible future events … were experienced at the same level as post-traumatic stress reactions to past events before and during deployment”.

They also found that soldiers who experienced higher levels of pre-traumatic stress before deployment had an increased risk of post-traumatic stress disorder after their return from the war zone. Their hypervigilance primed their nervous system to react more strongly when anything untoward occurred.

This would suggest that we need to take stress reactions to future anticipated events such as climate change very seriously.

The crisis response

But how important is climate anxiety in the context of these other threats? Researchers assessed the emotional state and mental health of people aged 18 to 29 years in five countries (China, Portugal, South Africa, the US and UK) focusing on three global issues: climate change, an environmental disaster (the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan), and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

They found the strongest emotional engagement was with the ongoing wars, with climate change a close second, and the radiation leak third. The strongest emotional responses to the wars were concern, sadness, helplessness, disgust, outrage and anger. For climate change, the strongest responses were concern, sadness, helplessness, disappointment and anxiety.

All three crises made young people feel concerned, sad, and very importantly helpless, but climate change has this burning level of anxiety added into the bubbling mix.

It seems that climate anxiety still has this undiminished power regardless of all the other awful things that are currently happening in the world, and I suspect the stigma of being dismissed as “snowflakes” makes this particular fear response all the more unbearable.

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.

Geoff Beattie has received funding from the British Academy and the AHRC to investigate psychological barriers to climate change mitigation and the effects of climate change on emotional responses.

– ref. Could climate anxiety be a form of pre-traumatic stress disorder? A psychologist explains the research – https://theconversation.com/could-climate-anxiety-be-a-form-of-pre-traumatic-stress-disorder-a-psychologist-explains-the-research-260849

July 24, 2025

Dealing with wildfires requires a whole-of-society approach

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kevin Kriese, Senior Wildfire and Land Use Analyst, Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria

As the summer heat intensifies, people across Canada are facing the full brunt of wildfire season. Communities are being evacuated and properties are being destroyed as fires grow in size.

Over the past decade, wildfires in Canada have broken numerous records, including the area burned in the largest single fire in recent history.

More frequent fires are unsettling communities, causing rapid changes to ecosystems and having a negative impact on society and our economy.

Increased wildfire risk is driven by a variety of factors, including more extreme fire weather (high temperatures, low humidity and powerful winds) made worse by climate change, fire deficits, the accumulation of fuels like trees and other organic materials on the landscape and changing land-use and settlement patterns.

Our new research from the POLIS Wildfire Resilience Project at the University of Victoria explores how beneficial fires — fire that maximizes ecological benefits and minimizes risks to communities — can help build wildfire resilience.

What are beneficial fires?

Fire is a natural, necessary and inevitable part of many ecosystems in Canada. Historically, wildfire created a mosaic of diverse ecosystems and habitat conditions, which supported healthy watersheds and contributed to the cultures and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples.

Beneficial fire typically includes Indigenous cultural burning, prescribed fire and managed wildfire. These fires are managed for their ecological, cultural and community benefits, while minimizing adverse effects.

One reason we’re seeing more catastrophic fires now is because of a history of widespread wildfire suppression, which can allow fuels to accumulate. When fuels accumulate, the risk from wildfire increases.

In certain places and contexts, suppression remains the appropriate approach. It will continue to play a critical role in keeping communities safe and conserving ecosystem services like clean water and special places. But suppression alone is not viable or desirable. Instead, a suite of proactive actions from a variety of stakeholders is required.

In British Columbia, Indigenous communities are returning cultural burning to their territories. A burn by the ʔaq̓am First Nation, with support from the BC Wildfire Service and local fire departments, was credited with helping save lives and homes from the St. Mary’s wildfire in summer 2024.

Later in 2024, portions of a wildfire near the Wet’suwet’en community of Witset were allowed to burn while firefighting efforts focused on the part of the fire that threatened the community. This approach protected the village of Witset while still allowing the fire to create ecological benefits.

Despite increasing awareness that some fires are beneficial, community opposition to cultural and prescribed fires — as well as to letting wildfires burn — persists. This opposition stems from a longstanding fears of fire and the very real threats posed to communities, people and property.

A whole-of-society approach

Until people feel safe from wildfire, the ability to return fire to the landscape will be limited and pressure for maximum suppression will likely continue. However, when people feel safe in their homes and communities, they may be more likely to accept more beneficial fire on the landscape.

Risk reduction programs, such as FireSmart, take a holistic approach to wildfire resilience and include practical measures proven to reduce property loss.

Homeowners who live near fire-prone ecosystems (referred to as the wildland-urban interface) can take simple actions, such as removing flammable material within 1.5 metres of buildings, while communities can plan effective evacuation routes.

Experience in other jurisdictions indicates that voluntary measures, like FireSmart, are more effective when combined with mandatory minimum standards for fire-resistant building construction, vegetation management and landscaping.

Reducing risk and increasing beneficial fires requires co-ordinated action from a diverse array of parties. For example, creating home-hardening requirements demands updated provincial building codes and local government plans that consider wildfire resilience.

When a diverse array of entities is required to work towards a common goal, co-ordination and collaboration are vital and a whole-of-society approach is required. This type of approach fosters innovation, local agency and broader accountability — ultimately resulting in better outcomes on the ground.

There are calls for this approach at national and international levels. Recent examples include the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers’ Canadian Wildland Fire Prevention and Mitigation Strategy and the G7 Kananaskis Wildfire Charter.

