Tag: IHR

The Toll of Iran’s Women‑Led Rights Movement: A Psychological Standpoint

Woman Life Freedom
Image 1: “Woman Life Freedom” The slogan highlights courage and persistence in the global struggle for equality and justice. Source: Adobe Stock #1657149359

On September 16, 2022, the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Jina Amini while in the custody of Iran’s morality police ignited a nationwide uprising. What began as protests over hijab enforcement evolved into a broader demand for freedom and justice under the slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom.” But beyond the political stakes, this movement has unleashed profound psychological consequences for individuals and society; it is a crisis at the intersection of human rights and mental health.

An Overview of the Crisis

Women in Iran began revolting after the death of 22-year-old Mahsa (Jina) Amini, who was arrested by the country’s “morality police” in September 2022 for allegedly wearing her hijab too loosely. Witnesses reported that she was beaten in custody, and she died shortly afterward, becoming a symbol of the everyday oppression that Iranian women face under strict mandatory hijab laws and decades of state surveillance, harassment, and punishment. Her death ignited widespread anger, leading women and girls to remove their hijabs, cut their hair, and protest the broader system of gender-based control. This outrage quickly expanded beyond Amini herself, sparking one of the largest protest movements in Iran’s recent history and drawing nationwide support.

The protests triggered by Amini’s death were among the largest Iran had seen in decades, spreading to more than 150 cities. State repression followed swiftly: reports indicate that security forces used lethal force, detained thousands, and committed acts of torture and sexual violence against protesters. A UN fact-finding mission later concluded that many of these violations may amount to crimes against humanity, including murder, imprisonment, torture, and persecution, particularly targeting women. Despite international outcry, accountability has been limited, and the psychological wounds continue to deepen.

The Weaponization of Psychiatry

One of the most chilling psychological tactics used by the Iranian regime against participants in the recent protests is the involuntary psychiatric hospitalization of dissenters. Authorities have publicly admitted that some student protesters were sent to “psychological institutes” during and after the protests, not for genuine mental illness, but as a tool to “re-educate” them.

In one particularly disturbing case, Ahoo Daryaei, a doctoral student who protested by partially removing her hijab in public, was reportedly forcefully disappeared and likely sent to a psychiatric hospital. Labeling protest behavior as “madness” isn’t just stigmatizing; it’s a deliberate form of repression rooted in misusing mental health institutions. Psychiatrists inside and outside Iran have condemned this practice as a gross violation of human rights.

Trauma, Anxiety, and Depression

The violence of the crackdown and the constant threat to safety have caused widespread psychological trauma. But even those not visibly injured describe deep emotional scars.

In interviews and counseling settings, psychologists report a surge in anxiety and depression among young women across Iran. A female psychotherapist described how girls in small towns, once relatively isolated, entered into a state of “heightened awareness” after Amini’s death, but also into frustration and internal conflict:

“This newfound awareness has disrupted their previous state of relative comfort … tension and conflict within their families have become an added burden …”

These emotional struggles are compounded by the fact that some girls feel guilty or disloyal to their families when they defy expectations, which is a significant psychological burden. On a broader level, the constant surveillance, repression, and societal division fuels pervasive fear. A published analysis of Iran’s protests noted that protest-related trauma is not just physical but deeply psychological, affecting individuals’ ability to trust, belong, and imagine a safer future.

Collective Psychology: Identity, Resilience & Social Change

Despite the repression, the movement has fostered powerful collective resilience and identity. Psychologically, protests like these are often rooted in social identity theory: people come together around a shared sense of injustice (in this case, gender-based oppression and state violence) and develop strong bonds that motivate collective action.

One manifestation of this is the growing refusal of women to wear the hijab, which is becoming seen as a normalized act of civil disobedience. This symbolic rejection has become a form of psychological resistance. Rather than waiting for external change, many Iranians are asserting internal agency and self-determination.

This quiet revolution isn’t risk-free. Protesters face brutality, arrest, and psychological harm. But for many, the act of defiance itself is a source of empowerment and a way to reshape their own sense of identity, purpose, and belonging in a context that so blatantly denies them autonomy.

Iranian woman protesting
Image 2: Iranian woman protesting. Source: Adobe Stock, Mumpitz, #543171718

Intergenerational Effects & the Future

The mental health impacts of the crackdown are likely to have long-term, intergenerational consequences. Children and teenagers exposed to violence, either directly or via their families, may carry trauma that affects their development, academic performance, and relationships. For some, the protests represent a break from generational patterns of silence or submission, but that break comes with a cost.

Moreover, the lack of institutional accountability, as documented by Human Rights Watch and the UN, compounds the trauma. Without justice or recognition, survivors may struggle to process their experiences, leading to lasting emotional scars. Yet, there is hope: the persistence of the movement, even in the face of brutal repression, suggests that for many Iranians, psychological healing and human-rights change are intertwined. The continued refusal to comply, the daily acts of resistance, and the communal memory of trauma may all serve as foundations for a future built on dignity and freedom.

Why This Is a Human Rights and Mental Health Crisis

From a human-rights perspective, what’s happening in Iran is not just political suppression, but also a systematic campaign of gendered persecution, psychological control, and enforced conformity. The UN mission concluded that many of the regime’s actions amounted to crimes against humanity, including persecution, torture, and sexual violence.

Psychologically, the use of psychiatric institutions to silence dissenters violates fundamental principles of autonomy and mental integrity. Even more, the widespread trauma threatens social cohesion, sense of identity, and collective well-being. The mental health crisis is not a side effect, it’s central to the human rights violations. Without addressing both the physical and psychological consequences, the wounds of this movement will remain unhealed, and the foundation for meaningful justice and reform will be unstable.

What Needs to Happen

Addressing this crisis requires coordinated action on multiple fronts. International accountability and support are essential, with bodies like the UN and international courts pressing for justice, accountability, and reparations for victims of repression, while countries with universal jurisdiction consider investigating human rights abuses, including psychological repression. Mental health infrastructure and aid must also be expanded, with support from international organizations to provide trauma counseling and remote psychosocial assistance to Iranians both inside and outside the country who lack safe access to care. Protecting dissenters from psychiatric abuse is critical; international psychiatry associations should condemn involuntary hospitalizations of protesters and provide clear guidelines for safeguarding patients’ rights, while diplomatic or economic pressure could be directed at institutions complicit in these abuses. Finally, empowering local and global solidarity is vital: amplifying the voices of Iranian activists, particularly women, and supporting cultural forms of resistance such as music, art, and storytelling can promote healing, identity formation, and collective resilience.

Conclusion

The “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement in Iran is more than a political uprising; it’s a psychological battleground. The regime’s brutal crackdown is not only a violation of bodily rights but of mental integrity. People are being traumatized, surveilled, pathologized, and denied justice. Yet in the face of repression, they are also cultivating a new collective identity, resilience, and purpose. Understanding this crisis through a psychological lens is essential. It reminds us that human rights are not abstract ideals; they are woven into our mental well-being, our capacity to heal, to resist, and to imagine a freer future.

Alabama’s “Invisible Disabilities” ID Proposal

Human Rights Perspective on the Proposal to Put “Invisible Disabilities” on Alabama IDs 

Box for ballot papers on desk and young African American man with disability sitting in wheelchair and making his choice.
Box for ballot papers on desk and young African American man with disability sitting in wheelchair and making his choice. By: pressmaster. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 580784797

There is buzz around Alabama’s proposal to designate “invisible disabilities” on state ID cards by the end of this fiscal year. This legislative initiative has sparked significant debate and attention. In November 2025, a bill was introduced in Alabama that would allow individuals to add an “invisible disability” designation to their driver’s licenses or state ID cards. Ontario Tillman, the state representative who is introducing this measure, argues that this “protective” measure could help law enforcement and first responders understand and quickly identify persons who may have non-apparent disabilities such as autism, PTSD, or traumatic brain injury. Tillman argues that this would be helpful for law enforcement and other officials to know because people with these and other invisible disabilities may respond to officers in unexpected ways that could cause situations to spiral dangerously. By equipping law enforcement and first responders with the information that the person they are engaging with has an invisible disability, Tillman hopes that there would be more patience and understanding built between responders and the person with the disability.

