Conflict monitoring group Action on Armed Violence says Israel is seeking to create a ‘pattern of impunity’
Nearly nine out of 10 Israeli military investigations into allegations of war crimes or abuses by its soldiers since the start of the war in Gaza have been closed without finding fault or left without resolution, according to a conflict monitor.
Many of his supporters hoped the Prime Minister would restore the UK’s commitment to international law. Yet Labour’s record over the past year has been curiously mixed
The international human rights system – the rules, principles and practices intended to ensure that states do not abuse people – is under greater threat now than at any other point since 1945. Fortunately, we in the UK couldn’t wish for a better-qualified prime minister to face this challenge. Keir Starmer is a distinguished former human rights lawyer and prosecutor, with a 30-year career behind him, who expresses a deep personal commitment to defending ordinary people against injustice. He knows human rights law inside out – in fact, he literally wrote the book on its European incarnation – and has acted as a lawyer at more or less every level of the system. (Starmer is the only British prime minister, and probably the only world leader, to have argued a case under the genocide convention – against Serbia on behalf of Croatia in 2014 – at the international court of justice.) He is also an experienced administrator, through his time as director of public prosecutions (DPP), which means he knows how to operate the machinery of state better than most politicians do.
Unfortunately, there’s someone standing in Starmer’s way: a powerful man who critics say is helping to weaken the international human rights system. He fawns over authoritarian demagogues abroad and is seeking to diminish the protections the UK offers to some vulnerable minorities. He conflates peaceful, if disruptive, protest with deadly terrorism and calls for musicians whose views and language he dislikes to be dropped from festival bills. At times, he uses his public platform to criticise courts, whose independence is vital to maintaining the human rights system. At others, he uses legal sophistry to avoid openly stating and defending his own political position, including on matters of life and death. He is, even some of his admirers admit, a ruthless careerist prepared to jettison his stated principles when politically expedient. That person is also called Keir Starmer.
Judges rule document invalid as former Syrian leader had immunity as head of state
France’s highest court has cancelled an arrest warrant for the former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad for complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity during the country’s civil war.
The Cour de cassation declared the warrant invalid under international law, which gives heads of state personal immunity from prosecution in foreign courts while they are in office.
Volker Türk says the Home Office proscription restricts right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly
The UK government’s ban on Palestine Action limits the rights and freedoms of people in the UK and is at odds with international law, the UN human rights chief has said.
Volker Türk, the UN human rights commissioner, said ministers’ decision to designate the group a terrorist organisation was “disproportionate and unnecessary” and called on them to rescind it.
The boss of Australia’s human rights commission has questioned Labor’s moves to make Asio’s powers for compulsory questioning permanent, warning a planned expansion of the 9/11-era laws must include robust safeguards for individuals.
The home affairs minister, Tony Burke, introduced two pieces of legislation this week designed to remove so-called sunset provisions on the domestic spy agencies’ powers to compel cooperation. The rules act as effective expiry dates on the powers and require parliament to reconsider their reach on a regular basis.
Condemnation is rightly growing. But until concrete action is taken, western allies will remain complicit with these horrifying crimes
July has been one of the deadliest months of the war in Gaza, with Israel killing one person every 12 minutes. The UN says more than 1,000 Palestinians have died trying to get food, mostly when they attempted to collect aid from hubs.
Behind these visible deaths lies the horror of systematic starvation: “minutely engineered, closely monitored, precisely designed”, in the words of Prof Alex de Waal, an expert on humanitarian crises. More than 100 aid groups warned that it is spreading fast. At least 10 people died of hunger and malnutrition on Tuesday alone, said Gaza’s health ministry. Parents watch their children wither. Adults collapse on the street.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Donald Trump has the “greatest chance of any political leader” to broker a ceasefire deal in Gaza, Penny Wong says, after Australia on Tuesday joined with 27 other countries to condemn Israel for the “drip feeding of aid” and the “inhumane killing” of Palestinians.
Wong acknowledged the key role the US – a strong supporter of Israel – plays in the peace process as domestic pressure on the Albanese government to play a more pivotal role in addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza mounts.
Janine Jackson interviewed media scholar Victor Pickard about the Paramount settlement for the July 18, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: Faced with a groundless lawsuit claiming that an interview with Kamala Harris amounted to election interference in favor of Democrats, CBS News’ parent company, Paramount, could have struck a symbolic blow for press freedom by saying, “No,” pointing to any number of legal arguments, starting with the First (for a reason) Amendment.
But Paramount isn’t a journalistic institution. It’s a business with media holdings, and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone was in the middle of doing business, trying to sell the corporation to another Hollywood studio, a move that, perhaps quaintly, requires government approval. That now means approval of this government.
And yet here we are. The Paramount settlement, says Victor Pickard, is, yes, a stunning display of bribery, greed and cowardice. But we need to understand, it’s also a symptom of a deep structural rot in our media today, a system in which profit trumps democracy at every turn.
Victor Pickard is a professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, where he co-directs the Media Inequality and Change Center. He’s the author, most recently, of Democracy Without Journalism?: Confronting the Misinformation Society from Oxford University Press. He joins us now by phone. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Victor Pickard.
Victor Pickard: It’s great to be back on the show, Janine.
