Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Felicity Deane, Professor of Trade Law and Taxation, Queensland University of Technology

Trading partners of the United States are facing a fresh period of uncertainty after a US federal appeals court ruled President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs were illegal.

In a 7-4 majority, the judges ruled Trump had exceeded his power by invoking emergency powers to impose tariffs of “unlimited duration on nearly all goods from nearly every country in the world”, upholding an earlier court decision.

The ruling will throw into disarray the strategies of trading partners still in negotiations with the US, who may decide to wait and see the outcome of the legal battle.

Although there are different options available to challenge the decision, Trump has made it clear the next stop will be the Supreme Court.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the tariffs would remain in place until October 14, to allow time for further appeals.

The power to tax rests with Congress

The ruling tested the limits of executive power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) from 1977. Trump is the first president to use this act to impose tariffs, setting the stage for a test of executive power. At least for now, it is a test the administration appears to have failed. The judges rejected Trump’s interpretation, which they said would place no limit on the president to raise revenue without any authorisation from Congress.

Citing Article 1, section 8, of the US Constitution, the majority judgement unequivocally stated that “tariffs are a tax” and the power to tax under the Constitution rests with Congress.

In upholding an earlier decision by the Court of International Trade, the appeals court majority noted:

if the President can declare an emergency to cut the deficit by raising taxes in whatever way he wishes, not much remains of Congressional authority over taxation.

The tariffs are still in place

There were two important outcomes from this latest decision. First, the “liberation day” tariffs are (currently) deemed illegal. Second, these “illegal” tariffs will temporarily stay in place to allow for the appeal options to be explored.

Revenue will continue to be collected under the executive orders in question. Should the tariffs be deemed illegal on appeal, that revenue may need to be returned.

This ruling does not apply to all tariffs. It doesn’t cover specific sector tariffs such as those on aluminium and steel. However, other tariffs imposed during the first Trump presidency have already been ruled illegal under World Trade Organization rules and are currently the subject of appeal under the multilateral dispute settlement system.

The latest ruling would not reverse the decision to suspend the de minimis exception that caused global postage chaos. However, if the ruling is upheld, the rate of tariffs on low-value goods would revert back to pre-“liberation day” percentages. In many instances, this would mean back to zero.

What about the deals?

Trading partners initially responded with panic to the unveiling of Trump’s chaotic tariff agenda in April. There was a rush to meet with the president and make so-called deals. So what should governments of trading partners do now?

The most logical response might be to wait out the US legal process, because there may be no point in making deals if the tariffs are upheld to be illegal.

Unfortunately, this means continued uncertainty for business. On one hand, the courts may determine the tariffs are unlawful and must therefore be revoked. But Congress could subsequently move to reimpose tariffs with fresh legislation, or Trump could try other legal avenues.

The Constitution vs loyalty to Trump

If the administration does decide to appeal to the Supreme Court, the important test will not necessarily be about tariffs but whether the US Constitution will continue to support the separation of powers.

The appeals court decision argues the IEEPA does not support the introduction of tariffs of the magnitude of the “liberation day” tariffs. What the IEEPA does allow is for the president to “regulate […] importation”. However, the court suggested this phrase is nothing more than

a wafer-thin reed on which to rest such sweeping power.

Although the appeals court noted that such arguments have been rejected by the Supreme Court in the past, we will have to wait and see whether it is a “wafer-thin reed” that will become doctrine.

The Supreme Court has a conservative majority, with six of nine judges appointed by Republicans, including three in Trump’s first term.

The Supreme Court has already granted the president immunity from prosecution in some circumstances. If the majority decides to allow these widespread and indefinite tariffs, they may be one step closer to creating an American monarch.

Felicity Deane 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. Trump’s tariffs are headed to the US Supreme Court, prolonging the chaos on trade – https://theconversation.com/trumps-tariffs-are-headed-to-the-us-supreme-court-prolonging-the-chaos-on-trade-264249

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Claudio Bozzi, Lecturer in Law, Deakin University

US officials believe Chinese President Xi Xinping has set a deadline for his military to be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027 – the centennial anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth mentioned this date at a security conference in Singapore in May, warning of the “imminent threat” China poses to Taiwan.

The PLA has invested heavily in expanding and modernising its operations in recent years. Since 2015, it has built the world’s largest navy and coast guard.

But rather than threaten an invasion of Taiwan, China seems increasingly likely to pressure the self-governing, democratically ruled island with an extended blockade to force it to capitulate.

In preparation for such a possible action, China has developed a new command structure enabling it to coordinate its air, sea and land-based weapons systems to enact a strategy of lianhe fengkong (联合封控), or joint blockade. This would effectively cut Taiwan off from the outside world.

In late July, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) produced a report on 26 simulated war games it conducted to determine what a Chinese blockade of Taiwan would look like.

Taiwan’s natural gas supplies were predicted to run out after ten days of a blockade. Coal and oil supplies would run out in a matter of weeks. If Taiwan’s electricity was reduced to 20% of its pre-blockade levels, all manufacturing would cease. Casualties were expected to be in the thousands.

Taiwan is particularly vulnerable to a blockade. It relies more than any other developed nation on port calls relative to the size of its economy. Its biggest ports are on its west coast, facing mainland China. The island also has limited emergency food and fuel reserves.

---

---

What is a blockade under the law?

Imposing a naval blockade during armed conflict is an established right under customary international law. Blockades are not illegal per se, but they must comply with the laws of war. It’s a complicated and controversial area of the law.

To be legal, a blockade must first be effective. That is, the blockading power must maintain a force that prevents access to the enemy’s coast.

Other nations must be notified of the instigation of the blockade and its geographical extent.

A blockade must be enforced impartially against all vessels, except neutral vessels in distress. Any vessel breaching the blockade would be subject to being stopped, captured or fired upon.

Lastly, a blockade cannot prevent access to neutral ports or the delivery of humanitarian assistance to civilians.

Blockade strategies

China may use one of several blockade strategies against Taiwan. In contrast to an invasion, blockades can be scaled up or back, or reversed, depending on the unfolding security situation.

For instance, China may attack merchant shipping vessels seeking to enter Taiwanese waters to deliver essential cargo, coercing Taiwan to submit to China’s takeover. This is known as a kinetic blockade.

Alternatively, it may implement its preferred strategy of “winning without fighting”. Given the sheer size of its navy, coastguard and maritime militia, China could simply encircle the island and block access to its ports.

