Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, this week passed legislation that would vastly expand capital punishment in Israel and in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The changes, made via an amendment to Israel’s penal law, allow for executions without proper appeal, pardons or meaningful judicial discretion.

According to media reports, 62 of 120 Knesset members voted in favour of the bill on Monday, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and 48 voted against. The remainder absented themselves from the vote or abstained.

UN experts and Amnesty International have warned these new death sentencing rules would apply almost exclusively to Palestinians.

It would, they argue, entrench discrimination already identified by the International Court of Justice as amounting to apartheid. UN experts said of the bill:

Since Israeli military trials of civilians typically do not meet fair trial standards under international human rights law and humanitarian law, any resulting death sentence would further violate the right to life […] Denial of a fair trial is also a war crime.

This development is a significant change for Israel, which has not executed anyone for more than 60 years. It reverses decades of global movement towards abolition, while normalising executions in an occupied territory.

Death penalty as the default

These changes were made via legislation brought by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and his far-right Otzma Yehudit party.

The Penal Bill (Amendment ― Death Penalty for Terrorists) amends both Israeli civil law (applicable to Israeli settlers) and Israeli military law (applicable to Palestinians) in the occupied West Bank.

The law states, according to a Deutsche Welle media report:

Palestinians in the occupied West Bank convicted of terrorism in military courts will face a mandatory death sentence or, in the wording of the bill “his sentence shall be death, and this penalty only.” Only if the court determines that there are “special reasons” can it then commute the death sentence to life in prison.

Under this change:

• prosecutors do not need to request the death penalty
• the defence minister may submit an opinion to the judicial panel of three military officials who only need a simple majority to impose the death penalty
• judges need to record exceptional reasons for imposing a life sentence over the death penalty
• avenues for appeal would be tightly restricted
• there would be no possibility of a pardon
• people sentenced to death would be detained in isolated facilities that would have restricted visitor access, with legal counsel only by video link
• executions (by hanging) would take place within 90 days of the final judgement.

Another yet-to-be-passed bill that may still be brought before the Knesset – the Prosecution of Participants in the October 7 Massacre Events Bill – would also see more death sentences handed down.

It establishes ad hoc military tribunals with retrospective jurisdiction to prosecute those accused of participating in the October 7 2023 Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel.

These tribunals would:

• consist of a retired district court judge and two officers qualified to serve as judges
• be authorised to depart from ordinary rules around evidence and procedure
• be able to impose the death penalty via a simple majority, without prosecutors requesting it.

Appeals and clemency mechanisms would again be extremely limited.

Taken together, the two amendments significantly expand the scope of capital punishment in Israel. They also remove many procedural safeguards.

Supporters argue capital punishment could deter future attacks and preclude hostage-taking for prisoner exchanges.

Yet, historically, Israel’s intelligence services have opposed death sentences. They have argued it may encourage armed groups to kidnap Israelis as bargaining chips to prevent executions.

International humanitarian law

Critics have argued the new changes place Israel in breach of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

As critics point out, Israel’s new death penalty rules limit access to legal counsel. They also:

• restrict appeals
• allows trials before ad hoc military tribunals for new capital offences
• mandate executions be carried out within 90 days.

This all runs counter to international humanitarian law.

Significant legal concerns are raised by Israel enforcing new capital offences in the occupied territory after the International Court of Justice concluded Israel’s occupation violates international law and must cease.

These concerns are compounded by longstanding criticisms of Israeli military courts in the occupied West Bank, where conviction rates for Palestinian defendants reportedly exceed 99%.

International human rights law

Under international human rights law people should be guaranteed equality before the law and protected from discrimination.

But the changes passed by the Knesset this week subject Palestinians to death sentences as the default, while Israeli citizens accused of killing Palestinians would appear before civil courts. Here, capital punishment would be discretionary and far more limited. This entrenches a discriminatory system.

Critics argue this amounts to collective punishment against Palestinians, which is prohibited under the Geneva Convention.

The European Union has warned that executions through hanging would also violate the absolute prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Taken together, the two new amendments normalise state-sanctioned executions and violate Israel’s obligations under international law.

Shannon Bosch 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. New Israeli law could mean death penalty by default for Palestinians convicted of deadly attacks – https://theconversation.com/new-israeli-law-could-mean-death-penalty-by-default-for-palestinians-convicted-of-deadly-attacks-279458

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Flavie Waters, Research Professor, School of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia

Have you ever been drifting off to sleep when suddenly you hear what sounds like a gunshot, a door slamming, or an explosion inside your head? You jolt awake, heart pounding, sit upright in bed, but the room is silent.

Nothing has happened – but it felt very real.

This experience has a dramatic name: exploding head syndrome.

Despite the alarming name, it’s not dangerous, not painful, and not a sign something is wrong with the brain.

What is it?

Exploding head syndrome is a type of sleep disorder known as a parasomnia.

Parasomnias are unusual experiences that occur while sleeping or during transitions between sleep and wakefulness.

In exploding head syndrome, a person “hears” a sudden noise that seem to originate from deep inside the head. It’s a sensory perception generated by the brain rather than an external sound.

It typically occurs when drifting in or out of sleep, most commonly when a person is drowsy and about to fall asleep.

People commonly describe a sudden bang or loud metallic noise, gunshots, an explosion, crashing waves, buzzing electricity, a door slamming, or fireworks.

Exploding head syndrome can be intensely frightening. The loud noise may be accompanied by other sensations, including a brief stab of pain in the head (though it’s normally painless), flashes of light, out-of-body sensations, or the sensation of electricity coursing through the body.

The episode only lasts for a split second or a few seconds, and typically disappears completely once the person wakes up. Some people experience only a single episode, while others may have occasional episodes or brief clusters before the condition settles.

