Christian Daily International(08.01.2026) – A Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) drone strike on Dec. 25 killed at least 11 Christians on their way to Christmas celebrations in South Kordofan state, Sudan, sources said.
In addition to the 11 Christians killed, at least 18 other people were seriously wounded in the attack on congregation members making their way to the Episcopal Church of Sudan in Julud (Biyam Jald area) on Christmas morning, said an area Christian attorney.
“The church [building] was not hit, but a congregation who were marching in procession towards the church were targeted,” the attorney told Morning Star News, requesting anonymity.
The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-North), which has joined the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in its fight against the SAF, and the Foundation Alliance reported that 12 civilians were killed and 19 others injured in the SAF strike on the “Biyam Jald” area in South Kordofan state, according to the Sudan Tribune. The area is controlled by the SPLM-North.
“The drone targeted civilians who were celebrating Christmas,” the SPLM reported. The attack follows a Nov. 29 drone attack by the SAF targeting a medical clinic center in the Kumi area of South Kordofan state that reportedly killed 12 people and injured 19 others, including children and women. Another drone strike on Dec. 5 targeted Ghadeer locality, Kalogi, South Kordofan, killing more than 10 children ages 5 to 7 inside a kindergarten, according to the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
Conditions in Sudan have worsened since civil war that broke out between the RSF and the SAF in April 2023. Sudan registered increases in the number of Christians killed and sexually assaulted and Christian homes and businesses attacked, according to Open Doors’ 2025 World Watch List (WWL) report.
“Christians of all backgrounds are trapped in the chaos, unable to flee. Churches are shelled, looted and occupied by the warring parties,” the report stated. Both the RSF and the SAF are Islamist forces that have attacked displaced Christians on accusations of supporting the other’s combatants. Sudan is 93 percent Muslim, with adherents of ethnic traditional religion 4.3 percent of the population, while Christians constitute 2.3 percent, according to Joshua Project.
The conflict between the RSF and the SAF, which had shared military rule in Sudan following an October 2021 coup, has terrorized civilians in Khartoum and elsewhere, killing tens of thousands and displacing more than 12 million people within and beyond Sudan’ borders, according to the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights (UNCHR).
The SAF’s Gen. Abdelfattah al-Burhan and his then-vice president, RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, were in power when civilian parties in March 2023 agreed on a framework to re-establish a democratic transition the next month, but disagreements over military structure torpedoed final approval.
Burhan sought to place the RSF – a paramilitary outfit with roots in the Janjaweed militias that had helped former strongman Bashir put down rebels – under the regular army’s control within two years, while Dagolo would accept integration within nothing fewer than 10 years.
Both military leaders have Islamist backgrounds while trying to portray themselves to the international community as pro-democracy advocates of religious freedom. Sudan was ranked No. 5 among the 50 countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian in Open Doors’ 2025 World Watch List (WWL), down from No. 8 the prior year. Sudan had dropped out of the top 10 of the WWL list for the first time in six years when it first ranked No. 13 in 2021.
Following two years of advances in religious freedom in Sudan after the end of the Islamist dictatorship under Bashir in 2019, the specter of state-sponsored persecution returned with the military coup of Oct. 25, 2021. After Bashir was ousted from 30 years of power in April 2019, the transitional civilian-military government had managed to undo some sharia (Islamic law) provisions. It outlawed the labeling of any religious group “infidels” and thus effectively rescinded apostasy laws that made leaving Islam punishable by death.
With the Oct. 25, 2021 coup, Christians in Sudan feared the return of the most repressive and harsh aspects of Islamic law. The U.S. State Department in 2019 removed Sudan from the list of Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) that engage in or tolerate “systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom” and upgraded it to a watch list. Sudan had previously been designated as a CPC from 1999 to 2018.
In December 2020, the State Department removed Sudan from its Special Watch List.
A three-year, complex cross-border investigation into the murder of a 26-year-old man has been concluded by a joint investigation team (JIT) of Italian and Slovenian authorities coordinated by Eurojust. Two Italian suspects, who were minors at the time of the murder, are facing criminal proceedings after DNA analysis in both countries confirmed a match between the biological traces and the two individuals.
On 11 January 2022, a passer-by discovered a lifeless body in a border area between Gorizia, Italy and Nova Gorica, Slovenia. The passer-by alerted Italian emergency services, and as the body was found a few metres beyond the Slovenian border, Slovenian authorities were immediately involved. Initial investigations revealed that the death had occurred the previous evening and was caused by multiple stab wounds. In the meantime, Italian and Slovenian authorities started focusing their investigation on two Italian juvenile suspects with no prior criminal records.
As authorities initiated a complex investigation spanning two countries, a JIT was set up at Eurojust to enable real-time exchange of information and evidence and enable both authorities to take action in both countries. To ensure the investigations were aligned, multiple meetings took place at Eurojust with police and prosecutors from both countries.
