Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jean-Nicolas Reyt, Management Professor, McGill University

The emails from Air Canada came without warning: flights cancelled at the last minute, no way to get home and no one at Air Canada answering the phones despite repeated calls. Days went by without a solution.

The disruption stems from a strike that began on Aug. 16 when some 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants walked off the job after months of unsuccessful talks over compensation and working conditions. In the wake of it, more than 100,000 passengers were left stranded.

A tentative agreement to end the contract dispute between Air Canada and its flight attendants has since been reached, and flights are gradually resuming. But many travellers are still stuck abroad or facing lengthy layovers and long lines in crowded airports as they rebook alternative routes.

For those caught up in it, the experience has been draining and overwhelming. Air Canada has said it could take up to a week for full operations to resume, leaving Canadians stranded abroad, still waiting for a path home.

I am one of those stranded passengers. I also teach management and study how people respond in high-stress, uncertain situations and how they can handle them more effectively.

Research has long shown that uncertainty and scarcity push ordinary people toward frustration and conflict, often in ways that make matters worse. In this piece, I will share a few research-backed strategies to help make an unbearable situation a little easier to navigate.

Why this moment feels so stressful

The Air Canada strike combines three powerful stressors: uncertainty, lack of control and crowding. Travellers do not know when or how they will get home, they cannot influence the pace of solutions and they are surrounded by others competing for the same resources.

Each of these factors is already stressful on its own, and combined, they can overwhelm even the most patient individuals. In these volatile conditions, frustration builds and there is a strong urge to lash out.

Anger might seem like a way to regain control, or at least to feel noticed in the chaos. While it’s an understandable reaction, it rarely improves such situations.

Reacting out of anger often leads us to make emotional rather than rational decisions, such as yelling to feel heard. This behaviour can close off communication with the very people whose help is needed. It also drains our resilience at the moment when it matters most.

Importantly, anger is often directed at front-line staff who represent the organization, but have little control over the root causes of disruption. In ordinary times, these employees already face a considerable amount of abuse from customers. In moments of widespread disruption, that mistreatment can quickly become unbearable.

What you can do instead

Although the situation is frustrating and unfair, research has identified practical ways to make it a little more bearable and of improving how travellers navigate it. Here are three strategies supported by scientific studies, including research I conducted with colleagues:

1. Remember this is a collective problem.

My research has found that people stuck in crowded environments feel less frustrated when they think of the situation in collective terms. Airline staff are not opponents; they are trying to help thousands of stranded passengers at once. Approach them as partners in a shared challenge as much as you can. Seeing the situation as a collective issue, rather than a personal one, can make it easier to cope and connect with those who can assist you.

2. Bring your attention inward.

Crowded airports and long layovers can make every minute feel longer and harder to go through. In several studies on how to handle stressful crowds, my co-researchers and I found that focusing on personal media — a book, a tablet or music through headphones — can reduce stress by narrowing your sense of the crowd. Instead of feeding off the chaos and getting more agitated, try to give your mind a smaller, calmer space to settle in. The wait may still be long, but it will feel more manageable.

3. Be polite and respectful with staff.

Showing respect isn’t just courteous; it’s an effective way to manage conflict. In their book Getting to Yes, negotiations experts Roger Fisher and William Ury famously argued to “separate the people from the problem.”

This lesson applies here as well: always treat staff with dignity, even when the situation is frustrating, and focus on solving the real issue. Airline employees may have limited resources, but they are more likely to help travellers who remain calm, clear and respectful.

None of this diminishes how exhausting and unfair the situation feels. However, while travellers cannot control cancelled flights or the pace of labour negotiations, we can control how we respond to these stressors.

Seeing the situation as a shared problem, finding ways to manage our own stress and treating staff with respect can make the experience more bearable. More importantly, these strategies improve our chances of getting help when opportunities arise.

Jean-Nicolas Reyt 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. Stranded by the Air Canada strike? 3 strategies to keep your cool, work with staff and return home safely – https://theconversation.com/stranded-by-the-air-canada-strike-3-strategies-to-keep-your-cool-work-with-staff-and-return-home-safely-263411

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andrea DeKeseredy, PhD student, Sociology, University of Alberta

Canadian employers have been mandating workers back to in-person work through blanket return-to-office policies. On top of harming workplace equity, these policies have broader repercussions for the public as children head back to school and respiratory illness season looms.

On Aug. 14, Doug Ford’s Ontario Progressive Conservative government announced that all public workers were being ordered back to the office full-time. This followed the federal government’s controversial mandate that requires federal workers to be in the office at least three days a week, despite mass union pushback.

The private sector is also rescinding workplace flexibility, with both Toronto-Dominion (TD) and the Royal Bank of Canada mandating their employees back in the office.

While employers may be rushing to undo COVID-19 era changes, viral illnesses have other plans.

Respiratory illness season

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the state of public health in Canada remains bleak. Alberta has broken the record for the deadliest flu season three years in row, with a staggering 239 deaths in the 2024-25 season. At the same time, Ontario has seen its influenza numbers spike to levels not seen in over a decade.

The “tripledemic” of respiratory infections — COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — can wreak havoc on health-care systems. Thousands are hospitalized every year, overloading our hospitals, while many more more ride out acute sickness at home, burdening family members and other unpaid caregivers.

As fewer people get seasonal flu vaccinations and viral illness spreads, Canadian employers continue to dismantle the few pandemic-induced policies that helped families manage their workplace responsibilities during viral illness season.

Work structure and COVID-19

One of the few benefits of the COVID-19 pandemic was how workplaces amended their day-to-day structure. Arrangements that did not seem possible before, like holding meetings over Zoom, became commonplace.

These changes had the unintended consequences of reducing workplace inequality, especially among women with care-giving responsibilities. In Canada, women’s employment recovery after the acute stages of the pandemic was rapid, with core-aged women achieving the highest employment rates ever recorded. The changes made it so they could better manage conflicts between work demands and the uncertainty of family life and childhood illness.

Our research in Alberta — a province that has been grappling with especially difficult viral illness outbreaks, deaths and waning vaccinations — overwhelmingly shows that flexible, remote work options benefit workers.

Using survey data] from the 2023 Alberta Viewpoint Survey from more than 1,000 people, we found that since September 2022, over half missed work due to their child or other family member being sick. Nearly one-third missed one to six days and near 20 per cent missed one to four weeks. Women were more likely than men to miss extended periods away from work, and many participants worried about how their bosses viewed their absences to care for sick children.