JJ: Well, I hear that Paramount‘s market value has dropped since Shari Redstone threw press independence on the fire to warm shareholders’ hands. It’s almost as if folks thought it wasn’t a valuable journalistic institution.
I want to launch you into the bigger picture of which this is emblematic, but I first want to insert: Shari Redstone inherited Paramount from her father, Sumner Redstone, who, while some of us were working to show there was a conflict, declared it openly.
In 2004, then-head of CBS and Viacom Sumner Redstone stated at a corporate leader confab that he didn’t want to denigrate then–Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, but
from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal, because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people, but from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company.
And, later, CBS head Les Moonves—CounterSpin listeners will have heard me say many times—declared laughingly, “Donald Trump is bad for America, but he’s good for CBS, so let’s do it.”
So the structural conflict you’re describing, it’s not a theory. It’s not the stuff of smoke-filled rooms. It’s out there for everyone to see, every day in every way. So the questions have to do with, once we diagnose this problem, what do we do about it?
VP: Thank you for opening up with that softball question. I mean, that is the main problem before us, and everything you just said leading up to this question really lays out that this is a systemic problem that we’re facing, and it requires a systemic fix. It’s not just a case of a few bad apples, or a handful of bad corporations and perhaps a bad journalist, even, but it really is a systemic structural problem. And so we really need to move our frame of analysis from just condemning the latest media malfeasance to really condemning the entire hypercommercialized media system in which we are all immersed, and so clearly serves only commercial values and not democratic values.
So the first step, of course, would be to decommercialize our media, much easier said than done, but that’s something we need to place on our horizon. And not only that, we also need to radically democratize our media, from root to branch, and that means bringing it back down to the local level, making sure that our media are owned and controlled by the public. Even our public media, our so-called public media, aren’t actually owned by the people.
So this is something that we need to work towards. It won’t happen tomorrow, but it’s something we need to start thinking about now.
JJ: I love the idea of a long-term and a short-term plan, and eyes on the prize. So let’s go back to that. It’s not that we’re going to change things legislatively or politically tomorrow, but there are things on the ground locally. There are models we can build on, yeah?
VP: That’s absolutely true. There’s a number of models that exist today, that have existed in our history and that exist around the world, and we really should be looking at some of those to expand our current imagination about what’s possible in the future. Obviously, we have some great independent local media, and those outlets, those institutions, we should be supporting in any way that we can, through donations, subscriptions, whatever we can, to help them. They’re all struggling, like all local media are right now.
We also, even though I made a sort of snarky comment about our public media a moment ago, I think we do need to look to, as I say, save our public media so that we can change it. As we know, the meager funds that we allocate to public media are currently on the chopping block. It comes out to about a $1.58 per person per year in this country, which is literally off the chart compared to most democratic countries around the world. So we need to look at how we can salvage that, but also, again, expand on it, and build, restructure our public media, so that it’s not just public in name but actually publicly owned.
There are other things that we could be doing, but we just have to start with recognizing that the current commercial system is failing democracy, and will always fail democracy.
JJ: When you talk about public media, and this is a thing, of course, folks are being encouraged to think about it now as “ideological” institutions. First of all, and you’ve said it, but they don’t get a lot of government support to begin with.
Neiman Reports (1/24/22): The US is virtually off the chart when it comes to its ratio of GDP to spending on public media.
But at the same time, progressives, we’ve had plenty of complaints about public broadcasting as it exists in this country. It had a beautiful ideal. It had a beautiful beginning. It hasn’t fulfilled that role.
We have complaints about it, but the complaints that we’re now hearing don’t have anything to do with the complaints that we have about it. So the idea of saving public media might land weird to some CounterSpin listeners, but there’s a reason that we need to keep that venue open.
VP: Absolutely. I mean, it is an ideal, just like democracy itself is an ideal, something that we have yet to actually achieve, but it’s something we can’t give up on just because the current iteration of this model that we have in the US, which is a kind of strange one, again, compared to other public media models around the world, it’s actually a misnomer. It’s mostly supported by private capital.
But if we were to actually fund it in accordance with global norms, we could have a very robust public media system that was not dependent on corporate sponsorships, that was not catering to higher socioeconomic groups, that, again, could actually spend more time engaging with and devoting programming for local communities.
So this is something that’s not inevitable. Like our entire media system, there was nothing inevitable with how we designed it. We need to understand the political economic structures that produce the kind of media that we’re constantly critiquing in order to change it, to create an entirely different kind of media system that’s driven by a different and democratic logic.
JJ: Let me just draw you out on that. We spoke last year, and I would refer interested people to that conversation, about separating capitalism and journalism, and talking about different ways of financing media in the service of the public.
And we understand complaints about “state media.” We hear all of that, and any kind of funding structure should be transparent, and we should talk about it.
But I want to ask you, finally, there are creative policy responses going on, and it’s not about kicking the final answers down the field; it’s really just about making a road while we walk it, and making examples of things, so that we can see that, yeah, they work, and they can move us towards a bigger vision.
VP: Absolutely. And as you already suggested, state media and public media are not the same thing. That we publicly subsidize media doesn’t mean it immediately has to become a mouthpiece for the state or the government.
And, indeed, government is always involved in our media. It’s a question of how it should be involved, whether it’s to serve corporate interests or public interests.