Because the experience is so sudden and unusual, many fear they’ve had a stroke or seizure, or that something catastrophic has happened. Others interpret it as a supernatural or ominous event.

The distress is caused not by pain, but by confusion and the body’s alarm response. The brain is partially awake, disoriented, and briefly activates the fight-or-flight system.

What causes it?

We don’t know the exact cause, but researchers have proposed several theories.

Because episodes occur during the transition into and out of sleep, they may be related to the same processes that produce what are known as hypnagogic hallucinations (vivid sensory experiences you can get while falling asleep).

As we fall asleep, different parts of the brain gradually switch off in a coordinated sequence.

In exploding head syndrome, that process may be linked to the shutting down of neural systems that inhibit auditory sensory processing. Your brain may end up interpreting this as a loud sound.

A related theory proposes a brief reduction in activity of the brainstem, particularly the reticular activating system (which is involved in regulating transitions between wakefulness and sleep).

Exploding head syndrome typically does not involve pain, and is therefore different from headaches and migraines.

The syndrome’s distinct features also makes epilepsy an unlikely explanation for most people.

How common is it?

Exploding head syndrome is more common than you may think.

It occurs in at least 10% of the population, and around 30% of people will experience it at least once in their lifetime.

It can occur at any age, often after the age of 50. It may be slightly more common in women, but we don’t know why.

Exploding head syndrome is more likely in people who have other sleep disturbances, such as insomnia or sleep paralysis.

It is also associated with:

• being more stressed or emotionally tense than usual
• anxiety
• disrupted sleep patterns or poor sleep associated with daytime tiredness.

How is it treated?

Exploding head syndrome is harmless and not a sign of a serious brain problem. Episodes are usually brief, and may occur sporadically or in brief clusters before resolving on their own.

Once people are reassured the condition is not harmful and not a sign of brain damage or serious disease, episodes may become less frightening and frequent.

Medications are considered if episodes are frequent and very distressing but there haven’t been any large clinical trials that can guide treatment. Some sufferers have benefited from medications such as such as clomipramine but the evidence is limited, and more research is needed.

More commonly, treatment consists of reassurance and improving sleep habits. Some people report that addressing sleep problems such as insomnia, reducing tiredness and practising mindfulness and breathing techniques can help.

Generally harmless

In 1619 French philosopher René Descartes described having three dreams he regarded as a sign of divine revelation. In one, he heard a loud sound and saw a bright flash of light when he woke up. Some researchers have suggested what he was really experiencing was exploding head syndrome.

Despite its dramatic name, exploding head syndrome is harmless. For many people, the most effective intervention is understanding what it is – and knowing that it is not dangerous.

Although it is generally harmless, you should seek medical advice if episodes occur frequently, impact on your quality of life or are causing distress. Consult a doctor if they are painful, or associated with seizures, prolonged confusion, loss of consciousness or severe headache.

Flavie Waters 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. Exploding head syndrome: the surprisingly common condition with a terrifying name – https://theconversation.com/exploding-head-syndrome-the-surprisingly-common-condition-with-a-terrifying-name-276273

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bernard Stewart, Professor, Paediatrics and Child Health, UNSW Sydney

As early as the 1880s, there was evidence that smoking tobacco damaged your lungs. But it took almost 100 years to definitively show that smoking causes lung cancer.

So, what about vapes?

Until now, most research that has looked at the cancer risk for people using vapes, also known as electronic or e-cigarettes, has mainly focused on their role as a gateway to smoking tobacco. This is because we know people who vape are more likely than non-smokers to take up smoking.

But whether they cause cancer by themselves has been unclear. There are still no long-term studies. But now a comprehensive review of the evidence I conducted with colleagues, published today, has found vaping likely causes oral and lung cancers.

What we looked at and what we found

Given there is no long-term research on whether vaping directly causes cancer, we had to look for effects on the body that we know are linked to cancer.

We identified all peer-reviewed research published between 2017 and mid-2025 that looked at health impacts of vapes considered indicative of potential cancer causation.

The aerosol that vapers inhale contains a complex range of chemicals, including nicotine and its byproducts, and vapourised metals. This aerosol demonstrates almost all of the ten “key characteristics of carcinogens” identified by the World Health Organization.

Blood and urine analyses from vapers confirmed they had absorbed chemicals from e-cigarette chemicals that we know are linked to cancer. These studies revealed nicotine and its breakdown products present in their bodies, including carcinogenic (cancer-causing) metals from the heating element and organic compounds from vapourising e-liquids.

There is no doubt vaping alters tissues in the mouth and lungs. We found evidence of mutations in DNA from the mouth and lungs in those who vaped, which is further evidence of carcinogen exposure.

There was also evidence of changes to cancer biomarkers in the lung and mouth tissue of vapers. Cancer biomarkers are changes in cell or molecular structure that precede a tumour developing. Some of these can be observed under a microscope, such as inflammation, while others such as oxidative stress are detected by molecular analysis.

We also examined experiments on mice which found the aerosols in vapes caused lung cancer, as well as cases reported by dentists who thought that oral cancers in certain individual patients (who didn’t smoke) were caused by them vaping.

Our review did also examine studies that had addressed the possibility vaping may cause cancer. However none of these covered the wide range of evidence we had assessed.

What this means

The evidence shows nicotine-based vapes are likely to cause oral and lung cancer. We just don’t yet know how many cases it will cause.

But in the evidence we looked at, there was rising concern, and a significant shift in the conclusions that had been drawn.

Between 2017 and 2019, researchers tended to say there wasn’t enough evidence to conclude that vapes cause cancer. This included papers that typically looked at cancer biomarkers and carcinogenic mechanisms.

By 2024 and 2025, almost without exception, authors were expressing concern. They noted that the idea vaping has a lower cancer risk than smoking could no longer be supported, given the evidence we now have.

