Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jean-Baptiste Burnet, Lead R&T Scientist, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST)

Microbes in water are like invisible travellers – and some carry disease with them. Keeping the water that flows through our treatment plants, rivers and taps healthy and safe from microbial infection is a challenge.

The distribution of microbes varies considerably across time and space. This makes them difficult to track through conventional monitoring programmes which rely on infrequent sampling (monthly or weekly at best) at fixed locations.

When contamination occurs, it can be very episodic (for just a few hours, say) and microbial concentrations can be extremely low. Without advanced and highly sensitive detection methods, some microbes will remain undetected.

Continuous monitoring is the best way to detect epidemics before they explode, identify contaminations before they spread, and proactively protect public health. In the small country of Luxembourg, we have been trialling new online monitoring initiatives such as Microbs and Cyanowatch to achieve this at a national level.

Luxembourg acts as a “living laboratory” where, by collaborating directly with local authorities, our team at the Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (List) is developing ways to prevent swimmers’ exposure to toxic bacteria, for example, or to protect people during viral outbreaks like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Water flows from natural sources through streams and rivers to treatment plants, then through distribution networks to our homes, and finally to wastewater treatment – before returning back into the environment. At each step, our dedicated observatories, equipped with multiple sampling and measurement instruments, continuously collect samples and monitor microbial water quality.

These observatories mean we can assess risks to the Luxembourg public’s health continuously – and take rapid, meaningful decisions early when needed.

Meet the microbes

These advanced surveillance systems become even more crucial as global changes intensify the microbial threats we face. Climate change, population growth, biodiversity loss and agricultural intensification are creating an explosive cocktail for the emergence – or re-emergence – of human and animal pathogens, by enabling more contact between people and animals.

Blue-green algae known as cyanobacteria are ancient bacteria that can turn toxic when flooded with excess nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen) from sewage and agricultural run-off. In warm, stagnant waters, this can create massive algal blooms that cost societies billions each year.

These blooms can disrupt natural ecosystems through the release of toxins into the water. In acute cases of human exposure, they can trigger gastro-intestinal, skin or neurological symptoms.

Viruses present a different challenge. These tiny invaders survive in water for extended periods, spreading rapidly through interconnected wastewater and drinking water supplies. From SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) to the noroviruses that cause vomiting and diarrhoea, they can trigger major outbreaks of disease.

This triple threat – climate change-induced water temperature increase, nutrient pollution, and the complex ways that pathogens circulate – demands monitoring approaches that can detect these hazards before they strike.

Monitoring these microbes

At List, we are creating innovative tools to protect public health by closely monitoring microbial hazards.

For example, at Haute-Sûre reservoir (the country’s main recreation site and drinking water supplier), a field observatory is equipped with automated instruments for real-time, 24-7 monitoring of cyanobacteria blooms. Automated cameras take hourly images at key locations, and sensor buoys in the water detect early signs of harmful blooms.

When a risk is detected, on-site toxin tests are performed – with results available within an hour. Local authorities can be alerted immediately to issue bathing bans in contaminated areas while keeping safe zones open. Such bans can also be lifted more quickly using this system.

Another water observatory was recently set up in Luxembourg to remotely and continuously monitor bacteria in drinking water. Using sensors which transmit high-resolution data in near-real time, this observatory tracks changes in microbial water quality at strategic spots across the drinking water supply network. This helps improving water management and supports the long-term supply of safe drinking water.

Meanwhile, our wastewater-based observatory, Microbs, brings together information from the inlets of 13 wastewater treatment plants across the country to monitor viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. On-site instruments autonomously collect wastewater samples which are analysed in the lab to provide an early warning of viral outbreaks – often before they appear in the community.

Covering around 75% of Luxembourg’s population, this observatory played a key role during the COVID-19 pandemic. The data, shared regularly with health authorities, became as important as case numbers or hospitalisations, helping to guide targeted testing and implement an early response to protect the population.

To complement our technology-driven observatories, we have also launched a citizen-based observatory. Together with UK scientists, we adapted an app called Bloomin’ Algae which allows the public to report and upload photos of cyanobacteria blooms at Luxembourg’s bathing sites. These can then be verified by experts, with confirmed sightings appearing on a public map.