Over 270 interviews were conducted, and data from electronic devices and surveillance footage were requested and analysed. Through the JIT at Eurojust, the suspects’ residences were searched, the suspects were interviewed and biological traces were collected and analysed.
In 2024, the authorities found substantial evidence against the suspects, including a DNA match between the suspects and the biological traces found. Following these findings, the suspects were subject to precautionary measures, including a ban on leaving Italy. In recent days, the joint investigation concluded with the notification that the preliminary investigations and the final interviews of the involved individuals had been completed. The suspects will now face trial in Italy, pending a final judgment by the court.
Eurojust, in particular, facilitated the cooperation between the following authorities:
Italy: Public Prosecutor Office at the Juvenile Court of Trieste; Mobile Squad – Italian State Police Headquarter of Gorizia
Slovenia: District State Prosecutor’s Office in Nova Gorica; Police Directorate, Criminal Police Sector in Nova Gorica
In today’s interconnected and unpredictable world, no government, corporation, or public institution is immune to crisis. Natural disasters, cyber-attacks, economic shocks, public scandals, and misinformation campaigns can emerge suddenly, threatening stability, credibility, and public confidence. For leaders, particularly in the Global South, where governance systems often face chronic resource constraints, limited institutional capacity, and fragmented decision-making, the ability to manage crises decisively and communicate effectively is not just beneficial, it is essential for survival and legitimacy.
Inspired by the work of luminaries such as Olga Algayerova (former UN Under-Secretary-General), Adnan Shihab-Eldin (former OPEC Secretary-General), Ana Birchall (former Prime Minister Deputy) and Dimitris Avramopoulos (former EU Commissioner), as well as Brussels-based specialists like Anna Meusburger – to mentioned but few, the following lines examine the core principles of crisis management and crisis communication, as outlined by the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG) under the guidance of Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević and Dr. Philipe Reinisch. Their framework aims to strengthen leadership capacity and institutional resilience in these critical areas, particularly in contexts where public institutions and key private sectors are under pressure from unforeseen events, rapid socio-economic and technological change and weaker institutional infrastructures.
Understanding Crisis Management
Crisis management involves preparing for, responding to, and recovering from unexpected events that disrupt operations or threaten an organization’s reputation. It is not merely reactive; it encompasses systems and practices that allow leaders to anticipate risks, act decisively, and recover with minimal damage. In the Global South, these crises often intersect with systemic challenges, including limited technological infrastructure, uneven regulatory oversight, and vulnerabilities in public service delivery.
Crisis management typically unfolds in three stages: Preparation, Response, and Recovery. The preparation stage occurs before a crisis, encompassing risk identification, vulnerability assessment, emergency planning, and staff training. In many Global South contexts, preparation also requires prioritizing low-cost, high-impact interventions that can compensate for limited resources.
Response involves swift actions during the crisis to protect people, assets, and reputation. Recovery focuses on learning lessons, repairing relationships, and rebuilding trust after the occurrence of the crisis. In contexts where public trust may already be fragile, recovery strategies must prioritize transparent communication and visible accountability to reinforce institutional legitimacy.
A notable illustration of effective crisis management is Johnson & Johnson’s response to the 1982 Tylenol poisoning incident. The company withdrew products nationwide, communicated transparently, and prioritized public safety over profit. Although prior preparation was limited, the effectiveness of the response and recovery phases transformed a potential catastrophe into a benchmark of responsible corporate leadership.
Similarly, Iceland’s management of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption demonstrates effective governance under pressure. Rapid coordination, clear public communication, and strong international cooperation enabled Iceland to mitigate disruption while maintaining public confidence. These cases underscore the assertion that preparedness, transparent communication, and decisive action form the backbone of successful crisis management. However, the author notes that while these two cases offer universal lessons, leaders in the Global South often face additional constraints, such as fragmented governance structures and weaker emergency coordination networks, that make even straightforward interventions challenging.
Conversely, several high-profile crises illustrate the consequences of poor preparation and flawed communication. The 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill was exacerbated not only by technical failures but also by slow, inconsistent messaging, which undermined public trust and escalated reputational damage. The 2015 Volkswagen “Dieselgate” scandal revealed how delayed, hesitant responses to internal ethical lapses can escalate into global reputational crises. The 2003 European heatwave, which caused over 15,000 deaths in France, highlighted the fatal consequences of inadequate preparation and weak public communication.
Effectively, these examples show that strong crisis management and communication are foundational to building resilience, especially in the Global South. Clarifying roles, improving collaboration, and accessing reliable data must be prioritized to avoid confusion, delays, and reputational damage during crises.