Our study, which looks at cancer caused by vapes in their own right, marks a new approach to what we know about the link between cancer and vaping.

What we still don’t know

We still don’t have direct evidence that there are more cancer cases than expected among people who vape.

The fact it took 100 years to demonstrate that smoking causes cancer indicates it will take decades to make a similar case for vaping. And it will be challenging, because definitive proof will depend on a population of people who only vape, not people who smoke and vape.

So we need large and carefully planned studies, which will then allow us to monitor and detect cancer early, and precisely determine if it is caused by – or worsened by – vaping. Lives can be saved by these means, but only if this research is funded and started now.

Bernard Stewart 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. Strongest evidence yet that vaping likely causes cancer – https://theconversation.com/strongest-evidence-yet-that-vaping-likely-causes-cancer-279550

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Paul S.C.Taçon, Chair in Rock Art Research and Director of the Place, Evolution and Rock Art Heritage Unit (PERAHU), Griffith University

Extinct animals have long fascinated people around the world – from dinosaurs, to giant kangaroos, to enormous flightless birds and almost unimaginable sea creatures.

But one of the most intriguing is the Tasmanian tiger, also known as the thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus).

These large dog-like animals with stripes on their backs once roamed throughout the Australian mainland. But when Europeans colonisers arrived, thylacines were only found in Tasmania, hence the name Tasmanian tiger.

Our team of researchers has been documenting depictions of thylacines and other creatures at rock art sites in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, for decades.

Today, we publish new research on rock art in north-west Arnhem Land, including 14 rock paintings of thylacines and two of Tasmanian devils. A few of these paintings were previously known but not described, while others were identified by our team over the past three years.

Besides rock art, we also examined recent paintings on bark, paper and canvas – as well as information from Aboriginal elders. Our findings emphasise how thylacines are still important to Arnhem Land Aboriginal communities today.

Memories of a curious creature

Scientists studying fossil remains suggest the thylacine became extinct on the Australian mainland about 3,000 years ago. The Tasmanian devil disappeared from the continent about the same time. Dingoes, humans and ancient climate change have been implicated in their demise.

The last known thylacine in Tasmania died in Hobart’s Beaumaris Zoo in 1936, but reports of tiger sightings in rugged, remote parts continued. Recent research suggests the thylacine may have persisted in Tasmania until the 1980s.

In the mid-1800s, Aboriginal people in Tasmania told settlers many things about thylacines, including that they had a powerful swimming ability, much like domestic dogs.

In the 1900s, rock paintings and engravings of thylacines were recorded at various locations on mainland Australia, especially in the north of the continent. Arnhem Land is particularly rich in images of this curious creature.

Paintings in red, white and yellow

Our research focuses on rock paintings from Awunbarna (Mount Borradaile) and Injalak Hill (near Gunbalanya), east of the East Alligator River that separates Arnhem Land from Kakadu National Park.

Since 2018, we have been working with local Aboriginal community members to record hundreds of rock art sites in each location – some of which include thylacine paintings.

North-west Arnhem Land is well known for its rich galleries of rock paintings. These have been made over at least the past 15,000 years and feature unique styles and subject matter. Our new findings add to the region’s cultural and scientific importance.

The thylacine and devil paintings we examined were made in various Aboriginal art styles. They were usually made with red and sometimes yellow ochre in various styles. The oldest were made about 15,000 years ago, while others were made at various times since.

Two of the paintings were made using white pipe clay (kaolin) with red ochre.

One red and yellow thylacine painting had fine white cross-hatching added to its body within the past few hundred years.

The white pigment does not last long and easily flakes off. It is coarse and sits on the rock surface rather than penetrating and staining the way red ochre does. Most paintings with white are less than 1,000 years old.

This suggests some depictions of the two extinct species are more recent than we might have expected.

Rock art depictions of thylacines are much more numerous and widespread across mainland Australia than Tasmanian devils. Including our new findings, only 25 Tasmanian devil images have been documented – versus more than 160 thylacine depictions.

Thylacines may have survived much longer in pockets of northern Australia than Tasmanian devils, but were likely also more culturally important.

At three rock art sites we recorded pairs of thylacines. Some Aboriginal elders we worked with had stories about Ngalyod (Rainbow Serpents) having two thylacines as pets that would swim in rock pools where Ngalyod resided.

The tails of the thylacines are shown in a few different positions – and some thylacines are depicted with teeth.

These variations don’t seem to be linked to the style or age of the work. It’s more likely they relate to different ways paintings were used to pass on information about the animal.

Stories passed down through generations

Contemporary artists in western Arnhem Land have long been inspired by these paintings and related stories. Today, they continue to portray the thylacine across various forms of media. They also have a name for thylacines: Djankerrk.

The thylacine lives on in western Arnhem Land, not as a living animal or a ghost from the past, but as a creature that still has present day relevance. Our new research, conducted in collaboration with community members, contributes towards our understanding of what makes the thylacine so meaningful.

Paul S.C.Taçon receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Andrea Jalandoni receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Sally K. May receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Joey Nganjmirra 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. NT rock art thousands of years old sheds new light on the mysterious Tasmanian tiger – https://theconversation.com/nt-rock-art-thousands-of-years-old-sheds-new-light-on-the-mysterious-tasmanian-tiger-278670

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Andrew Fairbairn, Professor of Archaeology, The University of Queensland

Odin was a kelpie. Attentive and protective, with a happy smile and an endless hope for food, he succumbed to a terminal disease late last year. At his death, a deep sense of grief ripped through the household of one of us (Andrew): while Odin was not human, he was an irreplaceable member of the family.

Our new research, published in Nature this week, helps explain the unique and striking way dogs like Odin fit into the human world – whether reading our moods, following our movements or becoming part of the rhythm of everyday life.