The spread of viral illness throughout the 2022-2023 season clearly affected the workforce, but the larger consequences of illness depended on workplace remote options and flexibility.

Parents who had access to remote, flexible options were able to manage the ongoing unpredictability of illness far better than those who were mandated to be in the workplace. Crucially, these parents were also less likely to send their children to school or daycare sick, thereby reducing the circulation of illness.

Parents who did not have this option, especially those with jobs that required in-person interactions with the public, felt immense pressure to be at work while limited sick days were being used up quickly. Many were left with no choice but to send their children to child care even though they were sick.

Parents who feared losing a day’s pay, their boss’s good will or even their job tried to mask children’s symptoms with medications. Even so, while they were at work, they were anxious about getting “the call” from school or child care telling them that their child needed to be picked up immediately.

Remote work does not just benefit parents, either. It saves workers’ time in commuting, improves well-being and can increase workplace productivity and performance. It has been especially beneficial for people with disabilities and chronic health conditions who often face a range of barriers for accessing employment.

During the pandemic, people with disabilities employed in jobs with flexible and remote work options had lower levels of economic insecurity and were often protected from illness. Since the pandemic, greater access to jobs that provide the ability to work from home has been a key driver in increasing labour force participation among people with disabilities.

Despite all of the evidence that work-from-home options are a public health and equity win, and in the face of worker and union protest, Canadian employers continue to choose policies that disrupt families and add to multiple public health crises.

Risks of ending remote work

While it’s too early to see the effect these mass policies will have on the Canadian labour market, early data from the United States shows a mass exodus of women from the workplace after the implementation of return-to-office policies. Based on federal labour force statistics, the proportion of women who have young children in the workforce has reached its lowest level in more than three years.

---

Read more:
Combatting the measles threat means examining the reasons for declining vaccination rates

---

Canadian employers turned to work-from-home and remote work to meet the unprecedented risks of the COVID-19 pandemic. More than five years on from the start of the pandemic, it’s clear that these policies have other benefits for both workplaces and for Canadian society as a whole.

Work-from-home and remote-work flexibility has driven gains in workplace equity. It also limits outbreaks of respiratory infections by enabling parents to keep their kids home from school or child care when they’re sick. Removing remote work policies during the back-to-school season is a dangerous game to play, especially with declining vaccination rates.

As illness spreads again this fall, this game may very well lead to productivity losses and more expenses for governments and businesses across Canada.

Andrea DeKeseredy receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Amy Kaler receives funding from the University of Alberta’s Support for the Advancement of Scholarship fund.

Michelle Maroto receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

– ref. As back-to-school season approaches, Canadian employers are making a mistake by mandating workers back to the office – https://theconversation.com/as-back-to-school-season-approaches-canadian-employers-are-making-a-mistake-by-mandating-workers-back-to-the-office-263251

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sam Routley, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre will return to Parliament, this time as the new member for the Alberta riding of Battle River-Crowfoot.

With more than 80 per cent of the popular vote in a byelection, Poilievre has managed to pass the first significant test of his leadership following the Conservative Party’s federal election loss in April. The victory not only signals ongoing support from the riding’s voters but, more importantly, restores the legitimacy and platform that the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition provides.

But the scope of this success should not be overstated. This victory isn’t a noteworthy accomplishment, nor does it indicate a comeback for the Conservatives. Rather, success here was the bare minimum; the start of a much longer journey back to prominence for the Conservatives.

Safest possible riding

Battle River-Crowfoot, which comprises a predominantly rural part of southeastern Alberta, is one of the safest seats for the Conservatives in the country. Although there are variations over time, a Conservative candidate within the last few decades could have, regardless of the particulars of the election period, expected at least 70 per of the vote. Just this year, the party’s candidate — Damien Kurek — won almost 83 per cent of the vote.

But although there has been little change in the riding over time, byelections can often produce novel, unpredictable and counterintuitive results. Unlike Canada-wide contests, local communities are subject to the near constant attention of parties, leaders and the national media.

Byelections also generally have smaller rates of voter turnout and engagement — it’s rare to see more than a third of them turn out. This means that short-term and localized dynamics can have a bigger impact on the results, especially if they can be mobilized.

In fact, minor parties and independent candidates perform generally better in byelections.

Were there any localized dynamics that could have hurt Poilievre? Apart from some reports of grumbling within the Conservative camp, media coverage focused on residents who expressed skepticism that Poilievre — having been an urban politician for the last two decades — was capable (let alone willing) to voice the specific needs of the community.

In fact, this byelection has come at a moment of rising separatist sentiment in Alberta.

---

Read more:
What if Alberta really did vote to separate?

---

Voting for party over leader?

With all this said, though, none of it proved to matter in the results. No serious challenge to Poilievre really materialized, even with 216 other names on the ballot. Instead, by winning 80 per cent of the vote, the Conservative leader has accomplished what amounts to a typical result for the party.

Voters, it seems, did not turn out for Poilievre’s leadership in large numbers as much as they have maintained their support for the party. For now, that’s enough for Poilievre.

He’s shown his ability to mobilize support among voters, and now can turn to his next challenge of surviving the mandatory leadership review in January.

In the months following the federal election in April, the federal Conservatives have been at something of a standstill. Alongside the slow summer months and the soul-searching that follows every election defeat, the party has yet to determine how to adjust to Canada’s new political environment.

While Poilievre — who may or may not still be leader in a year — has focused on communities in Battle River-Crowfoot, the political centre of gravity has shifted to Prime Minister Mark Carney.

In his fifth month in the job, Carney maintains considerable public confidence, whether it comes to ongoing negotiations with the United States or in his expressed support for many of the policies that have been long promoted by the Poilievre Conservatives.

Historically, the Conservatives have quickly replaced their leaders. Poilievre’s predecessors, Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole — despite publicly expressing intentions to stay on — were quickly pushed out of their jobs following the formation of Liberal minority governments under Justin Trudeau.

The months ahead

What seems to make Poilievre’s situation different, though, is that no clear or popular successor has appeared, especially someone who can combine the support of party members, elites and unaffiliated voters in the same way he has. In the coming months, he will be able to use his platform in the House of Commons to make this point even more apparent.