This could isolate Taiwan from the global economy to the point of forcing it to surrender, or weaken it sufficiently to enable an invasion, without engaging in open hostilities. This is a non-kinetic blockade.

Other ways of impeding naval passage

China may also use measures that fall short of a blockade, but have similar effects. It has passed a suite of domestic laws that legitimise military and non-military aggression of this kind.

For example, the navy or coast guard may:

• lay mines in the sea without declaring a formal blockade
• establish maritime danger or exclusion zones for foreign ships, and
• intercept, detain and regulate foreign vessels.

These tactics would only be effective because China’s domestic laws have exploited ambiguities in jurisdiction over its surrounding waters.

For example, China has passed laws requiring notification from foreign vessels if they enter waters it considers its own and under its control, and allowing its ships to alter or suspend maritime traffic for security or military purposes.

Those powers, however, are inconsistent with international law. China, for example, considers the Taiwan Strait as Chinese territory. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, however, the strait is considered international waters, which enables freedom of navigation for all vessels.

Also, creating an unstable security environment around Taiwan (similar to what Houthi forces have done in the Red Sea), or threatening penalties and sanctions for failing to comply, may in effect be tantamount to a blockade.

How to counter a blockade

It is not clear how other nations would respond to a Chinese invasion or blockade.

In recent years, China has attempted to project its naval power by establishing no-go zones in its neighbourhood, such as turning the South China Sea into its own fortified waters.

One way to oppose China, then, would be a counter-blockade. This would entail allied naval forces, likely led by the United States, closing the choke points, such as the Malacca Strait, on which Chinese seaborne trade with global markets depends.

However, counter-blockades are problematic, too. The impact on the world economy would be huge, as a blockade of the Malacca Strait, for example, could impact all trade between Asia and the rest of the world. China has also stockpiled domestic resources and expanded its land-based trade routes in recent years.

The best option, then, might be supporting Taiwan to survive a long blockade, forcing China to back down.

This means helping Taiwan become more resilient by increasing its food, fuel and medicine stockpiles, developing robust communication and cyber defences, and strengthening its port and energy infrastructure.

If the US built up its naval capacity in the Pacific, it could also use frigates to escort convoys of merchant ships to break a Chinese blockade, though the CSIS war games indicated this could come at a considerable cost of lives and ships – and increase the potential for all-out war.

Claudio Bozzi 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. China may not invade Taiwan, but rather blockade it. How would this work, and could it be effective? – https://theconversation.com/china-may-not-invade-taiwan-but-rather-blockade-it-how-would-this-work-and-could-it-be-effective-257731

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Michael Toole, Associate Principal Research Fellow, Burnet Institute

Ever since Robert F Kennedy (RFK) Jr was appointed United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been under pressure to abandon its traditional evidence-based approach to public health in America and across the world.

That pressure came to a head last week with the sacking of recently appointed CDC director Susan Monarez. According to her lawyers, the longtime government scientist, who had been in the role less than a month, was targeted after she refused to “rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives”.

Monarez will be replaced by Jim O’Neill, deputy director of the Department of Health and Human Services. Critics note he has no medical or scientific training.

On the same day as Monarez’s firing, three senior officials resigned. They included the CDC’s chief medical officer, and two others with leadership roles in areas including vaccines and emerging diseases.

I worked at the CDC between 1986 and 1995. Almost all of my work was with activities overseas.

While the CDC is a key institution overseeing and funding public health in the US, it’s also instrumental in global health. Consequently, turmoil at the CDC could have an impact not just in the US, but around the world.

Vaccine scepticism: a threat to public health

Soon after the inauguration of US President Donald Trump for the second time in January 2025, threats to American public health became clear. RFK Jr was confirmed as the Secretary of Health and Human Services in February, with authority over the CDC.

By April, 25% of CDC staff had been fired and its contract spending was cut by 35%. Cancelled CDC programs included those focused on the prevention of lead poisoning in children, environmental health, and sexually transmitted infections including HIV.

Notably, RFK Jr has a long history of vaccine scepticism.

In 2019–20, more than 5,700 people became infected when a measles outbreak ravaged the island nation of Samoa. Some 83 people died, most of them children.

In the lead up, a number of ads spread vaccine misinformation on Facebook, sowing doubt about safety of the measles vaccine. Some were found to have been funded by Children’s Health Defense, an organisation founded by RFK Jr.

RFK Jr’s department has dismissed and replaced the 17 expert members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices with eight new people – a number of whom have reportedly expressed anti-vaccination views.

During RFK Jr’s tenure so far, his department has:

• reduced access to COVID vaccines for children and pregnant women
• cancelled contracts to develop new mRNA vaccines worth US$500 million
• revived the search for a long disproved link between childhood vaccines and autism.

RFK Jr is arguably the most important figure overseeing health in the US. It’s difficult to overestimate the harm his actions will do to vaccine confidence and uptake in America and around the world.

A long history of international aid

While the CDC had long provided advice to the World Health Organization (WHO) on malaria control, the first major overseas initiative was as an active partner in the WHO’s successful global smallpox eradication program. Along with the Soviet Union, the CDC initially focused on West Africa in the 1960s and then India and Bangladesh in the 1970s.

The CDC’s first international emergency health response occurred during the Biafra conflict, which led to widespread famine in the Eastern part of Nigeria. In 1968, at the request of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the CDC mobilised staff to monitor nutrition and design programs to combat malnutrition.

The agency’s largest ever overseas intervention began in March 2014 when an Ebola outbreak occurred in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. By July 2015, the CDC had allocated 3,000 staff to Ebola, with 1,200 on the ground in West Africa, including neighbouring countries such as Nigeria and Senegal. CDC staff provided technical advice on strengthening laboratory diagnosis, contact tracing and surveillance.

Following the Ebola outbreak, the Global Health Security Agenda was established as a coordinated epidemic preparedness initiative with members from more than 60 countries, United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations. The Obama administration funded US involvement generously with the CDC leading US contributions.

Threats to global health

The first sign of a US withdrawal from global health came soon after Trump’s inauguration when he signed executive orders cancelling US membership of the WHO and suspending all US foreign development assistance.

This led to the cancellation of large programs to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and hepatitis.

Soon after, CDC officials were ordered to cease all communications with the WHO, leading to CDC experts leaving global advisory committees, among other things.

The dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has led to a loss of 83% of its programs and the cancellation of 5,200 contracts. This has stymied its ability to effectively deliver lifesaving aid, including in countries devastated by conflict and famine, such as Sudan. One study predicted the cuts in USAID funding could lead to 14 million extra deaths by 2030.

