The Inquiry

Ahead of last year’s US Presidential elections, Donald Trump was asked if he would defend China against Taiwan, he responded that Taiwan should pay the US for protection from China. Taiwan is a self-governing island, claimed by Beijing and whilst Taiwan is not formally recognised by the US, they do remain the island’s most important security partner. Taiwan manufactures over ninety percent of the world’s most advanced semiconductor chips, which makes some American industries heavily dependent on trade links with the island. But official US policy towards Taiwan is one of ‘strategic ambiguity’. So when the US Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth recently warned of China posing an ‘imminent’ threat to Taiwan, whilst at the same time urging Asian countries to boost defence spending and work with the US to deter war, it raised the issue of how far America would be prepared to go to defend Taiwan. China in response accused the US of being the ‘biggest troublemaker’ for regional peace. The US has only just agreed a truce on trade tariffs with China and President Trump’s immediate attention has shifted onto issues in the Middle East, so if Pete Hegseth’s warning is valid, how far up the list is Taiwan in terms of Trump’s foreign policy priorities. This week on the Inquiry we’re asking ‘Does Trump care about Taiwan?’ Contributors: Dr Chun-yi Lee, Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Director of Taiwan Research Hub, University of Nottingham, UK Christopher S. Chivvis, Senior Fellow and Director, American Statecraft Program, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington DC, USA Patricia Kim, Scholar on China, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC, USA Raymond Kuo, Inaugural Director, Taiwan Policy Initiative, The Rand Corporation, California, USA Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Maeve Schaffer Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards Production Co-ordinator: Tammy Snow Image Credit: Taiwanese flags wave at the park decorated by Chang Lao-wang, ahead of Taiwan National Day in Taoyuan, Taiwan, October 5, 2022. REUTERS/Ann Wang

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most important energy corridors in the world. It is the only sea route from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean, it serves as the primary maritime route for oil exports from the Gulf. Any disruption to traffic through the strait would have implications for oil markets and regional stability. While some Gulf states have developed pipelines to bypass the strait, the volume of oil transported by sea is far greater, and for many countries, including key Gulf exporters, the waterway is essential to maintaining trade. China is the largest buyer of oil that travels through the strait, making it particularly exposed to any disruption. Iran itself relies on the Strait of Hormuz to sell its oil and any blockage of the route would likely damage Iran’s own economy and could strain relationships with regional neighbours. Despite past threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway has remained open, including during the tanker wars of the 1980s, but any disruption could have a big impact on global oil supplies. Picture Credit: Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images Contributors: Camille Lons, Deputy Head of the Paris office of the Council on Foreign relations Elisabeth Braw, Senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Transatlantic Security Initiative in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security Jacob P. Larsen, BIMCO’s Chief Safety & Security Officer Petter Haugen, Partner, Equity Research Shipping, ABG Sundal Collier, Nordic Investment Bank Presenter Charmaine Cozier Producer Louise Clarke Researcher Maeve Schaffer Editor Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Gareth Jones Production Coordinator - Tammy Snow

During a speech to the Spanish parliament earlier this year, the country’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez claimed there’s one thing that would guarantee lasting peace in Europe. His idea is the creation of a new army drawn from the 27 countries whose governments already work together as members of the European Union. The concept isn't a new one - and NATO already exists, the military alliance which includes EU member states and other European countries. But talk of a new military force is reappearing as the continent becomes more vulnerable to threats. Its ally the US is increasingly unreliable and unpredictable too. Other European leaders are also backing the idea This week we’re asking - “Are we closer to a European army?” Contributors: Dick Zandee, Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Security and Defence Programme at the Clingendael Institute Dr Ulrike Franke, Senior Policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations Oana Lungescu, Distinguished fellow with the Royal United Services Institute and former NATO spokesperson Prof. Dr. Sven Biscop, Director of the Europe in the World Programme at Egmont. Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Daniel Rosney Researcher: Maeve Schaffer Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Toby James Production Coordinator - Tammy Snow (Image Credit: FREDERICK FLORIN/AFP via Getty Images)