I think we can look to what’s happening at the state level, for example, in New Jersey, they’ve long had an Information Consortium network that’s focused on subsidizing various local journalistic initiatives. And it’s a proof of concept of how the state can make these public investments towards publicly accountable media. And we’re starting to see that in many states across the country.
A lot of experiments, some will survive, some won’t. The important thing is that we need to create these non-market means of support for the media that we need. I think that ideal of separating journalism and capitalism, which was always a match made in Hell, we need to find a way to do that, again, to be on our political horizon for the future.
Victor Pickard: “Much of what we’re talking about is really trying to figure out the structures that would allow journalists to be journalists.”
JJ: Well, I said that was my last question, but I want to ask you another one, because I think a mistake that folks make about FAIR, and possibly about you, is that we’re anti-journalism per se. But we are emphatically pro–good journalism that’s not public relations for power. It’s because we believe in the power of journalism that we are so concerned about these structural constraints.
VP: Exactly. I couldn’t agree more with that statement. And I think much of what we’re talking about is really trying to figure out the structures that would allow journalists to be journalists. Most journalists don’t go into the profession, they don’t follow the craft, to become rich, or to become mouthpieces of the already powerful. I think it’s generally a noble calling, and we just need to create the institutions and the structures that can allow them to be the great journalist they want to be.
JJ: All right, then. Victor Pickard is professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication. He co-directs the Media Inequality and Change Center, and his most recent book is called Democracy Without Journalism?. Victor Pickard, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
Clearer legal obligations on the British government to prevent genocides, and to determine if one is occurring rather than leaving such judgments to international courts, are to be considered by a cross-party group of lawyers, politicians and academics under the chairmanship of Helena Kennedy.
The new group, known as the standing group on atrocity crimes, says its genesis does not derive from a specific conflict such as Gaza or Xinjiang, but a wider concern that such crime is spreading as international law loses its purchase.
Palestinians continue to hold on to the practice we call sumoud – refusing to give up or leave – despite the world turning its back on us
Over the past 21 long months of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, voices all over the world have decried the demise of international law and the rule-based order. And indeed, the facade of Israel’s adherence to international law has vanished and policies that constitute war crimes are now brazenly declared.
This week, Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, has shared plans to forcibly move Palestinians into a camp in the ruins of Rafah. Once they enter, they cannot leave. In other words, a concentration camp, which by definition is an internment centre for members of a national group (as well as political prisoners or minority groups) on the grounds of security or punishment, usually by military order. Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer, was quoted in the Guardian as saying that Katz “laid out an operational plan for a crime against humanity”. Hundreds have been killed and thousands wounded trying to access food.
ECHR rules South African runner did not have fair trial on need to lower testosterone levels to compete in women’s sport
The South African runner Caster Semenya has called for athletes’ rights to be better protected after Europe’s top human rights court ruled that she had not been given a fair trial when she contested a policy that required her to lower her testosterone levels in order to compete in women’s sport.
The decision, handed down on Thursday by the European court of human rights, was the latest twist in the two-time Olympic gold medallist’s extraordinary legal battle.
Extrajudicial killings, sexual violence and forced labour among accusations upheld by court in judgment
Russia has committed flagrant and unprecedented abuses of human rights since it invaded Ukraine in 2014, including extrajudicial killings, sexual violence and forced labour, the European court of human rights has found.
The court’s grand chamber unanimously held that between 11 May 2014 and 16 September 2022, when Russia ceased to be a party to the European convention on human rights it had committed “manifestly unlawful conduct … on a massive scale”.
Indiscriminate military attacks.
Summary executions of civilians and Ukrainian military personnel.
Torture, including the use of rape as a weapon of war.
Unlawful and arbitrary detention of civilians.
Unjustified displacement and transfer of civilians.
Intimidation, harassment and persecution of all religious groups other than adherents of the historically Moscow-aligned Ukrainian Orthodox church.
Intimidation and violence against journalists and new laws prohibiting and penalising the dissemination of information in support of Ukraine.
Forcible dispersal by the Russian military of peaceful protests in occupied towns and cities.
Destruction, looting and expropriation of property.
Suppression of the Ukrainian language in schools and indoctrination of Ukrainian schoolchildren.
Transfer to Russia, and in many cases, the adoption there of Ukrainian children.
Hundreds put to death for non-violent drug offences over past decade, with little scrutiny of Saudis, says Amnesty
Saudi Arabia has carried out a “horrifying” number of executions for drug crimes over the past decade, most of which were of foreign nationals, according to Amnesty International.
Almost 600 people have been executed over the past decade for drug-related offences, Amnesty International has found, three-quarters of whom were foreign nationals from countries including Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Nigeria and Egypt.
In 2015, a nationwide campaign rounded up hundreds of rights advocates. Since then, suppression has become more systematic and less visible, lawyers say
A decade on from China’s biggest crackdown on human rights lawyers in modern history, lawyers and activists say that the Chinese Communist party’s control over the legal profession has tightened, making rights defence work next to impossible.
The environment for human rights law has “steadily regressed, especially after the pandemic”, said Ren Quanniu, a disbarred human rights lawyer. “Right now, the rule of law in China – especially in terms of protecting human rights – has deteriorated to a point where it’s almost comparable to the Cultural Revolution era.” The Cultural Revolution was a decade of mass chaos unleashed by China’s former leader Mao Zedong in 1966. During that time judicial organs were attacked as “bourgeois” and the nascent court system was largely suspended.