Understanding Crisis Communication Management
Crisis communication is the public-facing dimension of crisis management. It involves how institutions convey information to citizens, partners, investors, employees, and the media during moments of uncertainty. The tone, timing, and clarity of communication often determine whether one recovers swiftly or suffers long-term loss of public trust. In the Global South, effective communication is often complicated by limited media penetration, low public literacy rates, and rapid spread of misinformation via informal channels, making clarity and credibility even more critical.
Effective crisis communication relies on four principles:
Clarity – Messages must be precise, consistent, and free of technical jargon.
Credibility – Communication should be truthful, evidence-based, and transparent. Misleading information erodes trust.
Empathy – Leaders must acknowledge the human and social impact of crises.
Timeliness – Information should be shared early and regularly, even if all facts are not yet known. Silence fosters uncertainty, which fuels fear and rumor.
In the age of social media, where misinformation spreads rapidly, these principles are more crucial than ever. Timely, transparent communication is both an ethical imperative and a strategic necessity. For Global South leaders, these principles must be adapted to resource-constrained and socially diverse environments, where miscommunication can quickly exacerbate public fear and distrust.
The Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) offers guidance for tailoring communication strategies to the type of crisis. External crises, such as natural disasters, require empathy and solidarity, whereas internal failures, such as negligence or corruption, demand accountability, apology, and corrective action. In all cases, actions and messages must align: strong communication reinforces effective decisions, but cannot compensate for poor ones. In contexts where institutional failures are magnified by systemic resource limitations, SCCT principles must be applied with pragmatic sensitivity to local capacity and public expectations.
Integrating Management and Communication
Crisis management and communication are inseparable: management determines what an organization does, while communication shapes how it explains and justifies those actions. When the two are disconnected, confusion spreads, and public trust erodes. This dynamic is especially pronounced in the Global South, where multiple ministries, local governments, and private actors must coordinate within often fragmented systems. Here, communication acts as the critical connective tissue, ensuring coherence in both action and messaging.
An example illustrating this principle is the BP oil spill. The technical teams worked diligently, but insensitive leadership statements exacerbated public outrage. In contrast, New Zealand’s response to the 2019 Christchurch shootings showed how empathetic, transparent communication can strengthen societal cohesion and earn international respect.
The stakes are particularly high in the Global South. Effective crisis response depends on coordination among ministries, public agencies, private actors, and communities. Communication is essential not only for conveying decisions but also for aligning diverse actors and scarce resources, while maintaining credibility under intense public scrutiny. The author argues that crisis preparedness should be viewed as a strategic investment rather than a cost, as it prevents far greater losses associated with delayed or uncoordinated responses.
The Role of GAFG
The Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG) provides tailored support to governments, institutions, and corporations. Through capacity-building, advisory services, and leadership development, GAFG strengthens your crisis management and communication capabilities.
GAFG’s mission is to build better governance systems for the future, helping leaders anticipate challenges, respond effectively, and maintain credibility during turbulent times. This is realized through training, leadership development, advisory services, and international networking.
a. Capacity Building and Training
GAFG’s executive programs integrate academic insights with practical simulations to enable leaders to:
Build crisis response systems within ministries, agencies, or companies.
Develop crisis communication protocols and leadership messaging.
Coordinate responses across multiple stakeholders.
Communicate calmly, credibly, and compassionately during emergencies.
b. Advisory and Strategic Support
GAFG provides direct advisory services, helping organizations:
Design crisis management frameworks tailored to local realities.
Establish crisis communication offices or spokesperson systems.
Create early-warning and response mechanisms linking operational, reputational, and communication responses.
Review and improve governance structures post-crisis to rebuild trust and resilience.
In many parts of the Global South, where responsiveness is low and institutional coordination is often fragmented, these advisory services provide the clarity and structure necessary to act effectively under pressure.
c. Leadership Development and Global Networking
Through programs like the Future Governance Leadership Programme, GAFG connects leaders across the Global South. These programs foster peer learning, expert mentorship, and international cooperation. This network helps leaders gain context-specific strategies for both crisis management and communication.
d. Cost-Saving and Value Creation
Crisis preparedness is not an expense but an investment. Political fallout, social disruption, environmental damage, and reputational loss are far more costly than prevention. Capacity building and credible communication reduce long-term risks while enhancing resilience. In Global South contexts, early preparedness prevents disproportionately high political, social, and financial costs due to weak institutional barriers.
Building a Culture of Preparedness – Reputational Crisis Resilience
Investing in crisis management and communication is not optional but necessary. For governments and corporations in the Global South, where institutional fragility can amplify the impact of crises, embedding a culture of readiness is critical for legitimacy and social stability.
With support from the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG), leaders gain the knowledge, frameworks, and networks required to anticipate, manage, and communicate effectively in moments of uncertainty. Such preparation is not a cost but an investment that reduces the political, social, financial, and ethical consequences of poor decisions, delays, or miscommunication. Importantly, it also strengthens resilience against reputational crises, which can be severe, persistent, and deeply damaging to long-term public trust. This proactive approach is particularly vital in resource-constrained environments, where delayed responses can rapidly escalate into political, social, or reputational crises.