No honeymoon lasts forever. Even while Carney now has the support of the Canadian public, there are several tensions and deep-seated challenges within his stated goals that are bound to lead to future problems.

---

Read more:
Is Mark Carney turning his back on climate action?

---

The discontents Poilievre has managed to tap into have been, at best, temporally satiated in the wake of the byelection win. And Carney’s coalition remains a defensive one, consisting of just one cohort of Canadian voters who are divided in terms of age, region, education level and income. This is all part of a voter realignment that is increasingly shaping the country’s politics.

What remains unclear is what challenges Carney will face in the months ahead and how the Conservatives will pivot to take advantage of them.

Will the party, for instance, maintain the libertarian-flavoured populism of the last few years? Or will it, like its international peers, embrace a program that’s, among other things, more economically interventionist, pro-worker and concerned with national culture?

Already, the party has explored a more restrictive stance on immigration, has taken the side of striking Air Canada workers and offered substantive alternative to Carney’s “elbows up” nationalism.

We’ll have to wait until the leadership review in January to see.

Sam Routley 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. Pierre Poilievre wins Alberta byelection — but he’s got a long road ahead to broaden his base – https://theconversation.com/pierre-poilievre-wins-alberta-byelection-but-hes-got-a-long-road-ahead-to-broaden-his-base-262191

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ali Asgary, Professor, Disaster & Emergency Management, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies & Director, CIFAL York, York University, Canada

In one of the first communications of its kind, the British Columbia Wildfire Service has issued a warning to residents about viral, AI-generated fake wildfire images circulating online. Judging by comments made by viewers on social media, some people did not realize the images were not authentic.

As more advanced generative AI (genAI) tools become freely accessible, these incidents will increase. During emergencies, when people are stressed and need reliable information, such digital disinformation can cause significant harm by spreading confusion and panic.

This vulnerability to disinformation stems from people’s reliance on mental shortcuts during stressful times; this facilitates the spread and acceptance of disinformation. Content that is emotionally charged and sensational often captures more attention and is more frequently shared on social media.

Based on our research and experience on emergency response and management, AI-generated misinformation during emergencies can cause real damage by disrupting disaster response efforts.

Circulating misinformation

People’s motivations for creating, sharing and accepting disinformation during emergencies are complex and diverse. Some individuals may generate and spread disinformation for a number of reasons. Self-determination theory categorizes motivations as intrinsic — related to the inherent interest or enjoyment of creating and sharing — and extrinsic, which involve outcomes like financial gain or publicity.

The creation of disinformation can be motivated by several factors. These include political, commercial or personal gain, prestige, belief, enjoyment and the desire to harm and sow discord.

People may spread disinformation because they perceive it to be important, they have reduced decision-making capacity, they distrust other sources of information, or because they want to help, fit in, entertain others or self-promote.

On the other hand, accepting disinformation may be influenced by a reduced capacity to analyze information, political affiliations, fixed beliefs and religious fundamentalism.

Misinformation harms

Harms caused by disinformation and misinformation can have varying levels of severity and can be categorized into direct, indirect, short-term and long-term harms.

These can take many forms, including threatening people’s lives, incomes, sense of security and safety networks.

During emergencies, having access to trustworthy information about hazards and threats is critical. Disinformation, combined with poor collection, processing and understanding of urgent information, can lead to more direct casualties and property damage. Misinformation disproportionately affects vulnerable populations.

When individuals receive risk and threat information, they usually check it through vertical (government, emergency management agencies and reputable media) and horizontal (friends, family members and neighbours) networks. The more complex the information, the more difficult and time-consuming the confirmation and validation process is.

And as genAI improves, distinguishing between real and AI-generated information will become more difficult and resource-consuming.

Debunking disinformation

Disinformation can interrupt emergency communications. During emergencies, clear communication plays a major role in public safety and security. In these situations, how people process information depends on how much information they have, their existing knowledge, emotional responses to risk and their capacity to gather information.

Disinformation intensifies the need for diverse communication channels, credible sources and clear messaging.

Official sources are essential for verification, yet the growing volume of information makes checking for accuracy increasingly difficult. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, public health agencies flagged misinformation and disinformation as major concerns.

---

Read more:
How to address coronavirus misinformation spreading through messaging apps and email

---

Digital misinformation circulated during disasters can lead to resources being improperly allocated, conflicting public behaviour and actions, and delayed emergency responses. Misinformation can also lead to unnecessary or delayed evacuations.

In such cases, disaster management teams must contend not only with the crisis, but also with the secondary challenges created by misinformation.

Counteracting disinformation

Research reveals considerable gaps in the skills and strategies that emergency management agencies use to counteract misinformation. These agencies should focus on the detection, verification and mitigation of disinformation creation, sharing and acceptance.

This complex issue demands co-ordinated efforts across policy, technology and public engagement:

1. Fostering a culture of critical awareness: Educating the public, particularly younger generations, about the dangers of misinformation and AI-generated content is essential. Media literacy campaigns, school programs and community workshops can equip people with the skills to question sources, verify information and recognize manipulation.

2. Clear policies for AI-generated content in news: Establishing and enforcing policies on how news agencies use AI-generated images during emergencies can prevent visual misinformation from eroding public trust. This could include mandatory disclaimers, editorial oversight and transparent provenance tracking.

3. Strengthening platforms for fact-checking and metadata analysis: During emergencies, social platforms and news outlets should need rapid, large-scale fact-checking. Requiring platforms to flag, down-rank or remove demonstrably false content can limit the viral spread of misinformation. Intervention strategies need to be developed to nudge people about skeptical information they come across on social media.

4. Clear legal consequences: In Canada, Section 181 of the Criminal Code already makes the intentional creation and spread of false information a criminal offence. Publicizing and enforcing such provisions can act as a deterrent, particularly for deliberate misinformation campaigns during emergencies.

Additionally, identifying, countering and reporting misinformation should be incorporated into emergency management and public education.

AI is rapidly transforming how information is created and shared during crises. In emergencies, this can amplify fear, misdirect resources and erode trust at the very moment clarity is most needed. Building safeguards through education, policy, fact-checking and accountability is essential to ensure AI becomes a tool for resilience rather than a driver of chaos.

Maleknaz Nayebi receives funding from NSERC.

