firms

June 26 (Asia Today) — South Korea plans to create an investment and procurement system aimed at producing homegrown security technology companies comparable to U.S. data analytics company Palantir Technologies, the government said Friday.

The Ministry of SMEs and Startups announced the strategy with the Defense Ministry and Korea AeroSpace Administration during a meeting on future security innovation companies at the Blue House.

The plan seeks to accelerate the transfer of advanced civilian technology into national defense and security.

The government aims to develop five security technology companies valued at more than 1 trillion won ($651 million) and 50 companies with annual sales exceeding 100 billion won ($65.1 million) by 2030.

It will designate five strategic sectors covering drones and robotics, defense artificial intelligence and semiconductors, advanced sensors and materials, aerospace technology and cybersecurity and quantum communications.

Officials described the initiative as an effort to cultivate a “Korean Palantir,” referring to the U.S. company known for software that integrates and analyzes large volumes of defense and intelligence data.

The phrase is a policy description rather than the name of a company the government plans to establish.

Investment vehicle modeled on In-Q-Tel

The ministry plans to establish a government-backed investment organization modeled on In-Q-Tel, the nonprofit strategic investor created to support technologies relevant to U.S. intelligence agencies.

The proposed organization would make direct investments in early-stage security technology companies to address funding shortages.

The government also plans to support the establishment of a technology-focused asset management company tentatively called Korea Strategic Technology Partners.

Through government and private investment vehicles, officials aim to create as much as 10 trillion won ($6.5 billion) in strategic technology financing over the next five years.

The money would provide growth capital to startups and smaller companies developing technologies with potential defense, intelligence, aerospace or cybersecurity applications.

Faster research and procurement

South Korea also plans to introduce a special research and development program modeled on the U.S. Other Transaction Authority system.

The system would connect research, testing and government purchasing under a faster contracting process intended for rapidly changing technologies.

Selected companies could receive as much as 10 billion won ($6.5 million) each over five years.

The Defense Ministry and Korea AeroSpace Administration plan to create procurement systems capable of placing some advanced weapons or technologies into initial service within one year.

The government also plans to expand access to defense data through a catalog showing what information may be available to approved companies.

Aerospace authorities will support the development of core technology for a national space data center and platforms that allow businesses to use satellite information.

The strategy reflects the government’s view that traditional defense procurement moves too slowly for technologies such as artificial intelligence, drones, robotics and cybersecurity software.

Support for smaller technology companies

Minister of SMEs and Startups Han Seongsook said the global security industry is shifting rapidly from traditional hardware toward software, data and artificial intelligence.

“The government will provide bold and rapid support so startups and small venture companies with flexible and creative technologies can become leaders in security innovation,” Han said.

The government also plans to protect companies’ intellectual property rights and allow technologies developed through public programs to be adapted for civilian markets.

Officials said the strategy would help smaller companies enter a defense industry that has traditionally been dominated by large manufacturers and hardware-centered weapons programs.

The ministries plan to form an interagency committee, pursue special legislation and revise contracting rules to support the initiative.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260626010009467

The clock is running down on the most consequential deadline the crypto sector has faced in Europe.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

From the start of July, the transitional window under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) closes for good, and companies that have not secured authorisation must either stop serving European customers or wind down altogether.

MiCA is the EU’s first comprehensive law for the crypto industry, bringing exchanges, brokers and digital wallet providers under the kind of formal oversight that has long applied to banks and other financial firms.

It replaces a fragmented mix of national rules with a single rulebook spanning all 27 member states: a company licensed in one EU country earns a “passport” to operate across the bloc, but in return it must meet standards on how much capital it holds, how it is run, how it safeguards customers’ funds and how it prevents money laundering.

“What emerges is a genuine single market replacing the old patchwork of 27 national regimes,” Yamal Kalaf, co-founder of MiCAR Whitepapers Europe, which advises crypto businesses on MiCA authorisation, told Euronews.

Since the core rules took effect at the end of 2024, existing operators have been allowed to keep operating under older national registrations, but that concession was temporary.

Crypto firms need European licences but many are behind

The scale of the looming shake-out is striking.

According to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), which confirmed in April that there would be no extension, only around 210 firms had obtained full authorisation by May, out of more than 1,200 that previously held national crypto registrations across the EU.