Invisible Disability ID Markers Elsewhere

States like Alaska, Maryland, and Colorado have started adding invisible disability indicators to driver’s licenses and ID cards, but they are taking different routes and raising similar debates. Alaska lets residents voluntarily add an invisible disability designation to licenses or IDs through its DMV, framing it as a tool to signal needs in situations like traffic stops or emergencies without revealing a specific diagnosis. Colorado offers a small icon on state IDs for people with invisible disabilities and, in the first year and a half of its implementation, 1,096 people signed up for the marker. In Maryland, “Eric’s Law” created an optional invisible disability notation after disability activist Eric Blessed Carpenter Grantham pushed for the state to offer this accommodation; the Maryland Department of Transportation now treats the marker as one more tool for safety and understanding. Across these states, the basic idea is similar: make it easier for disabled people to get accommodations or de-escalation in high-stress situations by building a quiet signal into ID systems.​

People’s reactions, though, show how complicated it feels to put disability information on something as central as an ID. Supporters, including some disability advocates and families, say these markers can reduce misunderstandings with law enforcement, explain why someone might not respond typically in a crisis, and help folks access assistance in travel, medical, or security settings. Critics worry about privacy, data misuse, and the risk that a symbol meant to protect could expose disabled people to profiling or discrimination, especially if officers or agencies lack proper training. The same design that could make interactions safer may also force people to disclose something deeply personal just to move through public life, which is why most of these programs stress that the markers are voluntary and part of a broader conversation about rights, safety, and trust.​

The Sunflower Movement

The Sunflower Movement takes a different, more global approach by using a simple visual symbol—a yellow sunflower on a green background—to quietly say, “I have a non-visible disability; I may need a little extra time or support.” The Hidden Disabilities Sunflower program started in UK airports and has spread across airlines, transit systems, and public venues in the U.S. and worldwide, with lanyards, pins, or badges that travelers can choose to wear. For people who travel, the appeal is that you don’t have to verbally explain a diagnosis every time you go through security or check in; instead, staff trained on the symbol are supposed to slow down, offer clearer instructions, or provide small accommodations like extra time, seating, or help navigating noisy, crowded spaces.​

Airports from Albany to Boise and Nashville have adopted the sunflower lanyard program as part of disability awareness and inclusion initiatives, often pairing it with staff training and signage so people know what the symbol means. Travelers with autism, chronic pain, anxiety, or other invisible conditions have described feeling more seen and less judged when wearing the lanyard, especially in stressful spaces like TSA lines or boarding gates. At the same time, the sunflower is not legally binding—unlike ADA accommodations—and depends heavily on staff attitudes; if workers aren’t trained or take it as “just a nice idea,” the symbol can lose its power and even feel performative. For many in our generation, the Sunflower Movement sits at the intersection of design and dignity: it’s a low-tech, opt-in signal that can make travel more humane, but it also reminds us that real inclusion still requires policy, training, and accountability behind the symbol.

CRPD and Human Dignity

While there are clearly benefits to implementing such IDs, there are also human rights concerns that we need to be aware of when placing identifying markers on government documents. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities emphasizes respect for inherent dignity, autonomy, and privacy, which implicitly warns against measures that increase stigma or surveillance. An ID marker might help in some emergencies, but it can also conflict with the right to privacy and non-discrimination if used coercively or without strong safeguards.​ On one hand, the designation could protect life and security (civil and political rights) in police encounters; on the other, it could undermine equal treatment in employment, housing, or education if IDs are widely requested or copied, thereby harming economic, social, and cultural rights. From a human rights perspective, it is important to consider this bill’s implications for privacy, potential misuse of data, and the risk of profiling. There is the potential for harmful labeling labeling and hidden discrimination practices through this policy, particularly for marginalized communities already facing over-policing.​​

Conclusion

For Alabamians with “invisible” disabilities, this new ID proposal raises immediate questions: Who controls disability disclosure? How do policies intended to “help” sometimes deepen exclusion? And how can we push for alternatives—like better training, crisis-response reform, and universal design—rather than relying on labels that follow disabled people everywhere they go? Creating a human-rights-oriented world requires creativity and innovation, and ID markers and sunflowers are just two methods among many that we could implement to advance this cause. In pursuit of human rights, let’s be sure to consider the pros and cons of every step we take. ​

Amplifying Indigenous Rights & Reclaiming Sovereignty: A Human Rights Perspective in 2025

Amplifying Indigenous Rights & Reclaiming Sovereignty: A Human Rights Perspective in 2025

A view of sign "Respect Indigenous Lands" during The Climate Strike on Burrard Bridge in Vancouver
A view of sign “Respect Indigenous Lands” during The Climate Strike on Burrard Bridge in Vancouver By: Margarita Source: Adobe Stock Asset ID#: 424352523

Local Example: Indigenous Youth and Environmental Advocacy

Indigenous communities worldwide have endured centuries of marginalization, land loss, and cultural erosion from colonial policies—patterns mirrored in Alabama by the Mvskoke (Creek), Cherokee, and Choctaw peoples. The principles of self-determination (UNDRIP Art. 3), cultural integrity (UNDRIP Art. 8), and land rights (UDHR Art. 17) form the backbone of international frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), yet they’ve been systematically violated here. Understanding the legal, historical, and cultural ties between these principles and the human rights violations committed against indigenous peoples helps unpack questions around local sovereignty, environmental justice, and global human rights. This post links these global issues to Alabama’s realities, centering voices like the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (PCI) in their fight for cultural survival.

The Ongoing Challenge: Legal Barriers

Despite international frameworks like UNDRIP and national laws intended to protect Indigenous rights, significant challenges remain. The 1830 Indian Removal Act still echoes in legal briefs, and blood-quantum rules continue to limit tribal membership and threaten the continuity of communities. In Alabama, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians remains the only federally recognized tribe, which means many groups lack access to the critical resources and legal protections that come with federal recognition.

So, what echoes of the 1830 Indian Removal Act do we still see in legal briefs today? The big thing is how federal power over Native nations gets justified. Lawyers and courts still reference the government’s “plenary power” to control Native land, citizenship, and policy. This logic comes straight from the same paternalistic, colonial mindset that led to forced removals and broken treaties in the first place. In human rights language, this is a problem because it clashes with the principle that all peoples have the right to determine their own affairs and maintain control over their culture and territory. This is simply called the right to self-determination. When legal arguments rely on these old precedents, it shows that the legacy of the Indian Removal Act isn’t just history—it’s still shaping the boundaries of Indigenous rights today.

Now, let’s talk blood quantum. Blood quantum is the idea of using fractions—like “one-quarter” or “one-eighth” Native ancestry—to decide who is officially recognized as Indigenous. This system was imposed by the U.S. government as a way to shrink tribal rolls, limit legal obligations, and ultimately erode Indigenous communities over time. From a human rights perspective, blood quantum rules undermine the rights to identity, community, and non-discrimination. They reduce belonging to math, not lived culture. Over generations, these rules threaten to erase entire groups by making it harder for people to claim their heritage or pass it on.

Understanding blood quantum rules is a real-world example of how discrimination can be built into legal systems and policies—not just through obvious prejudice, but through technicalities that seem neutral on the surface. History is full of legal exclusions, and learning about Indigenous struggles connects to broader fights for justice and equality that affect all marginalized communities.

In summary, blood quantum rules conflict with core human rights values: the right to dignity, equality before the law, and the right for peoples to define their own identity. Recognizing how these rules work helps us see where human rights fall short in practice, and why these issues matter for anyone who cares about justice.