The creation of a landmark gene editing drug used to treat a baby with a rare genetic mutation which could help transform personalized medicine. Blood tests showed baby KJ had sky-high levels of ammonia, a toxic substance the body usually expels. The root cause was his genes - or more particularly a specific gene mutation. The race was on to try and treat him before his condition took a firm hold. His doctors came up with a radical solution - for the first time ever, they designed and applied a gene-editing drug in record time, specifically for him. Have we seen breakthrough in preventing genetic diseases? With Fyodor Urnov, a professor in the Molecular and Cell Biology Department at the University of California, Virginijus Šikšnys professor at the Life Science Center of Vilnius University, Waseem Qasim from the UCL Institute of Child Health in Great Ormond Street Hospital in London and Jennifer Doudna, Professor, University of California, Berkeley and founder of the Innovative Genomics Institute. Presented by Tanya Beckett. Produced by Bob Howard. Researched by Mauve Schaffer Edited by Tara McDermott.

The economic fortunes of the Southern Africa country of Botswana were transformed back in the mid 1960’s when shortly after gaining independence from Britain, its first diamond mine was discovered. A partnership with the world’s biggest diamond firm DeBeers ensured Botswana’s diamonds gained global attention and with some of the world’s biggest diamonds been mined in the country, it now ranks just below Russia in terms of its importance in the industry. But post pandemic, the global market has seen a shift in demand for mined diamonds, with consumers in countries like China, who accounted for around thirty percent of global demand, falling away. Another reason for this shift is the emerging popularity of lab grown diamonds. Originally used in industrial machinery, lab diamonds are now been refined for the jewellery market at a fraction of the price of mined diamonds, with the majority of consumer interest coming from the United States. Botswana has been trying to ride this wave with a policy of diversification, to allow it to generate more export revenue. But its new Government, who have only been in power since October last year, are dealing with a large budget deficit not helped by the low level of diamond revenues. It faces a hard task in trying to revive demand for mined diamonds across the global market. So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Are diamonds forever in Botswana?’ Contributors: Dr Gloria Somolekae, Executive Director, BIDPA, Botswana Jessica Warch, Co-founder, Kimai, London Edahn Golan, Diamond Industry Analyst, Israel Dr. Keith Jefferis, Managing Director, Econsult Botswana Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Maeve Schaffer Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Production Co-ordinator: Tammy Snow Image: Karowe diamond in Botswana Credit: Photo by Lucara Diamond Handout/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock (14653888c)

Fungal diseases are becoming more common, more dangerous, and more difficult to treat. There’s concern that they may cause the next global pandemic. Rising global temperatures, better survival rates for vulnerable patients, and increased medical interventions contribute to the rise in fungal infections. Access to effective diagnostics and treatment remains limited, with significant disparities between high and low-income countries. Treating fungal infections is becoming more challenging as they build resistance to the drugs used to treat them. New therapies are being developed, including treatments that disrupt fungal DNA replication or interfere with essential proteins, offering some hope for long-term control. Contributors: Adilia Warris, Professor in Paediatric Infectious Diseases, University of Exeter, UK Rita Oladele, Professor of Clinical Microbiology, University of Lagos and Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Nigeria Arturo Casadevall, Professor and Chair of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, US Michael Bromley, Professor in Fungal Disease, University of Manchester, UK Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Louise Clarke Researcher: Maeve Schaffer Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Richard Hannaford Production co-ordinator: Tammy Snow (Image: Aspergillus fumigatus, seen under an optical microscope. Credit: BSIP/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

A domestic rice shortage in Japan has caused supermarket shelves to empty and prices to double. Rice is more than a staple food in Japan—it carries deep cultural, historical and even spiritual significance. The rice crisis highlights broader weaknesses in Japan’s economy. Japan imports over half of its food and has experienced persistent inflation. The country’s economic resilience is being tested by supply chain pressures, demographic shifts, and increased trade tensions. Efforts to address the shortage have focused on auctioning rice reserves, but underlying economic challenges persist. Contributors: • Yi-Chun Ko, Professor, Asian Growth Research Institute, Fukuoka, Japan • Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, William F. Vilas Research Professor, University of Wisconsin–Madison, US • Stefan Angrick, Senior Economist, Moody’s Analytics, Tokyo, Japan • Norihiro Yamaguchi, Lead Economist, Oxford Economics, Tokyo, Japan Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Louise Clarke Researcher: Katie Morgan Editor: Tara McDermott Technical producer: Richard Hannaford Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey

“Measles is back, and it’s a wake-up call,” proclaimed one regional director from the World Health Organisation who went on to add, “without high vaccination rates, there is no health security.” Measles is a childhood disease which can be deadly. We’ve been successfully vaccinating against it for decades. So much so that many younger physicians have never seen a child with the disease. But recently, the recorded number of cases has been rising - and this is a global trend. Measles is one of the most contagious viruses known to man. In an unvaccinated population it will spread like wildfire. So what’s behind the rapid rise of measles cases around the world? According to one of our expert witnesses it comes down to three Cs: complacency, convenience and confidence. In this edition of the Inquiry, Sandra Kanthal looks into what’s causing the rise in measles cases around the world and asks how this trend can be reversed. Contributors: Doctor Claudia Cojocaru – Romanian physician and neonatologist Robb Butler - Director of the Division of Communicable Diseases, Environment and Health: World Health Organisation Dr Benjamin Kasstan-Dabush -Assistant Professor, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Fatima Cengic, Regional Immunization Specialist, Europe and Central Asia: UNICEF Presenter: Sandra Kanthal Production: Katie Morgan Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey Technical Producer: James Beard Editor: Tara McDermott

Serbia’s citizens have been protesting for over six months, taking part in demonstrations around the country in reaction to their government’s alleged corruption. Though the country’s president, Aleksandar Vučić, has attempted to appease them, the movement shows no sign of slowing down. Situated in the Western Balkans, Serbia has had a long history of conflict; from the Ottoman Empire to the dissolution of Yugoslavia, but the ongoing civil unrest comes at a crossroads moment for President Vučić. Serbia is awaiting approval to join the European Union yet remains closely tied with the Kremlin. As the Serbian government seeks to solidify its place in the world, protestors continue their calls for transparency and accountability. This week on The Inquiry we ask “Will Serbia’s mass protests unseat the president?” Contributors: Gordana Andric, Executive Editor at Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, Belgrade, Serbia Dr. Andi Hoxhaj OBE, Lecturer in Law and the Director of the European Law LLM pathway programme, King’s College, London Ivana Randelovic, Senior Programme Officer for Europe at Civil Rights Defenders, Belgrade, Serbia Dr. Helena Ivanov, Associate Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, Belgrade, Serbia Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Daniel Rosney Researcher: Maeve Schaffer Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: James Bradshaw Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey Image credit: Srdjan Stevanovic via Getty Images

Scientists at a bio-technology firm made headlines when they announced the “de-extinction” of the dire wolf, a species of wolf that went extinct on Earth over 10,000 years ago. Colossal Biosciences examined DNA from ancient dire wolf fossils and used it to create wolf puppies with traits of the extinct species. The gene editing technology sparked curiosity around the world, and although the new wolves were not exact replicas of the originals they had similar traits. The development raises serious questions about what de-extinction really means. Mass extinctions have shaped the history of life on Earth, and nature has adapted across the millennia, but with almost half of all species already in decline, including some frogs, how seriously is de-extinction technology being taken? Contributors: Dr. Beth Shapiro, Chief Science Officer, Colossal Biosciences, California, USA Dr. Daniel Pincheira-Donoso, Associate Professor of Evolutionary Biology and Global Change, Queen's University Belfast, UK Torill Kornfeldt, Science Journalist and author, Sweden Dr. Jay Odenbaugh, Professor of Philosophy, James F. Miller Professor of Humanities, Lewis and Clark College, Oregon, USA Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Louise Clarke Researcher: Maeve Schaffer Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey

Earlier this month President Trump announced radical new taxes on foreign imports amounting to what he described as ‘Liberation Day' for the United States. It was a promise he made to American voters during last year’s election campaign but the scale of the tariffs caught many countries by surprise. Global financial markets plunged as investors braced themselves for a shock to the flow of international trade. Faced with prolonged market turmoil, within days the US President paused most of his plans. A to-and-fro between Washington and Beijing has left many world leaders confused who to side with, as many look towards the White House wondering if there is a detailed plan at the heart of these unprecedented few weeks. Contributors: ● Carla Sands, Vice Chair for the Center for Energy and Environment at America First Policy Institute and former US Ambassador to Denmark ● Emily Kilcrease, Senior Fellow and Director of the Energy, Economics and Security Program at the Center for a New American Security ● Victor Gao, Chair professor at Suzhou University and Vice President at the Center for China and Globalization ● Gillian Tett, Provost of King’s College at Cambridge University and Financial Times columnist Presented by Tanya Beckett Produced by Daniel Rosney Researched by Katie Morgan and Ben Hughes Technical producer Nicky Edwards Production Co-ordinator Liam Morrey Editor Tara McDermott

For Russia’s President Putin, the return of President Donald Trump to the White House ushered in a new world order. This has created new diplomatic space for Russia, as Trump’s world view seems more closely aligned with Moscow’s ambitions. Support for Ukraine has diminished, peace talks have been floated, and speculation has grown about a lasting ceasefire. While the relationship between Washington and Moscow appears to be warming, recent tensions show how unpredictable diplomacy between the two leaders can be. Putin’s ambition for Russia as an influential superpower remains but with shifting global alliances how much potential leverage does Putin have to reshape the international order? Contributors: • Kadri Liik, Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations • Maria Snegovaya, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies • Ivan Klyszcz, Research Fellow, International Centre for Defence and Security • Mark Galeotti, Director, Mayak Intelligence; Honorary Professor, University College London Presented by Victoria Uwonkunda Produced by Louise Clarke Researched by Katie Morgan Technical producer James Bradshaw Production Co-ordinator Liam Morrey Editor Tara McDermott

On the first day of his second term in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that paused funding for USAID, the US government’s main foreign aid agency, for a 90-day review. While the long-term effects remain unclear, the order has already frozen vital programs relied on by millions of people globally, forced the closure of USAID’s overseas offices, and jeopardised thousands of jobs. As one of the world’s largest foreign aid providers, the US plays an essential role with no other country or organisation fully able to fill the gap. But some recipient countries see this move as an opportunity to seek solutions closer to home. This week on The Inquiry, Charmaine Cozier explores the consequences of this shift in US foreign policy, asking “What is filling the USAID funding gap?” Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Matt Toulson Researcher: Katie Morgan Editor: Tara McDermott Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical Producer: Richard Hannaford Contributors to this programme: Fatema Sumar, Executive Director of the Harvard Center for International Development (CID) and an Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, US Michael Jennings, Professor of Global Development as SOAS University London, UK Francisca Mutapi, Professor of Global Health Infection and Immunity and Deputy Director TIBA Partnership at the University of Edinburgh, UK. George Ingram, Senior fellow in the Center for Sustainable Development at Brookings Institution, US.

SpaceX has revolutionised space travel, making reusable rockets a reality and dramatically reducing the cost of reaching orbit. But two high-profile Starship explosions have raised concerns about the company’s approach to innovation and risk. Commercial spaceflight has rapidly expanded, with private companies looking to harness space resources and build new economies beyond Earth. Reusability has been a game-changer, significantly lowering launch costs and enabling more ambitious missions. SpaceX operates with a philosophy of rapid iteration, treating test failures as learning opportunities rather than setbacks. While this approach has led to major breakthroughs, repeated failures raise questions about long-term reliability and safety. Meanwhile, growing competition from other private space firms suggests the industry is no longer dominated by a single player. With rivals gaining ground and technological hurdles ahead, does SpaceX still have the edge in the new space economy? Contributors: Professor Michelle Hanlon, Executive Director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law in the USA Jack Burns, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics in the USA Dr Ella Atkins is Fred D. Durham Professor and Head of the Kevin T. Crofton Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Department at Virginia Tech in the USA David Thomas is Director of the Thunderbird School of Global Management's Initiative for Space Leadership, Policy and Business at Arizona State University. Presenter Charmaine Cozier Producers Vicky Carter and Louise Clarke Researcher: Katie Morgan Editor Tara McDermott Production co-ordinator Liam Morrey Technical producer Matthew Dempsey Image credit: Brandon Bell via Getty Images