Ali Asgary 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. AI-generated misinformation can create confusion and hinder responses during emergencies – https://theconversation.com/ai-generated-misinformation-can-create-confusion-and-hinder-responses-during-emergencies-263081

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

The current phase of the war in Ukraine continues unabated into its fourth year, with grinding offences and strikes against civilian infrastructure increasingly the norm.

It is, for Ukraine, arguably the most vulnerable that it has been since 2022.

These developments have prompted calls among world leaders to end the conflict. On the surface, United States President Donald Trump’s meetings with both the Ukrainian and Russian leaders suggests a balanced approach. In reality, however, Trump’s actions primarily benefit Russia.

The Alaska summit

After the recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Trump declared that their summit had been “very useful.” When asked how he would rate the meeting on a scale of one to 10, the president declared the meeting “was a 10 in the sense we got along great.”

While Trump and Putin may have hit it off, the issue with such an assessment is that it failed to address the underlying reason for the meeting: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In this regard, the meeting was far more useful for Putin and Russia than Ukraine and its allies.

Putin managed to stoke tensions, and potentially divisions, among Ukraine’s principal supporters by not including Ukraine in the summit. No other countries participated in the summit.

This format caused considerable consternation in Ukraine, where it was feared that Trump would make an agreement without Ukrainian consent, as well as in Europe, where Russian aggression and revisionism is a more direct threat.

Prior to Trump assuming power for a second time in 2025, Ukraine benefited from a largely united front among NATO and the European Union. This unity has declined over the last several months, and the Alaska summit reinforced this decline to Russia’s benefit.

Ceasefire demand evaporated

Putin and his negotiators managed to obtain a major concession from Trump at the summit as Trump renounced his own recent calls for a ceasefire.

For Ukraine and its allies, achieving a ceasefire was a fundamental requirement for any peace negotiations in 2025. This precondition has become more significant as Russia ramps up its attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilians.

Lastly, the very nature of the Alaska meeting itself helped legitimize Russia in international opinion.

Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia has courted international opinion. It’s been more successful than most people in Europe and North America realize as significant portions of Asia, Africa and Latin America remain ambivalent or even support Russia in its war against Ukraine.

Nonetheless, Russia was always restrained by the condemnation it’s received from multiple international organizations, most notably the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

Trump welcoming Putin on American soil, when the Russian leader is under what amounts to a de facto travel ban by the International Criminal Court, undermines these institutions’ condemnations.

Zelenskyy’s visit to Washington

The benefits that Putin obtained from Trump in Alaska demanded an immediate response by Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy promptly arranged a White House meeting with Trump in the aftermath of the Alaskan summit. And he didn’t arrive alone: European leaders accompanied him to show solidarity with Ukraine.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted the European leaders weren’t on hand to prevent Trump from bullying Zelenskyy, as occurred during their last Oval Office meeting.

---

Read more:
What the U.S. ceasefire proposal means for Ukraine, Russia, Europe – and Donald Trump

---

That’s probably only partly true. Several European leaders — ranging from the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to French President Emmanuel Macron — almost assuredly accompanied Zelenskyy to prevent Trump from forcing the Ukrainian leader into concessions that are detrimental to their interests as well.

Trump’s pre-meeting social media post undoubtedly heightened their concerns. In the post, he placed the burden of peace on Zelenskyy and argued that Ukraine must accept the loss of Crimea and never accede to NATO.

Carefully orchestrated

Ukrainian officials sought to carefully orchestrate Zelenskyy’s one-on-one Oval Office meeting with Trump. Zelenskyy wore a suit and delivered a letter from the Ukrainian first lady to Melania Trump.

These and other efforts aimed to stroke Trump’s ego, and the president’s response — in particular agreeing with a reporter that Zelenskyy “look(ed) fabulous” in a suit — suggests it was a success. The same American reporter criticized Zelenskyy for failing to don a suit during his ill-fated February White House visit.

Notably, Trump did not rule out a role for American soldiers in helping to maintain peace in Ukraine during the meeting. Outside observers believe an American presence in Ukraine to maintain any eventual peace is a fundamental requirement for its success.

Unfortunately, while Trump did not immediately oppose the idea, he did not make any firm commitment either. Trump’s propensity to reverse course on statements that he makes in the moment, furthermore, undermines any firm takeaways from the meeting.

Hope versus reality

Any direct American involvement in Ukraine would also undermine his support among his political base. One of Trump’s key campaign promises was not to involve the U.S. in “endless foreign wars.”

A move by Trump to deploy American soldiers to Ukraine would be politically tenuous, as fractures are already emerging among his political base over his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

---

Read more:
Trump’s changing stance on Epstein files is testing the loyalty of his Maga base

---

Trump’s cordial meetings with Zelenskyy and European leaders may fuel hope among Ukraine’s supporters in the coming days. But any optimism should be tempered by the damage done by Trump’s meeting with Putin. Trump reportedly interrupted the meetings in Washington to call Putin.

Trump’s unwillingness to make firm commitments at the meetings with Zelenskyy and European leaders means that Russia, on the balance, has succeeded in advancing its interests to the detriment of Ukraine and the prospects for a long-term, sustainable peace.

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

– ref. How Trump’s separate meetings with Putin and Zelenskyy have advanced Russian interests – https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-separate-meetings-with-putin-and-zelenskyy-have-advanced-russian-interests-263372

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gerard Di Trolio, PhD candidate, Labour Studies, McMaster University

Air Canada flight attendants say they will continue to defy a government back-to-work order after the federal labour relations board declared the strike “unlawful.” The walkout, which began early on Aug. 16, grounded hundreds of flights and left passengers stranded.

Less than 12 hours into the strike, the federal government intervened in the dispute between Air Canada and the union representing its flight attendants. Minister of Jobs and Families Patty Hajdu invoked Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to impose binding arbitration and order employees back to work.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) condemned the move, accusing the government of “crushing flight attendants’ Charter rights.”

---

Read more:
Air Canada flight attendants have issued a strike notice: Here’s what you need to know

---

Air Canada reportedly encouraged the government to intervene, while CUPE pushed for a negotiated solution, arguing binding arbitration would ease pressure on the airline to negotiate fairly.

After a Sunday hearing, the Canada Industrial Relations Board released an order reiterating flight attendants should “cease all activities that declare or authorize an unlawful strike of its members” and “resume the performance of their duties.”