Opportunities for support and community do exist– the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Minority Association of Pre-Health Students supports underrepresented pre-med students—including those from Indigenous backgrounds—through mentorship and support services, and beyond the classroom, students can engage with Indigenous culture and history through campus and community events. For example, the Mvskoke Nation Creek Friends Festival in Tory, Alabama, and the Trail of Tears Remembrance Ride in northern Alabama offer opportunities to learn directly from Indigenous leaders and participate in cultural preservation.​

The Importance of Awareness and Informed Engagement

The challenges faced by Indigenous communities—such as language loss, environmental threats, and legal barriers—are significant. However, awareness and informed participation are powerful tools for change. People can make a difference by learning more, attending events, and engaging in campus discussions about human rights.

Conclusion

True justice for Indigenous communities in Alabama and elsewhere extends far beyond simply recognizing these groups’ history and struggles. It requires an ongoing commitment to learning, listening, and advocating for meaningful change. This means examining the systems and policies that have contributed to inequality and being willing to challenge them, even when it’s uncomfortable. Supporting Indigenous-led movements and respecting their sovereignty are crucial steps in this process.

Education is also a powerful tool—by learning about Indigenous histories and current issues, we can dispel myths and foster greater empathy, justice, and a moral society. But knowledge alone isn’t enough; it’s essential to translate understanding into action, whether that’s through volunteering, policy advocacy, or standing in solidarity at community events. Amplifying Indigenous voices ensures that solutions reflect the needs and perspectives of those most affected.

Ultimately, building a human rights community benefits everyone. Each of us has a role to play, whether as students, educators, or neighbors. When we choose to engage, support, and advocate, we help create a future where human rights and justice are not just ideals and theories, but realities experienced by all.

AI in Mental Health Diagnostics

Digital cloud earth floating on neon data circle grid in cyberspace particle wave.
Image 1: Digital cloud earth floating on neon data circle grid in cyberspace particle wave. Adobe Express Stock Images. ZETHA_WORK. #425579329

In recent years, the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) in mental-health care has grown rapidly. AI systems now assist in screening for depression or anxiety, help design treatment plans, and analyze huge volumes of patient data. However, emerging evidence shows that these systems are not neutral: they can embed and amplify bias, threaten rights to equality and non‐discrimination, and have psychological consequences for individuals. We’ll be examining how and why bias arises in AI applications for mental health, the human rights implications, and what psychological effects these developments may carry.

The Rise of AI in Mental Health

AI’s application in mental health is appealing. Many people worldwide lack timely access to mental-health professionals, and AI systems promise scale, cost-efficiency, and new capabilities, like detecting subtle speech or behavioral patterns, that might identify issues earlier. For example, algorithms trained on speech patterns aim to flag depression or PTSD in users.

In principle, this could extend care to underserved populations and reduce the global burden of mental illness. But the technology is emerging in a context of longstanding disparities in mental health care; differences in who is diagnosed, who receives care, and who gets quality treatment.

How Bias Enters AI-based Mental Health Tools

Bias in AI systems does not begin with the algorithm alone; it often starts with the data. Historical and structural inequities, under-representation of certain demographic groups, and sensor or model limitations can all embed biased patterns that then get automated.

A recent systematic review notes major ethical issues in AI interventions for mental health and well‐being: “privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, bias and fairness, transparency and accountability, autonomy and human agency, and safety and efficacy.”

In the mental health screening context, a study from the University of Colorado found that tools screening speech for depression or anxiety performed less well for women and people of non‐white racial identity because of differences in speech patterns and model training bias. A separate study of four large language models (LLMs) found that for otherwise identical hypothetical psychiatric cases, treatment recommendations differed when the patient was identified (explicitly or implicitly) as African American, suggesting racial bias.

These disparities matter: if a diagnostic tool is less accurate for certain groups, those groups may receive delayed or improper care or be misdiagnosed. From a rights perspective, this raises issues of equality and non-discrimination. Every individual has a right to healthcare of acceptable quality, regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other status.

Human Rights Implications

Right to health and equitable access

Under human rights law, states have obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to health. That includes ensuring mental health services are available, accessible, acceptable and of quality. If AI tools become widespread but are biased against certain groups, the quality and accessibility of care will differ, and that violates the equality dimension of the right to health.

Right to non-discrimination

The principle of non-discrimination is foundational: individuals should not face less favorable treatment due to race, gender, language, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, or other prohibited grounds. If an AI mental health tool systematically under-detects problems among women or ethnic minorities or over-targets mental-health evaluation for other groups, discrimination is implicated. For instance, a study found LGBTQIA+ individuals were much more likely to be recommended mental health assessments by AI tools than was clinically indicated based on socioeconomic or demographic profile.

Right to privacy, autonomy and dignity

Mental health data is deeply personal. The use of AI to screen, predict or recommend treatment based on speech, text or behavior engages issues of privacy and autonomy. Individuals must be able to consent, understand how their data is used, challenge decisions, and access human oversight. The systematic review flagged “autonomy and human agency” as core ethical considerations.

Accountability and due process

When decisions about screening, diagnosis, or intervention are influenced by opaque algorithms, accountability becomes unclear. Who is responsible if an AI tool fails or produces biased recommendations? The software developer? The clinician? The institution? This ambiguity can undermine rights to remedy and oversight. The “Canada Protocol” checklist for AI in suicide prevention emphasized the need for clear lines of accountability in AI-driven mental health systems.

Differential labeling and stigma

When AI systems target certain groups disproportionately, for example, recommending mental health assessments for lower-income or LGBTQIA+ individuals when not clinically indicated, it may reinforce stigma. Being singled out for mental health screening based on demographic profile rather than actual need can produce feelings of being pathologized or surveilled.

Bias in therapeutic relationship

Mental health care depends heavily on the relationship between a person and their clinician. Trust, empathy, and feeling understood often determine how effective treatment will be. When someone believes their provider truly listens and treats them fairly, they’re more likely to engage and improve. But if technology or bias undermines that sense of understanding, people may withdraw from care or lose confidence in the system.

Reduced effectiveness or misdiagnosis

If an AI tool under-detects depression among certain groups, like women or ethnic minorities, and that leads to delayed treatment, then the psychological impact of possible longer suffering, increased severity, and reduced hope is real and harm-producing. One study found that AI treatment recommendations were inferior when race was indicated, particularly for schizophrenia cases.

These psychological effects show that bias in AI is not just a technical defect; it can ripple into lived experience, identity, mental health trajectories, and rights realization.

Chatbot conversation Ai Artificial Intelligence technology online customer service.
Image 2: Chatbot conversation with AI technology online customer service. Adobe Express Stock Images. khunkornStudio.
#567681994

Why AI Bias Persists and What Makes Mental Health AI Especially Vulnerable

Data limitations and under-representation

Training data often reflect historical care patterns, which may under-sample certain groups or encode socio-cultural norms that do not generalize. The University of Colorado study highlighted that speech-based AI tools failed to generalize across gender and racial variation.

Hidden variables and social determinants

One perspective argues that disparities in algorithmic performance arise not simply from race labels but also from un-modelled variables, such as racism-related stress, generational trauma, poverty, and language differences, all of which affect mental health profiles but may not be captured in datasets.

Psychology of diagnostic decision-making

Mental health diagnosis is not purely objective; it involves interpretation, cultural nuance, and relational trust. AI tools often cannot replicate that nuance and may misinterpret behaviors or speech patterns that differ culturally. That raises a psychological dimension: people from different backgrounds may present differently, and a one-size-fits-all tool may misclassify them.