That points to a conversion rate of well under a fifth, leaving the vast majority of the old market without a licence as the cut-off arrives in a few days.

Speaking to Euronews, Roshan Dharia, CEO of distressed-investment firm Echo Base, explained that “the low conversion rate suggests that a meaningful portion of the market has concluded that obtaining and maintaining a MiCA licence is not economically viable within its current operating model.”

National regulators have warned that firms operating beyond the deadline without the new licence face enforcement action. France’s markets watchdog has also cautioned that continuing without authorisation could expose companies to criminal prosecution.

ESMA has told unlicensed providers to prepare orderly wind-downs, including transferring customer assets to authorised platforms or self-custody wallets, and to notify clients in advance so they can move funds safely.

“What we will see after 1 July is a smaller, more institutional market with real passporting. That is not a market in retreat. That is a market growing up,” Miguel Zapatero, Head Counsel at Crossmint, told Euronews.

Crossmint is a crypto infrastructure provider whose licensed rails let developers build wallets, custody and payment products.

A market reshaped around licensed rails

Plenty of familiar names have already cleared the bar.

Coinbase has been authorised in Ireland and Kraken in Ireland and Luxembourg. At the same time, the banking app Revolut secured its licence from Cyprus’s regulator late last year, allowing it to offer crypto services across the EU.

For these firms, the new rules promise a reward as unlicensed rivals retreat, the survivors stand to absorb their departing customers.

“MiCA is a genuine regulatory identity shift, not a registration exercise,” Gal Arad Cohen, partner at law firm S. Horowitz & Co, told Euronews.

The most prominent casualty so far may be Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange.

According to Reuters, which cited two people familiar with the matter, Binance is set to lose permission to serve EU clients because its licence application to Greece’s market regulator, the Hellenic Capital Market Commission, is poised to be rejected.

Without approval in any member state, the exchange would be unable to operate across the bloc from July onwards.

Speaking to Euronews, Patrick Mollard, CEO at Fipto, a blockchain-based payments company for businesses, referred to the Binance case by stating that “scale earns you no shortcut to a licence, and that is precisely the point.”

Binance has pushed back, saying it has worked constructively with regulators for 18 months and believes its application met MiCA’s requirements. The company added that it understood the Greek authority had completed its review and found the filing compliant.

The company has promised a further update before 30 June.

The episode has also reputedly taken on a political dimension.

French crypto publication The Big Whale reported, citing unnamed sources, that ECB President Christine Lagarde had opposed Binance’s bid for a Greek MiCA licence.

Euronews could not independently verify the report, and neither the ECB nor the Greek government has publicly commented on the allegations.

The Big Whale also reported that Binance is exploring a potential MiCA application in France after the setback in Greece, a claim that neither Binance nor French regulators have publicly confirmed.

Binance did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Euronews.

A shake-out for smaller crypto firms

Beyond the biggest names, the deadline is expected to push smaller crypto apps and brokers towards licensed custody providers. Rather than building their own MiCA-compliant systems, many are likely to rely on authorised firms to hold customer assets.

“We will see consolidation and transfer of clients as the deadline will not be met by all currently operating entries,” Floortje Nagelkerke, partner at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, explained to Euronews.

The result, analysts suggest, will be a smaller, more concentrated European market, with fewer players, higher barriers to entry and a clear advantage for those holding a licence, but stronger consumer protections.

“People who hold crypto in the EU after 1 July will, on balance, hold it on safer rails,” Miguel Zapatero, Head Counsel at Crossmint, concluded.

China has added 10 United States-based companies to its export control list and barred government procurement from nearly 50 US companies two weeks after the Pentagon blacklisted some of China’s best-known companies for their alleged ties to the Chinese military.

China’s Ministry of Commerce announced the export order on Monday, barring Chinese companies from exporting “dual-use” items that can be used for civilian or military purposes to the US firms.

The list of companies includes rare-earth mine operator MP Materials Corp, rare-earth magnet maker USA Rare Earths, and US defence contractors specialising in fields such as aerospace, drones, synthetic-aperture radar, and shipbuilding and repairs.

Under the order, “foreign institutions and individuals worldwide are also prohibited from transferring or providing Chinese dual-use goods to them” while ongoing export transactions must be suspended immediately.

The Commerce Ministry said the export ban had been issued to “safeguard national security and interests and fulfil international obligations such as non-proliferation”.