Based on international collaborations lasting decades, the two new studies have unlocked previously unavailable information from the bones of dogs long dead. Yet these papers are not just about the dusty old bones found in our archaeological sites, or the cutting-edge science applied to them.

They shine light on a relationship that has been part of the human social world for at least 16,000 years.

The earliest known dog

Dogs are the earliest known animals to be both tamed and separated from their wild relatives over generations by humans. This process is known as domestication.

It has long been thought that dogs were domesticated from wolves, their closest relatives, during the last Ice Age. Solid evidence to test this has been hard to find in archaeological sites as dog bones are difficult to tell apart from those of wolves using their shape alone.

It has taken the successful extraction of ancient DNA (aDNA), a recently developed technique, to provide definitive identification of dogs, which differ genetically from wolves.

One of the new studies confirmed the earliest known dog is now from Pınarbaşı, a rockshelter site in Karaman, central Turkey. This dog lived around 15,800 years ago.

Excavated in 2004, the bones could have been from either dog pups or wolf cubs. But aDNA analysis confirmed their identity as dogs 20 years later, following 10 years of analysis and comparison with other aDNA results.

The dog pups were buried carefully and treated in death similarly to the humans buried nearby. This continued a close relationship with people during life, as shown by chemical analyses suggesting the dogs and humans shared similar foods, including small fish from the local wetlands. Dogs were not just animals lingering around the edges of campsites. They were already an integral part of human societies.

Integration of dogs into the human social world could have resulted from close cooperation during hunting. Dogs may also have acted as guardians and sentinels for their communities who lived in a world with many dangerous predators such as wolves and leopards.

Moving with people

The same analysis found dogs genetically similar to those at Pınarbaşı at Gough’s Cave in Britain around 14,300 years ago. This suggests a group of closely related dogs spread rapidly from Eurasia all the way to the far end of Europe, moving with people but also moving between different human communities.

These dogs were not related to European wolves and evidence from the second new study, suggests that European dogs were not domesticated separately to those elsewhere, rejecting a long held hypothesis. Their difference to east Asian dogs is due to the spread into Europe with farmers 8,500 years ago from Turkey of dogs which had interbred with local wolves.

We know this because of the DNA of a dog from our site of Boncuklu, an 11,000-year-old village, near Konya in central Turkey. Our excavations showed that pups were buried in the graves of people directly related to those earlier communities at Pınarbaşı, located 30 kilometres to the southeast, though they lived a very different life in permanent houses supported by small-scale farming.

Genetically related farmers from this region spread into Europe around 8,500 years ago, with dogs also genetically related to those at Boncuklu at their heels. The incoming dogs interbred with those already in Europe, but didn’t replace them entirely.

From the deep past to the present

Together, the studies show that dogs were already living alongside people across a surprisingly wide area from Anatolia to the far edge of western Europe in the last Ice Age, long before farming began, and that their history is older, more mobile and more entangled with human history than we once thought.

The detailed archaeological evidence from Boncuklu and Pınarbaşı show just how close dogs and humans had become and the larger scale analysis sees them repeatedly moving through human networks that crossed cultural boundaries.

We still do not know exactly where and when dog domestication began, and the patient research that will answer that question is already under way in excavations across the world.

But these two new studies make one thing very clear: by the end of the Ice Age, dogs were already deeply woven into human life and had become part of the community, forging deep bonds that continue to this day.

Andrew Fairbairn receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and The University of Queensland.

Douglas Baird has received funding from The British Institute at Ankara, the British Academy, Gerda Henkel Stiftung, Australian Research Council, Arts and Humanities Research Council, National Geographic, Wainwright Fund Oxford, IFRGlobal.

Gökhan Mustafaoğlu has received funding from The British Institute at Ankara, the British Academy, Gerda Henkel Stiftung, Australian Research Council, Arts and Humanities Research Council, National Geographic, Wainwright Fund Oxford, IFRGlobal.

– ref. Ancient bones show dogs have been woven into human life for nearly 16,000 years – https://theconversation.com/ancient-bones-show-dogs-have-been-woven-into-human-life-for-nearly-16-000-years-279219

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Cordelia Fine, Professor, History & Philosophy of Science program, School of Historical & Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne

What causes workplace sexual harassment? How can we continue to better understand it? And what can be done to prevent it?

Successful answers to questions like these need a good scientific explanation. But which explanation should we draw on?

Two very different explanations circulate among social scientists. In new research, we compared how the two stack up – and found one of them was a clear winner.

Evolved sexual tendencies or maintaining gender hierarchies?

On one view, sexual harassment – as the name implies – is all about sexuality. According to the evolutionary psychology research program, men and women have evolved different psychological mechanisms to solve the different challenges they faced to successfully reproduce back in the Pleistocene epoch.

For men, these adaptive mechanisms include a greater interest in casual sex, and a tendency to mistakenly conclude that women are sexually interested in them. Women, in contrast, evolved to be more sensitive to potential threats to their sexual autonomy – and therefore perceive men’s advances as harassing.

But for social science scholars informed by the gender hierarchy – the idea that men hold more power and status than women – sexual harassment is “an expression of workplace sexism, not sexuality or sexual desire”. It is a mechanism for preserving work roles as masculine terrain, and pushing back against threats to men’s higher status within a workplace.

These two accounts offer very different ways of explaining workplace sexual harassment. So how do we go about deciding which one to draw on?

It might be tempting to think one scientific view is preferred over another for political reasons: he likes the evolutionary psychology account because he is a misogynist; or she likes the gender hierarchy account because she is blinded by her feminist ideology.

Putting explanations to the test

These accusations don’t get us very far. Fortunately, the philosophy of science gives us three well-established criteria for what makes for a good scientific explanation.

These three criteria flow from thinking about what scientific explanations are for.

The intrinsic value of explanations is that they provide understanding. We understand something better when we have identified its causes.