Moving Toward Rights-Respecting AI in Mental Health

Given the stakes for rights and psychology, what should stakeholders do? Below are guiding principles anchored in human rights considerations and psychological realities:

  1. Inclusive and representative datasets
    AI developers should ensure that training and validation data reflect diverse populations across race, gender, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. Without this, bias will persist. Datasets should also capture social determinants of mental health, such as poverty, trauma, and discrimination, rather than assuming clinical presentations are uniform.
  2. Transparency, explainability, and human oversight
    Patients and clinicians should know if an AI tool is being used and how it functions, and they should remain able to challenge its outputs. Human clinicians must retain decision-making responsibility; AI should augment, not replace, human judgement, especially in mental-health care.
  3. Bias-testing and ongoing evaluation
    AI tools should be tested for fairness and performance across demographic groups before deployment, and, once deployed, they should be continuously monitored. One large study found that AI recommendations varied significantly by race, gender, and income.
    Also, mitigation techniques are emerging to reduce bias in speech- or behavior-based models.
  4. Rights to remedy and accountability
    When AI-driven systems produce harmful or discriminatory outcomes, individuals must have paths to redress. Clear accountability must be established among developers, providers, and institutions. Regulatory frameworks should reflect human rights standards: non-discrimination, equal treatment, and access to care of quality.
  5. Psychological safety and dignity
    Mental health tools must respect the dignity of individuals, allow for cultural nuance, and avoid pathologizing individuals based purely on demographic algorithms. The design of AI tools should consider psychological impacts: does this tool enhance trust, reduce stigma, and facilitate care, or does it increase anxiety, self-doubt, or disengagement?
  6. Translate rights into policy and practice
    States and professional bodies should integrate guidelines for AI in mental health into regulation, licensing, and accreditation structures. Civil society engagement, which includes patient voices, mental-health advocates, and rights organizations, is critical to shaping responsible implementation.

Looking Ahead: Opportunities and Risks

AI has enormous potential to improve access to mental health care, personalize care, and detect risks earlier than ever before. But, as with many new technologies, the impacts will not be equal by default. Without a proactive focus on bias, human rights, and psychological nuance, we risk a two-tier system: those who benefit versus those left behind or harmed.

In a favorable scenario, AI tools become transparent and inclusive, and they empower both clinicians and patients. They support, rather than supplant, human judgement; they recognize diversity of presentation; they strengthen trust and equity in mental health care.
In a less favorable scenario, AI solidifies existing disparities, misdiagnoses or omits vulnerable groups, and erodes trust in mental-health systems, compounding rights violations with psychological harm.

The path that materializes will depend on choices made today: how we design AI tools, how we regulate them, and how we embed rights and psychological insight into their use. For people seeking mental health support, equity and dignity must remain at the heart of innovation.

Conclusion

The use of AI in mental health diagnostics offers promise, but it also invites serious rights-based scrutiny. From equality of access and non-discrimination to privacy, dignity and psychological safety, the human rights stakes are real and urgent. Psychologists, technologists, clinicians, regulators and rights advocates must work together to ensure that AI supports mental health for all, not just for some. When bias is allowed to persist, the consequences are not only technical, but they’re also human.

Breaking the Huddle: How Domestic Violence Touches Every Alabama Classroom

Breaking the Huddle: How Domestic Violence Touches Every Alabama Classroom

Aggression in the family, man beating up his wife. Domestic violence concept.
Aggression in the family, man beating up his wife. Domestic violence concept.By: doidam10. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 229549647

Domestic violence is not simply a distant tragedy or a headline attached to famous names—it’s a daily crisis with real victims in every Alabama community. Shortly after Christmas 2024, former NFL star Marcell Dareus was arrested in Hoover after a violent altercation. This event of early 2025, underscores how quickly intimate relationships can turn dangerous. This incident isn’t exceptional; it reflects a pattern that plays out in neighborhoods across the state, affecting classmates, coworkers, and friends. Understanding this reality isn’t optional for college students; it’s essential for building safer campuses and futures.

Domestic violence is a human rights violation disguised as a “private matter.” International law and human rights frameworks are clear: everyone has the right to live free from violence, fear, and discrimination. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees, in Article 3, the right to “life, liberty and security of person.” Article 5 further prohibits “torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Survivors of domestic violence are entitled to protection, safety, and access to justice under both U.S. law and international treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

A Crisis Next Door: The Local Reality

For many, domestic violence may seem like a private matter that happens behind closed doors, far removed from campus life. But the truth is, it’s happening in your neighborhood—maybe even in your residence hall. The case of Marcell Dareus, a 34-year-old celebrity athlete, and the woman he harmed, is only one of thousands of incidents reported each year in Alabama. This incident is a sobering reminder that abuse can escalate from arguments to physical violence in mere moments.

Picture this: It’s 2 a.m., one week after Christmas. In a quiet Hoover subdivision, just minutes from UAB’s campus, a well-known athlete shoves his partner to the ground and smashes her car with a metal object. The victim could easily be your lab partner, a friend from your sorority, or the barista who knows your coffee order by heart. The physical injuries may heal, but the psychological trauma—fear, anxiety, distrust—can linger for years. And for every headline-grabbing case, countless more go unreported, leaving survivors to navigate their pain in silence.

When we ask, “Why does this matter to me?” the answer is simple: domestic violence is not limited by age, class, or background. If you think it could never touch your world, consider that four in ten women and one in four men will experience intimate partner violence in their lifetimes. The odds are overwhelming that someone you know—maybe even someone you love—is a survivor.

The Numbers Lawmakers Can’t Ignore

The statistics surrounding domestic violence in Alabama and the US are both staggering and deeply personal. Domestic violence is cited as a top cause of homelessness for women, and it costs billions of dollars nationwide, with one estimate saying that intimate partner violence costs $5.8 billion annually nationwide. This figure includes $4.2 billion for medical costs for physical assault and $1.75 billion in lost productivity. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research estimates the cost of domestic violence at $9.3 billion (2017 dollars), which includes intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking, with medical and lost wages as core components of these costs. For Alabama, extrapolations from Youth Today’s national $3.6 trillion lifetime estimate suggest that state costs are in the low billions. That’s a staggering sum that drains resources from schools, hospitals, and public safety initiatives—money that could otherwise go toward scholarships, better facilities, or improved mental health services.

Every minute, 24 Americans become victims of intimate partner violence, amounting to over 12 million people every year. These aren’t just statistics; they are stories of dreams deferred, educations interrupted, and futures derailed. The consequences ripple outward: children witnessing violence at home are more likely to struggle academically, develop emotional disorders, and, in some cases, perpetuate the cycle of abuse as adults. The link between domestic violence and future criminal behavior is undeniable.

The country’s legal landscape has only made things worse for those at risk of domestic violence. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow states to ban abortion has, according to experts, raised the likelihood that women will be subjected to intimate partner violence. When women lose reproductive autonomy, abusers gain more power, trapping partners in dangerous, sometimes deadly relationships. Domestic violence can be considered a human rights violation, and Alabama’s numbers show just how entrenched the problem is.

Taking Action: Your Role in the Playbook

If you think there’s nothing you can do, think again. Staying silent keeps domestic violence alive; speaking up can end it. Students are uniquely positioned to notice the warning signs—changes in a friend’s mood, unexplained injuries, sudden withdrawal from activities—and offer support. The most important thing you can do is believe survivors, connect them with campus and community resources, and, if necessary, call for help.

There are also events happening throughout Alabama to raise awareness and provide support. On October 24th in Tuscaloosa, the Purple Purse Drive collected donations for survivors. And in September in Birmingham, Safe Bar training was offered at 20 bars to help staff recognize and respond to abuse. These events are more than just calendar entries—they’re opportunities to get involved and save lives.

Conclusion: Your 60-Second Play Call

Domestic violence is not “someone else’s problem.” It is the roommate who flinches at loud noises, the teammate hiding bruises, the future nurse who can’t study because home isn’t safe. Every student in Alabama has the power—and the responsibility—to break the silence.

  1. Post #RollAwayFromViolence on social media and tag @ALCADV to raise awareness.
  2. Vote – some candidates’ domestic violence prevention plans are available at Vote411.org
  3. The huddle is broken. Now make the tackle.

Need help now?

  • National DV Hotline: 1-800-799-7233
  • Alabama 24/7: 1-800-650-6522
  • Text “START” to 88788

Roll Tide—and roll away from violence.