China’s Ministry of Finance on Monday separately barred Chinese government procurement from 46 companies, including subsidiaries of major US defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Atomics and General Dynamics. US-funded, locally registered companies, however, have been given an exemption by the ministry.

Experts described Beijing’s orders as a retaliation, albeit a largely symbolic one, against the US after the Pentagon in early June added about 80 Chinese companies and their subsidiaries to its list of “Entities Identified as Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States”.

The designation means the Pentagon either believes the companies are owned or controlled by the Chinese military or they are “military-civil fusion contributors”, a term for commercial companies that contribute to China’s military development despite their civilian status.

The updated list includes Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Holdings, search engine giant Baidu and electric automaker BYD, some of China’s largest and best-known companies.

While the order does not bar US companies from doing business with them, it does impact US defence contractors and their future supply chains.

“We can interpret this as a tit-for-tat response, and that fits into China’s playbook any time we’ve seen escalation from the US side in terms of trade and investment tools,” said Nick Marro, global trade lead analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

China-based supply chain consultant Cameron Johnson said the Commerce Ministry’s order mirrors US semiconductor export controls designed to keep the most advanced chips out of Chinese hands.

“They basically say it doesn’t matter where or who you are, you are bound by this regardless of circumstance,” said Johnson, who is also a senior partner at the Shanghai consultancy Tidal Wave Solutions. “Organisations or individuals in any country or region are prohibited from transferring dual-use materials that originated in China.”

He said Beijing’s orders in practice may be hard to enforce and many of the companies named in those orders have already moved their supply chains out of China or begun to “de-risk” their operations there.

Johnson said the wide scope of companies included in Washington’s and Beijing’s directives could be a sign of more to come and may signal a new front in the US-China trade war.

“This is probably just the beginning of the back and forth,” he said. Last year, after returning to the White House for a second term, US President Donald Trump reignited the US-China trade war, leading Washington and Beijing to impose escalating rounds of tariffs on each other.

Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to a trade truce in October, which was extended during a summit between the two leaders in Beijing in May.

Despite promises to “enhance economic cooperation” during the meeting, observers like Singapore-based geopolitical analyst Steve Okun predicted the goodwill may be short-lived.

“The US’s recent closure of chip export loopholes and China’s continuing addition to its export bans show the national security lane remains active in both capitals regardless of the diplomatic niceties at the recent Trump-Xi summit,” Okun told Al Jazeera.

“There is no ‘truce’ in the US-China trade war. Expect further actions from both sides as well on export controls and investment restrictions,” he said.

Eleven UK travel firms have collapsed into liquidation since 2025, leaving customers seeking refunds after flights and holidays were cancelled and staff made redundant, amid wider uncertainty in the travel industry.

Eleven travel companies have collapsed into liquidation over recent months as the travel industry has been battered by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

The closures since the start of the year have triggered flight chaos and left staff facing redundancy as a result.

In a number of cases, holidays have been cancelled outright, leaving customers scrambling for refunds or compensation.

In Oxfordshire, coach and passenger land transport firm Oxfordshire Travel Limited, based near Kidlington, went into liquidation in October 2025.

The company had traded for a decade before liquidators were brought in, after it was determined the business was no longer able to continue operating or settle its debts.

Set Sail Cruises Ltd, also based in Oxfordshire, was dissolved on March 17, 2026, with all planned sailings cancelled as a consequence.

The agency was just two years old, having been incorporated on February 4, 2024.

In the same county, The Padel Travel Club Limited also shut its doors with approximately £41k in short-term debts — any trips that had yet to depart were subsequently cancelled.

The business was incorporated in February 2023 and has since been struck off the Companies House register following a voluntary strike-off.

Documents suggest the company folded with short-term debts of just over £40,000 and insufficient assets to repay creditors in full, though a final liquidation statement has yet to be made available. Several other travel firms have also felt the full force of the struggling industry.

London-based Regen Central Ltd, an ATOL-licensed travel agency selling flight-and-hotel packages to Europe and Southeast Asia, lost its ATOL on January 13.

Following this, the company fell into liquidation and cancelled all bookings.

Another travel firm, Simply Florida Travel Ltd, based in Glasgow and well-known for selling “dream holidays” including trips to Disney World, was stripped of its ATOL holder status after dissolving in early January.