When it comes to sexual harassment, ideally the causes we identify will explain a broad range of sexual harassment phenomena. Sexual harassment is not just the “powerful man exploits attractive female subordinate” scenario that tends to get the most press attention.

Scientific explanations also have instrumental value. The causal explanations scientists produce can be used to generate new predictions that can be tested in future research. In other words, a good scientific explanation is also fruitful.

Scientists’ causal explanations can also be used to identify factors that can be manipulated or controlled. This gives society potential interventions to shape outcomes we care about, such as reducing workplace sexual harassment.

Two explanations, head to head

In our recently published research, we used these three criteria for a good scientific explanation to compare the evolutionary psychology and gender hierarchy maintenance accounts of workplace sexual harassment. So what did we find?

First, we found that the gender hierarchy maintenance explanation was clearly superior when it came to identifying causes that make sense of a broad range of workplace sexual harassment phenomena.

Evolutionary psychology makes sense of sexual coercion and some forms of unwanted sexual attention, to be sure. But research shows these kinds of behaviours almost invariably go hand-in-hand with sexist jokes, crude sexual remarks and sexually degrading imagery, such as porn.

None of these behaviours are plausibly about trying to gain sexual favours, even though some are sexual in nature. These behaviours are called “gender harassment” –which is the most common form of sexual harassment.

Unlike evolutionary psychology, gender hierarchy maintenance can explain all three forms of harassment. Demands for sexual favours, sexist remarks and requests for note-taking can all be understood as behaviours that reinforce traditional gender roles and confer greater status and authority to men.

Second, we found that both explanations have given rise to fruitful research programs that generate and test predictions. However, evolutionary psychology faces a challenge here.

The theory’s core prediction is that ancestral men who misperceived sexual interest in women tended to enjoy greater reproductive success, which is impossible to test. It is also plausible that sex pests would have faced disadvantages within close-knit communities. Without a time machine, this prediction can never be tested.

Third, we found the gender hierarchy maintenance explanation has the edge when it comes to identifying effective interventions. Flattening organisational hierarchies, and loosening the link between status and masculinity, are potential ways to change things.

Evolutionary psychology points instead to interventions such as educating men about what counts as sexual harassment. However, evidence suggests this kind of training is not effective. And, of course, the only way to really change people’s evolved adaptive mechanisms would be to change their brains and genes – which we can’t do.

Gender hierarchy maintenance is a better explanation

Our research points to the value of understanding workplace sexual harassment through the lens of gender hierarchy maintenance. This offers hope for the future of workplace culture: it suggests men are not essentially predisposed to be sexual harassers, with little that can be done to alter their evolved natures.

Instead, sexual harassment is best understood as a consequence of our current social and cultural environment. And this is something we can shape to facilitate a better and safer future at work.

Cordelia Fine receives funding from the Australian Research Council, and has previously received funding from the Victorian Government Commission for Gender Equality in the Public Sector and the Women’s Leadership Institute Australia.

Kate Lynch receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Arthropoda Foundation, and has previously received funding from the Australia & Pacific Science Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation.

Morgan Anna Weaving has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Why do men sexually harass women at work? Science offers two explanations – but only one of them holds up – https://theconversation.com/why-do-men-sexually-harass-women-at-work-science-offers-two-explanations-but-only-one-of-them-holds-up-278894

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Anna Marie Brennan, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Waikato

What began with surprise US and Israeli strikes on Iran one month ago has hardened into a grinding stand-off, with no clear way out.

The conflict’s opening blows on February 28 killed senior leaders in Tehran, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – prompting retaliatory missile and drone attacks on Israel, US bases and Gulf infrastructure.

Years of tension over Iran’s nuclear programme and its regional influence have now boiled over into open warfare, with diplomacy faltering as both sides entrench their positions.

On the ground in Iran, the violence is worsening what was already a strained human rights situation. News reporting from within the country carries daily images of damaged neighbourhoods, overwhelmed hospitals and families fleeing tit-for-tat strikes.

One incident in particular – the US airstrike on a school in Minab in southern Iran that left dozens of girls dead – highlights the scale of the devastation, as well as the war’s murky legal context.

Future war crimes investigators will need to ask some obvious questions. Was the school a civilian site, was it used for military purposes, what precautions were taken and was the civilian harm excessive relative to any military advantage?

Only then will responsibility be able to be determined – but such clarity is likely to be a long way off.

When the law is clear, but accountability is not

Many observers have already criticised the shaky legal basis for the conflict.

Some have described the US position – as set out in a letter to the United Nations invoking self-defence and the protection of Israel against an alleged imminent threat from Iran and its allied groups – as thin.

Others have argued that strikes supporting the stated goal of regime change were unlawful, citing the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force against the political independence of a state and the principle of non-intervention.

At this point, it is safe to assume that accountability for alleged international crimes by all sides to this ongoing conflict will remain elusive.

The International Criminal Court has no automatic jurisdiction because the United States, Israel and Iran are not parties to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court and defines its powers.

A UN Security Council referral of the situation to the court for investigation and possible prosecution is also unlikely, given the high potential for any such move to be blocked by veto-wielding permanent members.

Is any accountability likely to come through internal investigations by the states involved? This too is uncertain, as such investigations are often classified or narrowly framed by military and legal authorities.

This means independent investigators are often left to piece together their cases from satellite imagery, authenticated videos, mass graves, weapon remnants and medical and mortuary records.

While this can establish what happened and where, linking harm to identifiable decision-makers and proving intent is far harder while the conflict continues and key military records remain sealed.

This is not to say the laws of war themselves are ambiguous. They require forces to distinguish between civilians and fighters, avoid excessive civilian harm and take practical precautions.