Neurorights and Mental Privacy

Neurons cells concept, whitehoune, #170601825
Image 1: Conceptual illustration of neuron cells, whitehoune, Adobe Express Stock Images, #170601825

As neuroscience and commercial neurotechnology advance, a new human-rights conversation is emerging: who controls the contents of the mind? This question, framed as “neurorights,” aims to protect mental privacy, personal identity, and cognitive liberty as technologies that can read, interpret, or modulate brain activity move from labs into clinics and consumer markets.

Imagine a person using a sleek, wireless headband marketed to boost productivity. The device measures tiny electrical signals from their scalp, brainwaves that reflect attention, stress, and fatigue levels. This neural data is sent to a companion app that promises personalized “focus insights.” Yet behind the scenes, that same data can be stored, analyzed, and even shared with advertisers or insurers who want to predict behavioral patterns. Similar EEG-based devices are already used in classrooms, workplaces, and wellness programs, raising questions about who owns the data produced directly by our brains and how it might shape future decisions about employment, education, or mental health.

What are neurorights?

“Neurorights” is an umbrella term for proposed protections covering mental privacy (control over access to one’s neural data), cognitive liberty (the freedom to think without undue intrusion or manipulation), mental integrity (protection from harmful interference with brain function), and fair access to cognitive enhancements. Advocates argue these protections are needed because neural signals, unlike most data, are deeply tied to personal identity, emotion, and thought.

Why human rights framing matters

Framing these issues as human-rights questions does more than add vocabulary; it shifts the burden from optional ethics to enforceable obligations. Rights language foregrounds duties of states and powerful actors (companies, employers, security services) A rights framework also helps center vulnerability. People detained in criminal justice systems, psychiatric patients, low-income communities, and marginalized groups may face disproportionate risks of coercive or exploitative uses of neurotechnology.

The psychological stakes concerning selfhood

Psychology offers essential insights into why neural intrusions are psychologically distinct from other privacy breaches. Anticipated or actual access to one’s neural signals can change behavior, prompting self-censorship, anxiety about inner experiences, or altered identity narratives as people adapt to the possibility that their private mental states might be exposed, interpreted, or changed.

Moreover, interventions that modulate mood, memory, or decision-making, whether therapeutic or commercial, reach into capacities that underpin agency and moral responsibility. Psychology research shows that perceived loss of agency can undermine motivation, increase helplessness, and disrupt social relationships; applied at scale, these individual effects could reshape community life and civic participation.

Current technologies and real-world uses

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), invasive implants, noninvasive electroencephalography (EEG) headsets, and machine-learning models that decode neural patterns are no longer just speculative. Companies developing clinical implants aimed at restoring lost motor function and consumer devices marketed for wellness, focus, or gaming generate neural data that, if mishandled, could reveal health conditions, emotional states, or behavioral tendencies.

Reports and investigations have raised alarms about both safety and governance, questioning lab practices, clinical oversight, and whether companies adequately protect highly sensitive neural signals. Meanwhile, policymakers and researchers are documenting opaque data practices among consumer neurotech firms and urging regulators to treat neural data as especially sensitive.

Where governments and institutions are acting

Latin America has been a notable early mover on neurorights. Chile passed constitutional protections and subsequent legislation explicitly recognizing rights tied to mental privacy and brain integrity, signaling a precautionary approach to neurotechnology governance. Regional advocacy and legal scholarship have spread the debate through Mexico, Brazil, and other jurisdictions.

Outside Latin America, regulatory efforts differ. Subnational privacy laws in places like Colorado have moved to include neural or biological data under sensitive-data protections, and U.S. senators have urged federal scrutiny of how companies handle brain data. At the international level, UNESCO and other bodies are mapping ethical frameworks for neurotech and its impact on freedom of thought and personal identity.

Psychological harms and social inequality

Human-rights concern about neurotech is not simply theoretical. Psychological harms from intrusive neurotechnology can include sustained anxiety about mental privacy, identity disruption if neural signatures are used to label or stigmatize people, and coerced behavioral modification in institutional settings.

These harms are likely to be unequally distributed, with some groups facing fewer safeguards and greater exposure to surveillance or coercion. Rights-based governance should therefore combine privacy protections with equity measures, ensuring safeguards are accessible to those most at risk.

Human brain illustration, Adobe Express Stock Images, Hein Nouwens, #141669980
Image 2: Human brain illustration, Adobe Express Stock Images, Hein Nouwens, #141669980

Benefits and risks

After discussing so many potential risks of neurotech, it’s important to acknowledge that this technology also has legitimate benefits: neurotechnologies offer therapeutic promise for paralysis, severe depression, epilepsy, and other conditions where traditional treatments fall short. The human-rights approach is not about halting innovation; it’s about steering it so benefits don’t come at the cost of fundamental freedoms, dignity, or mental integrity.

Principles for rights-respecting governance

Based on human-rights norms and psychological science, several practical principles can help guide policy and practice:

  1. Mental-privacy-first data rules. Neural data should be treated as inherently sensitive, requiring explicit, revocable, and informed consent for collection, use, and sharing, plus clear limits on secondary uses.
  2. Strong procedural safeguards in clinical research. Trials for invasive devices must meet rigorous safety, animal-welfare, and informed-consent standards to protect participants’ welfare and dignity.
  3. Transparency and oversight for commercial neurotech. Companies should disclose data flows, model-training practices, and any commercial sharing of neural signals, and independent audits and enforceable penalties should deter misuse.
  4. Protection against coercion. Employment, school, or criminal-justice settings should be barred from coercively requiring neural monitoring or interventions without robust legal protections and judicial oversight.
  5. Equity and access. Policies should avoid creating two-tier systems where only affluent groups receive safe, beneficial neurotech while others suffer surveillance or low-quality interventions; public health pathways for safe therapeutic access are essential.
  6. Legal recognition of cognitive liberties. Where feasible, codifying protections for mental privacy and mental integrity, at least as part of sensitive-data regimes and health-privacy laws, creates enforceable rights rather than aspirational principles.

What psychology researchers can do

Psychologists and behavioral scientists are well placed to measure and communicate the human impacts of neurorights policy choices. Empirical studies can probe how perceived neural surveillance influences stress, self-concept, and social behavior; intervention trials can test consent processes and mental-privacy safeguards; and qualitative work can amplify vulnerable groups’ lived experiences.

What civil society and rights advocates should watch

Advocates should monitor corporate data practices and any opaque sharing of neural signals, laws that would allow state access to neural data for security or law-enforcement purposes without adequate safeguards, and the commercialization of consumer BCIs that escape medical regulation yet collect deeply personal neural information. Public interest litigation, public education campaigns, and multi-stakeholder policy forums can help shape accountable pathways.

A cautious optimism

The rise of neurorights shows that society can respond proactively to emerging technologies. Chile’s early steps and subnational privacy laws signal that legal systems can adapt to protect inner life, and UNESCO and scientific communities are actively debating ethical frameworks. But these steps are the beginning, not a solution. Meaningful protection requires global attention, interdisciplinary research, and enforceable rules that place human dignity and psychological well-being at the center.

Conclusion

Neurotechnology promises real benefits for health and human flourishing, but it also raises unprecedented questions about mental privacy and the boundaries of state and corporate power. A human-rights approach, guided by psychological evidence about identity, agency, and harm, offers a way to balance innovation with dignity. Protecting the privacy and integrity of our minds is not just technical policy; it’s a defense of what it means to be a person.

Human Rights at a Crossroads: Balancing Intervention and Sovereignty

Introduction: Conflicts as Human Rights Challenges

hand as a symbol of stopping dictatorship, resistance for democracy in Venezuela, violation of human rights
By: rjankovsky
Source: Adobe Stock
Asset ID#: 919721402

Conflicts in Ukraine and Libya highlight the complexities of upholding human rights under international law. These crises test principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (1966). This blog examines humanitarian intervention’s promises and pitfalls, drawing on Alan Kuperman’s 2023 analysis in Michael Goodhart’s Human Rights textbook, to inspire young readers to engage critically with global issues.