As an expert in unions and the politics of labour, I see this dispute as highlighting several fault lines in Canada around work, how we value it and the ways the law affects workers.

Mark Carney’s labour dilemma

Prime Minister Mark Carney currently faces the first labour crisis of his term. Carney had worked alongside labour leaders in the face of United States President Donald Trump’s tariff threats, even appointing Lana Payne, president of the Unifor trade union, to the new Canada-U.S. Relations Council.

The federal government’s decision to invoke Section 107 to send Air Canada and its flight attendants to arbitration continues a growing trend of its increasing use.

Section 107 has been part of the Canada Labour Code since 1984. It was rarely used for decades, but became more common last year when Justin Trudeau’s government invoked it several times to end work stoppages at ports, rail yards and Canada Post.

This is part of a longer history. Dating back to the 1970s, federal and provincial governments started interfering with free and fair collective bargaining through back-to-work legislation or by imposing contracts on public sector workers.

What has changed in recent decades is the federal government’s growing creep into the private sector. Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, there were increasing threats to use back-to-work legislation, targeting CN Rail, CP Rail and Air Canada. These interventions were justified as protecting an economy emerging from a global financial crisis. The Harper government followed through with back-to-work legislation in the Air Canada and CP Rail cases.

If the Carney government continues to use back-to-work legislation, it could alienate unions that once saw him as a potential ally. Yet the public may be more receptive to it, given the country’s economic weakness and continued Trump threats.

The Air Canada strike could effect the trajectory not only of the government, but also the labour movement as well. It’s a strike that has major consequences for all workers in Canada, and its outcome will signal to workers across the country what they can expect in these uncertain times.

Defying the law is rare

CUPE’s decision to defy the Canadian government’s use of Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code comes with big risks but also potential victories.

A union or workers defying the law is hardly unprecedented, but is increasingly rare in an era where unions have been in an overall decline in Canada and globally.

The risks are significant for workers: heavy fines, termination of employment or even jail time for flight attendants and union officials.

If CUPE is successful, it would have a galvanizing effect, sending a message to workers across the country that they can stand up not only to their bosses, but to the state, in order to improve their labour circumstances.

However, for any kind of unlawful strike to be successful, there must be an incredible amount of unity among the workers. While CUPE leadership and the Canadian labour movement are strongly supportive of continuing the strike, rank-and-file flight attendants must be willing to stand their ground.

Even in a legal strike, unions only take the step of stopping work if they have an overwhelming amount of the membership on board. That need for solidarity is even greater for illegal action.

The reason why Canada has laws allowing unions, workplace safety and strikes is because of industrial militancy that often defied the law to force governments to enact legislation allowing for unions and strikes.

The flight attendant strike could be a barometer of increased labour organizing and action experienced across Canada since the COVID-19 pandemic, and whether that momentum for the labour movement can continue.

Work and gender

Another key issue at the heart of the strike is the gender wage gap, which continues to be an issue in Canada. While it has narrowed during this century, women in Canada still earn on average 12 per cent less than men. This gap is even wider for women who are newcomers, Indigenous, transgender or living with disabilities.

This disparity is closely tied to sectors where women are overrepresented, such as flight attendants, a workforce overwhelmingly made up of women. Across the Canadian workforce, 56 per cent of women are employed in the “5 Cs”: caring, clerical, catering, cashiering and cleaning. These occupations tend to be precarious and underpaid.

While airlines are part of transportation, the work that flight attendants perform is unmistakably service-based and covers much of the 5 Cs, including emotional labour and customer care.

For Air Canada flight attendants, the situation is compounded by the fact they are paid only while the plane is in motion, meaning they often perform unpaid work.

The gender dynamics become even clearer when comparing the treatment of flight attendants with that of Air Canada pilots.

In 2024, Air Canada pilots — who are mostly men — won a 26 per cent wage increase in the first year of their new contract and a 42 per cent increase overall. Air Canada’s most recent offer to its flight attendants was only an eight per cent increase in year one and 38 per cent overall.

“Air Canada’s male-dominated workforce received a significant cost-of-living wage increase. Why not the flight attendants, who are 70 per cent women?” Natasha Stea, president of the CUPE division that represents the Air Canada flight attendants, said in an Aug. 15 CUPE article.

In this context, the Air Canada strike is also a spotlight on systemic gender inequality, the undervaluing of service work and the fight for fair compensation in occupations dominated by women.

Gerard Di Trolio is a member of CUPE 3906 as a teaching assistant and sessional instructor at McMaster University.

– ref. Air Canada flight attendant ‘unlawful’ strike exposes major fault lines in Canadian labour law – https://theconversation.com/air-canada-flight-attendant-unlawful-strike-exposes-major-fault-lines-in-canadian-labour-law-263325

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Simon Blanchette, Lecturer, Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University

Since 2024, pushback against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) has gathered momentum across North America. This year, that retreat has taken on a new form: the rebranding of “equity” with softer, less contentious terms like “belonging” or “community.”

The University of Alberta, for instance, no longer has a vice-provost of equity, diversity and inclusion. Instead, it now has an office for “access, community and belonging.”

Similarly, Alberta’s public pension fund eliminated its lead DEI role during a restructuring. A spokesperson maintained that “the departure of the individual responsible for the formal DEI program has not lessened AIMCo’s firm commitment to these principles.”

A similar shift is underway at the University of Lethbridge, which established an office of “accessibility, belonging and community” in December.

While language naturally evolves, this current shift appears to lack the deliberate engagement needed for genuine progress. Instead, it may be obscuring a step back from equity rather than a step forward.

A retreat disguised as progress

Calls for rebranding DEI work have existed for years and are valid, even within the field itself. What we are seeing now, however, often lacks genuine community engagement and the voices of the very stakeholders these shifts to “belonging” are meant to include.

Today’s so-called rebranding efforts are more about appeasement than progress. Rather, they are reactive moves that respond to external pressures rather than to the needs and demands of the communities most affected.

Once embraced as essential to address systemic discrimination, the term equity has now become a political lightning rod.

Some institutions now face political, shareholder and donor pressures that frame DEI initiatives as divisive or ideologically extreme, pushing them to distance themselves from such programs.

In the corporate world, the trend is stark. Mentions of “DEI” in S&P 500 corporate filings have dropped 70 per cent since 2022, replaced by softer terms like “belonging” and “inclusive culture.”