International criminal cases turn on attribution and intent, meaning investigators must show who authorised an attack and what they knew. But without insider witnesses or key evidence, that is difficult, and proper accountability for war crimes often fall short.

A pattern of impunity?

We have seen this pattern before, where efforts to secure accountability are blocked or weakened by international deadlocks.

In 2014, the UN Security Council attempted to refer alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity against civilians in Syria’s civil war to the ICC. The effort failed after Russia and China vetoed it, citing concerns about sovereignty and the impact on a political settlement.

In 2021, the UN Human Rights Council ended the mandate of the Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen – an independent body tasked with investigating and reporting on violations by all parties – after some member states voted against renewing it. This removed one of the international community’s few mechanisms for documenting human rights abuses.

The ongoing crisis in Gaza has also proved a defining test of whether international law can be enforced.

The ICC has opened an investigation into Palestine and issued arrest warrants for senior Israeli and Hamas officials over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

But such warrants depend on states to enforce them, and cooperation has been limited. A parallel UN inquiry has found Israel has committed genocide, yet the path to legal accountability remains contested.

In Iran, a similar outcome – or lack of one – now appears sadly likely.

I was a visiting professional at the International Criminal Court in 2014. I worked in chambers for Judge Sylvia Steiner on the Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (Central African Republic) case.

– ref. A war without accountability: why the Middle East crisis is also a legal quagmire – https://theconversation.com/a-war-without-accountability-why-the-middle-east-crisis-is-also-a-legal-quagmire-279199

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Matt Nichol, Lecturer in Law, CQUniversity Australia

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has confirmed it is introducing a controversial new policy that will ban transgender athletes from competing in women’s events.

The IOC stated eligibility for women’s events will be determined by a “once-in-a-lifetime” sex test, which would prevent transgender women and those with differences in sexual development from competing.

It is an abrupt U-turn after the IOC previously left athletes’ eligibility up to their respective sports federations.

Reactions to the decision were unsurprisingly fierce.

From a legal point of view, it opens up a can of worms and will no doubt affect many athletes from the top level down to grassroots.

What is the test?

The IOC says “eligibility for the female category is to be determined in the first instance by SRY gene screening to detect the absence or presence of the SRY gene”.

It added:

Based on scientific evidence, the IOC considers the presence of the SRY gene is fixed throughout life and represents highly accurate evidence that an athlete has experienced male sex development.

SRY stands for “sex determining region Y” gene. The presence of the SRY gene is associated with men’s typical sexual development.

---

Read more:
World Athletics’ mandatory genetic test for women athletes is misguided. I should know – I discovered the relevant gene in 1990

---

Any athlete whose test shows the presence of the SRY gene will be banned from the women’s category.

The screening will be done via an athlete’s saliva, a cheek swab or blood sample.

The IOC stated it is not retroactive and does not apply to any grassroots or recreational sports.

Why did the IOC make this move?

In September 2025 the IOC established a working group to examine scientific, medical and legal developments in this space.

The IOC said the group reached a consensus that “male sex provides a performance advantage in all sports and events that rely on strength, power and endurance”.

IOC president Kirsty Coventry said:

At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat. So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.

The IOC added it had surveyed more than 1,100 Olympic athletes, which revealed “a strong consensus that fairness and safety in the female category required clear, science-based eligibility rules, and that protecting the female category is a common priority”.

At the Tokyo Olympics in 2021, New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard became the first openly transgender woman to compete at an Olympic Games. She finished last in the super‑heavyweight category.

The policy is widely expected to be adopted by individual sports federations, although many have already implemented similar testing in recent months, including World Athletics and World Aquatics.

It will be implemented for women’s events at the Olympic Games, Youth Olympics and Games qualifiers, from Los Angeles 2028 onwards.

Human rights law and sport

The IOC’s decision may be in opposition to several laws that aim to ensure everyone has the right to participate in sport.

The United Nations’ International Charter of Physical Education and Sport states access to and participation in sport is an international human right.

In 2019, a UN Human Rights Council resolution called on sports governing organisations such as the IOC to implement policies and practices that comply with international human rights.

International human rights laws require countries protect and promote human rights.

As many international sports governing organisations such as the IOC are based in Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights also applies to the new genetic testing rule. The IOC policy may violate this.

The UN Human Rights Council states genetic sex testing as an eligibility requirement for women’s sport violates athletes’ international rights to equality, bodily and psychological integrity and privacy.

While many support the IOC’s new policy, others argue the athletes now banned from competing in women’s sports are not being granted basic, long-agreed human rights.

Affected athletes may challenge the new rules in the Court of Arbitration for Sport – world sport’s top court, which has in the past heard cases on gender eligibility.

The IOC’s new rule may also violate the Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and domestic laws in many countries that prohibit genetic testing unless a health purpose is achieved.

Those left on the sidelines

This policy is a monumental shift from world sport’s most powerful authority.

It has sparked celebration among some, and anger and disbelief among others.

There will be aftershocks, maybe in the form of appeals or lawsuits. Where it leaves the few transgender and intersex athletes who want to compete in elite women’s sports is anyone’s guess.

Matt Nichol 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. The Olympics’ transgender athlete ban is a legal and moral minefield – https://theconversation.com/the-olympics-transgender-athlete-ban-is-a-legal-and-moral-minefield-279445

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Justin Bergman, International Affairs Editor, The Conversation

Since the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran in late February, Iran has retaliated by targeting commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, effectively shutting down the narrow channel of water.

It’s caused a global fuel crisis, even though some ships are managing to get through the strait. US President Donald Trump has given Iran an ultimatum to fully reopen the waterway to oil and gas shipments, and called on NATO allies to help in the effort.

We asked naval expert Jennifer Parker, who served for 20 years with the Royal Australian Navy, to explain what kind of military force would be required to reopen the strait to commercial shipping and why the US hasn’t yet taken this step.