Budget and staff cuts have seriously reduced the CDC’s capacity to engage in global initiatives. For example, the Maternal and Child Health Branch was shut down and all 22 staff terminated. This branch helped low- and middle-income countries implement programs to prevent HIV in pregnant women and their babies.

The loss of financial resources and a large number of expert staff means the agency faces an uncertain future. Interference in its procedures to develop science-based health policies will gravely affect its ability to carry out its mandate both domestically and globally. The CDC has lost the trust of the American people and is no longer regarded as the preeminent public health agency in the world.

Governments, research institutes and health development agencies around the world must unite to decry this loss of global health expertise. Millions of lives depend on forceful action.

Michael Toole receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. He worked for the US CDC between 1986 and 1995. The content of this article represents the views of the author and not those of the Burnet Institute.

– ref. What chaos at the US CDC could mean for the rest of the world – https://theconversation.com/what-chaos-at-the-us-cdc-could-mean-for-the-rest-of-the-world-264188

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Stacey Pizzino, Lecturer, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland

On September 2, 1945, the second world war ended when Japan officially surrendered. Today, on the 80th anniversary, the physical legacy of the conflict remains etched into land and sea.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Pacific. There, fierce battles left behind sunken warships, aircraft and unexploded bombs. These remnants are not only historical artefacts but toxic time capsules.

They leak fuel, heavy metals and other hazardous substances into fragile ecosystems, threatening biodiversity and, potentially, human health.

This problem is a reminder of the enduring environmental harms of conflict. Toxic remnants of war can damage ecosystems and communities long after the fighting stops.

The Pacific as a dumping ground

World War II in the Pacific involved four years of conflict between Japan and Allied forces. The war began in the region in December 1941 when Japan attacked a United States naval base at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii.

The Pacific conflict included the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Battle of Midway and the Guadalcanal campaign in the Solomon Islands.

Pacific islands became staging grounds for battles. Weapons were stockpiled and hazardous material discarded. Ships and aircraft were sunk. When the war ended, much of this material was simply left behind.

Among the remains are an estimated 3,800 wrecks still lying on the Pacific Ocean floor.

An environmental hazard

As remnants of war degrade, they often leach toxic pollutants into nearby waters and soils. These can build up in marine life, enter the food chain and pose serious risks to both biodiversity.

At Palau, a WWII Japanese ship sank in Koror Harbour and became known as the Helmet Wreck. It contains Japanese depth charges leaking acid into surrounding waters.

Researchers have shown the long-term environmental impacts in the Baltic Sea of unexploded WWII ordnance – bombs, shells and grenades that failed to detonate. An estimated 3000kg of dissolved ammunition chemicals have been found.

Coral reefs and mangroves, which are vital for coastal protection, are especially vulnerable to both chemical exposure and physical damage.

For example, researchers examined the effects off Puerto Rico of unexploded ordnance. They found nearby sea animals contained potentially toxic compounds leaking from the ordnance, which meant the substances had entered the food web.

Human communities on high alert

Unexploded ordnance continues to endanger communities. Just last year, for example, more than 200 bombs were found buried beneath a school in the Solomon Islands.

In places such as Palau, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, these dangers are unearthed regularly. They can be found by farmers working their land, children playing or fisherman working.

Buried bombs, sunken ships and downed aircraft often contain fuel and heavy metals. This includes lead and cadmium which can interfere with the body’s hormone system and cause serious health issues.

Research into the human health impacts of war remains is limited – especially in the Pacific. But existing studies suggest exposure is linked to serious consequences.

For example, parental exposure to wartime contaminants has been linked to birth defects in Gaza and Vietnam.

And a study of Britsh Army ammunition technicians released earlier this year found significantly higher rates of bladder cancer than the general population. This suggests occupational exposure to explosive compounds may pose long-term health risks.

Climate change is increasing the risk

As Earth’s climate warms, extreme weather events are worsening and seas are rising. This is exacerbating the dangers posed by wartime remnants.

For example Cyclone Pam, in March 2015, exposed unexploded WWII ordnance in Kiribati and Tuvalu. Further investigations revealed remnants including high explosive projectiles, mortars and 5,300 rounds of ammunition.

In 2020, a visiting fisherman found an unexploded bomb near Lord Howe Island. Then-Environment Minister Sussan Ley suggested the device may have been shifted by a cyclone or ocean currents.

Similarly, floods and landslides can move these hazards over significant distances, increasing uncertainty around their locations and complicating clearance efforts.

Rising sea levels are threatening to breach one of the Pacific’s most toxic legacies – the Runit Dome in the Marshall Islands. This concrete structure was built in the late 1970s to contain radioactive waste from US nuclear testing decades earlier.

Research shows extreme storms could increase radioactive sediments in the area to up to 84 times higher than normal. There are also concerns cracks in the dome’s surface could lead to contamination of surrounding waters.

Reflecting on war’s toxic legacy

Despite the risks to people and health in the Pacific, remediation has been slow. The 80th anniversary of WWII offers an opportunity to reflect on the toxic legacy of war – and to act.

The scale of the problem demands coordinated, well-funded action. The work should not just remove dangerous materials, but restore damaged ecosystems and monitor long-term health impacts.

Some support has been offered. It includes Operation Render Safe, a program to remove war remnants led by the Australian Defence Force. But more is needed.

Regional partners – including Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the United States – have a chance to lead. This means investing in environmental cleanup, supporting affected communities and acknowledging historical responsibility.

It also means listening to Pacific voices, who have long called for greater attention to the war’s toxic legacy. Their knowledge, resilience and lived experience must be central to any response.

---

The authors acknowledge Nixon Panda for his contribution to this article.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. 80 years since the end of World War II, a dangerous legacy lingers in the Pacific – https://theconversation.com/80-years-since-the-end-of-world-war-ii-a-dangerous-legacy-lingers-in-the-pacific-264127

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Olivera Simic, Professor in Law, Griffith University

Some say the law / ought not to bend. // That it should be a neutral, / certain thing. // But there are reasons / judgement and interpretation / are bequeathed / to human / – humane – / hearts, and heads.

– Excerpt from The Hope of a Thousand Small Lights, Maxine Beneba Clarke

---

On January 23 2025, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) chief prosecutor applied for arrest warrants for the Taliban’s supreme leader and Afghanistan’s chief justice, charging them with the persecution of women, a crime against humanity. It was a long overdue decision.