As climate change and population growth put strain on precious water resources, technology and citizen input, used together, are an important way to improve water monitoring and protect public health, quickly.

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.

Jean-Baptiste Burnet receives funding from the National Research Fund Luxembourg (project 329963 INTER AUDACE) and from the Ministry of Environment (SMARTWATER, CYANOMON and CYANOWATCH projects).

Leslie Ogorzaly receives funding from the National Research Fund Luxembourg (Grant numbers: COVID-19/2022/14806023/CORONASTEP+, C21/BM/15793340/VIRALERT) and jointly from the Ministry of Health and Social Security and the Ministry of Environment (SUPERVIR project).

– ref. How Luxembourg detects microbes in its water supply before they pose a health risk – https://theconversation.com/how-luxembourg-detects-microbes-in-its-water-supply-before-they-pose-a-health-risk-258018

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Malak Benslama-Dabdoub, Lecturer in law, Royal Holloway University of London

The UN’s independent international commission of inquiry has just released a report that may go down as one of the most significant documents in modern international law. After nearly two years of investigation, the commission has concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

Chaired by former UN human rights chief Navi Pillay and supported by human rights experts Miloon Kothari of India and Chris Sidoti of Australia, the commission made the explosive determination of “genocidal intent”. It’s a legal and moral threshold that few international bodies have thus far dared to cross.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are pressing ahead with a new ground offensive in Gaza City, despite criticism from human rights bodies as well as many of Israel’s allies and large numbers of Israeli citizens, who have protested against the ongoing military operation.

So, the UN commission’s report prompts an important question: does this determination matter? And if the UN’s most serious legal finding cannot compel action to prevent further genocidal acts (if that is what Israel is guilty of), what is the fate of the rules-based international order?

What makes this report fundamentally different from prior condemnations is its focus on intent. Accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity have been levelled before, but genocide, as defined by the 1948 convention, requires a specific mindset. To prove genocide, it’s necessary to show an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.

The commission’s finding is not merely an interpretation of Israel’s actions but a direct indictment of its leadership’s purpose. The report cites statements by senior Israeli officials as “direct evidence of genocidal intent” – such as Yoav Gallant describing Gazans as “human animals” when the then-defense minister announced that Israel would impose a total siege of Gaza, two days after the October 7 Hamas attack.

Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, is also quoted by the report saying: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians who were not aware and not involved. It is absolutely not true.” His words are taken by the commission as “incitement to the Israeli security forces personnel to target the Palestinians in Gaza as a group as being collectively culpable for the 7 October 2023 attack in Israel”.

The report cites Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reference to the bible story in which God tells the Israelites to wipe out their enemies in the town of Amalek – “kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” – as evidence of genocidal intent. It further notes that IDF personnel “yelled and chanted direct references to Amalek as they launched attacks in Gaza”.

The UN commission also singles out the destruction of Gaza’s only IVF clinic. The clinic had stored an estimated 4,000 embryos and 1,000 sperm samples. Deliberate targeting of the clinic was, the report said, “a measure intended to prevent births among Palestinians in Gaza”.

It concludes that “genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the totality of the evidence”.

Does this determination matter?

This is the first time an international body has named a genocide as it unfolds. In Rwanda in 1994, officials avoided the word “genocide” until most of the killing had already taken place. In Bosnia, the Srebrenica massacre was only formally recognised as genocide years later by international courts. In Myanmar, the UN fact-finding mission waited until 2018 – a year after the military’s campaign against the Rohingya – to conclude that the generals acted with genocidal intent.

Here, the UN is recognising genocide as it takes place. The Commission’s report could provide fresh evidence for the ongoing cases against the state of Israel and its leaders that are before the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court (ICC).

Yet here lies the core problem. Courts can issue orders and warrants but without cooperation from states, enforcement is weak. Israel is not an ICC member, and its powerful allies are unlikely to surrender any of Israel’s leaders who may face charges.

Meanwhile the UN security council, paralysed by the US’s use of its veto, cannot compel action. Israel has repeatedly ignored all UN resolutions and reports, calling them biased.