In November, a far right, pro-Russia figure came from almost nowhere to become favourite for the presidency. Calin Georgescu, with no affiliated political party and whose campaign had been largely on social media, won the first round of Presidential elections in Romania. The result sent shockwaves across the continent. But serious allegations surfaced over the legitimacy of Georgescu’s campaign, resulting in Romania’s Constitutional Court annulling the vote and barring Georgescu from standing. After mass demonstrations across the country, it’s clear Romania’s political landscape has been upended. Ahead of the rerun of the vote for president on 4 and 18 May, what will happen now with Romania’s elections? Will the country lean towards a more nationalist future or back the mainstream parties that were previously in power? Contributors: Veronica Anghel, assistant professor at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at The European University Institute, Italy Oana Popescu-Zamfir, director of the GlobalFocus Center, associated expert at Carnegie Europe and associate researcher for the European Council on Foreign Relations, Romania Dr Radu Cinpoes, associate professor of politics and international relations at the University of Greenwich, United Kingdom Costin Ciobanu, political scientist with Aarhus University, Denmark Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Nicky Edwards Editor: Tara McDermott

European leaders have had cause to rethink their roles within Nato recently, in light of statements coming from the US Government. The Trump administration’s dealings with Russia to try and broker a peace deal in Ukraine, have called into question America’s support for the alliance. But whilst the Trump administration say they are not pulling out of Nato and remain committed to the defence partnership with Europe, they have warned that they will ‘no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship with encourages dependency’. Nato currently asks member states to spend at least 2% on defence, but US President Donald Trump has consistently told European allies to spend much more than that target. The alliance’s famous Article 5 holds that Nato members will come to the defence of an ally which comes under attack and the assumption has always been that the US would continue to be the anchoring power. But now Europe’s leaders are having to consider whether they could potentially go it alone without American military aid. So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Do we need a new NATO?’ Contributors: John Deni, Author and Research Professor, US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, USA Rachel Ellehuus, Director-General, The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), London, UK Toomas Hendricks Ilves, Former President of Estonia, Professor at Tartu University, Estonia Irina Borogan, Deputy Editor Agentura.ru, Non-resident Senior Fellow, The Centre for European Policy Analysis, London, UK Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Katie Morgan Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Production Co-ordinator: Janet Staples & Liam Morrey Image Credit: Leah Mills/Reuters via BBC Images

At the beginning of this year, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa signed a bill into law which allows for private land to be seized by the government. Known as the Expropriation Act, it’s a power that many democratic governments around the world can exercise – the seizure of private property for public use in return for compensation. But in South Africa’s case, the plan is not to offer compensation, in certain circumstances, such as if land was needed for public use and all other avenues to acquire the land exhausted. And it is this caveat that has provoked strong reactions both domestically and on the international front. Even within the President’s own party, the ANC, there are those who would prefer more consultation before the law can be implemented. Whilst the Democratic Alliance, the second largest party in South Africa’s coalition government, says that it supports legislation addressing land restitution, it does takes issue with the process followed by the country’s parliament to enact the law. It is testing the Act’s constitutionality with legal action. And now President Trump has signed an executive order cutting US financial aid to South Africa, the order claims that this Act would enable the government to seize the agricultural property of ethnic minority Afrikaners without compensation. For his part, President Cyril Ramaphosa has announced that he’ll be sending envoys to various countries to explain South Africa’s positioning on the Expropriation Act, amongst other recent policy changes. So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking, ‘Can South Africa solve land inequality’? Contributors: Thula Simpson, Author and Associate Professor, Department of Historical and Heritage Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa Tanveer Jeewa, Junior Lecturer, Constitutional Law, Stellenbosch University, South Africa Dr Ralph Mathekga, Author and Political Analyst, Pretoria, South Africa Christopher Vandome, Senior Research Fellow, Africa Programme, Chatham House, UK and Ph.D. Student in International Relations, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Co-Producers: Jill Collins and Bara’atu Ibrahim Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Broadcast Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Image Credit: Shadrack Maseko, whose family has been residing on Meyerskop farm for three generations, looks over a piece of land, in Free State province, South Africa, February 9, 2025. REUTERS/Thando Hlophe