Since 1963, when he photographed a fellow student being arrested, David Hoffman has turned his camera on rebels and rioters. His archive tells an alternative story of Britain, from Greenham Common to students marching on Whitehall
Duncan Campbell on the power of protest
From the suffragettes at the start of the last century to Reclaim the Night in the 1970s; from the battle of Cable Street against the British Union of Fascists in 1936 to the Anti-Nazi League marches four decades later; from the million marchers against the Iraq war in 2003 in London to the massive turnouts across the country two decades later against the war in Gaza, protest has been a vital and constant part of the fabric of British society.
Washington, D.C., July 3, 2025— The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the June 18 arrest of journalist Muzahim Bajaber in central Yemen’s Hadramout Governorate on unspecified charges.
The warrant, reviewed by CPJ, was issued by a Specialized Criminal Court and violates Article 13 of Yemen’s Press and Publications Law, which protects journalists from punishment for publishing their opinions unless they violate the law.
“Bajaber’s arrest is the latest example of the deteriorating press freedom situation in areas controlled by the Internationally Recognized Government (IRG),” said CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah. “We call on the IRG to immediately release Bajaber and to allow journalists to do their job without fear of reprisal.”
Yemen has been mired in civil war since 2014, when Houthi rebels seized the capital, Sanaa, and ousted the government. The Saudi-backed IRG intervened in 2015 in an effort to restore the government to power.
Journalists face grave threats in areas controlled by the Houthi, IRG, and Southern Transitional Council (STC). Violations—including arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, and unfair trials—are carried out with near-total impunity.
Bajaber, publisher and editor-in-chief of the independent, Hadramout-based media outlet, Al-Ahqaf Media Platform, was arrested by security forces in the IRG-controlled city of Al-Mukalla.
In a separate incident, journalist Ahmed Maher—who was detained in August 2022 by security forces affiliated with the STC and released in January 2025—has recently over the last month been subjected to online incitement and threats, according to Yemeni press freedom and human rights organizations, as well as messages sent directly from the journalist to CPJ.
CPJ emailed the Ministry of Human Rights in the IRG for comment on the arrest of Bajaber, but did not receive an immediate response.
New York, July 2, 2025—The Committee to Protect Journalists urges Kyrgyzstan President Sadyr Japarov to veto a new mass media law that would require all publications to register with the state and heavily restricts any foreign legal entities from founding or owning media outlets.
Parliament passed the bill, which would allow an authorized state body to decide which media outlets can operate, on June 25, rejecting a compromise draft of the bill that had been the product of two years of negotiations with a working group that included journalists.
“Considering Kyrgyzstan’s unprecedented media crackdown, Parliament’s last-minute reintroduction of repressive clauses into the new media law bill is dangerous and rightly sparks deep concern for the press,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “We call on President Japarov to give substance to his verbal commitments to press freedom by vetoing this version of the bill and returning it to Parliament so it can pass a version supported by the country’s journalists.”
The compromise draft was passed in a first reading by parliament in April; in mid-June, deputies reintroduced the disputed clauses before rushing the bill through in two readings on June 25.
Several journalists and media experts who worked on the compromise draft have asked the government to revert to a version based on the draft.
If the current version is ratified, “those who will print any criticism or alternative views, will simply not be registered and won’t be able to publish,” Semetey Amanbekov, a member of local advocacy group Media Action Platform, told RFE/RL, adding that it will mean journalism in Kyrgyzstan will come to an end.
The budget bill just passed by the Senate provides more than $170 billion in new funding for immigration enforcement and detention. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, who worked on an analysis published by the American Immigration Council, says the new budget would make ICE “the single largest federal law enforcement agency in the history of the nation.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
The budget bill just passed by the Senate provides more than $170 billion in new funding for immigration enforcement and detention. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, who worked on an analysis published by the American Immigration Council, says the new budget would make ICE “the single largest federal law enforcement agency in the history of the nation.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
A photojournalist for news agency Agence France-Presse was struck with crowd-control munitions by law enforcement officers while documenting a protest against the Trump administration in Los Angeles, California, on June 14, 2025.
The protest in downtown Los Angeles was one of hundreds of “No Kings” demonstrations held nationwide to counter a military parade attended by President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., marking the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. It also followed days of protests in the city and nearby towns against recent federal raids, part of the Trump administration’s larger immigration crackdown.
The photojournalist, who asked to remain anonymous, told France 24 that he was wearing two cameras, a helmet with AFP stickers and a patch on his chest that said “Press.”
He said he was about 90 feet away from law enforcement officers when they advanced on the protesters and began firing rubber bullets. Two struck him in the face and right arm.
The photojournalist told the news network that he went to the hospital to be treated for his injuries from the shots.
France 24 asked both the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department about the shooting; neither agency claimed responsibility.
The police department told AFP that “less-lethal munitions were used to clear the area of those who refused to comply and leave the area.” The Sheriff’s Department said that it “does not condone any actions that intentionally target members of the press.”