The UK, too, has continued to do business with Israel. Just this month, its prime minister, Keir Starmer, hosted Herzog in Downing Street. Enforcement depends on state power. If the US, UK and EU continue to shield Israel diplomatically, the commission’s report will not translate into any tangible resolutions or actions – thereby illustrating the weakness of international law.

International law at stake

Genocide against the Palestinian people must be prevented at all costs. But the credibility of international law is also at stake if nothing is done in response to the UN commission’s determination.

The UN charter was designed to prevent the very kind of impunity we are witnessing. Yet when one permanent member of the security council, the US, can unilaterally block action, the system itself breaks down.

The commission’s report lays bare the hypocrisy of a global system that claims to be governed by law but is, in practice, governed by the political will of a few powerful states.

If a formal legal finding of genocide has no practical effect on the ground – if it does not stop the killing, the starvation or the destruction – this implies that international law is merely a suggestion, not a mandate, when powerful nations are at the centre of the controversy.

For Palestinians, the report is validation. For international law, it is a test. Either the genocide determination triggers real accountability – sanctions, arms embargoes, prosecutions – or it exposes the gap between lofty promises and political reality.

The UN commission’s report is likely to fuel pressure in the UN general assembly. It will undoubtedly energise civil society and may strengthen ongoing legal cases. But whether it has concrete consequences depends on states being willing to act against Israel – and, crucially, whether the US and UK maintain their protective stance.

The UN still counts for something, but perhaps not in the way it once did. Its power is not in the capacity to enforce, but in the power to name, to document and to judge.

The future of international law may well be judged on what happens next: whether the gravest crime in its canon can be recognised but left unchecked.

Malak Benslama-Dabdoub 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. Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, says UN commission. But will it make any difference? – https://theconversation.com/israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza-says-un-commission-but-will-it-make-any-difference-265513

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Roger Santer, Lecturer in Zoology, Aberystwyth University

Jakob von Uexküll was a Baltic German biologist ahead of his time, intrigued by the idea that animals inhabit unique perceptual worlds quite unlike our own. In 1934, he described angling for flies by swinging an adhesive-covered pea on a thread, finding that male flies would dive on the pea and be caught. Within the perceptual world of a fly, the swinging pea was a potential mate.

We can’t be exactly sure what a fly’s perceptual world looks like, but we know it must be very different to our own. And learning about it can do much more than satisfy our curiosity. It could help keep people safe from disease.

While a human eye has only one lens, the main eyes of flies are compound eyes that each consist of hundreds or thousands of individual lenses. A fruit fly eye has about 700, and a blowfly eye 5,000. Each of these lenses is part of a sampling unit called an ommatidium, which also contains eight light-sensitive photoreceptor cells.

The structure of the compound eye affects a fly’s ability to make out shapes and patterns. In houseflies, light from a given point in its field of view activates seven photoreceptors in seven separate ommatidia through their respective lenses. Combined, that information is a bit like an image pixel.

Information about shape and pattern is generated when the visual system compares neighbouring “pixels”. The arrangement of lenses in the compound eye limits the minimum size of a “pixel” and thus a fly’s ability to make out spatial details.

As a result, a fly can only resolve relatively coarse spatial detail. If a housefly and a human with 20/20 vision were taking an eyesight test, the fly would need to be about 6cm from the chart to make out the detail that the human could at six metres. For the fly to achieve human-like spatial resolution, it would need larger lenses and a flatter eye, resulting in a compound eye about one metre in diameter.

This lack of spatial acuity is compensated for with speed. Some fly species’ photoreceptors respond much faster than human photoreceptors. This is true of day-active flies which have faster-responding photoreceptors than their more ponderous, nocturnal kin. For us, a flashing light blurs into a constant one at 50-90 flashes per second, but a blowfly’s photoreceptors can distinguish more than 200 separate flashes per second. Thus, we perceive motion in the fast sequence of static images comprising a cartoon, but a fly might not be fooled.

Given this, it’s no wonder that swatting an irritating fly can be a challenge.
When a scientist from Florida tried to photograph resting long-legged flies, he found that the flies were generally in flight, potentially startled by the flash, before the image was even captured.