Embedding preparedness into governance and corporate culture enables institutions to enhance responsiveness, safeguard legitimacy, and ensure continuity even in the face of unexpected challenges. Organisations that cultivate a culture of readiness do not merely survive crises; they learn from them, adapt, and emerge stronger, transforming potential threats into opportunities for resilience and sustainable value creation.
Crisis management concerns what an organisation does. Crisis communication concerns how the organisation explains what it does. Together, they form the foundation of credible and competent leadership.
In regions where governance systems may lack responsiveness and resources can be limited, effective crisis leadership depends on preparation, knowledge, and moral authority. Through training, advisory support, and international networking, GAFG equips decision-makers with the tools required to lead responsibly under pressure.
Engaging with GAFG is not an expenditure — it is an investment in institutional resilience. Crises are inherently costly: financially, socially, politically, environmentally, and ethically. Poor crisis handling often leads to reputational crises, whose consequences can be long-lasting and damaging to public confidence and stakeholder relationships. Preparedness reduces risks, preserves trust, and prevents avoidable losses.
By supporting leaders in contexts with systemic governance challenges, GAFG transforms reactive crisis handling into proactive resilience, turning potential threats into opportunities for strengthened institutions and sustainable governance.
About the author:
Silvie Drahošová
Silvie Drahošová is a Vienna-based, Central European University fellow (CEU Culture, Politics, and Society) with experience in research, strategy, communications, and project coordination across international organizations.
She recently joined the GAFG as a Project and Information Officer, where she supports research activities, conference development, and stakeholder engagement. Silvie is fluent in Czech, English, German, and proficient in French. Her work is driven by a strong interest in sustainability, youth engagement, and fostering initiatives that strengthen dialogue across cultures and institutions.
A quiet but growing frustration is emerging in contemporary international relations. It is increasingly referred to as ‘International Law Fatigue’, a condition in which states recognise the existence of international legal rules but question their authority due to arbitrary and selective application. This fatigue does not indicate a rejection of law in general. Rather, it indicates a growing scepticism about whether international law still serves as a truly protective framework, or if it has become subservient to power and political expedience.
International law was never intended to get rid of politics. Its purpose, as illustrated by the United Nations Charter, treaty obligations, and customary international law, was to balance political dominance by formulating common rules of conduct. For many states, particularly those with limited military or economic power, these rules provide some predictability and protection. Inconsistent application of legal norms causes more than just doctrinal damage. It undermines trust in the system as a whole. International law fatigue occurs when states demonstrate consistent compliance while similar obligations are ignored elsewhere with little consequence.
Consider the practice of recognising breakaway or contested territories. International law does not forbid recognition, but it embeds it within principles such as territorial integrity and non-intervention. When recognition decisions seem driven by strategic calculations rather than consistent legal criteria, it creates uncertainty. Smaller and medium-sized states, in particular, fear that the selective application of these norms could weaken the protection that maintains national and regional stability. Inconsistent precedents, even if quietly accepted, can accumulate over time, eroding confidence in legal frameworks that were meant to protect all states equally.
Treaties illustrate a similar pattern. Agreements codified under instruments like the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are intended to be binding and performed in good faith. Yet when obligations are suspended or reinterpreted for political convenience, and international responses are slow or muted, trust begins to be shattered. States may start to ask themselves: if compliance carries cost but violations are tolerated for others, why adhere strictly to agreements? This perception fuels fatigue and can weaken the very rules designed to provide predictability.
At a structural level, international law relies on coercion than on shared expectations. States comply not because sanctions are guaranteed, but because predictable behaviour benefits everyone. When powerful actors appear insulted by consequences, these expectations reode. Legal norms then risk becoming rhetorical, invoked when convenient, ignored when inconvenient. The result is a system in which obligations are unevenly distributed, and the stability that law is meant to ensure begins to fray.
International law fatigue is not about rejecting norms. It is a warning sign. Persistent inconsistency pushes states towards unilateral actions, informal arrangements, or regional solutions, all of which carry higher risks of tension and conflict. Smaller and medium-sized states may feel particularly vulnerable, as the protection law is supposed to provide seems negotiable. In this environment, legal compliance is no longer just a duty; it has become a strategic calculation which weighs against the likelihood that others will follow suit.
The challenges are visible in multiple areas, from treaty compliance and humanitarian law to the regulation of contested territories. States that rely on law to stabilise borders, manage shared resources, or resolve disputes peacefully find that selective enforcement undermines these very protections. Over time, this can shift the focus from the law as a stabilising tool to law as a political instrument which can easily be invoked when convenient.