This shift allows organizations to sidestep accountability, obscure inequities and replace measurable equity frameworks with vague platitudes.

Why this matters

By softening language, organizations secure a socially acceptable way to exit from the difficult work of equity. It suggests these organizations have somehow moved beyond equity without ever having done the work.

Removing equity from organizational language has tangible consequences. First, it undermines accountability. Effective equity frameworks create measurable, trackable goals. Terms like “belonging” are harder to define and easier to abandon. They allow organizations to gesture toward inclusion without doing the hard work of systemic change.

---

Read more:
Businesses must stop caving to political pressure and abandoning their EDI commitments

---

Second, it risks leaving people behind. Equity centres those facing real structural barriers, like women, Black and racialized people, Indigenous Peoples, 2SLGBTQI+ communities and people living with disabilities. When the term disappears, so too can their visibility in policies, funding and accountability.

Finally, there’s a risk to organizations themselves. DEI rollbacks hurt morale, retention, innovation and performance, and can even increase legal risk.

A 2025 survey from New York University’s Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging found 80 per cent of leaders believe reducing equity efforts increases reputational and legal risk. It also found widespread agreement that DEI initiatives improved firms’ financial performance.

The myth of meritocracy

A common justification for dropping “equity” is desire to return to “meritocracy.” Meritocracy is the idea that individuals should be rewarded based on their talent and hard work.

But meritocracy assumes a level playing field and obscures the fact that “merit” is socially constructed and context-dependent. It ignores that unequal barriers, like access to education and networks, impacts individual success despite a person’s achievements.

Meritocracy also assumes that diversity is prioritized over qualifications, which is not the case. We can successfully focus on both skills and inclusion.

Research by MIT management professor Emilio J. Castilla has shown that organizations claiming to be meritocratic often end up reinforcing biases instead — this is also called the “paradox of meritocracy.”

For instance, in a study involving 445 participants with managerial experience, researchers asked participants to make bonus, promotion and termination decisions for fictional employees. When an organization’s culture emphasized meritocracy, male employees received higher bonuses than equally qualified female employees.

Conversely, when the work culture emphasized managerial discretion instead, the bias reversed in favour of women. This likely occurred because the prompt signalled a potential gender bias, triggering an over-correction. In a third scenario where neither meritocracy nor managerial discretion was emphasized, there was no significant difference in the bonuses assigned.

While the last scenario sounds promising, most work environments emphasize meritocracy, consciously or not. Merit- or performance-based pay remains the norm in many organziations, meaning the first scenario is most common.

Without transparency, merit-based rhetoric about who supposedly “deserves” advancement often reinforces existing inequalities. Nepotism, network-based advantages and selective visibility often fill the gap when equity frameworks are abandoned. Networks and visibility matter, but they should not be mistaken for merit.

Ironically, sometimes the loudest critics of equity initiatives are silent when inherited privilege or insider connections determine who rises to leadership.

What can organizations do?

While some institutions are backpedalling on DEI commitments, others in Canada and across Europe are holding firm by embedding equity in their strategy, leadership and performance frameworks.

Advancing equity in today’s climate requires both strategy and sustained action. Here’s where organizations can begin:

1. Establish and embed explicit, measurable equity objectives aligned with your business strategy.

2. Increase data transparency by collecting and publicly sharing disaggregated information on recruitment, promotion, pay equity, turnover and employee experience.

3. Give diverse voices real decision-making authority over policies and initiatives. Employee resource groups are a great way to start.

4. Hold leaders accountable by training them to champion equity and tying their incentives to concrete DEI outcomes.

5. Communicate DEI impacts transparently and authentically by sharing stories and metrics that showcase how equity efforts have improved business performance.

These solutions are already working. In my consulting practice, I have accompanied organizations that are making progress by building trust, energizing teams and driving innovation. In the end, they are measurably more successful and resilient.

The business case for equity is well-established: it drives performance, helps fuel growth and is an overall leadership imperative. In today’s political climate, it’s critical to stay focused on outcomes rather than rhetoric that frames equity as divisive or unnecessary.

The way forward

Rebranding “equity” as “belonging” doesn’t advance justice, especially when there’s no shared definition of what “belonging” actually means. It politely denies the need to dismantle real systemic barriers. For individuals facing those barriers, it sounds like an empty promise.

No one chooses their race, sex, socio-economic background, sexual orientation or to live with a disability or the lasting impacts of military service. But institutions can choose whether to confront the inequities tied to those experiences and dismantle barriers that individuals face.

This moment also calls for an honest reflection within the DEI space itself. Some initiatives have overreached or lost focus, contributing to this current backlash. Addressing missteps openly is part of rebuilding credibility in DEI work.

Equity, at its core, is about ensuring dignity and providing everyone with a fair chance to succeed. Walking away from equity work or watering it down until it becomes meaningless is not the answer. Moving forward requires less political polarization and more co-ordinated action so that everyone can have a fair chance to thrive.

Simon Blanchette 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. Rebranding equity as ‘belonging’ won’t advance justice — it’s DEI rollback in disguise – https://theconversation.com/rebranding-equity-as-belonging-wont-advance-justice-its-dei-rollback-in-disguise-261730

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gail Low, Associate Professor, Chair International Health, MacEwan University

Late midlife adults are one of Canada’s largest yet most under-recognized and over-extended resources. They quietly tend to the health and well-being of millions of younger and older people, in person or from a distance.

From August 2024 to July 2025, Canada’s late midlife adults — those between the ages of 55 and 64 — collectively worked more than 100 million hours per month in a wide range of occupations like retail, law, engineering and health care.

In addition, Statistics Canada estimates they’re contributing 552 million hours per year formally volunteering, such as in crisis centres and schools. Late-to-midlife adults across Canada spent another 1.342 million hours doing unpaid informal volunteering.

Across Canada, baby boomers spent 1,219,000 hours of their 1,342,000 informal volunteer work hours directly helping family members like a parent or a sibling. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a good number were adding another 20 caregiving hours to their work week, whether in their own home or in a family member’s.

Aging and caregiving

Both of us research population and individual aging. We have watched our own siblings feeling caught between supporting parents and supporting their children, deferring their own health needs in the process. This is no surprise, because about one in five midlife women are caring for a child and more than one-third are providing care for an adult.