Why is it so hard to prevent attacks on ships?

The geography of the region has a lot to do with this.

Iran clearly dominates the northern part of the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. That proximity allows it to use its cheaper weapons such as drones to target ships.

Creating the conditions to make merchant shipping safe – or at least reduce the risk – requires a two-phase campaign.

The first phase is taking out Iran’s ability to target ships. There are two ways to do this:

• persuade or force Iran to stop attacking ships
• destroy Iran’s ability to attack ships by taking out its radar facilities, command and control structure and weapons bunkers along the coast.

The US has air power, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to identify and destroy most of these targets. Locating and destroying Iran’s masses of drones will be harder, as they can be stored almost anywhere, so intelligence will be crucial here.

Once you reduce the risk through a bombing campaign, the second element of getting ships back through the strait is a reassurance campaign.

This requires airborne early warning aircraft and maritime patrol aircraft to monitor not only the strait, but also the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf and along Iran’s coastline.

Fighter aircraft would need to be stationed above the strait and gulf, as combat air patrol and helicopters would need to be ready to deploy against attacks, if necessary. And in the water, the US would need to station warships to provide the occasional escort.

If mines are confirmed or even suspected of being in the strait, this complicates things. The US would require an extensive and time-consuming mine clearance operation.

So, why won’t the US try to militarily secure the strait?

There are four key reasons the US won’t attempt to militarily secure the strait without first achieving phase one (taking out Iran’s ability to target ships) — and why it hasn’t been a focus of the campaign thus far.

First, it would divert military assets, such as aircraft, that are needed elsewhere to carry out Trump’s war objectives.

Second, to make the strait safe for shipping, you actually need to secure not just the water, but the land on either side of it. And this would likely require ground forces – or perhaps raiding parties on Iran’s coastline – which would be complicated and risky for the US military.

Third, securing shipping would require a significant number of naval ships. Realistically, you’d need one or two naval ships per escort operation. A convoy any larger than that would be at increased risk of attack, unless the US and Israel have dramatically reduced Iran’s ability to target the ships.

And fourth, the military needs to think about the risk to its assets versus the benefits of opening the strait. A US warship has a crew of more than 200 personnel. Given Iran’s ability to hit ships with uncrewed surface vessels, drones and cruise missiles, is it worth putting those personnel at risk before you’ve reduced the threats from Iran’s coastline?

What about mines in the strait?

This would be a significant challenge. But one thing first: Iran doesn’t actually need to physically lay the mines, it just needs to convince the US and others that it has. This is enough to prevent civilian ships from wanting to transit through the strait.

Sometimes mines can be floating on the surface of the water, so they’re visible. Often, though, mines are submerged or moored. The US would need to send in divers or remote-controlled vehicles launched from ships to remove them. This would take weeks or perhaps even months.

Although it’s not been confirmed publicly, I think it’s unlikely Iran would extensivley lay mines. There are two reasons for this.

First, Iran’s economy relies on its ability to ship its own oil from Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf through the strait. Iran does have other ports outside the strait, but they can’t accommodate bigger ships, so mining would interfere with their trade.

Second, some reports have suggested Iran has used acoustic mines, a type of influence mine that detonates based on an acoustic “signature”, essentially what a ship sounds like as it moves through the water. While this technology certainly exists, it is unlikely such mines would be designed to reliably differentiate between Iranian-flagged merchant vessels and those flagged to other countries.

Maintaining accurate and comprehensive signature data for large numbers of commercial vessels — particularly in a dense and dynamic shipping environment such as the strait — would be extremely challenging. In practice, these mines would pose risks to a wide range of shipping.

The US also has significant intelligence assets and surveillance and reconnaissance systems along the Iranian coast, so it would likely detect mine-laying operations, although this can also occur from any vessel, including fishing boats.

And what about Iran’s ability to target ships with drones?

Iran has used different types of drones so far in the war. The uncrewed aerial craft or uncrewed surface vessels are remotely controlled and have been used to hit merchant tankers.

Compared with other weapons, such as missiles, it’s much harder for the US and Israel to target Iran’s drones on the ground because they can be launched from almost anywhere. And while they can’t be built anywhere, drones don’t require the same advanced manufacturing facilities as missiles. In short, they are harder to detect and wipe out.

But the US can bomb some of Iran’s launching points and drone stockpiles along the coast to prevent some attacks on ships.

What is the main priority for the US in Iran right now?

Although there has been much debate about regime change, the Trump administration has been clear about its four key military objectives, which are to destroy:

• Iran’s ballistic missile capability
• its nuclear capability
• its navy (which has largely been achieved)
• and its proxy networks, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has been under attack by Israel for the past several weeks.

The destruction of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities requires significant aircraft and weaponry – as the US and Israeli bombing campaigns have already made clear. Diverting these assets to secure the Strait of Hormuz could undermine the achievement of these military objectives.

– ref. Why hasn’t the US military used force to secure the Strait of Hormuz? – https://theconversation.com/why-hasnt-the-us-military-used-force-to-secure-the-strait-of-hormuz-279224

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Elena Urrestarazu Bolumburu, Consultor Clínico. Servicio de Neurofisiología Clínica. Unidad de Sueño., Universidad de Navarra

As you get older, it’s normal to notice changes in your sleep. These can include fewer hours of shuteye, waking up more during the night, and finding it harder to drop off. However, despite the general view that older people tend to need less sleep, scientific evidence suggests that this change isn’t actually a question of needing less rest, but of a reduced ability to fall into a deep, continuous sleep.

Older brains still need to rest, but they find it harder and do it more superficially. It’s as if the “off switch” that keeps us asleep works less effectively as time goes on.

Lighter sleep and ageing

One of the main reasons we get worse sleep as we age is the loss of stability in the system that regulates sleep and wakefulness.