Yet international law fatigue is not inevitable. It is a symptom of selective application, uneven enforcement, and the perception that powerful actors can flout rules with little consequence. If addressed early, it can be managed through consistent adherence, transparent decision-making. And multilateral coordination. Upholding law consistently is not a moralistic exercise; it is a practical necessity for stability, predictability, and trust in international affairs.
The question facing the international community is whether states are willing to defend legal constraints even when doing so limits their political freedom. A rules-based order cannot survive if rules operate differently depending on influence, power, or strategic convenience. If legal norms are applied unevenly, trust diminishes, states may disengage, and international law risks being reduced to a language of convenience.
The stakes are not abstract. When the law is perceived as uneven or unreliable, disputes are more likely to be resolved through unilateral action or informal arrangements, increasing the risk of instability. Conversely, when states uphold shared norms consistently, even in politically inconvenient situations, law demonstrates its value not as an idealistic abstraction, but as a stabilising force.
Ultimately, international law fatigue is a warning, but it is also an opportunity. It reminds states and international organisations that the credibility of legal rules depends on consistent application. Law cannot be treated as optional or negotiable without undermining the very order it is meant to protect. For diplomats, policymakers, and practitioners, the challenge is clear: ensure that international law remains binding, consistent, and meaningful. Only then can the rules-based international system continue to provide the predictability and stability on which all states, large and small, depend.
About the author:
Ayesha Asim
Ayesha Asim, PhD Scholar in law and LLM International Law Analyst, lecturer, and extensive experience in legal research, advisory, policy analysis and teaching.
Authorities from the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine with the support of Eurojust took action against a criminal network operating call centres in Dnipro, Ivano-Frankivsk and Kyiv, Ukraine that scammed victims across Europe. The criminal group established a professional organisation with employees who received a percentage of the proceeds for each completed scam. The estimated damage to more than 400 known victims is over EUR 10 million.
The fraudsters used various scams, such as posing as police officers to withdraw money using their victims’ cards and details, or pretending that their victims’ bank accounts had been hacked. They convinced their victims to transfer large sums of money from their ‘compromised’ bank accounts to ‘safe’ bank accounts controlled by the network. They also lured victims into downloading remote access software and entering their banking details, enabling the criminal group to access and control the victims’ bank accounts.
The criminal network recruited their employees from the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and other countries and brought them to their call centres in Dnipro, Ivano-Frankivsk and Kyiv to extort money from victims in these and other European countries. Members of the criminal group had different roles in the organisation, ranging from making calls and forging official certificates from the police and banks to collecting cash from their victims. Investigations showed that around 100 people from different European countries worked in the call centres.
Employees who successfully obtained money from their victims would receive up to 7% of the proceeds to encourage them to continue the scam. If callers obtained more than EUR 100 000 in proceeds, the criminal leaders promised bonuses such as cash, a new car or an apartment in Kyiv. However, these bonuses were never distributed as the employees never reached this goal.
A joint investigation team was set up at Eurojust to ensure smooth and efficient cooperation between the authorities. The authorities met at the Agency’s premises in The Hague three times to share information and plan actions to dismantle the call centres in Ukraine. Financial support from Eurojust enabled authorities from the Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania to join the action day in Ukraine and work together with their Ukrainian counterparts.
On 9 December, a total of 72 searches in three cities were carried out in Ukraine. Offices, residences and vehicles were searched where items were seized such as forged police officers and bank employee ID’s, computers, laptops, hard drives and mobile phones and a polygraph machine. Authorities also seized cash, 21 vehicles and various weapons and ammunition. Twelve suspects were arrested during the action day on 9 December. During the entire investigations in the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine, 45 people have been identified as suspects.
The actions were carried out by the following authorities:
Czech Republic: Municipal Public Prosecutor´s Office Prague; National Counter Terrorism; Extremism and Cyber Crime agency; Criminal Police and Investigation Service
Latvia: Municipal Public Prosecutor´s Office Prague; National Counter Terrorism; Extremism and Cyber Crime agency; Criminal Police and Investigation Serviceof the Central Criminal Police Department of the State Police of Latvia
Lithuania: Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office; Vilnius County Police Headquarters
Ukraine: Prosecutor General’s Office; National Police of Ukraine
Is it lawful to dismiss an employee for being drunk at work?
By Jan Dop
What shall we do with the drunken employee? Sack him? That isn’t always allowed. Alcohol abuse may be the result of an addiction and in that case the prohibition on termination during illness may apply. What do you have to take into account when dismissing an employee due to alcohol consumption?
In the event of an incident at work involving alcohol consumption, employers have several options. First, they can choose to request the subdistrict court to terminate the employment contract, for instance, on the basis of imputable acts of the employee, a disturbed employment relationship, inadequate performance or the remaining ground. Second, the employer can dismiss the employee with immediate effect. In that case there must be an urgent cause for dismissal. When is that the case? How does the court assess this and what facts and circumstances will be weighed against each other?