These arrest warrants, said Amnesty International, gave

hope, inside and outside the country to Afghan women, girls, as well as those persecuted on the basis of gender identity or expression.

And hope in justice is important.

The ICC is a Hague-based court with the power to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Today, it explicitly recognises sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilisation and gender-based persecution as distinct crimes.

But the recognition of gender-based abuses as distinct crimes under international law is relatively recent. The ICC has been widely criticised for its slow and lengthy processes, with an abysmal rate of convictions.

---

Review: Feminist Judgments: Reimagining the International Criminal Court – edited by Kcasey McLoughlin, Rosemary Grey, Louise Chappell & Suzanne Varrall (Cambridge University Press)

---

In its 23-year history of operation, only 11 ICC cases have resulted in convictions. Just two of those, relating to crimes in Congo and Uganda, included successful convictions for sexual and gender-based crimes.

What would it take for more of these cases to result in successful prosecutions of gender-based crimes? What would be required to bring “gender-sensitive judging” into practice? And might it be possible to imagine a world where laws are written with a specific focus on benefiting women and people of diverse genders?

These are some of the questions the feminist judgment “movement” seeks to answer. In this movement, scholars and practitioners rewrite judgments in decided cases from a feminist perspective.

A new book, Feminist Judgments: Reimagining the International Criminal Court, brings together nearly 50 authors, of all genders, from the Global North and Global South. In this collection, edited by Australian legal scholars Kcasey McLoughlin, Rosemary Grey, Louise Chappell and Suzanne Varrall, academics, advocates, and legal practitioners “re-envision a range of judgements” delivered at the ICC.

Similar projects conducted around the world have rewritten feminist judgments from courts in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, Canada, United States, Australia and India. But this is the first book to examine decisions made by ICC judges; decisions that carry “far-reaching consequences”.

The ICC holds prosecutorial authority in over 120 countries. The court’s rulings also, as the editors write, serve “as persuasive precedents in other international, regional, and national criminal courts”.

Alternative judgments

Contributors address nine ICC situations in Afghanistan, Myanmar/Bangladesh, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali, Sudan and Uganda. Because ICC cases are so large, each rewritten decision focuses on a single issue of law, fact or procedure addressed in the original decision.

For example, Suzanne Varrall and Sarah Williams rewrite the acquittal of former Congolese vice president and militia leader Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo by the ICC Appeals Chamber. Bemba’s was the ICC’s first case to include charges and a conviction for sexual violence. It was overturned on appeal in 2018.

The authors argue the court should factor in sexual and gender-based violence when interpreting and applying the doctrine of command responsibility, or a commander’s responsibility to prevent violations of international humanitarian law by their troops.

Most sexual and gender-based violence in conflict affects women and girls. But in applying a gender-sensitive approach, Varrall and Williams remind us, judges would also challenge traditional views of gender roles such as the idea that all men are combatants. Civilian men and boys can also be victims.

Currently, 50% of judges at the ICC are women but having women judges does not automatically mean they hold feminist perspectives, or possess a specific gender expertise. The ICC Prosecutor’s Office has published a comprehensive gender policy and appointed gender advisors as a part of a commitment to support gender justice and improve its track record in prosecuting gender-based crimes.

One of the major themes emerging from this collection is the need for judges to make decisions informed by the lived experiences of those affected by international crimes. Survivors’ experiences are not only to be heard, but listened to “with particular care”, as eminent international jurist Navi Pillay reminds us in her foreword.

Pillay, a former judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the ICC, was the judge in the 1998 Akayesu case, the world’s first case confirming sexual violence can be an act of genocide.

The case brought against a former village mayor in Rwanda, Jean-Paul Akayesu, achieved some justice for an estimated 250,000-500,000 women and girls raped in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. While listening to the testimony of witness “JJ” in the case, Pillay became convinced that the traditional “body penetration” definition of rape was not appropriate in the context of mass rapes during war.

In such contexts, rape is never “just penetration” of the body itself. It becomes a calculated act of cruelty, a combination of humiliation, degradation, public nudity and the unbearable pain of having one’s children witness the abuse of their mother. Rape in the context of mass atrocity morphs into a destruction of the spirit and of the will to live, leaving a lifelong scar.

Feminist judgments can have an impact. A minority opinion, for instance, may one day become the prevailing orthodoxy.
Feminist judgments are an exercise in consciousness-raising, primarily designed to educate and transform legal discourse.

This collection goes beyond traditional legal analysis by incorporating photography and poetry, including Beneba Clarke’s The Hope of a Thousand Small Lights. It recognises justice can have many different meanings; that it can be symbolic too, and still profoundly meaningful to victims.

Political constraints

Rewritten judgments in this collection offer clear guidance for ICC courts on how to advance gender-sensitive jurisprudence in cases of atrocity. But the ICC faces political constraints, including attacks on its authority from the Trump administration.

In November 2024, the court issued warrants of arrest for the now deceased Hamas leader, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, allegedly responsible for the October 2023 attacks in Israel. These charges, withdrawn after his death, included sexual violence crimes committed in Israel on October 7.

The court also charged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in relation to war crimes in Gaza, including starvation and targeting civilians, and crimes against humanity.

This month, the US State Department announced new sanctions on four ICC officials, including two judges and two prosecutors, claiming they were instrumental in efforts to prosecute Americans and Israelis. The US is not a member of the ICC. The court has denounced these sanctions as a “flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution”.

If the ICC is perceived as lacking impartiality, this will limit its ability to address the gendered and intersectional dimensions of atrocity worldwide.

War and gender

War exacerbates previously existing gender inequalities. Around 110 instances of armed conflict are underway around the world; Africa and the Middle East are the most affected regions.

Many of these conflicts are intractable, dragging on for decades. With technology in warfare rapidly evolving, the growing application of AI and machine learning in weapons has gendered impacts. Attacks by explosive weapons in residential areas, for instance, disproportionately affect women and girls, since they often have primary responsibility for buying household goods or food at markets. Wars are also becoming less likely to be resolved politically.

The collective behind Feminist Judgments: Reimagining the International Criminal Court acknowledge that, even with its best efforts, the ICC can only achieve a limited and selective accountability. They encourage victims to pursue justice in other ways, not necessarily retributive. Perhaps those ways could be restorative or symbolic. Initiatives in arts, storytelling and memorialisation can bring some closure to survivors, while strengthening the social fabric of the nation.