In the young brain, this system functions like a firm switch: it is either awake or asleep. But as we get older, some neurons that promote and maintain sleep are lost, while others that sustain wakefulness also get weaker. As a result, the brain shifts states more easily, leading to lighter and more fragmented sleep.

Our biological clocks also change with age. The group of neurons that coordinates the entire body’s circadian rhythms (known as the suprachiasmatic nucleus) continues to function, but its “day” becomes shorter and starts earlier, and its signal becomes less intense.

This partly explains why older people tend to fall asleep and wake up earlier. It also explains why their night-time sleep is more sensitive to external stimuli, and why they can experience more drowsiness during the day. Put simply, the brain receives a less clear signal about when to sleep and when to stay awake.

Another significant change is in our “sleep pressure”. This urge builds up throughout the day and causes us to sleep at night, and depends on a substance known as adenosine. As we age, the brain continues to accumulate fatigue but responds less effectively to this signal. Although the need for sleep remains, it becomes more difficult to translate the signal into deep, uninterrupted sleep.

Deep sleep, which is essential for brain recovery, is also directly affected by structural changes in the brain. This phase of sleep occurs primarily in the frontal regions, which lose thickness and connections as we age. As a result, the slow brainwaves that characterise deep sleep become weaker and less frequent – especially at the start of the night.

---

Leer más:
Super-agers’ brains stay young into old age. New research brings us closer to understanding why

---

During sleep, the brain also sends out brief signals that help consolidate memories from the day. As we age, these signals diminish and become less synchronised with deep sleep. This contributes to a decline in learning and memory efficiency, even in healthy older people.

Finally, ageing affects the connections that enable different regions of the brain to work in sync during the night. Although the neurons that generate sleep are still present, their signals are transmitted less effectively. The result is less deep, more fragmented, and less restorative sleep.

It is important to note that lighter sleep is considered part of the brain’s natural ageing process in healthy older adults. These changes do not necessarily lead to cognitive problems.

Lifestyle factors

In addition to these biological changes, other factors can have a decisive influence on sleep in older people, and often interact with neurobiological mechanisms. For instance, the loss of daily routine – such as regular working hours, structured physical activity and consistent exposure to natural light – weakens the external cues that help synchronise the biological clock, exacerbating sleep fragmentation.

At this stage of life, sleep disorders such as insomnia and obstructive sleep apnoea are more common. At the same time, a greater burden of chronic conditions – persistent pain, cardiovascular or respiratory diseases – and mood disorders leads to additional night-time awakenings and breaks up sleep.

While essential, frequent use of medicines can also disrupt sleep patterns. These range from sleep aids and anxiolytics that affect deep sleep, to antidepressants, beta-blockers and diuretics that interfere with the onset, stability or continuity of sleep.

Taken together, these factors act as modulators. While they do not in themselves cause sleep ageing, they can exacerbate it, and make it clinically significant when they occur in a brain that is already more vulnerable.

---

Leer más:
‘Sleep divorce’: could separate beds improve your health?

---

What is “normal” sleep ageing?

In recent years, there has been a growing body of evidence regarding the harmful effects of sleep deprivation and sleep disorders on brain health. Poor sleep is not only associated with poorer cognitive performance in the short term, but also with a higher risk of cognitive decline and dementia in the long term.

This growing interest has placed a spotlight on sleep in old age, a stage of life where sleep patterns almost universally change. However, one of the greatest challenges is to draw a clear line between changes in sleep that are part of normal ageing – meaning they don’t entail any negative physical or mental consequences – and those that may constitute an early, subclinical symptom of neurodegenerative processes.

As they age, a person might begin to notice a deterioration in their sleep patterns (waking up during the night, more superficial sleep, and so on). But there are no biomarkers that can determine whether these are normal changes to be expected with age, or whether they are in fact a manifestation of neurodegenerative disease.

Although it’s normal for sleep to become lighter with age, some changes go beyond what is to be expected and may indicate unhealthy brain ageing. One of the main warning signs is marked and progressive sleep fragmentation, with multiple prolonged night-time awakenings and a persistent feeling of non-restorative sleep, even when the total time spent in bed is enough. Unlike normal ageing, in these cases sleep loses its stability and continuity.

---

Leer más:
Why light pollution may be linked to greater risk of Alzheimer’s disease

---

Another key sign is the rapid onset or worsening of excessive daytime sleepiness, particularly when it interferes with daily activities or is disproportionate to the amount of sleep obtained. This would suggest that a person’s sleep has lost its restorative function.

When should you worry?

From a neurocognitive perspective, the coexistence of sleep disturbances with subtle cognitive changes – such as recent difficulties with memory, attention or learning, even if these do not yet meet the criteria for cognitive impairment – is particularly concerning. Recent research suggests that this combination may reflect early-stage neurodegenerative processes.

Changes in quality of sleep, rather than simply a reduction in sleep duration, are also considered warning signs. This can mean the almost complete disappearance of deep sleep, a marked reduction in REM sleep, or a progressive reversal of the sleep-wake cycle, with increased night-time activity and daytime sleepiness. These patterns are not typical of healthy ageing.

Other warning signs are a growing dependence on medical sleeping aids or sedatives to sleep, as well as treatments that previously worked becoming suddenly ineffective. In these cases, the problem is usually not just insomnia, but an underlying disturbance of the brain’s sleep mechanisms.

These signs alone are not sufficient to diagnose a neurodegenerative disease, but they do show why we need to assess sleep as a potential early risk marker, especially when the changes are recent, progressive and associated with cognitive impairments.

---

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

---

Elena Urrestarazu Bolumburu no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Is lighter sleep a normal part of ageing – or a sign of something more serious? – https://theconversation.com/is-lighter-sleep-a-normal-part-of-ageing-or-a-sign-of-something-more-serious-278836