Human Rights in Conflict: Ukraine’s Test

The war in Ukraine challenges fundamental human rights, including the right to life and security (UDHR, 1948, Article 3) and health (ICESCR, 1966, Article 12). Threats to nuclear facilities exacerbate risks to civilians, while propaganda from state media undermines the right to information (ICCPR, 1966, Article 19). Economic sanctions, intended to curb aggression, often restrict access to food and medicine, violating economic, social, and cultural rights (ICESCR, 1966, Articles 11-12). This creates a dilemma: balancing accountability with humanitarian impacts requires careful policy design. The interplay of civil, political, and economic rights demands holistic strategies to protect vulnerable populations.

Interconnected Harms: Libya and Intervention’s Legacy

The 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, initially launched to protect civilians, shifted to regime change, prolonging the conflict and destabilizing the region (Kuperman, 2013). Exaggerated reports of atrocities fueled this escalation, contributing to unrest in Mali and Somalia (Kuperman, 2013). This aid also created a situation of “moral hazard” that encouraged rebels to escalate violence– essentially, they expected foreign support that would ameliorate the costs of that escalation, and so they escalated in a way they otherwise might not have done. This escalation, in turn, undermined humanitarian goals. Libya’s instability eroded both civil and political rights (e.g., security) and economic, social, and cultural rights (e.g., livelihoods), highlighting the need for evidence-based, limited interventions overseen by international bodies like the UN.

The link between misinformation and intervention connects to broader human rights challenges. In both Ukraine and Libya, distorted narratives violate the right to reliable information (ICCPR, 1966, Article 19), amplifying harm and complicating accountability (Kuperman 2023).

Digital Amplification: Misinformation’s Role

Misinformation often exacerbates human rights violations in conflict zones. In Ukraine, state-driven propaganda distorts public understanding, while in Libya, overstated atrocity reports fueled intervention (Kuperman, 2013). These violations of the right to information (ICCPR, 1966, Article 19) highlight the digital age’s challenges. Institutional delays, such as late Universal Periodic Review (UPR) submissions by states like the U.S., further erode trust in global systems. Digital platforms that deliberately or accidentally spread misinformation and disinformation amplify these issues, necessitating media literacy and advocacy to protect access to truth.

Sovereignty vs. R2P: A Delicate Balance

The tension between state sovereignty and human rights protection remains central to international law. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which says that states should intervene in each other’s affairs when human rights are being egregiously violated, was endorsed by the UN in 2005. This doctrine aims to prevent atrocities, but its inconsistent application in cases like Rwanda and Syria reveals challenges. Intervention in another country violates state sovereignty, while nonintervention can mean that a genocide will continue. Clearer rules, as Ikenberry suggests, are needed to ensure interventions respect sovereignty while protecting civilians (Kuperman, 2023). Reforming R2P to prioritize evidence-based action is critical for effective global governance.

Youth Advocacy: Shaping Human Rights

Young people are vital to advancing human rights. Conflicts like Ukraine and Libya affect peers through disrupted education (ICESCR, 1966, Article 13) and suppressed speech (ICCPR, 1966, Article 19), while future careers in policy or law offer opportunities to drive change. Students can join Amnesty International’s youth networks, participate in Model UN, or amplify UPR findings on platforms like X with hashtags like #HumanRights or #R2P. By questioning narratives and advocating for accountability, youth can shape a future where human rights are upheld.

Conclusion

Conflicts in Ukraine and Libya reveal the complexities of balancing sovereignty, intervention, and human rights. Evidence-based policies, protection of information rights, and reformed R2P frameworks are essential for progress. Young advocates, equipped with critical thinking and informed by history, can drive this change through grassroots efforts and digital campaigns, ensuring human dignity prevails.

References

  • Ikenberry, G. J. (2016). Sovereignty vs. Human Rights. YouTube, University of Pennsylvania. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S534ZqxjPgg.

  • Kuperman, A. J. (2013). A model humanitarian intervention? Reassessing NATO’s Libya campaign. International Security, 38(1), 105-136. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13600826.2013.824513.

  • Kuperman, A. J. (2023) “Humanitarian Intervention,” in Human Rights: Theory and Practice, edited by M. Goodhart. Oxford University Press: 178-200. https://www.oxfordpoliticstrove.com/display/10.1093/hepl/9780190085469.001.0001/isbn-9780190085469-book-part-12

  • United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

  • United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights.

  • United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights.

  • United Nations General Assembly. (2005). World Summit Outcome Document (R2P Framework). https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n05/487/60/pdf/n0548760.pdf?OpenElement&_gl=1*fnd0ef*_ga*MTk4NjU4Mzg0MC4xNzU5NDI4ODQx*_ga_TK9BQL5X7Z*czE3NjEyNDc5MTYkbzMkZzAkdDE3NjEyNDc5MTYkajYwJGwwJGgw.

Cuba’s Electricity Crisis: What’s Happening and What Comes Next

Recent Blackouts

The recurring blackouts in Cuba are not random accidents; they are the clearest evidence of a grid that is stretched to its limits. In September 2025, the island’s national grid collapsed once again, leaving the country in darkness for hours. Reuters reported this as the fourth such failure within a year, the product of sudden shutdowns at generating units and the collapse of transmission lines. Power was restored gradually, but the event demonstrated the fragility of the system. These blackouts are not isolated incidents but the predictable outcome of deeper structural weaknesses.

Street in Cuba
Image 1: Street in Cuba. Source: Yahoo! Images

The Scale of the Shortfall

The scale of the electricity deficit illustrates the severity of the crisis. Reports from Cuba’s state utility, echoed in international coverage, noted that generation shortfalls in 2025 often exceeded 1,300 to 1,700 megawatts during peak demand. Given the modest size of the grid, this deficit meant that at times nearly half of national demand went unmet. Authorities responded by cutting power to entire regions in order to prevent complete collapse. The fact that such extreme measures are necessary underscores the unsustainable mismatch between demand and available supply.

Causes of the Crisis

The causes fall into three categories: infrastructure, fuel, and financial capacity.

First, infrastructure remains the most visible problem. Cuba relies on oil-fired thermal plants built decades ago, many of which are in deteriorated condition. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has emphasized that the country’s generation mix remains heavily dependent on oil, with little diversification compared to its regional peers. When such aging facilities break down, the grid lacks redundancy, and obtaining spare parts is difficult. Maintenance is often delayed because of financial limits, leaving plants more vulnerable to failure.

Second, fuel shortages amplify the fragility of the system. Cuba imports much of the fuel needed to run its plants. Deliveries from Venezuela and Russia have been inconsistent, and limited foreign currency reserves prevent Cuba from buying from other markets. Domestic crude is heavy and sulfur-rich, which accelerates wear on equipment. The Associated Press has shown how these supply issues translate directly into blackouts, as plants are unable to run at needed capacity.

Finally, the broader financial crisis prevents modernization. With restricted access to international credit and trade, Cuba cannot easily fund new power stations or grid upgrades. Stopgap measures such as leasing floating power plants or importing small generators provide relief but are costly and unsustainable. These responses demonstrate urgency but also reveal the state’s limited room to maneuver.

Social and Economic Impacts

The electricity crisis affects more than power consumption; it reaches into daily life and the economy. Households experience water shortages because pumps require electricity. Refrigeration becomes unreliable, threatening food and medicine storage. Many Cubans fall back on bottled gas or wood fires when power is cut, while internet and communication services weaken further during outages. Businesses, particularly small ones, lose productive hours without backup generators. Even the tourism industry, one of Cuba’s key revenue sources, struggles as hotels and restaurants attempt to maintain services amid rolling outages. Hospitals use emergency generators, but these depend on scarce diesel, leaving healthcare facilities at risk during long blackouts.