Holidaymakers were left chasing refunds as all packages and flights were subsequently cancelled.

Gold Crest Holidays, a coach-tour operator running trips across the UK and abroad, also collapsed and ceased trading in early 2026.

Following the liquidation, all members of staff were made redundant.

Numerous other travel companies have also stopped trading or dissolved since 2025. These include Asiara UK Ltd, Jetline Travel Ltd, Great Little Escapes LLP and New Era Travel.

Most recently, Strachan Travel Ltd, a Lancashire-based firm incorporated in 1983, entered voluntary liquidation.

Resolutions to wind up the company were recorded on June 11, with liquidators appointed on June 16, according to The Gazette.

The collapse of these firms comes amid a period of widespread uncertainty in the travel sector, following warnings issued by the Government and airlines in response to the conflict in the Middle East.

However, with a peace agreement now signed and several travel restrictions lifted, there is renewed hope for the industry.

June 8 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer issued an ultimatum on Monday to tech companies, including Apple and Google, to prevent explicit images from being taken or viewed on children’s mobile phones within three months or face legislation compelling them to comply.

Speaking at the London Tech Week show, Starmer said the initiative, requiring operating system developers to enable nudity-detection software or other technical fixes, was a global first that would make Britain the first country where children would not be able to shoot, share or view naked images.

“For too long, people have been told that [children sharing explicit images] is simply the price of modern tech — that nothing could be done. That government is powerless. That parents just have to accept it,” said Starmer.

“I reject that completely because tech should adapt to the needs of society, not the other way round. If we are serious about unlocking the opportunities that tech can bring then we must also be serious about preventing those who want to abuse it — the online predators.

“That is why today, I am calling for tech companies operating in this country to introduce vice controls that prevent children from sending and receiving sexually explicit images. Because this is not an impossible challenge. If they choose not, then we will act and we will change the law,” he added.

Adult phone users are exempted from the changes, but will be required to complete an age-verification process to prove they are over the age of 18.

The phone companies have until September to make the change or legislation will be introduced to Parliament requiring the appropriate software is installed on all phones and tablets sold in the four countries of the United Kingdom.

Starmer’s move came four weeks after Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls Jess Phillips resigned, citing his failure to act on her recommendations to remove the ability for children to take explicit photos of themselves or others.

The government dismissed criticism from advocates of privacy and the right to expression, accusing it of trampling on people’s democratic freedoms.

“The government mandating that all phones in Britain require ID and surveillance software is a crossing of the Rubicon that would make the U.K. one of the most authoritarian internet regimes in the world,” said Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo.

Silkie warned it also raised the specter of spyware in the pocket of every person with a phone that would end up being “exploited for other purposes before long.”

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the government’s motivation was stopping the coercion and sextortion of children and that it was not interested in “surveilling or policing” people’s phones.

“There is no reporting, no data collection, no monitoring, and no images leaving the device,” she explained.

The leader of the Conservative opposition Kemi Badenoch questioned how it would be achieved and said the approach was piecemeal, saying there needed to be a total ban that included social media for children younger than 16.

The BBC’s science team said the technical hurdles were considerable because so much of the child sexual abuse material was shared via encrypted apps such as WhatsApp, Signal and Discord, where the content being sent cannot currently be detected.

In April, the government announced it will pass legislation banning children from using smartphones in schools in England. The law will only apply to England because education policy is devolved to the parliaments and assemblies of the other countries of the United Kingdom — Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The law, an amendment to the government’s flagship education and child well-being bill, formalizes what is already policy in many schools but introduces a “clear legal requirement” that would empower them to enforce it — including removing phones from children before class.

The government is currently also running a public consultation on whether to implement an Australia-style ban on social media for children younger than 16 and a separate initiative to develop screen-time guidance for children older than 5, including the minimum age at which a child should be given first phone and how much time they should be on it.

Department of Commerce issues guidance on chip restrictions amid concerns about loopholes in export control regime.

The United States has issued a notice affirming its restrictions on shipments of semiconductors to subsidiaries of Chinese companies located outside China amid concerns about loopholes in Washington’s export control regime.

The Department of Commerce said in the guidance issued on Sunday that its licensing requirements for the export of advanced AI chips applied to all businesses with headquarters or a parent company in China.