With no meaningful recourse for women to Afghan courts and only limited access to courts of other states, the ICC remains the only viable judicial venue in which to prosecute the Taliban leaders for gender persecution.

However, the chances of seeing these leaders appear before the ICC are slim. They depend on arresting the defendants, who have publicly denounced the ICC warrants for their arrest. And the ICC has never conducted a trial in absentia. The court’s governing framework, known as the Rome Statute, states: “the accused shall be present during the trial”.

Almost 50% of individuals accused by the ICC are not brought to justice.

The court hopes charges confirmed in their absence could perhaps bring some redress to victims. Despite the absence of the accused, victims would still have an opportunity to finally speak out before a court – and the evidence would be examined, presented and documented for future reference.

Olivera Simic 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 can the International Criminal Court achieve justice for women? – https://theconversation.com/how-can-the-international-criminal-court-achieve-justice-for-women-263797

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kylie Message, Professor of Public Humanities and Director of the ANU Humanities Research Centre, Australian National University

United States President Donald Trump first signalled his intention to target the Smithsonian Institution in March, when he signed an executive order titled Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.

This executive order – one of several targeting the cultural sector – vowed to remove “improper, divisive or anti-American ideology”.

It was quickly followed by an article from the White House titled President Trump is Right about the Smithsonian, with more than 20 examples of how the Smithsonian had embraced so-called “woke” ideology.

To put this all in context, the Smithsonian is the world’s largest museum, education and research complex. It was founded in 1846 as an entity independent from the US government. Today, most of its funding comes through federal appropriations. Its governing board includes the US vice president and supreme court chief justice.

It is custodian for more than 157 million items, 21 museums, 21 libraries, 14 education and research centres, a zoo, and several historical and architectural landmarks.

Trump has long been a participant in the culture wars, including when he denounced “cancel culture” at a 2020 fourth of July event at Mt Rushmore. However, there is something different about his current interest in the Smithsonian. And that’s because next year is the US “semiquincentennial”: the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Looking through history, it’s clear Trump’s attacks on the Smithsonian can’t be separated from the semiquincentennial. We’re also reminded of how the Smithsonian has both thwarted and endured political interference in the past.

2026: a politically important year

Trump’s heightened interest in the Smithsonian was explained in a recent letter from the White House to Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch III:

As we prepare to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Nation’s founding, it is more important than ever that our national museums reflect the unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story.

In parallel, a presidential action was released in celebration of the major anniversary.

This action established Task Force 250, which would be chaired by the president and housed in the Department of Defence. The task force’s key priorities include the development of a “national garden of American heroes” (proposed in Trump’s first term), and the protection of monuments from vandalism.

While the presidential action identifies no specific role for the Smithsonian, taken together the statements lead to questions about political influence over the Smithsonian’s operations.

Decades of political grievance

Many of the Smithsonian exhibits that attracted historical censorship and controversy are now themselves approaching significant anniversaries.

One example is the 1972 exhibition, The Right to Vote, held at the Museum of History and Technology (now the National Museum of American History) to celebrate the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The exhibition had been scheduled as a venue for President Richard Nixon’s inauguration ball. But upon inspection, Nixon’s team decided it was too controversial and had it walled off for their events.

Further political grievances were aimed at the 1991 National Museum of American Art exhibition The West as America: Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier, 1820-1920. It encouraged visitors to understand how historical paintings represent a mythical view of the past that has been used to justify the West’s expansion and development.

The exhibition led to immediate outrage from former Librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstin. Boorstin wrote in the visitor’s book that it was: “A perverse, historically inaccurate destructive exhibit! No credit to the Smithsonian!”

Other politicians became energised by Boorstin’s view that the exhibition was a disrespectful attempt to dismantle and shame the history and legacy of the American frontier.

The exhibition became the subject of heated debate in the Senate Committee on Appropriations hearings from 1990 to 1992. At issue was how American nationalism should be represented in museums. A group of senators, led by Ted Stevens, threatened to reduce the Smithsonian’s funding if it failed to present “accountability” for its use of federal funds.

The Smithsonian’s then-secretary Robert McCormick Adams insisted it was precisely because the Smithsonian was dependent on tax resources that it had a responsibility to “exemplify the nation’s pluralism”.

In reporting the brouhaha, New York Times columnist Michael Kimmelman used language that wouldn’t be out of place today. He said the controversy “raises questions about government involvement in the arts […] Is it now the job of Congress to police its constituents’ thinking about the art in those museums?”

Cancelled by Congress

Another instance of political interference came in the mid 1990s, in relation to a Smithsonian exhibition representing the 50th anniversary of America’s atomic bombing of Japan in WWII.

The National Air and Space Museum designed a display that included the restored B-29 bomber, a plane called the Enola Gay, that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.

The exhibition was supposed to open in 1995. However, people who consulted on its early plans criticised it for supposedly presenting a politically correct and revisionist interpretation of the events. They claimed it overplayed the horrors of the bombings, and portrayed Japanese victims without sufficient context surrounding the preceding Japanese aggression.

Members of Congress soon became aware of the concerns, adding their own threats of hearings and budget reductions. They called for the curator’s resignation, and contributed to the exhibition’s eventual cancellation.

History repeats

Trump’s attacks on the Smithsonian are part of a long political playbook in which culture has been targeted for representing an inclusive view of the American union.

The Smithsonian has weathered political attacks on its exhibitions in the past. However, there is now more attention to its institutional remit than ever before.

The recent threats from Trump, and lessons from history, highlight the importance of protecting the Smithsonian as an independent authority that withstands political interference at all costs.

Kylie Message has received funding from the Smithsonian Institution and from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Trump isn’t the first US politician to pick a fight with the Smithsonian. But this time could be different – https://theconversation.com/trump-isnt-the-first-us-politician-to-pick-a-fight-with-the-smithsonian-but-this-time-could-be-different-264022

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Simon Levett, PhD candidate, public international law, University of Technology Sydney

Journalist Mariam Dagga was just 33 when she was brutally killed by an Israeli airstrike in Gaza on August 25.

As a freelance photographer and videographer, she had captured the suffering in Gaza through indelible images of malnourished children and grief-stricken families. In her will, she told her colleagues not to cry and her 13-year-old son to make her proud.

Dagga was killed alongside four other journalists – and 16 others – in an attack on a hospital that has drawn widespread condemnation and outrage.

This attack followed the killings of six Al Jazeera journalists by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in a tent housing journalists in Gaza City earlier in August. The dead included Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Anas al-Sharif.

