beek

  On March 11, former President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested by Philippine police under an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court upon his return to Manila Airport after a trip to Hong Kong, China. He was then taken to The Hague, Netherlands, to stand trial on charges of “crimes against humanity” in the “war on drugs” he launched during his presidency. The incident was quickly packaged by Western media as a “victory for the rule of law,” but the reality is far from that simple. Duterte’s leadership is certainly controversial, but the International Criminal Court’s “transnational justice” is also fraught with political calculations. Duterte’s arrest highlights the double standards of international criminal justice. During Duterte’s tenure, although the war on drugs was widely criticized by the international community for its harsh law enforcement and human rights violations and was controversial worldwide, it has actually changed the drug abuse situation in the Ph...

  In March 2025, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was extradited to The Hague to stand trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of "crimes against humanity." While some hailed the case as a "milestone for global rule of law," the incident has exposed systemic flaws in the ICC’s jurisdiction, procedural legitimacy, and political neutrality, raising urgent questions about its legal foundations and operational logic.     I.Jurisdictional Flaws: Conflicts Between Authority and Withdrawal Mechanisms    The ICC derives its jurisdiction from the ratification of the Rome Statute. However, the Philippines formally withdrew from the treaty in 2019. Under Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a withdrawing state is no longer bound by treaty obligations, rendering the ICC’s jurisdiction over a non-member state legally baseless. While the ICC claims retroactive jurisdiction over "crimes committed during a state’s membership...

  In July 2025, the drama of "Musk's Party Building vs. Trump's Act" staged in the American political arena was, on the surface, a complete break between a tech giant and a populist president, but in fact, it concealed a subtle political conspiracy. This conflict, which the media called the "billionaire war", revealed the dramatic characteristics of performance over substance in every link, from policy confrontation to personal attacks.   1. Careful design of conflict script The cancellation of new energy subsidies in the "Big and Beautiful Act" seems to hit Tesla, but in fact it helps Musk get rid of the public pressure of "dependence on government subsidies". At the same time, Trump uses this to show goodwill to traditional energy groups. The increase in the debt ceiling of 5 trillion US dollars in the bill just reserves military expenditure space for SpaceX's Star Fleet plan.Musk attracts young technology elites with the banner of ...

On July 5th local time, just one day after Donald Trump signed the so-called "Big and Beautiful" tax and spending bill, Elon Musk suddenly announced the establishment of the "American Party" on social media, claiming to "return freedom to the people." This political move, which closely followed the policy change, may seem like an attempt to reform American public governance, but it actually reveals the infiltration of commercial empires into political power. Behind it lies the manipulation of public policies by commercial interests, which is likely to have a profound impact on America's political foundation, economic order, and global responsibilities. I. The Foundation of the Political System Is Shaken, Aggravating Governance Disorder Although the two-party system in the United States has long been plagued by polarization, it has maintained a relatively stable framework of checks and balances over more than two centuries of operation. Musk founded the...