Diverse actions needed

Crown governments have historically worked in a top-down wildfire management model: provincial and territorial governments are in charge and select partners, such as industry, have been engaged to carry out specific actions.

We are beginning to see a shift to greater sharing of responsibilities, partnerships, recognition of Indigenous authorities and increased local action. For example, B.C. has committed to “integrate traditional practices and cultural uses of fire into wildfire prevention and land management practices and support the reintroduction of strategized burning.”

As Canadians face another intense wildfire season, in which we’ve already experienced loss of life and property, meaningful action across all of society is essential.

Provincial governments must work in collaboration with Indigenous, local and federal governments, as well as industry, civil society, practitioners, local experts and communities.

Individuals can take action to reduce the risk to their homes by managing the vegetation around their homes and using more fire-resistant building materials. Communities can engage in risk reduction and resilience planning. And governments at all levels can facilitate changes in how we manage our landscape to increase beneficial fires.

Taken together, these diverse actions across all of society will be crucial for protecting people and ecosystems as we all learn to live with fire.

Kevin Kriese is a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Andrea Barnett receives funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Oliver Brandes receives funding from Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the BC Real Estate Foundation.

– ref. Dealing with wildfires requires a whole-of-society approach – https://theconversation.com/dealing-with-wildfires-requires-a-whole-of-society-approach-260568

July 24, 2025

Canada’s new drug pricing guidelines are industry friendly

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Joel Lexchin, Professor Emeritus of Health Policy and Management, York University, Canada

Drug pricing in Canada just got more industry-friendly.

Canadian drug prices are already the fourth highest in the industrialized world. Now, with the release of new guidelines for the staff at the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) at the end of June, the situation is poised to potentially get even worse.

The review board is the federal agency that was set up 1987 to ensure that the prices for patented drugs are not “excessive.”

Comparing prices

Up until now, one of the criteria the PMPRB used in making the decision about what was an excessive price was to compare the proposed Canadian price for a new drug with the median price in 11 other countries. The median is the 50 per cent mark; in other words, the price in half of the other countries was below what’s proposed for Canada, and the price in the other half was above the proposed Canadian price. Under the new guidelines, set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2026, the Canadian price can be up to the highest in those other 11 countries.

Right now, the median price in the 11 countries Canada is compared to is 15 per cent below the price of patented drugs in Canada. The highest international price, which will be the new standard, is 21 per cent above the median Canadian price, meaning Canadian prices for new drugs will be significantly higher than they otherwise would have been.

Sometimes a drug is not available in any of the 11 other countries when it comes onto the Canadian market. In that case, the company can price the drug at whatever level it wants and keep it at that price until it comes up for its annual price review. The executive director of the PMPRB told the Globe and Mail that this would incentivize drugmakers to bring their products to the Canadian market first.

Incentivizing drug companies may be a reasonable idea, but that’s not part of the mandate of the PMPRB. As laid out in Section 83 of the Patent Act, its mandate is to ensure drug prices aren’t excessive.

Additional therapeutic value

In the past, one of the factors that the PMPRB took into account in determining if prices were excessive was the additional therapeutic value of a new drug compared to what was already on the market. The lower the value, the lower the price. In this regard, the PMPRB was advised by its Human Drug Advisory Panel, an independent group of experts.

The ranking of new drugs against existing ones was also of significant value to Canadian clinicians. It helped them to decide on the best treatment option for their patients and countered the hype about new drugs that came from the manufacturers.

Since the new guidelines have abandoned looking at therapeutic improvement of new drugs, that leaves only one remaining Canadian source for that type of information, the Therapeutics Letter, a bimonthly publication targeting identified problematic therapeutic issues in a brief, simple and practical manner.

Complaints about prices can be made by federal, provincial and territorial health ministers and by senior officials who are authorized to represent Canadian publicly funded drug programs. “Other parties who have concerns about the list prices … are encouraged to raise their concerns with their relevant Minister(s) of Health or Canadian publicly-funded drug program (sic).” This advice is cold comfort for people working low-wage jobs who aren’t covered by provincial and territorial drug plans and don’t have any access to their health minister.

If there is an in-depth review of a new drug’s pricing — a preparatory step to determine whether there should be a formal hearing to investigate if the price is excessive — it is only the manufacturer that is allowed to submit information to the PMPRB. Clinicians who prescribe the drug, patients who take the drug, and organizations and individuals that pay for the drug do not have that same right.

Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs are already threatening to drive up drug prices and make prescription drugs inaccessible to many Canadians. Higher drug prices will also almost certainly affect Canada’s already limited pharmacare program. Higher prices for new drugs will make an expanded pharmacare plan more expensive and less appealing to the federal government. The new PMPRB guidelines help ensure higher drug prices and no pharmacare expansion.

Between 2022-2025, Joel Lexchin received payments for writing a brief for a legal firm on the role of promotion in generating prescriptions for opioids, for being on a panel about pharmacare and for co-writing an article for a peer-reviewed medical journal on semaglutide. He is a member of the Boards of Canadian Doctors for Medicare and the Canadian Health Coalition. He receives royalties from University of Toronto Press and James Lorimer & Co. Ltd. for books he has written. He has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in the past.

– ref. Canada’s new drug pricing guidelines are industry friendly – https://theconversation.com/canadas-new-drug-pricing-guidelines-are-industry-friendly-261062

July 24, 2025

Ukrainian protests: Zelensky faces biggest threat to his presidency since taking power

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.

Ukrainians protest after Zelensky signs law clamping down on anticorruption agencies.

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

July 24, 2025

The US has sanctioned UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese – here’s why she’s the wrong target

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