Israel’s nearly two-year war in Gaza is among the deadliest in modern times. The Committee to Protect Journalists, which has tracked journalist deaths globally since 1992, has counted a staggering 189 Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza since the war began. Many worked as freelancers for major news organisations since Israel has banned foreign correspondents from entering Gaza.

In addition, the organisation has confirmed the killings of two Israeli journalists, along with six journalists killed in Israel’s strikes on Lebanon.

---

---

---

---

‘It was very traumatising for me’

I went to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in Israel and Ramallah in the West Bank in 2019 to conduct part of my PhD research on the available protections for journalists in conflict zones.

During that time, I interviewed journalists from major international outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, CNN, BBC and others, in addition to local Palestinian freelance journalists and fixers. I also interviewed a Palestinian journalist working for Al Jazeera (English), with whom I remained in contact until recently.

I did not visit Gaza due to safety concerns. However, many of the journalists had reported from there and were familiar with the conditions, which were dangerous even before the war.

Osama Hassan, a local journalist, told me about working in the West Bank:

There are no rules, there’s no safety. Sometimes, when settlers attack a village, for example, we go to cover, but Israeli soldiers don’t respect you, they don’t respect anything called Palestinian […] even if you are a journalist.

Nuha Musleh, a fixer in Jerusalem, described an incident that occurred after a stone was thrown towards IDF soldiers:

[…] they started shooting right and left – sound bombs, rubber bullets, one of which landed in my leg. I was taken to hospital. The correspondent also got injured. The Israeli cameraman also got injured. So all of us got injured, four of us.

It was very traumatising for me. I never thought that a sound bomb could be that harmful. I was in hospital for a good week. Lots of stitches.

Better protections for local journalists and fixers

My research found there is very little support for local journalists and fixers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in terms of physical protection, and no support in terms of their mental health.

International law mandates that journalists are protected as civilians in conflict zones under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. However, these laws have not historically extended protections specific to the needs of journalists.

Media organisations, media rights groups and governments have been unequivocal in their demands that Israel take greater precautions to protect journalists in Gaza and investigate strikes like the one that killed Mariam Dagga.

Sadly, there is seemingly little media organisations can do to help their freelance contributors in Gaza beyond issuing statements noting concern for their safety, lobbying Israel to allow evacuations, and demanding access for foreign reporters to enter the strip.

International correspondents typically have training on reporting from war zones, in addition to safety equipment, insurance and risk assessment procedures. However, local journalists and fixers in Gaza do not generally have access to the same protections, despite bearing the brunt of the effects of war, which includes mass starvation.

Despite the enormous difficulties, I believe media organisations must strive to meet their employment law obligations, to the best of their ability, when it comes to local journalists and fixers. This is part of their duty of care.

---

Read more:
Israel must allow independent investigations of Palestinian journalist killings – and let international media into Gaza

---

For example, research shows fixers have long been the “most exploited and persecuted people” contributing to the production of international news. They are often thrust into precarious situations without hazardous environment training or medical insurance. And many times, they are paid very little for their work.

Local journalists and fixers in Gaza must be paid properly by the media organisations hiring them. This should take into consideration not just the woeful conditions they are forced to work and live in, but the immense impact of their jobs on their mental health.

As the global news director for Agence France-Presse said recently, paying local contributors is very difficult – they often bear huge transaction costs to access their money. “We try to compensate by paying more to cover that,” he said.

But he did not address whether the agency would change its security protocols and training for conflict zones, given journalists themselves are being targeted in Gaza in their work.

These local journalists are literally putting their lives on the line to show the world what’s happening in Gaza. They need greater protections.

As Ammar Awad, a local photographer in the West Bank, told me:

The photographer does not care about himself. He cares about the pictures, how he can shoot good pictures, to film something good. But he needs to be in a good place that is safe for him.

Simon Levett 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. Local journalists and fixers are dying at unprecedented rates in Gaza. Can anyone protect them? – https://theconversation.com/local-journalists-and-fixers-are-dying-at-unprecedented-rates-in-gaza-can-anyone-protect-them-263923

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Lin Tian, Research Fellow, Data Science Institute, University of Technology Sydney

When you ask ChatGPT or other AI assistants to help create misinformation, they typically refuse, with responses like “I cannot assist with creating false information.” But our tests show these safety measures are surprisingly shallow – often just a few words deep – making them alarmingly easy to circumvent.

We have been investigating how AI language models can be manipulated to generate coordinated disinformation campaigns across social media platforms. What we found should concern anyone worried about the integrity of online information.

The shallow safety problem

We were inspired by a recent study from researchers at Princeton and Google. They showed current AI safety measures primarily work by controlling just the first few words of a response. If a model starts with “I cannot” or “I apologise”, it typically continues refusing throughout its answer.

Our experiments – not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal – confirmed this vulnerability. When we directly asked a commercial language model to create disinformation about Australian political parties, it correctly refused.

However, we also tried the exact same request as a “simulation” where the AI was told it was a “helpful social media marketer” developing “general strategy and best practices”. In this case, it enthusiastically complied.

The AI produced a comprehensive disinformation campaign falsely portraying Labor’s superannuation policies as a “quasi inheritance tax”. It came complete with platform-specific posts, hashtag strategies, and visual content suggestions designed to manipulate public opinion.

The main problem is that the model can generate harmful content but isn’t truly aware of what is harmful, or why it should refuse. Large language models are simply trained to start responses with “I cannot” when certain topics are requested.

Think of a security guard checking minimal identification when allowing customers into a nightclub. If they don’t understand who and why someone is not allowed inside, then a simple disguise would be enough to let anyone get in.

Real-world implications

To demonstrate this vulnerability, we tested several popular AI models with prompts designed to generate disinformation.

The results were troubling: models that steadfastly refused direct requests for harmful content readily complied when the request was wrapped in seemingly innocent framing scenarios. This practice is called “model jailbreaking”.

The ease with which these safety measures can be bypassed has serious implications. Bad actors could use these techniques to generate large-scale disinformation campaigns at minimal cost. They could create platform-specific content that appears authentic to users, overwhelm fact-checkers with sheer volume, and target specific communities with tailored false narratives.

The process can largely be automated. What once required significant human resources and coordination could now be accomplished by a single individual with basic prompting skills.

The technical details

The American study found AI safety alignment typically affects only the first 3–7 words of a response. (Technically this is 5–10 tokens – the chunks AI models break text into for processing.)