UN experts and hundreds of lawyers warn that proscribing group would conflate protest and terrorism
The home secretary is coming under increasing pressure to abandon plans to ban Palestine Action, as UN experts and hundreds of lawyers warned that proscribing the group would conflate protest and terrorism.
In two separate letters to Yvette Cooper, the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) lawyers’ group and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers said that proscribing the group would set a dangerous precedent.
New York, June 30, 2025—Hong Kong, an international financial hub and once a beacon of free media, is now in the grip of a rapid decline in press freedom that threatens the city’s status as a global financial information center.
Three journalists told CPJ that investigative reporting on major economic events, a cornerstone of Hong Kong’s financial transparency, has nearly disappeared amid government pressure and the departure of major outlets.
The sharp decline in press freedom, the journalists said, is a direct result of the National Security Law. This law, enacted on June 30, 2020, was imposed directly by Beijing, bypassing Hong Kong’s local legislature, and included offenses for secession, subversion, terrorist activities, and collusion with foreign forces, with penalties ranging from a three years to life imprisonment.
In the five years since it was enacted, authorities have shut down media outlets and arrested several journalists, including Jimmy Lai, the founder of one of Hong Kong’s largest newspapers, the pro-democracy Apple Daily. Several major international news organizations have either relocated or downsized their operations in Hong Kong, leading to a decline in reporting on the city and its financial hub.
“Hong Kong’s economic boom happened because journalists could work without interference,” said a veteran reporter with 11 years’ experience in television, newspapers, and digital platforms in Hong Kong, who spoke to CPJ on condition of anonymity due to security concerns.
While markets still function, at least three media professionals told CPJ that the erosion of press freedom — often overlooked — is a key factor behind Hong Kong’s fading financial appeal to market participants. One reporter described the media as “paralyzed.”
Another hastily passed security law enacted in March 2024 in Hong Kong further deepened fears that it would be used to suppress press freedom and prosecute journalists.
Jimmy Lai walks through the Stanley prison in Hong Kong in 2023. (Photo: AP/Louise Delmotte)
“There has never been an international financial center in history that operates with restrictions on information,” Simon Lee, an economic commentator and former assistant CEO of Next Digital Group, the parent company of Apple Daily, told CPJ.
Hong Kong long served as a base for reporting on China’s economy and power structures, said a former financial journalist on the condition of anonymity, citing safety concerns.
“Most Hong Kong-listed companies come from the mainland [China]. Foreign media used Hong Kong to observe China’s economic operations or wealth transfers,” the former financial journalist told CPJ. “Now the risks feel similar to reporting from inside China.”
Crackdowns, shutdowns, and an exodus of major media
Since the introduction of the National Security Law in 2020, at least eight media outlets have shut. These included Apple Daily, news and lifestyle magazine Next Magazine, both published by Lai’s Next Digital group, and the online outlet Stand News, after they were raided by authorities.
At least four other media organizations —Post852,DB channel,Citizen News, andFactWire — ceased operations voluntarily, citing concerns over the deteriorating political environment.
China had the world’shighest number of imprisoned journalists in CPJ’s latest prison census — 50 in total, including eight in Hong Kong.
The New York Timesmoved part of its newsroom to Seoul in 2020. In March 2024, Radio Free Asiaclosed its Hong Kong office, and in May, The Wall Street Journalrelocated its Asia headquarters to Singapore.
“With fewer foreign correspondents based in the city, there’s simply less reporting on Hong Kong,” the former financial journalist told CPJ. “As a result, the city’s economy may receive less objective attention on the global stage.”
The former financial journalist said that one of the biggest losses after the security law was the disappearance of Apple Daily. Unlike most local media, which focused on routine market updates, Apple Daily connected business to politics and mapped interest networks — an increasingly rare practice.
Copies of the last issue of Apple Daily arrive at a newspaper booth in Hong Kong on June 24, 2021. (Photo: AP/Vincent Yu)
Next Digital, through Apple Daily, built a reputation for investigative financial reporting. A former staff member told the BBC that the company once spent over 100,000 yuan (US$14,000) tracing dozens of property owners to uncover a developer’s hidden ties with a bank.
“From a financial news perspective, one of our biggest problems is losing Apple Daily,” the former financial journalist told CPJ.
Local business reporting also fades away
As Hong Kong’s financial hub reputation comes under question, stories on high unemployment rates, struggling small businesses, and store closures are increasingly out of sight.
“One direct effect is feeling increasingly unable to grasp what’s happening in the city; important information no longer seems easy to access,” Lee said. “Previously, competition among professional outlets encouraged source sharing and helped maintain a power balance. Now, one-way government-controlled information faces little resistance.”
Lee told CPJ that changes in Hong Kong’s media landscape are particularly evident in major financial events, pointing to the coverage of the 2024 sale of Li Ka-shing’s port assets, in which local outlets failed to question the deal’s structure, rationale, or political implications.
“Beijing called it a national security matter, and the other side of the story disappeared,” Lee told CPJ. “Many focus on the judicial system when discussing fairness, but true fairness also depends on the free flow of information … Without information freedom, public oversight fades, and the market’s system of checks and balances collapses.”
Lee also cited the case of Alvin Chau, a casino tycoon in Macao who was sentenced in 2023 to 18 years for illegal gambling. While foreign media uncovered his alleged links to oil smuggling operations to North Korea, local media offered little follow-up.