Saying this, some fly eyes are specially adapted for both spatial and temporal detail. Male flies of many species have eyes that meet at the top and front of the head, whilst those of females have an obvious gap. The extra region of the male eye is the “love spot”, with larger lenses and faster-responding photoreceptors that give improved sensitivity to small and fast-moving objects needed for tracking females during high-speed airborne courtship chases.

Killer fly relatives of the humble housefly are also adapted for great visual prowess, here needed to catch small insect prey like fruit flies mid-flight.

Most people don’t consider perception as they try to shoo an annoying fly out of an open window, or whack it with a newspaper. However, understanding insect perception can inspire new ways of controlling pests, as von Uexküll’s fly “fishing rod” demonstrated. This is important because lots of flies transmit disease, so we need to control flies to prevent sickness in humans and animals.

Perception of colour is important in this context. The human retina has three kinds of cone photoreceptors sensitive to blue, green and red light, and our brains compare those three signals to create colour perceptions. By contrast, a typical housefly ommatidium has five types of photoreceptors including a couple sensitive to UV, but none that are particularly sensitive to red light.

As a result, colour perceptions must be quite different for flies and humans, and experiments with blowflies suggest they perceive just four distinct colours, some with no human equivalent. Whether this is true of other flies remains to be seen.

In Africa, tsetse flies spread sleeping sickness, which has profound effects on the central nervous system that upset the sleep/wake cycle, cause confusion and sensory disturbances, and ultimately lead to death without treatment.

Coloured fabric targets doused with insecticide are often used to control tsetse flies and protect humans and animals, and normally these targets are blue. However, we modelled fly colour perception to develop a better colour for luring flies, which turned out to be purple to a human eye. We recently found that this colour attracts stable flies and houseflies as well, which are also vectors of human and animal disease.

In urban settings, we are combining colour and spatial vision models to understand how to better manage flies in these environments. A particular challenge is that artificial lighting is designed for human vision, and lacks UV wavelengths that flies are sensitive to. This gives the light an entirely different colour from their point of view, and potentially prevents flies from differentiating between colours that they otherwise would under natural lighting.

By delving into the fly’s perceptual world, we hope we can better understand their behaviour, and devise new methods to control them.

Roger Santer has received funding from the Global Challenges Research Fund delivered through the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and distributed via the Centre for International Development Research at Aberystwyth. He has also benefitted from funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council to Aberystwyth University.

Matt Sparks receives funding from a PhD studentship through an EPSRC UKRI Doctoral Training Partnership between Swansea University and Rentokil Initial under the name ‘Characterisation and manipulation of urban light environments for fly control’.

– ref. How a fly sees the world – and why understanding its vision can help prevent disease – https://theconversation.com/how-a-fly-sees-the-world-and-why-understanding-its-vision-can-help-prevent-disease-257151

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachel Woods, Senior Lecturer in Physiology, University of Lincoln

Being slightly overweight might not shorten your life, but being very thin might. A large Danish study tracking more than 85,000 adults has found that people with a BMI below 18.5 were nearly three times more likely to die early than those in the middle to upper end of the so-called “healthy” range.

The link between body weight and health is more complicated than often assumed. This new research, which is yet to be peer reviewed, suggests that the lowest risk of death may not sit neatly in the traditional “healthy” body mass index (BMI) range.

Instead, the findings suggest that people with BMIs that would normally be classed as “overweight” appear to have outcomes that are just as good as, or even better than, those with lower BMIs.

Researchers found a U-shaped curve when plotting BMI against mortality, meaning those with the lowest and highest BMIs were at the highest risk of death.

In the data, presented as a conference paper at the Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, being underweight carried the greatest danger. People with a BMI below 18.5 were nearly three times more likely to die prematurely than those with a BMI between 22.5 and 24.9.

Those at the lower end of the “healthy” range also faced higher risks, with BMIs between 18.5 and 19.9 doubling the likelihood of death. Even people with BMIs between 20 and 22.4 were at a 27% higher risk of an early death compared with the reference group. These findings seem surprising, given that the BMI range of 18.5 and 24.9 is usually considered optimal.

At the other end of the scale, carrying extra weight did not always translate into greater risk. In the study, people with BMIs between 25 and 35 (typically categorised as “overweight” or “obese”) showed no significant increase in mortality compared with the reference group.