This “shallow safety alignment” occurs because training data rarely includes examples of models refusing after starting to comply. It is easier to control these initial tokens than to maintain safety throughout entire responses.

Moving toward deeper safety

The US researchers propose several solutions, including training models with “safety recovery examples”. These would teach models to stop and refuse even after beginning to produce harmful content.

They also suggest constraining how much the AI can deviate from safe responses during fine-tuning for specific tasks. However, these are just first steps.

As AI systems become more powerful, we will need robust, multi-layered safety measures operating throughout response generation. Regular testing for new techniques to bypass safety measures is essential.

Also essential is transparency from AI companies about safety weaknesses. We also need public awareness that current safety measures are far from foolproof.

AI developers are actively working on solutions such as constitutional AI training. This process aims to instil models with deeper principles about harm, rather than just surface-level refusal patterns.

However, implementing these fixes requires significant computational resources and model retraining. Any comprehensive solutions will take time to deploy across the AI ecosystem.

The bigger picture

The shallow nature of current AI safeguards isn’t just a technical curiosity. It’s a vulnerability that could reshape how misinformation spreads online.

AI tools are spreading through into our information ecosystem, from news generation to social media content creation. We must ensure their safety measures are more than just skin deep.

The growing body of research on this issue also highlights a broader challenge in AI development. There is a big gap between what models appear to be capable of and what they actually understand.

While these systems can produce remarkably human-like text, they lack contextual understanding and moral reasoning. These would allow them to consistently identify and refuse harmful requests regardless of how they’re phrased.

For now, users and organisations deploying AI systems should be aware that simple prompt engineering can potentially bypass many current safety measures. This knowledge should inform policies around AI use and underscore the need for human oversight in sensitive applications.

As the technology continues to evolve, the race between safety measures and methods to circumvent them will accelerate. Robust, deep safety measures are important not just for technicians – but for all of society.

Lin Tian receives funding from the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator (ASCA) and the Defence Innovation Network.

Marian-Andrei Rizoiu receives funding from the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator (ASCA), the Australian Department of Home Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Defence Science and Technology Group of the Department of Defence, and the Defence Innovation Network.

– ref. How we tricked AI chatbots into creating misinformation, despite ‘safety’ measures – https://theconversation.com/how-we-tricked-ai-chatbots-into-creating-misinformation-despite-safety-measures-264184

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kolaia Raisele, PhD Candidate in Anthropology, La Trobe University

In recent years, Pacific island nations have earned global credibility as champions of climate action. Pacific leaders view sea level rise as an existential threat.

But this united front is now under strain as some Pacific nations pursue a controversial new industry – deep-sea mining. Nauru, the Cook Islands, Kiribati and Tonga have gone the furthest to make it a reality, attracted by new income streams. But nations such as Fiji, Palau and Vanuatu have called for a moratorium on deep-sea mining in international waters.

Public opinion across the Pacific is often divided, pitting possible economic gains against the potential risks of an industry whose environmental impact remain uncertain but potentially significant. As this tension intensifies, it may split the Pacific and risk the region’s moral authority on climate.

What are the concerns over deep-sea mining?

Deep-sea mining targets three types of mineral deposits – polymetallic nodules strewn across deep underwater plains, cobalt-rich crusts on seamounts, and the ore deposits around hydrothermal vents.

To extract them, mining companies can use unmanned collectors to pump ore to the surface and return the wastewater. This creates plumes of sediment which can smother marine life. Methods of minimising damage to species from mining on land are largely unworkable at depth.

Deep-sea ecosystems are poorly understood, but we know they are slow to recover. Researchers have found areas mined as a test more than 40 years ago still show physical damage and immobile corals and sponges remain scarce.

Why is there so much interest in deep-sea mining?

Deep-sea mining hasn’t begun anywhere in earnest, because the International Seabed Authority has yet to finalise rules governing extraction. This authority oversees the 54% of the world’s oceans beyond territorial waters.

But plans for deep-sea mining operations can still be submitted and considered without these rules in place.

Analysts have estimated seabed minerals could be worth a staggering A$30 trillion. Some of the richest deposits lie in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in international waters between Hawaii and Mexico, thousands of kilometres away from Pacific nations. Under international law, companies cannot mine in international waters on their own. They need to be officially sponsored by a national government, which has to keep effective control over its operations.

One reason deep-sea mining companies see Pacific states as such useful partners is that these countries can access
reserved areas of international seabed set aside for developing countries, as well as potential resources in the very large territorial waters around many island states.

Backers in Nauru, Tonga, the Cook Islands and Kiribati argue rising demand for manganese, cobalt, copper and nickel could deliver significant economic returns and diversify economies.

Nauru

Nauru’s enormous deposits of guano – compressed seabird excrement long sought as fertiliser – once made the country wealthy. But the guano is largely gone and the small nation has limited other resources.

Nauru sponsors Nauru Ocean Resources, a wholly owned subsidiary of seabed mining company The Metals Company. In 2011, the company received an International Seabed Authority contract permitting exploration of polymetallic nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, more than 8,000km from Nauru.

Nauru has since “proudly taken a leading role” in developing international legal frameworks in mining nodules in the international seabed.

In June, Nauru signalled Nauru Ocean Resources would apply for an exploitation license.

Tonga

Tonga’s government is similarly backing deep-sea mining by partnering with The Metals Company to explore mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.

In August 2025, Tonga signed an updated agreement with Tonga Offshore Mining, a subsidiary of The Metals Company. The agreement was originally signed in 2021 amid large-scale criticism over the lack of public consultation.

The mining company has promised new benefits, ranging from financial benefits, scholarships and community programs. Even so, the revised deal has encountered opposition from civil society, young people and legal experts. Prominent Tongans remain unconvinced, citing environmental, legal and transparency risks.

Economic pressure is part of the picture. Tonga owes an estimated A$180 million to China’s Exim Bank – roughly a quarter of its annual GDP.

Cook Islands

The 15 Cook Islands are widely scattered, giving the government exclusive rights to almost two million square kilometres of ocean. The government has issued exploration licences inside its Exclusive Economic Zone to three companies – Cook Islands Consortium, CIIC Seabed Resources Limited, and Moana Minerals. The Cook Islands government has established a domestic regulatory framework and is building research capacity.

Kiribati

Kiribati’s atolls and island are even more dispersed. The nation’s exclusive economic zone covers about 3.4 million km². The state-owned Marawa Research and Exploration company holds a 15-year exploration contract with the seabed authority. Kiribati has opened talks with China to explore potential collaboration.