“These investigations and reports simply no longer exist,” Lee said.
Sources can’t speak freely
Two journalists told CPJ they have noticed increasing reluctance from interviewees.
During previous years of the Annual Budget Speech, Hong Kong’s yearly announcement of its public spending and economic plans, the media would host analysis shows with economists debating government spending and policies.
“We would ask about the fiscal surplus, support for the poor, and whether measures were targeted,” the veteran reporter told CPJ, adding that now, “only one professor is willing to speak openly.”
Lee told CPJ that the atmosphere of “not being allowed to criticize” the broader structure or government policy has also extended to the reporting on how financial markets operate.
Market participants should be free to take either optimistic or pessimistic views of the economic outlook, Lee told CPJ, adding that today in Hong Kong, it is discouraged to express pessimism, and even silently shifting toward defensive investment strategies or risk-averse behavior may be interpreted as making a political statement.
“It’s hard for any place with such high information costs to remain a global financial hub,” Lee said. “Because even pulling back on investment can send a signal. If investors are accused of intentionally dragging down the market just because they try to hedge or take a cautious view, they may decide it’s safer to avoid the market altogether.”
In response to CPJ’s request for comment, a Hong Kong government spokesperson referred CPJ to a statement that said the security law has enabled the city to “make a major transition from chaos to order” and “the business environment has continuously improved,” while press freedom is protected under the law.
Two hours after Keira Alexandra Kronvold gave birth, her daughter was taken from her – the third child to be removed from her care following a now-banned assessment that disproportionately targets Inuit women in Denmark. Will she win the fight to get Zammi back?
‘Now your two hours begin.” The countdown started when Keira Alexandra Kronvold had just given birth in the early hours of 7 November 2024. Keira, 38, was originally granted just one hour with her daughter, Zammi, before her baby was to be removed from her and taken to foster parents – but the midwife begged authorities to give them more time. Before Zammi’s arrival, the midwife asked if Keira had any wishes. “I said, ‘I want hand and footprints. I want to grab her, I don’t want you to catch her when she is born. I want to catch her myself.’”
During labour – which lasted just an hour and a half – Keira kept checking whether her 20-year-old daughter, Zoe, who had never seen a birth before, was OK; and she was determined not to scream, to avoid waking up the other mothers and babies on the ward. But when Zammi arrived, everything else – the months of stress, worry and pressure – gave way to pure joy. “I just laid back,” she says, arms cradled and slowly reclining on her sofa, as she re-enacts the moment at home in the town of Thisted, northern Denmark, “because I had to keep her warm. She was so beautiful. That emotional feeling is indescribable. Right there: unconditional love, pure happiness, all that joy.” She wished Zammi a happy birthday and told her how much she loved her. She cried tears of joy, counted Zammi’s tiny fingers.
Haitian Lourda Jean Pierre died shortly after giving birth at home after seeing images of pregnant women and new mothers being rounded up in hospitals by immigration agents
About an hour after giving birth on the floor of her one-room shack in the Dominican Republic, Lourdia Jean Pierre, 32, started gasping for breath.
Her husband, Ronald Jean, knew something was seriously wrong, and shouted for help from the neighbours.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) called on Bahrain’s Shura Council to reject the government’s proposed amendments to the Law on Press, Printing, and Publishing (Decree-Law No. 47 of 2002) in a joint statement led by CPJ, Access Now, and seven other press freedom and human rights groups.
The statement warned that the Bahraini government’s claim of abolishing prison sentences for journalists is misleading when other repressive laws—such as the Penal Code and Anti-Terrorism Law—still allow for their prosecution. This dual legal system enables authorities to arbitrarily impose fines or prison terms based on an individual’s political profile, seriously undermining press freedom, said the statement’s signatories.
The statement also raised concerns about the government’s proposed licensing requirements for online and “media-related” activities, warning that broad definitions under Article 3 could have a chilling effect on online expression, including by bloggers and content creators. While Article 67 claims there will be no prior censorship, the licensing system could be used to restrict media through delays or denials—effectively enabling censorship and violating international standards on freedom of expression.
Elected in 2019 as El Salvador’s 81st president, Nayib Bukele campaigned on a promise to make the country safer. In this article, Elizabeth García examines how his efforts to deliver on that promise have led to severe human rights violations and reshaped security policy across Latin America.
“Today, we won in the first round and we made history. We’ve turned the page on power.” Nayib Bukele’s win marked the collapse of El Salvador’s two dominant political parties: the conservative Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) and the leftist Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), both of which had lost public trust amid decades of corruption and failure to curb rising gang violence. Bukele’s election in 2019 was seen by many in the country and across Latin America as the dawn of a new political era. One that promised anti-corruption, investment in education, infrastructure and, most urgently, a safer nation.
Now, six years and a second term later, the era ushered in by Bukele has delivered more security—but at a cost that is increasingly drawing international scrutiny. The establishment of the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a mega-prison with the capacity to hold 40,000 inmates, has become a symbol of Bukele’s iron-fisted approach to crime. Under his “state of emergency,” which suspends certain constitutional rights, more than 75,000 people have been arrested, many without due process. While homicide rates have plummeted and public spaces once controlled by gangs are now accessible, human rights organisations warn that the price of peace has been mass incarceration, arbitrary detentions and the erosion of democratic norms.