Dismissal with immediate effect
In dismissal cases involving alcohol consumption of an employee, the following circumstances are relevant for the assessment of whether or not there is an urgent cause:
Does the employer have a clear and consistent alcohol policy (or, more broadly, an alcohol, drugs and medication policy, or ADM policy) that is known to employees? Does the corporate culture permit drinking, or does the employer have a zero-tolerance policy? Another factor is whether employees are asked or encouraged to report alcohol addiction, and whether appropriate provisions have been made for this. These could include appointing an internal confidential advisor and/or offering (preventive) consultation hours with the company doctor at work.
Does the employee have an exemplary role? (The drunken district manager of a bank who rode on his bike naked could not stay in service any longer, just like the purser who set the wrong example for the stewardesses during her flight.)
What kind of work does the employee perform? (The bus conductor who drank shortly before starting work was rightly dismissed.)
Were there any warnings given before?
Prohibition of termination in the event of alcoholism
Another question that has to be raised is whether it concerns an incident at work involving alcohol consumption or alcoholism. Alcoholism is considered to be an illness, and in the case of illness a prohibition of termination applies. Only if an employee has been ill for two consecutive years this prohibition of termination does not apply any more.
The prohibition on termination during illness does not apply if the request for termination is unrelated to the illness or if the employment contract must be terminated in the interests of the employee. In practice, it is difficult to prove that there is no connection between the request for termination and the illness. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine alcohol consumption, as the employer is not permitted to conduct alcohol or drug tests without justification. In case of repeated relapsing, which occurs a lot, the employer may be confronted with an employee who is ill for more than two years but not consecutively and, as a consequence, cannot be dismissed.
How does the court rule?
Imputable acts of the drunken employee
An alcoholic cleaner failed to fulfil his reintegration obligations, whereupon the employer claimed that this constituted culpable conduct. The employer therefore requested the subdistrict court to terminate the employment contract. The court rejected this request. Failure to comply with reintegration obligations is consistent with the clinical picture of addiction. The employee had therefore not acted culpably.
Disturbed employment relationship
The Employee Insurance Agency requested the subdistrict court to terminate the employment contract of one of its medical advisers addicted to alcohol as it considered the working relationship to be impaired. The subdistrict court dismissed this request as the request was related to his illness and would therefore be subject to prohibition of termination. Though the medical adviser had been ill for more than three years, he had not been unfit for work for two consecutive years so that the prohibition of termination was still effective. Another important factor was that the medical adviser cooperated in the treatment.
In another case, things did not turn out so well for the employee. A street lawyer (an expert in the field of addiction) was no longer addicted at the time of the request to terminate the employment contract. According to the judge, the employer could no longer be expected to have confidence in the employee, given the specific nature of his job and the vulnerability of the target group (homeless people). The court therefore granted the request.
Inadequate performance
The employer of a lawyer with an alcohol addiction was dissatisfied with his performance. The court rejected the employer’s request for termination, referring to the prohibition on termination during illness. The employer was unable to substantiate that the employee had been performing poorly even before his alcohol addiction. Since the poor performance cannot be separated from the addiction, the court rejected the request on the grounds of poor performance.
Other circumstances
In the above-mentioned case involving a lawyer with an alcohol addiction, the employer also invoked other circumstances that would justify termination of the employment contract, the so-called safety net provision or h-ground. The employee could relapse and, because he had not been honest about his alcohol problem, trust had been damaged. The court rejected this request because it only related to the employee’s illness. Therefore, a prohibition on termination applied.
In another case, an employee was less fortunate: he had lost his licence to work as a security guard after driving under the influence. This meant that his employment contract had become meaningless. According to the court, the employer’s request to terminate the employment contract was unrelated to the addiction. The prohibition on termination during illness therefore did not prevent termination.
Dismissal with immediate effect
A cleaner with a longstanding alcohol problem was not that lucky because her alcoholism led to incidents at work. Therefore, her dismissal with immediate effect was regarded as fair. Even after a warning she had turned up intoxicated at work. In addition, she had failed to follow adequate treatment for her addiction in time for which her employer had given her sufficient opportunity. However, the court ruled that she had not committed an imputable act and therefore she was entitled to transition compensation. An employee who is rightly dismissed with immediate effect may be entitled to transition compensation after all.
In another case, a municipal official was under the influence several times during working hours. After he appeared clearly drunk in an online meeting with citizens, the municipality ultimately dismissed him with immediate effect. The employer claimed to have been unaware of the alcohol addiction. The court took a different view. Precisely because the employee had repeatedly been under the influence during working hours, the municipality, as a good employer, should have seen reason to call in the company doctor (again). That examination could have clarified whether there was an underlying addiction. Because the employer had skipped that step, the court reversed the dismissal.