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which falls under the Commerce Department, said it issued the clarification in response to questions about whether it was enforcing preexisting licence requirements after it had overturned former President Joe Biden’s AI Diffusion Framework.

“The answer is yes,” the BIS said in the notice.

Unveiled in the final days of the Biden administration, the AI Diffusion proposed the implementation of a globe-spanning framework to control access to AI chips, including export caps for all but the closest US allies.

The framework drew backlash from tech firms, including Nvidia, the world’s most valuable chip company, which cast the proposal as a threat to innovation and cross-border collaboration.

President Donald Trump’s administration scrapped the framework last May, ahead of its implementation, citing the “burdensome new regulatory requirements” and the harm it would do to Washington’s diplomatic relations with other countries.

Chip giant Nvidia, whose top-of-the-line Blackwell GPUs are banned for export to China, said it had already been operating in keeping with the clarified rules.

“The guidance reaffirms that NVIDIA’s sales and vetting process is correct – consistent with our existing approach, licences are required to ship controlled products to PRC headquartered companies,” a Nvidia spokesperson told Al Jazeera, using the acronym for the People’s Republic of China.

AMD and Intel, Nvidia’s main competitors in the GPU space, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

TSMC, which manufactures the most advanced chips on behalf of clients such as Nvidia, did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The BIS also did not respond to inquiries.

Chris McGuire, a former State Department official who worked on technology policy in the Biden administration, accused the Trump administration of providing Chinese companies a loophole to buy export-controlled chips.

“Chinese companies have been buying these chips, very likely at scale. And because BIS has not updated export control regulations to clearly state what it IS enforcing, all of this was legal,” McGuire said in a post on X.

“This clarification does make clear that Blackwell shipments to China-headquartered companies outside of China are now illegal again – which is good, although obviously we have to see how many shipments have already gone to assess how much damage was done,” McGuire said.

“BIS’ statement acknowledges these shipments have been happening when it says companies who bought chips under this loophole don’t have to stop using them.”

The US has rolled out numerous restrictions on the supply of high-end technology to China, as Washington and Beijing battle for dominance in AI.

In December, Trump announced that he would allow Nvidia to sell its H200 chip to China, in a major loosening of Washington’s export controls.

While not Nvidia’s most advanced chip, the H200 is about six times as powerful as the H20, the most advanced chip previously allowed for export to China.

May 19 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s fast-growing defense industry is confronting a major new obstacle in the U.S. market as the Pentagon fully implements strict cybersecurity certification requirements across its global supply chain.

The U.S. Department of Defense has begun enforcing the final version of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, or CMMC, program, requiring all companies participating in U.S. defense contracts to meet specific cybersecurity standards.

Industry officials warn that Korean defense firms unable to obtain certification could be excluded not only from exports to the United States but also from ship maintenance, repair and overhaul projects and future joint weapons development programs.

The certification system applies not only to primary contractors but also to subcontractors supplying parts and components.

Even companies with advanced technology and competitive pricing can be blocked from bidding if they fail to meet required cybersecurity levels.

For many South Korean defense firms, the most critical threshold is CMMC Level 2, which is required for handling Controlled Unclassified Information, or CUI, tied to U.S. military programs.

The requirement is considered especially important for South Korea’s ambitions to participate in U.S. Navy ship maintenance and repair projects, as well as broader bilateral defense cooperation initiatives.

Defense analysts say the new rules are becoming a de facto trade barrier across Western defense markets.

“Losing access to the U.S. market effectively means being pushed out of the global defense supply chain,” one industry expert said.

Defense Acquisition Program Administration has launched information sessions and consulting support programs in response to growing industry concerns.

The agency is working with regional defense innovation clusters, the Korea Defense Industry Association and the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality to help companies prepare for certification.

But smaller suppliers say the burden remains overwhelming.

Industry estimates suggest that achieving Level 2 certification can cost companies from hundreds of thousands to several million dollars due to infrastructure upgrades, consulting fees and final audits. Preparation alone can take more than a year.

Large defense contractors have already formed dedicated task forces, but many second- and third-tier suppliers lack both funding and cybersecurity specialists.

Because the CMMC system requires certification across the entire supply chain, failure by even a single subcontractor could jeopardize broader export opportunities involving larger Korean defense firms.

Additional complications stem from differences between U.S. and South Korean encryption standards.