From murder capital to mandate for change
Before Bukele, El Salvador was known as the “murder capital of the world,” with the country recording an average of 103 homicides per 100,000 people in 2015. This staggering rate of violence was largely driven by powerful street gangs, particularly MS-13 and Barrio 18. The state, weakened by years of civil war and institutional corruption, struggled to assert control, leaving many Salvadorans at the mercy of extortion, forced displacement and extrajudicial killings.
Previous administrations implemented a mix of hardline crackdowns, known as mano dura policies, and short-lived truces with gang leaders. While these approaches occasionally led to temporary declines in violence, they often backfired, strengthening the gangs’ internal structures and giving them more leverage over communities. Prisons became recruitment hubs, and the public grew increasingly disillusioned with the state’s inability to restore order.
By the time Bukele came into office in 2019, trust in traditional political parties had eroded. His rise represented not just a generational shift but a broader desire for a clean break from the status quo. Campaigning on promises to restore security and take back control of the streets, Bukele capitalised on a public mandate for change—setting the stage for drastic measures.
CECOT: symbol of power or repression?
CECOT is not an isolated initiative; it’s the culmination of Bukele’s seven-phaseTerritorial Control Plan, which he launched within his first year in office, focused on reclaiming gang-occupied areas. Marketed as a fortress of law and order, CECOT was unveiled in a highly publicised media campaign that broadcast images of tattooed inmates lined up with their heads bowed and shaved, effectively stripped of their identity and autonomy. Inmates are held in overcrowded cells, sleep on metal bunks without mattresses and have 0.6 square meters of space each. There are no educational programs, family visits, or outdoor access. These conditions highlight the state’s prioritisation of security over basic human rights. For supporters, it represents the long-awaited triumph of the state over criminal organisations that had terrorised the country for decades.
Exporting authoritarianism and the spread of populism
As crime surges across Latin America, regional leaders are increasingly looking to Bukele and CECOT as a blueprint for security policy. The prison’s scale and symbolism have drawn attention from politicians across Latin America seeking to replicate Bukele’s perceived success. In Ecuador, President Daniel Noboa has unveiled plans to construct similar “ultra-secure” facilities, citing Bukele’s strategy as a model. In Honduras, President Xiomara Castro has announced plans to build a similar CECOT-style mega-prison. In Lima, Peru’s capital, Mayor Rafael López Aliaga has called Bukele’s crime crackdown a “miracle,” while Costa Rica’s Security Minister, Jorge Torres, has expressed interest in adopting similar methods. Bukele’s brand of authoritarian securitisation is quickly emerging as Latin America’s most influential model for public safety policy.
This influence goes beyond infrastructure; it signals a shift in how governments across the region approach public safety. Rather than focusing on long-term social reform or institutional rebuilding, many are turning toward hardline containment strategies that project immediate control. However, copying Bukele’s model risks normalising security-driven populism, a framework that exchanges civil liberties for public order without addressing the structural roots of violence. In this model, poverty, lack of opportunity and state neglect are treated not as causes of crime but as conditions for criminality.
Rethinking safety from the ground up
Building lasting security requires more than mass incarceration and militarised crackdowns; it requires rebuilding trust between communities and institutions. Instead of relying on surveillance and fear, countries can invest in violence prevention through education, social services and local economic development. Programs such as Operación Convivencia in Medellín, Colombia, have shown that community-based interventions, such as youth mentorship, conflict resolution guidance, job training and urban renewal, can dramatically reduce crime while empowering citizens, not silencing them. Strengthening judicial independence, reforming police forces and ensuring that justice is fair and accessible are also essential steps toward sustainable peace. These approaches offer a human rights-based approach to the issue of gang violence in El Salvador through security grounded in dignity, inclusion and long-term resilience
Nayib Bukele entered politics promising to rewrite history. In many ways, he has. However, CECOT is not just a prison; it is a political symbol. It represents the region’s growing acceptance of authoritarian shortcuts in exchange for public safety. As other Latin American leaders begin to follow his blueprint, the region faces a pivotal question: Will lasting security come from fear and force—or from justice, accountability and the rebuilding of trust between people and the state? The answer may define the future of democracy in Latin America.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Anay Mehrotra examines how the famine in Gaza, resulting from Israel’s blockade and aid obstruction, may amount to a war crime under international law and argues for reparations as a step toward justice and structural redress
In December 2023, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (“IPC”) assessment found that 93 per cent of Gaza’s population was in a state of crisis, emergency, or catastrophe. By March 2024, the number in “catastrophe” nearly doubled, and famine was projected as imminent without immediate cessation of hostilities and access to aid. The Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) similarly reported that famine likely began in northern Gaza in April 2024 and will persist without significant intervention. These dire conditions stem from the “complete siege” imposed on Gaza after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, with aid delivery disrupted and over 1.1 million Palestinians facing catastrophic living conditions.
The conflict-induced famine in Gaza may constitute a war crime under International Law, specifically given its potential violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute. Israeli forces have reportedly obstructed the delivery of food, water and fuel, destroyed agricultural land, and impeded humanitarian aid—actions that deprive civilians of essential means of survival.