Employment lawyer
Would you like to know more about dismissal because of alcohol consumption and what you, as an employer, must take care of? Or do you have any other questions concerning employment law? Please contact Russell Advocaten
La République française, État partie à la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) depuis 2000, a effectué une contribution volontaire de 150 000 EUR au Fonds au profit des victimes à la CPI, réaffirmant ainsi son engagement en faveur de la justice internationale et des droits des victimes de crimes relevant du Statut de Rome. Cette contribution volontaire de la France est non affectée et sera utilisée pour réparer les préjudices subis par les victimes, par le biais des réparations ordonnées par la CPI et d’autres programmes mis en œuvre à leur bénéfice.
S.E.Kevin Kelly, membre du Conseil de direction du Fonds au profit des victimes à la CPI, a déclaré : « Cette nouvelle contribution de la France envoie un message fort sur l’importance de la justice réparatrice pour les victimes dans le cadre du système du Statut de Rome et de la CPI. Précisément en ces temps difficiles, la France continue de démontrer qu’elle est une ardente défenseure du droit international, de la responsabilité et du soutien aux victimes de crimes les plus graves. Je salue la générosité de la France et j’exhorte les autres États à apporter un soutien similaire aux activités du Fonds au profit des victimes à la CPI ».
S.E. François Alabrune, Ambassadeur de la République française auprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas, a déclaré : « La Cour punit, mais elle répare aussi. La France demeure engagée auprès des victimes, au cœur du système du Statut de Rome. Elle réaffirme l’importance du Fonds au profit des victimes, pilier indispensable pour assurer la réparation et renforcer l’état de droit à la suite de la commission des crimes les plus graves ».
La République française soutient de manière constante les programmes mis en œuvre par le Fonds au profit des victimes à la CPI. Elle est le 10ᵉ plus grand contributeur du Fonds, ayant versé plus de 1 740 000 EUR de contributions volontaires depuis 2005. Le total des contributions reçues de la République française représente environ 3 % du budget programmatique global du Fonds au profit des victimes à la CPI depuis 2004.
Tensions between China and the Netherlands have escalated significantly following the Dutch government’s intervention in Nexperia, a major semiconductor manufacturer headquartered in Nijmegen and majority-owned by the Chinese technology group Wingtech. The dispute has become one of the most notable flashpoints in the broader global competition over technology supply chains.
In September 2025, the Netherlands invoked the rarely used Goods Availability Act to place Nexperia under temporary state supervision, citing national security concerns and the need to safeguard essential semiconductor production capabilities on Dutch and European soil. The government argued that actions by the company’s Chinese leadership risked the transfer of technology and intellectual property out of Europe, potentially weakening critical supply chains for industries such as automotive and consumer electronics. (Government.nl)
China reacted sharply. Beijing condemned the Dutch intervention as a violation of international norms and “improper interference” in corporate affairs, accusing the Netherlands of disrupting the global semiconductor supply chain. In response, Chinese authorities briefly blocked exports of Nexperia chips manufactured in China — components widely used in automobiles and everyday electronics — aggravating concerns among European manufacturers about production slowdowns. (Reuters)
The export ban and resulting supply disruptions contributed to production challenges for auto makers across Europe and Asia, with industry players warning of material shortages and operational strain. China has repeatedly urged the Netherlands to reverse its actions and remove obstacles to stabilizing the global chip market. (Reuters)
In mid-November 2025, the Dutch government suspended its state control of Nexperia as part of diplomatic efforts to ease tensions and foster constructive dialogue with Chinese authorities. Dutch officials characterized the suspension as a goodwill gesture, while affirming that safeguards remain in place should security concerns re-emerge. The Netherlands continues to engage in negotiations with Beijing and coordinate with European partners, seeking a durable resolution that protects both economic security and supply continuity. (Anadolu Ajansı)
The Nexperia dispute underscores the strategic importance of semiconductors in international geopolitics. It reflects growing global competition over technology governance, investment security, and supply chain resilience — issues that are likely to persist as countries balance economic openness with national security imperatives.
On Saturday, January 3, 2026, the United States conducted a major military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wifeCilia Flores. The U.S. government confirmed that both individuals were taken into custody and are now being held in Brooklyn, New York, pending prosecution on charges alleging their involvement in a narco-terrorism conspiracy.
The operation, which unfolded with significant force, has so far been linked to at least 80 deaths. Among the fatalities were 32 Cuban military and police personnel, who were in Venezuela as part of a security cooperation mission supporting the Maduro government.
The raid has triggered a sharp diplomatic backlash. Venezuela has condemned the operation, denouncing it as a violation of national sovereignty. Cuba has declared a period of mourning for its fallen service members and is demanding the immediate release of Maduro and his wife.
