Just to be safe – the government wants to have a second go if the High Court acquits anyone of NatSec crimes. This is on top of jury-less trials with specially picked judges and a presumption against the granting of bail. People might ask ‘why bother having courts?’
Foreign Affairs revisits the Thucydides trap, finds nothing new…
China’s approach shows that in times of power shifts in global politics, much depends on the extent to which the international order can allow rising powers to see themselves as equal to established powers. This phenomenon is neither uniquely Chinese nor uniquely contemporary. Historically, rising powers—including the United States itself in the nineteenth century—have been more cooperative in international systems that make room for them at the global high table. By contrast, exclusion and inequality have been powerful sources of conflict.
More interesting – a thread on the complex history of early 20th Century China’s ‘Honey Soap’ brand.
Thanks Hemmers for the link “…a thread on the complex history of early 20th Century China’s ‘Honey Soap’ brand.”
What are the odds? China’s ‘honey soap’ is yet ANOTHER example of China stealing others creativity/IP/branding/etc.
That soap thread was a riveting read, Hemmers.
In my younger days, I was an avid fan of Bee and Flower sandalwood soap, which I used to buy from China Products at the bottom of Pottinger Street. I had no idea that it was a knock-off of Roger et Gallet, whose similarly scented “savon” I also esteem. Talk about live and learn, eh?
Anyway, many thanks for the link. Quite the most interesting one you’ve provided for a while.
We can’t have people getting acquitted by the courts, can we?
After all, the police wouldn’t arrest them and the government wouldn’t prosecute them unless they were guilty of something, would they?
Let’s not get all tangled up with questions like, “Who did what to whom?”