These disruptions carry broader consequences. Public frustration grows as outages stretch beyond twelve hours in some regions, eroding confidence in the government’s ability to provide basic services. The crisis also raises business costs, discourages investment, and accelerates emigration, particularly among younger professionals. The electricity problem is therefore not only technical but also social and economic, shaping the choices individuals and communities make about their futures. Access to reliable electricity is a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and Cuba’s constrained ability to ensure it reflects broader limitations on the state’s capacity to fulfill economic and social rights.

Cuban flag
Image 2: Cuban flag. Source: Yahoo! Images

Government Responses

The government has adopted a mix of emergency and long-term responses, though both reveal limitations. Rolling blackouts remain the central short-term strategy, designed to prevent total collapse. Emergency repairs and floating power stations provide additional capacity, but at high cost.

At the same time, officials have announced renewable energy projects, with a focus on solar power. Targets call for hundreds of megawatts of photovoltaic capacity, supported by international partnerships. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) and other observers, renewables currently account for less than five percent of Cuba’s electricity mix, meaning the path to diversification is long. Progress is further constrained by the need for financing, storage capacity, and stronger grid infrastructure. These efforts are aspirational and signal intent, but they remain far from transforming the immediate reality.

Limitations of Current Responses

The limitations of these measures are clear. Rolling blackouts maintain control but do not solve underlying shortages. Floating plants and small generators provide relief but do not modernize the system. Renewable projects point to a better future but require resources the government struggles to secure. Without broader structural reform, both technological and financial, Cuba will remain locked in a cycle of temporary fixes and recurring blackouts. Blackouts deepen inequalities, disproportionately affecting lower-income and rural communities, which often lack resources for backup generators.

Future Scenarios

Several scenarios emerge from the evidence. The most realistic short-term path is stabilization, which would entail combining emergency repairs, modest new generation, and incremental renewable growth. This could reduce, though not eliminate, the severity of outages. A more ambitious scenario involves accelerated renewable deployment, supported by international financing and partnerships. This path could reduce reliance on imported fuel and create long-term resilience, but only if Cuba can overcome significant investment and logistical barriers. The least optimistic scenario is continuity: erratic fuel deliveries, aging plants, and insufficient investment sustaining a cycle of crisis for years to come.

Which path materializes will depend on both internal capacity and external conditions, from global fuel markets to the willingness of partners to invest in Cuba’s infrastructure. The government’s ability to manage projects and prioritize reform will also be decisive.

Conclusion

Cuba’s electricity troubles have weighed heavily on daily life, the economy, and the country’s outlook. Still, the crisis isn’t only a story of hardship. It’s also a story of people adjusting, of small acts of resilience, and of steps toward a different energy future. The government’s renewable projects may be slow, but they point to possibilities beyond the current struggles. In the meantime, families, neighborhoods, and businesses continue to adapt as best they can, holding onto the hope that the lights will stay on more often in the years ahead.

One In, One Out Mandate: How the UK and France Systematically Deny Claims to Asylum

In August this year, the UK and France began their trial of a One In, One Out Policy regarding migrants. While the current UK government champions this mandate as a way to tackle illegal immigration and assist more vulnerable populations, currently there is no plan in place to ensure those protections.

In this article, we will be examining the terms of the deal and the implications this has for immigration to the UK, the societal treatment of migrants, and the effect this policy can have on the lives and integration of migrants into the UK.

Policy Overview
Man holding a board with the French flag design and the words "Immigration Policy."
Source: Adobe Express. By STOATPHOTO, Asset ID# 1193060357

The current mandate, in effect as of August this year, deals with illegal immigration from France to the UK. As per this mandate, any immigrants who are caught going from France to the UK will be deported within 14 days of their claim being denied, and the UK will accept the same number of immigrants from France who have applied legally and fulfill other criteria.

Yvette Cooper, in her then position as Home Secretary for the UK, said in a letter that this initiative aims to dismantle smuggling operations. Smugglers can often extort large amounts of money from desperate migrants, and their methods of smuggling can be dangerous, unreliable and even contribute to human trafficking. The policy specifically targets immigration across the English channel, aiming to shut down smuggling via small boats. 

A catch of this policy is that the UK considers France a safe third country and can automatically deem asylum claims from migrants from France as inadmissible. With only a 14-day period from asylum claim denial to deportation, and limited access or knowledge of legal resources, this will make it virtually impossible for anyone coming from France to have their claim properly considered. 

Human Impact
Hands holding scraps of paper reading "Refugee" and "Asylum"
Source: Adobe Express. By nito, Asset ID# 106026480

While the Home Office said this initiative is primarily aimed to increase border security and fight smuggling operations, there is no plan currently in place to protect the most desperate and vulnerable immigrant populations.

Legal difficulties exist not just for the migrants who are deported out via this deal, but also for those who are accepted in. In order for a migrant to be eligible to be accepted to the UK under this policy, they are required to pass background checks that include proof of identification, such as a passport, and submitting a recent photograph. These may be insurmountable obstacles for refugees from war-torn regions or those fleeing the effects of devastating famines or other natural disasters. To hinge someone’s eligibility for asylum on meeting these requirements may violate Article 14 of the UDHR, which grants the right to seek asylum, because it does not consider their actual claims to asylum and immediately dismisses what could be an absolutely critical and legitimate case for entry. What is being presented as a fair and just deal targeting smuggling operations will end up preventing people from accessing refugee status in the UK. 

Legal Limbo
Yvette Cooper, current UK Secretary of State
Yvette Cooper, current Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for the UK. Source: Steve Eason

This deal is currently only in its trial phase until next year, and under its current limitations the cap is 50 people returned to France each week. At the beginning of August this year, more than 25,000 people had already arrived in the UK by crossing the English Channel in a small boat. As the UK hits its limit of deportees every week, another issue arises: what to do with those who are not returned to France.

For these individuals, their claim to asylum will likely still be denied. However, they will have to wait in detention centers for months while they are being processed. There are not many return agreements with other countries, so the UK has very few options for where to send these immigrants. Slow processes to attempt to return immigrants will result in long wait periods in detention centers, followed by even longer waiting periods in legal limbo if they’re released into communities.

Young women wearing hijabs hugging in city
Source: Adobe Express. By Cultura Creative, Asset ID# 518549413

Ultimately, this new mandate will impede people’s freedom of movement, deny what could be strong and legitimate claims for asylum, and create further obstacles for people seeking refuge from war-torn or dangerous regions. It is not a solution to the immigration problem, but it is the introduction of more hurdles that would-be immigrants must overcome as they seek inclusion in society, secure living and cultural acceptance.

Russia/Ukraine War Update Until March 3, 2025: U.S. Relations, Deals, and Human Rights Violations

Ukrainian soldiers on a tank, holding the Ukrainian flag.
Image 1: Ukrainian soldiers on a tank, holding the Ukrainian flag. Source: Yahoo Images.

On Tuesday, February 18th, Russia and the U.S. began a discussion regarding an end to the Russia/Ukraine war. Along with talk about ending the war, the two countries spoke about making improvements to their economic and diplomatic ties. Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State; Michael Waltz, U.S. President Trump’s national security advisor; Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Secretary of State; and Yuri Ushakov, President Putin’s foreign affairs advisor, were present at the meeting.

If you’re asking yourself, “Wait, isn’t there a country missing from the meeting?” You would be correct. Ukraine was not present, nor were they invited to the meeting in which the future of their state was being discussed. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine would disregard any conclusion the meeting came to, as Ukraine had not been a part of it.