Only those with a BMI of 40 or more saw their risk of death rise substantially, more than doubling (2.1 times).

These findings add further data that challenges the common societal association between thinness and health. But research shows that being underweight is a risk to health, particularly in older age.

Having some fat reserves can help the body cope with illness. For example, patients undergoing cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, tend to lose weight due to factors such as appetite loss and changes to taste.

Those with more fat reserves at the start can draw on them, helping their bodies continue essential functions. In contrast, someone with very little fat may run out of reserves quickly, limiting their body’s ability to recover.

Unintentional weight loss is also often a warning sign of illness, with conditions such as cancer and type 1 diabetes often resulting in weight loss before diagnosis. This means a low BMI can sometimes be a marker of underlying disease.

Not surprising

Following on from the researchers’ conference paper, there have been headlines such as: Being too thin can be deadlier than being overweight, Danish study reveals. That might sound surprising, but it shouldn’t. We need food to survive, and without it, we will die. We know this, and have known this for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Without food, the body enters a catabolic state, where it breaks down tissues to get the energy needed to keep the brain functioning. In this process, other important body functions, such as immune function, are put on hold to prioritise energy for the brain.

It is worth noting that the Danish participants in this study had all undergone body scans for health reasons. These scans are costly, so they are usually carried out for a good reason – when a health issue is suspected.

The researchers acknowledge that a possible reason for their findings is that participants could be losing weight due to an underlying illness, and so it could be the illness itself, rather than the associated weight loss that is increasing the risk of death.

Still, the findings reinforce what other research has suggested: thinness is not always protective, and extra weight is not always harmful. The concept that you can be “fat but fit” continues to gain scientific backing.

Does this mean the “healthy” BMI range should be revised upward? The researchers suggest this, saying that modern medical advances, which help people manage obesity-related conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, could be shifting the safest weight range higher than before. A BMI between 22.5 and 30 may now carry the lowest risk of death, at least in the Danish population studied.

A blunt tool

The trouble is, BMI has always been a blunt tool, as I have previously argued. It doesn’t take into account important factors for health, such as diet, lifestyle, and fat distribution, among others.

BMI can be misleading for people from different racial, ethnic, or cultural backgrounds. Critics say the standard cutoffs are based on white body types, which can make perfectly healthy bodies from other groups seem “unhealthy”.

Indeed, BMI was developed nearly two centuries ago using data from a small sample of white, European men. Although some efforts have been made to adapt ranges for certain ethnic groups, for example, NHS guidance lowers the BMI thresholds for increased risk of diabetes in Asian and black groups, BMI still fails to account for differences in body composition, fat distribution and baseline risk among individuals in our diverse society.

When significant healthcare decisions – such as access to fertility treatments and certain surgeries – are based on BMI, we should expect it to be an accurate and fair measure, developed and validated in populations that truly represent the people it is applied to.

Read more:
Why you can’t judge health by weight alone

In an ideal world, healthcare professionals would have access to more detailed measures such as blood tests, imaging scans, and detailed lifestyle information. These are costly and time consuming, but they reveal much more than a height-to-weight ratio ever can. Until better measures are widely available, BMI will continue to be used, but studies like this underline the need to refine how it is interpreted.

The Danish data is still preliminary. More details and further research will be needed before drawing firm conclusions. But the headline message stands: being very thin is dangerous, and carrying some extra weight may not shorten life. The real lesson is not that thin is bad and fat is good, but that BMI alone is a fragile measure of health.

Rachel Woods 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. ‘Fat but fit’: what the latest study reveals – https://theconversation.com/fat-but-fit-what-the-latest-study-reveals-265305

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor University

The US president and first lady, at the king’s invitation, are on a state visit to the UK and will stay at Windsor castle. The event is laden with ceremony and glitz, but it also carries great political potential – for the host nation in particular.

Formal visits by foreign heads of state are generally aimed at strengthening international relationships. The invitation for this visit was handed to Donald Trump in the Oval Office, on camera, by Keir Starmer at a time when the British prime minister was seeking to act as the bridge between the US and Europe over the war in Ukraine.