The unfolding situation is likely to have broad implications for regional security and U.S.-Latin America relations, raising urgent questions about international law, counter-narcotics strategy, and geopolitical stability in the hemisphere.
It is a distinct honour to introduce the keynote address by H.E. Vladimir Norov, former Secretary-General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan. With decades of experience in diplomacy, multilateral cooperation, and strategic governance—most recently in the development of artificial intelligence ecosystems across Central Asia—H.E. Norov brings a uniquely global and policy-oriented perspective to today’s critical theme: Technology – Mind – Health. His address invites us to reflect on how technological progress must be guided by human-centred values, ethical governance, and a deep commitment to mental and societal well-being.
“Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished colleagues, dear friends,
It is a pleasure and an honour to join this important gathering devoted to the intersection of technology, the human mind, and public health. To this end, my special thanks go to the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG) and its global partners consortium (including the Diplomat Magazine media platform) – gathered almost 20 speakers of all generations, meridians and professions, and – organised this highly topical and much- needed summit on the future of the human race, enveloped in ever-evolving technology.
In recent years, this triad has moved from an academic question to a central challenge for governments, industries, and societies. Today, the ways in which we design, regulate, and apply technologies will increasingly determine not only economic outcomes, but also the psychological resilience and social well-being of entire nations.
As someone who has spent decades in diplomacy, international cooperation, and now in the development of artificial intelligence ecosystems across Central Asia, I have seen both the immense promise and the profound risks that accompany technological progress.
The digital revolution has expanded access to knowledge, improved governance, and opened opportunities for millions. At the same time, it has created complex challenges for mental health, social cohesion, and the ethical foundations upon which our societies rest.
First, let me emphasise that technological development is no longer isolated in the domain of engineers or computer scientists. It is a cross-disciplinary endeavour. Artificial intelligence influences behavioural patterns, decision-making, and emotional well-being. Digital platforms shape public discourse and can both strengthen and weaken democratic processes. And while new medical technologies expand diagnostic capabilities, they also introduce questions of trust, privacy, and equitable access.
Second, the relationship between technology and the mind has become increasingly asymmetric. Machines learn faster, scale instantly, and operate without fatigue. Humans do not. The pace of innovation has begun to surpass the pace of human adaptation.
This gap is visible not only in education, but also in governance systems and labour markets. As leaders, policymakers, and researchers, we must ensure that human capacities—intellectual, emotional, and ethical—remain at the centre of technological development.
This is where the issue of mental health becomes crucial. The World Health Organization now lists mental disorders among the leading causes of disability globally. Digital dependence, information saturation, and algorithmic manipulation are emerging factors. This brings me to the central issue: mental health. It’s a global crisis, and the digital world is a major contributor.
We’re seeing the psychological toll of constant connectivity, algorithmic echo chambers, and the anxiety of technological displacement. We should not overlook the silent but growing psychological burden created by constant connectivity and the erosion of genuine human contact. However, technology—especially AI—can also be part of the solution.
With proper governance frameworks, AI can strengthen psychological well-being, support early diagnosis of mental disorders, and expand access to quality care in regions where professional resources are limited.
In Central Asia, for example, digital tools are already improving telemedicine, multilingual education platforms, and data-driven public health strategies. But for such progress to be sustainable, we need shared principles.
Allow me to highlight three. To get this right, we need a new playbook, built on three core pillars:
First, human-centred design. Technologies must be evaluated not only for efficiency but for their impact on human cognition, behavioural health, and social relationships. We must resist the temptation to adopt systems simply because they are powerful or fashionable.
Second, ethical and inclusive governance. Countries at different stages of development should not be left behind. Without inclusive frameworks, digital inequality will deepen, leading to new forms of marginalisation and instability. We need global standards and cooperation to ensure no country, no community, is left behind. This isn’t just about fairness; it’s about global stability.
Third, strengthening resilience. Resilience is not merely the capacity to withstand shocks. It is the ability to maintain mental integrity, critical thinking, and emotional well-being amid rapid technological change. This requires interdisciplinary education, digital literacy, and policies that safeguard the mental health of young generations.
Our legacy will not be defined by the technology we invent, but by the wisdom we show in governing it. The goal is a future where technology doesn’t replace us, but elevates us. Where it doesn’t overwhelm the mind, but strengthens it. Our era is defined not only by technological innovation but by the responsibility to guide it wisely.
If we succeed, technology will amplify human potential, not diminish it. It will reinforce mental health, not compromise it. It will empower societies to solve problems, rather than create new ones. I believe that the dialogue we have today—among scientists, policymakers, entrepreneurs, and thought leaders—is essential. No single institution and no single nation can address these challenges alone. But together, we can shape a future in which technological development is aligned with human dignity, ethical values, and social well-being.
Let us approach this future with confidence, cooperation, and a commitment to placing the human mind at the centre of technological progress.