Ukraine received a great deal of American support throughout the Biden Administration’s term in office. Ukraine Oversight reports and tracks funding and aid that has come from the U.S. during the time period of February 2022 until December 2024. The total amount has been $182.8 billion. Of that total $83.4 billion has been used, $57 billion is obligated but not yet distributed, $39.6 billion has been appropriated but is not obligated to be paid, and $2.7 billion has expired. Ukraine has also received aid from the U.S. and other G7 nations, which are France, Japan, Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom, in the form of a loan program that would provide $20 billion to be paid from frozen Russian assets. The website further breaks down where the money has come from. The U.S. Department of State also offers explanations and breakdowns of what the money was spent on and the aid that was sent to Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has repeatedly thanked the U.S. for the aid Ukraine has received since the invasion in 2022. In 2022, President Zelenskyy gifted the U.S. Congress with a Ukrainian war flag. He has also thanked the American people on multiple occasions, as well as stated that their money is an investment in the security and future of Ukraine and its people.

U.S. President Trump recently stated that Ukraine had three years to put a stop to this war and that they (presumably meaning Ukraine) should have never started it to begin with. As was stated in my last blog in relation to the Russia/Ukraine war, Russia started the war by invading Ukraine in 2022. Russia also previously illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. To this day Russia still occupies Crimea. While Rubio had exclaimed his excitement for the end of the war and the concept of bringing Russia and the U.S. closer together, Ukrainian forces continued to be overwhelmed by the illegal invasion of Russian troops.

If you are interested in the human rights violations that occurred in 2024 regarding the Russian Ukrainian war, check out my blog post, Russia-Ukraine War Update and Interview With Ukrainian UAB Student. For this blog I will focus on recent developments about U.S. and Ukrainian relations, Ukrainian and European relations, and human rights violations committed by Russia.

Tensions Between Ukraine and U.S. Grow

Two soldiers hold the American flag and the Ukrainian flag.
Image 2: Two soldiers hold the American flag and the Ukrainian flag. Source: Yahoo Images.

Ukraine is a land rich in critical minerals such as ilmenite, which is used in the production of titanium. The vast potential of Ukraine’s critical mineral industry has been untapped due to war and state policies. Recently, the Trump Administration proposed that U.S. companies should have access to these mining pits for ilmenite in exchange for U.S. aid in the war.

The first deal that the U.S. proposed would have Ukraine pay $500 billion worth in minerals while receiving no guarantee of security. They would receive weapons and Ukraine would have to pay a debt for generations. This agreement was rejected by President Zelenskyy on February 15th because it did not protect either Ukraine nor the country’s interests. In an AP article, they talk of Ukrainians’ feelings of unease at the prospects of U.S. businesses on their land. Many people felt that too much would be given away in exchange for weapons.

The second agreement that was drawn up stated that Ukraine would give 50% of its entire revenue on natural resources into a fund. This fund would then be used to invest in projects in Ukraine. As of now, the projects that would be funded are not defined in the agreement and will be further defined in later discussions. This agreement still does not guarantee the security of Ukraine.

The success of this agreement would have been determined in part by the success of private investment in Ukraine’s mineral resources. The ongoing war and reconstruction of Ukrainian infrastructure could hinder investment into the mining of these minerals. With no outlines for Ukraine security, mining companies are hesitant about investing in the country. Mining is an extremely expensive industry, and with the threat of Russian attacks, it is extremely unlikely that a corporation would risk investing in Ukraine.

This new agreement was going to be discussed in person between President Zelenskyy, who traveled to the U.S. on February 28th, 2025, and President Trump. However, during the meeting, not much was able to be said as President Trump, who was seated next to Vice President J.D. Vance, yelled at Ukraine’s President. The mineral agreement was not signed, as was originally intended, during that meeting.

Ukraine has been struggling against Russian forces for three years. Comments made by U.S. defense secretary, Pete Hegseth that Ukraine must give up hope of regaining its territory or getting NATO membership, have poured salt on wounds that have not been given time to heal in the last three years. Ukrainians have been worried over the position they will be left in after a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine is decided.

For years, the overall Western consensus has been that no agreement will come at the cost of Ukrainians still living in places now occupied by Russia. That viewpoint may now be changing in the United States, and Ukraine and other nations located close to Russia fear that a break in the war will allow Russia’s military to regroup and potentially invade Ukraine again as well as other parts of Europe.

European Nations Uniting

Stairway with Ukrainian flag painted on the walls.
Image 3: Stairway with Ukrainian flag painted on the walls. Source: Yahoo Images.

On Sunday, March 2, 2025, the leaders of Ukraine, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Canada, Finland, Sweden, France, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Britain, as well as the Turkish Foreign Minister, attended a meeting about Ukraine at London’s Lancaster House. This was done in a show of support for Ukraine. During the meeting, the leaders agreed that it was in everyone’s interest that defense efforts be expanded so that peace could finally be accomplished for Ukraine.

It is worth noting that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer still said that the support of the U.S. was critical for this plan to work. In other words, while Europe must be at the forefront of Ukraine’s defense, the U.S. must back the rest of Europe for the defense to work.

While Europe is attempting to support and back Ukraine, on March 3, 2025, U.S. President Trump officially paused all military aid to Ukraine in hope of pressuring President Zelenskyy into negotiating peace talks with Russia. These peace talks, if rushed, will most likely give Russia the upper hand and negate any hope Ukraine has had for regaining the Ukrainian land that is currently occupied by Russia.

Russia’s Continued Human Rights Violations

Ukrainian flag standing over a destroyed building.
Image 4: Ukrainian flag standing over a destroyed building. Source: Yahoo Images.

Amnesty International stated that any peace talks that do not include justice and repercussions for the international laws violations and human rights violations that have occurred against Ukraine will only serve to prolong Ukrainian suffering. Throughout the three years that Russia has been invading Ukraine, Russia has continued to target civilian infrastructure.

Residential buildings, schools, cultural heritage sites, and hospitals are some of the civilian infrastructure that has been destroyed by Russian forces. In my previous blog about the war, I wrote that the summer of 2024 was the deadliest time for children in Ukraine. Children are the most vulnerable members of society. Russia’s disregard for the lives of Ukrainian civilians, specifically children, is a violation of human rights. Since the invasion of Ukraine, thousands of schools have either been destroyed or have fallen under the control of Russia.

During Russia’s occupation of Crimea, people have been convicted of discrediting Russian armed forces, which violates the right to freedom of expression. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that all people have the freedom of opinion and expression. When those freedoms are interfered with, it is a violation of human rights. Crimean Tatars who are imprisoned have also been denied medical care. Additionally, 6,000 prisoners of war (POW) continue to be detained by Russian forces. POW and civilians alike have been subject to torture. In the year of 2024, Russia charged at least 120 Ukrainian POWs with terrorism. Since then, they have all been executed.

It is estimated that, as of July 2024, 14,000 Ukrainian citizens had been wrongfully and unlawfully detained by Russia. There are reports of war crimes and crimes against humanity being inflicted on Ukrainian civilians. These offenses include torture, sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, and denials of fair trials. In Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), it is stated that torture or inhuman punishment is a violation of human rights.

Many Ukrainian civilians have been subject to arbitrary arrest, and over 50,000 Ukrainians have been reported missing. Arbitrary arrest is the unlawful arrest and detainment of a person by a government without due process. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that arbitrary arrest, exiles, and detentions are human rights violations.

In places occupied by Russia, 1.6 million Ukrainian children must attend schools, learn the curriculum, and abide by the rules of invaders, where Ukrainian children are deprived of learning their language, cultural heritage, and history. If students are to continue their Ukrainian education, they must do so online. This is in violation of Article 26 of the UDHR, which pertains to the right to education and the parents choice of their child’s education and Article 27 of the UDHR, which states that people have the right to participate in the cultural life of the community.

Conclusion:

As is stated in my last blog about the Russia and Ukraine war, there are a couple of things you can do to help defend human rights in this situation. The U.N. Refugee Agency and the Ukrainian Red Cross Society continue to send humanitarian aid to Ukraine. If you are able and willing, these sites take donations.

You can also help protect human rights by staying informed and reading reliable sources. Disinformation on Ukraine and Russia has run rampant, and when people turn a blind eye to the truth, it is easy for human rights violations to go on unchecked. Updates on the Ukraine and Russia war are occurring daily. Make sure to continue checking for updates and to keep yourself informed.