While many countries have state visits, their ceremonial style varies. In the US, ceremonial honours usually involve arrival on the White House south lawn, accompanied by a military band, 21-gun salute and then a state dinner. But it is the scale and grandeur of the UK’s carriage processions, state banquets, speeches in parliament and military pageantry, tied to the monarchy’s long history, which make them a powerful diplomatic tool for the UK. Trump has made no secret of his delight at being invited for an unprecedented second state visit.

Trump’s praise of the royal family is testament to the soft power at work here. An offer of an audience with the king can deepen diplomatic ties. In this instance, it’s a powerful tool for enhancing the UK-US relationship at a time when this is a priority for Britain.

How state visits work

In the UK, the procedures surrounding state visits are guided by conventions (traditions) and protocols. The prerogative – the government’s residue discretionary power – also comes into play.

The formal invitation for a UK state visit is issued in the name of the king, as head of state. However, in practice, the decision as to who receives them is usually based on another country firstly expressing an interest, and then the UK government offering ministerial advice to the king to extend an invitation. This advice usually comes from the foreign secretary in conjunction with the prime minister, as part of their prerogative powers surrounding foreign relations.

Once an invitation is issued, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, together with the royal household, will set the agenda for ceremonies, banquets, guards of honour and meetings with the king and prime minister.

Typically, the king will receive two foreign heads of state per year. In 2024, he hosted the emperor and empress of Japan, and the amir sheikh and sheikha of Qatar. These visits are usually only a couple of days and start with a ceremonial welcome attended by the king and other senior royal family members.

Having arrived in London on Tuesday, September 16, Trump will spend Wednesday at Windsor castle with the royal family and attend a state banquet in the evening. He will leave on Thursday for Chequers, the prime minister’s country residence, where the two will hold a bilateral meeting.

Diplomatic immunity, costs and threat levels

To facilitate secure visits, the State Immunity Act 1978 affords heads of state the same privileges as are applied to the heads of diplomatic missions. The visits are further underpinned by customary international sources such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. While these do not make explicit reference to state visits, they establish practices surrounding immunities and the treatment of heads of state in the discharge of their public duties.

In reality, hosting the US president means the UK has to manage a high threat level – which also means paying a lot, mostly for security and policing. Trump’s last state visit in 2019 cost £3.9 million.

But state visits bring reward as well as expenditure. These are not just opportunities for ceremony: meetings take place around the pomp, and there are always vigorous diplomatic efforts to reach agreements that can be announced while leaders are delivering speeches during the visit.

Even before Trump had touched down, it had been announced that Google would invest £5 billion in artificial intelligence in the UK over the next two years. More announcements of this kind can be expected to follow.

This will go some way to meeting a call from the UK parliament’s Business and Trade Committee for Starmer to apply “maximum pressure” on Trump to secure a trade and technology alliance to rival China. Starmer will also be hoping to negotiate on tariffs during the Chequers meeting on Thursday.

What the king does

The UK is a constitutional monarchy, meaning the king’s powers are limited by law, and are largely used by the UK government rather than the royal family. While the king is able to “advise and warn”, decisions are ultimately taken by the government. In that sense, the king reigns, but does not rule.

Nonetheless, the monarchy is very useful in delicate diplomatic situations. Wielding significant soft power in international diplomacy and serving as a visible symbol of stability and continuity on the global stage as head of the Commonwealth, the king can promote shared values and cooperation across borders.

His role in awarding honours, celebrating the voluntary and charitable sector, and delivering speeches often makes him synonymous with officially recognising success and excellence. The demands made of the monarchy to remain politically neutral on all matters can lead to them being seen as a unifying force.

It is noteworthy that even during moments of intense geopolitical tension, such as after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 when significant economic sanctions were being placed on Russia by the UK, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, still offered condolences to the new king upon the death of Queen Elizabeth II – describing it as a “heavy, irreparable loss” of an “authority on the world stage”.

In this context, the king’s capacity to act as a bridge in diplomacy is an asset. Starmer will be hoping that the cost of hosting this second state visit will translate into tangible outcomes for the UK.

Stephen Clear 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 are state visits such powerful diplomatic tools? A constitutional expert explains – https://theconversation.com/why-are-state-visits-such-powerful-diplomatic-tools-a-constitutional-expert-explains-265425