During the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia has engaged in food warfare by disrupting important agricultural export routes. Interfering with this supply chain has heavily increased the chance of starvation among civilians globally. Despite the potential violations of international law, governments have struggled to hold Russia accountable. As such, governments should consider implementing case-by-case sanctions on Russia to limit its use of food warfare in Ukraine.
Capital punishment has been and continues to be a controversial topic among politicians and their constituents around the world. The upcoming execution of former Army Major Nidal Hassan has provided for debates on capital punishment to resurface; however, these debates are occurring in a new global political climate enduring changing policies and opinions. Some of the most convincing arguments against capital punishment question its effectiveness and morality, stating that the death penalty is not conducive to achieving fair and efficient justice systems around the world.
It is the ideas of the media that penetrate our minds and create perceptions of groups of people, leading to concrete and impactful policy choices that can alter the outcomes of international conflict. Therefore, the focus of media coverage on a terrorist attack should be about the political motive behind the attack, the structural damage caused, and the victims lives that were endangered or lost as a result– not whether the attackers nails were painted or if she was single.
During the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia has engaged in food warfare by disrupting important agricultural export routes. Interfering with this supply chain has heavily increased the chance of starvation among civilians globally. Despite the potential violations of international law, governments have struggled to hold Russia accountable. As such, governments should consider implementing case-by-case sanctions on Russia to limit its use of food warfare in Ukraine.
Read MoreThe 2024 European Union Artificial Intelligence Act was an unprecedented risk-based regulatory framework for AI, mandating strict governance, risk management, and severe financial penalties for violators. Critics take a fierce pro-innovation stance, claiming that the act inhibits technological progress and economic growth. This dispute motivates the idea of a mutually exclusive nature between risk-based and pro-innovation approaches to AI regulation, framing the act as anti-innovation. In reality, the EU AI Act encompasses both approaches, putting human wellbeing, technological progress, and economic prosperity at the forefront while affirming the importance of human-centered AI governance.
Read More