A typical caregiver has been providing 35 hours of care per week for more than four years. Adding three more hours per week would put them at the tipping point for anger and depression or just giving up.

In today’s economy, most people work to earn a living, as opposed to funding leisure and future retirement.

For nearly half of Canada’s caregivers, full-time work isn’t optional. For six out of 10 of them, neither is figuring out how to find formal supports.

Research indicates four in 10 working caregivers worrying about paying their bills. It is not hard to fathom why many caregivers start their day tired and anxious.

Elongated caregiving is on the rise on the home front as well. More young adult children in their early 20s to mid-30s are living with a parent. With persons 55-64 years of age holding two-thirds of household wealth in Canada, young adults are more likely to save for the future under their parents’ roofs.

A recent study estimates that 18 per cent of young adults self-identify with high anxiety and another 13 per cent with depression while almost half worry about losing their jobs.

Canada’s late midlife adults were also significantly mentally distressed, more so than older Canadians, during the pandemic. They also felt judged and more alone than older Canadians. Family conflicts and breakdowns were a source of stress, which other researchers identified as a risk factor for family conflicts, with anxiety and even suicidal thinking.

Research tells us this demographic is unlikely to use community support services for things like meal preparation or fitness for themselves. Around one in four who needed health services had trouble accessing them. Others reported that they either did not get around to accessing services or wanted to go it alone. Research about how they stayed afloat during COVID-19 was lacking and remains largely absent.

How people look at aging

In his book about psychosocial development, Life Cycle Completed, psychologist Erik Erikson remarked that historic change has the power to make people stop and rethink what old age looks like.

Across 20 countries, at age 60, health satisfaction has had a great deal to do with how people see themselves aging.

Before COVID-19, we designed a study that surveyed more than 500 Canadians in their 50s. They were feeling most pessimistic about aging physically, including their state of health. When it came to loss, what resonated most was difficulty making friends and seeing “old age” as a depressing time.

For these 50-somethings, being caught between helping younger generations and tending to their own growth was detrimental to self-confidence. Making time for activities that help people learn about and see good in themselves is time well spent.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, late midlife adults are looking at an uncertain future. Statistics tell us that they currently anticipate poor health as early as age 71, and their own demise around age 81.

Recent surveys further reveal they’re juggling an average of $300K in debt and are worried about household essentials, with with one in three also unprepared for the soaring cost of living, particularly for basic expenses and if already living paycheque to paycheque. Some even link historic shifts in co-residing young adults with older adults’ increasing debt loads.

Meanwhile, federal funding priorities focus on programs for youth and on raising potential midlife caregivers’ awareness of older people’s support needs.

Late midlife adults represent one of our nation’s major resources, given the socioeconomic and health-related roles they play as caregivers to young and old. But resources can become depleted: they need care, respect and sensitivity themselves in order to continue in those roles.

It’s time to ask late midlife Canadians about the burdens they’re carrying, if the load is becoming too heavy, and how they are managing the load. This is a conversation well worth having.

Gail Low receives funding from the RTOERO Foundation, University of Alberta, and MacEwan University. She works for MacEwan University and volunteers for the Gateway Association.

Gloria Gutman is Professor Emerita at Simon Fraser University. She is a Past-president of the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Canadadian Association on Gerontology, and International Network for Prevention of Elder Abuse.

– ref. Midlife adults are overextended with multiple roles – https://theconversation.com/midlife-adults-are-overextended-with-multiple-roles-246886

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Rama Shankar Singh, Professor (Emeritus) of Biology, McMaster University

In 1871, Charles Darwin introduced his theory of sexual selection by female choice in The Descent of Man. He suggested females of a species would exhibit a preference for beauty and ornamentation when choosing mates, leading to a prevalence of those traits.

Darwin claimed this explained the evolution of the peacock’s long tail. More than 150 years later, evidence from peafowl research challenges Darwin’s theory.

Our research on the peacock’s long tail discovered a simple developmental rule that explains its symmetry, complexity and beauty. It suggests peahens choose their mates on the basis of size, vigour and beauty, not beauty alone, as Darwin had thought.

Darwin’s assumptions

Darwin saw the peacock’s impractically long tail as maladaptive; it was too long to be explained by his grand theory of natural selection that held that species evolved only traits that could help them survive.

As he wrote to a fellow scientist: “The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!”

Darwin made two implicit assumptions that, our research shows, undermine his sexual selection theory. First, Darwin could not see that maladaptation can also be a product of adaptation since trade-offs between traits are common in nature.

Peacock tails here refer to the long, irridescent feathers that trail behind. Taller trains (the height when the feathers are fanned out) can be beneficial to males in securing mates, but at the same time, long tails are maladaptive because, for example, they may hinder escape from predators.

Second, Darwin assumed peahens admired the peacock tail “as much as we do” and the birds assessed mates on the basis of esthetic appeal. He argued that birds have a feel for beauty. Later, this explanation would set the stage for research exploring how females assess beauty in their mates.

Researchers focused on the tail’s brightly coloured eye-shaped spots, but a large number of studies have been done over the last 30 years and no uncontroversial support for eyespot-based female choice has been found.

Complexity and vision

As a fruit fly geneticist interested in the variation and evolution of sex and reproduction-related genes, I unexpectedly stumbled on the evolution of the peacock’s long tail. I noticed its excessive complexity and wondered if peahens saw what we see.

I examined museum specimens of peacock tails and made two important discoveries. First, I found that a zigzag/alternate arrangement of follicles gave rise to the symmetry, complexity and beauty of the peacock’s train. It is remarkable that this alternate arrangement, the densest form of spherical packing known, would produce such wonderful effects when applied to living things.

Second, because feathers and eyespots are parts of the same structure, the size of the train and the number of eyespots are developmentally correlated. Peahens cannot see eyespots and train size as separate traits, as we do; peahens react only to the green-blue colour of the eyespots and the eyespots are too small to see from distance. Therefore peahens view the tails as one complex trait that combines train size and some aspects of the eyespot colours.

What this means is that females cannot see eyespots without seeing the train first, which raises the possibility of direct selection based on the train and not the indirect result of selection through the attractiveness of the eyespots.

Since sexual selection and mate choice are an important part of the standard evolutionary processes involved in natural selection, there is no need for a separate sexual selection theory. Darwin was wrong in this respect.