In just three months, Romania has gone from a stable and loyal member of the European Union and Nato, to a country where a far-right, pro-Russia figure has come from almost nowhere to become favourite for the presidency. A result which has sent shockwaves across the continent. In November Calin Georgescu, with no affiliated political party and whose campaign has been largely on social media, won the first round of Presidential elections in Romania. But then serious allegations surfaced over the legitimacy of Georgescu’s campaign, resulting in the Constitutional Court annulling the vote and Georgescu facing charges, which he strongly denies. Presidential hopefuls have until the 15 March to register their candidacy for the new elections, which are being rerun on 4 and 18 May. As protesters take to the streets of Bucharest, will the Romanian Constitutional Court rule that Georgescu can or cannot stand? If he is allowed to stand, can he become President? And how might the Romanian elections affect the future direction of the EU and Nato? Contributors: Veronica Anghel, assistant professor at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at The European University Institute, Italy Oana Popescu-Zamfir, director of the GlobalFocus Center, associated expert at Carnegie Europe and associate researcher for the European Council on Foreign Relations, Romania Anca Agachi, defence policy analyst at RAND Corporation and a nonresident fellow at The Atlantic Council, USA Costin Ciobanu, political scientist with Aarhus University, Denmark Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Nicky Edwards Editor: Tara McDermott Image credit: Andrei Pungovschi via Getty Images

Undersea cables form the backbone of global communication, with over 95% of global internet traffic relying on hundreds of fibre-optic cables criss-crossing the globe. But recent incidents such as disruption to cables in the Baltic Sea have highlighted concerns over their security and raised the possibility of ‘grey zone warfare’. The Inquiry examines who owns and runs this vast global network, what happens when things go wrong, and what the future holds for underseas cables. Are they powerful enough to sustain future communications, and what role could quantum technology play in their future? Presenter: Gary O'Donoghue Producer: Dan Hardoon and Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: James Bradshaw Editor: Tara McDermott Contributors: Lane Burdette, Research Analyst, TeleGeography Jovan Kurbali, Director of the Diplo Foundation and Head of Geneva Internet Platform Erin L Murphy, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington D.C. Kristine Berzina, Managing Director at the German Marshall Fund, Washington D.C. Image credit: Boris Horvat via Getty Images

The International Criminal Court was founded to prosecute the world’s worst crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It has secured historic convictions, but its effectiveness is under scrutiny. US opposition has been a long-standing challenge. Donald Trump previously rejected the ICC’s legitimacy, and now, early in his second presidential term, he has imposed sanctions on its top prosecutor. The move echoes past tensions but raises new concerns about the court’s ability to function under external pressure. The ICC also relies on member states to arrest and transfer suspects. A recent case in Italy has highlighted the court’s enforcement difficulties, as Italian authorities deported a Libyan suspect instead of extraditing him to The Hague. Such incidents fuel questions about the ICC’s global authority. Despite its high-profile cases, the court has only secured 11 convictions in 23 years. Its slow trials and high costs have drawn criticism, leading some to question whether reform—or even an alternative—is needed. But with 125 member states still backing its mission, is the ICC an institution the world can afford to lose? Contributors: Dr Vivian Dietrich, Deputy Director of the International Nuremberg Principals Academy in Germany Gerry Simpson, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics in the UK Rachel Kerr, Professor of War and Society at King's College London in the UK Mark Kirsten, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, Canada Presented by Charmaine Cozier Produced by Louise Clarke and Bara’atu Ibrahim Editor Tara McDermott Technical Producer Toby James Production co-ordinator Liam Morrey