David Marcus, one of the first scholars to conceptualise famine as a crime under International Law, categorises famine crimes into two degrees: first-degree (when individuals knowingly create conditions leading to starvation) and second-degree (when individuals recklessly continue to pursue policies after learning they lead to starvation). Depending on intent, these actions may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity. International law prohibits such acts in war under the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, and they are condemned in UN Security Council Resolution 2417.
Given these legal frameworks, the deliberate or reckless deprivation of food and humanitarian aid in Gaza may not only violate international norms but also rise to the level of prosecutable war crimes. While the immediate priority is to end the violence and alleviate suffering, a longer-term response must include legal accountability and reparations to uphold humanitarian law, deliver justice to victims, and deter future violations.
The need for reparations in Gaza has become increasingly urgent due to the unprecedented destruction caused by the conflict. The Israeli blockade and military actions have decimated Gaza’s food supply and infrastructure. Agricultural devastation has led to the damage or destruction of 75 per cent of fields once used to grow crops. Over two-thirds of agricultural wells are no longer functional, crippling irrigation. Livestock losses exceed 70 per cent and over 40 per cent of croplands have been damaged, with some areas permanently affected by seawater flooding. The healthcare system, vital for mitigating diseases such as diarrhoea and cholera, is operating at only 16 of 36 hospitals, with their collective capacity merely above 1,800 beds.
Even before the recent escalation on October 23, food insecurity in Gaza was severe but not catastrophic. By early 2024, as per the IPC the entire Gaza Strip had reached Phase 4 of the hunger scale, with some households already at Phase 5 of acute food insecurity—55 per cent in the north, 25 per cent in central Gaza, and 25 per cent in the south. This marks a significant shift from pre-conflict conditions.
The International Court of Justice established reparations as a legal obligation in the 1928 judgement in the Factory at Chorzów case. This case established modern reparations principles under International Law, emphasising the need to fully address harm through both prosecuting offenders and compensating victims to uphold justice and accountability. This framework is crucial for Gaza as prosecutions of offenders offer significant symbolic justice to victims by transforming their suffering into a recognised crime, sending a message that such actions will not go unpunished and compelling the Israeli government to reassess its policies and acknowledge its role.
Under International Law, during an ongoing conflict, states may be obligated to provide compensation for wrongful acts, particularly when such compensation is specifically requested by the injured party. This principle is rooted in customary international law and outlined in the 1907 Hague Convention and Additional Protocol I. It also appears in ARSIWA, which stresses that compensation should be provided when restoring the original situation is not possible. This responsibility has been reinforced by numerous United Nations resolutions. ARSIWA also permits individuals to seek reparations through either unilateral state acts or national courts.
In Gaza, however, seeking reparations through national courts or direct negotiations is largely unfeasible. Israel has consistently rejected legal responsibility for the humanitarian crisis, and affected individuals lack effective legal avenues to claim compensation due to restrictions on access to international courts and Israel’s broad assertion of sovereign immunity. Given these barriers, the obligation to provide compensation must be upheld through international mechanisms, such as UN-led restitution programs, international tribunals, or third-party state intervention. In the absence of voluntary compliance, enforcement through sanctions or diplomatic measures may be necessary to ensure accountability and redress for the victims of the famine in Gaza.
Reparations by Israel would serve a dual purpose: first, to provide a legal and moral acknowledgement of the harm inflicted, in line with IL; and second, to address the long-term consequences of the conflict. Compensation could help rebuild Gaza’s agricultural sector, healthcare system, and critical infrastructure.
The famine in Gaza, and the international community’s response to it, highlights the urgent need to bridge the gap between established legal norms and their enforcement. Holding Israel accountable under International Law for its role in this humanitarian catastrophe is not only a legal obligation but also a moral imperative. Reparations must go beyond a mere acknowledgement of harm—they must aim for systemic transformation to prevent future atrocities.
To move from condemnation to accountability, specific actions are necessary. International legal mechanisms, such as the ICC, should prioritise investigations into the deliberate denial of humanitarian aid as a potential war crime. Governments must exert diplomatic pressure to lift the siege and ensure unfettered access for aid organisations. Advocacy groups and civil society must amplify the voices of affected populations, lobbying for policy changes that address the use of famine as a weapon of war.
As we witness the consequences of inaction, we must ask: How can the world move from condemnation to accountability? Can legal systems rise to protect the vulnerable? The path forward demands collective effort — advocating for justice, amplifying voices, and making accountability real. The time to act is now.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Office for Students guidance urges ‘very strong’ approach to permitting lawful speech on campus
Universities in England will no longer be able to enforce blanket bans on student protests under sweeping new guidance that urges a “very strong” approach to permitting lawful speech on campus.
The detailed regulations set out for the first time how universities should deal with inflammatory disputes, such as those between the University of Cambridge and students over the war in Gaza, and rows over academics who hold controversial but legal opinions, such as the gender-critical professor Kathleen Stock.
The guidance issued by the Office for Students (OfS) will make it harder for universities to penalise students and staff for anything other than unlawful speech or harassment.
Academics should not be pressed to support particular views.
Protests should not be restricted for supporting legal viewpoints.
Students or staff should not be “encouraged to report others” for lawful speech.
Universities must “secure freedom of speech” for visiting speakers.