The Pacific split

While revenues could potentially be sizeable for the Pacific, costs, technologies and environmental liabilities are highly uncertain.

The experience of Papua New Guinea is a cautionary tale. In 2019, the PNG deep-sea mining venture Solwara-1 went into administration following intense community pushback. The fallout cost the government an estimated $184 million. The PNG government now opposes deep-sea mining in its territorial waters.

While deep-sea mining now has clear backers, other nations are far more wary.

In 2022, Palau launched an alliance calling for a moratorium on mining in international waters. Early signatories included Fiji, American Samoa and the Federated States of Micronesia. Since then, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands have joined, as well as dozens of other countries. PNG has not yet joined.

Opposition from these Pacific states is based on the precautionary principle, which favours caution when knowledge is limited and damage is possible.

Pacific youth are among the most prominent opponents of deep-sea mining. The regional Pacific Blue Line coalition uniting civil society, faith groups, women’s organisations and youth networks has consistently called for a complete ban in the region. Young people have spoke out publicly in nations such as Tonga, where youth advocates criticised limited consultation and rallied against the plans, as well as the Cook Islands, where young people have demanded transparency.

Reputation under a cloud?

Pacific leaders have built a worldwide reputation for their principled climate diplomacy, from championing the 1.5°C goal to the major new advisory opinion on climate change issued by the world’s top court in response to a case instigated by students from the University of the South Pacific.

If some Pacific leaders open the door fully to deep-sea mining, it risks undermining the region’s united front on environmental issues and threatens its credibility.

The way this plays out will shape how the world hears the Pacific on climate and the oceans in the years ahead.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Pacific’s united front on climate action is splintering over deep-sea mining – https://theconversation.com/the-pacifics-united-front-on-climate-action-is-splintering-over-deep-sea-mining-263199

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Drew Terasaki Hart, Ecologist, CSIRO

The annual clock of the seasons – winter, spring, summer, autumn – is often taken as a given. But our new study in Nature, using a new approach for observing seasonal growth cycles from satellites, shows that this notion is far too simple.

We present an unprecedented and intimate portrait of the seasonal cycles of Earth’s land-based ecosystems. This reveals “hotspots” of seasonal asynchrony around the world – regions where the timing of seasonal cycles can be out of sync between nearby locations.

We then show these differences in timing can have surprising ecological, evolutionary, and even economic consequences.

Watching the seasons from space

The seasons set the rhythm of life. Living things, including humans, adjust the timing of their annual activities to exploit resources and conditions that fluctuate through the year.

The study of this timing, known as “phenology”, is an age-old form of human observation of nature. But today, we can also watch phenology from space.

With decades-long archives of satellite imagery, we can use computing to better understand seasonal cycles of plant growth. However, methods for doing this are often based on the assumption of simple seasonal cycles and distinct growing seasons.

This works well in much of Europe, North America and other high-latitude places with strong winters. However, this method can struggle in the tropics and in arid regions. Here, satellite-based estimates of plant growth can vary subtly throughout the year, without clear-cut growing seasons.

Surprising patterns

By applying a new analysis to 20 years of satellite imagery, we made a better map of the timing of plant growth cycles around the globe. Alongside expected patterns, such as delayed spring at higher latitudes and altitudes, we saw more surprising ones too.

One surprising pattern happens across Earth’s five Mediterranean climate regions, where winters are mild and wet and summers are hot and dry. These include California, Chile, South Africa, southern Australia, and the Mediterranean itself.

These regions all share a “double peak” seasonal pattern, previously documented in California, because forest growth cycles tend to peak roughly two months later than other ecosystems. They also show stark differences in the timing of plant growth from their neighbouring drylands, where summer precipitation is more common.

Spotting hotspots

This complex mix of seasonal activity patterns explains one major finding of our work: the Mediterranean climates and their neighbouring drylands are hotspots of out-of-sync seasonal activity. In other words, they are regions where the seasonal cycles of nearby places can have dramatically different timing.

Consider, for example, the marked difference between Phoenix, Arizona (which has similar amounts of winter and summer rainfall) and Tucson only 160 km away (where most rainfall comes from the summer monsoon).

Other global hotspots occur mostly in tropical mountains. The intricate patterns of out-of-sync seasons we observe there may relate to the complex ways in which mountains can influence airflow, dictating local patterns of seasonal rainfall and cloud. These phenomena are still poorly understood, but may be fundamental to the distribution of species in these regions of exceptional biodiversity.

Seasonality and biodiversity

Identifying global regions where seasonal patterns are out of sync was the original motivation for our work. And our finding that they overlap with many of Earth’s biodiversity hotspots – places with large numbers of plant and animal species – may not be a coincidence.

In these regions, because seasonal cycles of plant growth can be out of sync between nearby places, the seasonal availability of resources may be out of sync, too. This would affect the seasonal reproductive cycles of many species, and the ecological and evolutionary consequences could be profound.

One such consequence is that populations with out-of-sync reproductive cycles would be less likely to interbreed. As a result, these populations would be expected to diverge genetically, and perhaps eventually even split into different species.

If this happened to even a small percentage of species at any given time, then over the long haul these regions would produce large amounts of biodiversity.

Back down to Earth

We don’t yet know whether this has really been happening. But our work takes the first steps towards finding out.

We show that, for a wide range of plant and animal species, our satellite-based map predicts stark on-ground differences in the timing of plant flowering and in genetic relatedness between nearby populations.

Our map even predicts the complex geography of coffee harvests in Colombia. Here, coffee farms separated by a day’s drive over the mountains can have reproductive cycles as out of sync as if they were a hemisphere apart.

Understanding seasonal patterns in space and time isn’t just important for evolutionary biology. It is also fundamental to understanding the ecology of animal movement, the consequences of climate change for species and ecosystems, and even the geography of agriculture and other forms of human activity.

Want to know more? You can explore our results in more detail with this interactive online map, which we also include below.

This work was completed under affiliations with the University of California (UC), Berkeley, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Drew Terasaki Hart received funding for this work from UC Berkeley, the UC Berkeley Center for Latin American Studies, the Organization for Tropical Studies, IdeaWild, and the Bezos Earth Fund (via The Nature Conservancy).

– ref. See Earth’s seasons in all their complexity in a new animated map – https://theconversation.com/see-earths-seasons-in-all-their-complexity-in-a-new-animated-map-262935