Addressing beliefs

For a variety of reasons, the sexual selection theory found scant support during Darwin’s time. Naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection, was among those who argued sexual selection was subsumed under natural selection.

But Darwin had other reasons to push his sexual selection theory. He used it to solve three problems at once. First, of course, to explain the evolution of secondary and often exaggerated sexual traits, particularly in birds, including peafowl.

Second, he used his theory to explain race formation in humans, arguing for inherent race-specific standards of beauty that worked as a means of isolation between races.

Prevailing Victorian views, however, held women as weak and unable to exercise decisive preference on males. They also saw appreciation of beauty as an exclusively human trait not shared with other animals. This led Darwin to craft a theory attributing beauty-based female choice in birds and beauty-based male choice in humans.

Last, Darwin used peacock feathers to challenge the religious establishment and open the door to the esthetic appreciation of the animal world — beauty, intelligence and morality, which were taken as God-given.

This research provides reasons to reflect on why sexual selection theory is controversial, even after a century and a half. Sexual selection as a process of mate choice is common sense, but sexual selection as a theory is wrong.

Rama Shankar Singh received funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada He is affiliated with Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University.

– ref. Size matters, but so does beauty and vigour — at least when it comes to peacocks – https://theconversation.com/size-matters-but-so-does-beauty-and-vigour-at-least-when-it-comes-to-peacocks-261070

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Catherine Frost, Professor of Political Science, McMaster University

Canada and the United Kingdom have said they will recognize Palestinian statehood during the United Nations General Assembly in September, provided certain conditions are met.

Canada’s position is premised on seeing political and military reform from the Palestinian Authority, the governing body responsible for the autonomous Palestinian territories.

The U.K., responding to a severe food crisis in Gaza, said it would extend recognition unless the Israeli government agrees to a ceasefire, takes steps to “end the appalling situation in Gaza” and commits to a “long-term, sustainable peace.”

---

Read more:
Why UK recognition of a Palestinian state should not be conditional on Israel’s actions

---

These cautious, conditional endorsements reflect the workings of a dated international system that governs the birth of states. France, by contrast, has opted to recognize Palestine without conditions. What explains these different approaches?

Officially, state recognition is governed by international law. In practice, it is subject to a complex mix of national, global and moral considerations.

This process grants existing states significant discretion in recognizing new ones, with the expectation that such decisions serve international peace. But this can result in an uneven statehood process for aspiring nations.

How states are born

The 1933 Montevideo Convention outlines the core criteria for statehood recognition: a permanent population, control over a defined territory, a functioning government and the capacity to open relations with other states.

When recognition is given on this basis, it is essentially acknowledging that these qualities are already in place. Yet these requirements are not iron clad, and some experts have argued that recognition can also be extended on humanitarian or moral grounds, such as in response to human rights violations.

In such cases, recognition becomes more of a statement that a state should have the opportunity to exist, rather than a confirmation that it already does. The classic case would be a group facing colonial domination. The American colonies appealed to this principle in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, for example.

Because individual states decide when such exceptions apply, these measures provide uncertain relief for aspiring nations.

As a final step, new states can apply for membership in the UN. This application is first considered by the UN Security Council. If nine states agree, and none of the council’s permanent members object, the application continues to the UN General Assembly for approval.

But a single veto from any of the five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the United States — can paralyze statehood at the start. In 2024, for example, the U.S. vetoed Palestine’s request for full UN membership.

Statehood in waiting

To date, 147 of 193 states in the United Nations recognize Palestinian statehood. Palestine has also had special observer status at the UN since 2012, and before that it had limited standing before international courts typically reserved for states.

But Palestine is not the only instance where the international system has struggled to address atypical or contested statehood.

After a wave of recognitions in post-colonial Africa and post-Second World War Europe, the recognition of new states slowed to a crawl toward the end of the 20th century. This trend suggests there is a conservative quality to the recognition system.

Wary of rewarding violent separatism, international bodies have traditionally favoured negotiated solutions for state birth, including upholding a parent-state veto over any independence efforts.

This principle was most clearly articulated by the Canadian Supreme Court in a 1998 advisory opinion. It warned that an independent Québec, without first agreeing on terms of exit with the rest of Canada, was unlikely to gain international recognition.

There is wisdom to this approach, but such rules cannot prevent political breakdown in every case. A growing number of unrecognized states have left millions stranded in political limbo.

This includes Somaliland, which split from Somalia in 1991 and has been operating as a de facto state ever since without receiving formal recognition from any other country.

Palestine is not an instance of state breakup, but rather an unresolved case of colonization and occupation. Decades of negotiations with Israel, the occupying power, have failed. Yet formal statehood has still proven elusive. A cumbersome recognition system may be helping to keep the problem alive.

Cracks in the system

Even when recognition occurs, the results can be disappointing.

South Sudan, the UN’s newest member, was universally recognized in 2011 under close UN supervision and with the consent of its parent state, Sudan. Yet it quickly descended into civil war — a conflict it has yet to fully emerged from.

Kosovo was recognized by states like the U.S. and Canada when it declared independence in 2008 following the breakup of Yugoslavia, but it still has fewer recognitions than Palestine.

A handful of states like Togo and Sierra Leone even began de-recognizing it under pressure from Kosovo’s one-time parent state, Serbia, although there is a broadly accepted principle that once a state is recognized, barring any complete disaster, it should remain recognized.

Meanwhile, rising sea levels threaten to leave some island states like Tuvalu without the territorial requirements for normal statehood. The International Court of Justice has signalled the statehood of such nations should survive, but has not said how.

---

Read more:
The Australia-Tuvalu deal shows why we need a global framework for climate relocations

---

These examples suggest the current state recognition system is ill equipped to face today’s changing world.

Allowing established states to set the rules for who qualifies is unlikely to solve these current problems. While setting special terms for new entrants may have value in the short term, the longer term need is for a more fair and transparent system.

Experts are working on ways to make the system more inclusive for aspiring states and unrepresented peoples, including by opening up access to diplomatic venues. If successful, these measures could change the way future states are born.

Catherine Frost receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Canada and the U.K.’s conditional recognition of Palestine reveals the uneven rules of statehood – https://theconversation.com/canada-and-the-u-k-s-conditional-recognition-of-palestine-reveals-the-uneven-rules-of-statehood-262418