One key CMMC requirement involves use of cryptographic modules certified under U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines known as FIPS standards.

Many South Korean defense companies, however, rely on domestic encryption systems validated under the country’s K-CMVP framework overseen by intelligence and defense authorities.

Industry experts are calling for government-level negotiations between Seoul and Washington to seek mutual recognition or equivalency between Korean and U.S. encryption standards.

Some officials argue such talks could be linked to ongoing negotiations over a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement between the two allies.

Concerns are also growing over South Korea’s lack of domestically accredited third-party CMMC assessment organizations, forcing companies to rely on U.S.-based auditors and raising concerns about defense technology exposure.

Analysts say South Korea’s defense industry must now treat cybersecurity as strategically important as weapons performance itself if it hopes to become a top-tier global arms exporter.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260519010005245

WASHINGTON, April 28 (UPI) — Supreme Court justices appeared divided Tuesday morning about whether a U.S. tech company can be held liable for aiding the Chinese government’s alleged torture of a spiritual minority.

The case is centers on whether practitioners in China of the Falun Gong religion — also called Falun Dafa — can sue California-based tech company Cisco Systems for aiding and abetting violations of the 18th-century Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act, which was enacted in 1992.

Cisco attorney Kannon Shanmugam called for barring aiding and abetting liability. He argued that allowing liability to be implied would harm the government’s separation of power.

Much of Tuesday’s debate hinged on whether the statute’s 200-year-old “law of nations” wording was applicable to the relatively more modern concept of human rights abuses, as well as whether the first Congress meant for the victim protection act to include second liability for aiding and abetting torture.

The case marks the latest attempt to define the scope of the statue, which for over two centuries has allowed foreigners to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for serious violations of international law.

More than 20 years ago, Cisco developed and sold to the Chinese government a surveillance system, which the government used to find, interrogate and allegedly torture Falun Gong practitioners.

During arguments for Cisco Systems Inc. vs. Doe I, some justices emphasized Cisco’s awareness of their technology’s role in persecution, while others said that including liability for aiding torture in the alien tort statue contradicted with historical precedent and had foreign policy risks.

But no clear majority converged around either position in the conservative majority court.

“We’ve maybe misled Congress into thinking, ‘Oh, we don’t need to do anything about these human rights things, the courts are taking care of it,'” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.

“I’m concerned at a separation of powers level that we’re not really allowing suits to go forward, but Congress thinks we are because of a lack of clarity in our case law.”

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sotomayor appeared more supportive of those who brought forward the original lawsuit — several Chinese nationals and one U.S. citizen.

Addressing the wording of the Torture Victim Protection Act, Sotomayor told Shanmugam: “I’m not sure how you get to your position that ‘subjects to’ can’t mean aiding and abetting because command liability doesn’t necessarily require subjecting someone to the torture.”

“It makes someone who’s in a command position who knows of the torture and permits it to happen … aiding and abetting. We’ve defined aiding and abetting as an active step in permitting and encouraging the substantive act.”

The Alien Tort Statute grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over any civil action in which an alien sues for a tort “committed in violation of the law of nations or of a treaty of the United States.”

“What’s the point of previous [Supreme Court] decisions that determined U.S. corporations could be defendants?” said Sophia Cope, senior staff attorney at Electronic Frontier Foundation, who helped write an amicus brief in support of the Falun Gong members.

“Excluding second liability from the ATS would be a huge loophole for companies to sell services which are used for human rights violations.”

By rejecting judicially created aiding and abetting liability, the court would close the last major loophole that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have “exploited” to keep cases with such claims under the ATS and TVPA alive, said Cory Andrews, vice-president of litigation at the Washington Legal Foundation. The foundation submitted a brief in support of Cisco in February.

“It would reaffirm that the ATS is a narrow 1789 statute, not a modern vehicle for global human-rights enforcement,” Andrews said.

The case had its origins 15 years ago. In 2011, the plaintiffs — 13 Chinese nationals and one U.S. citizen — filed the original suit in the District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming they were targeted using Cisco’s technology and then detained and tortured.

The district court dismissed the claims, but it was brought to the Supreme Court after a panel of federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed in 2023 that the plaintiffs had met a legal threshold to continue with the lawsuit.

A decision is expected by the end of June.

Taiwan has downplayed the impact of new Chinese sanctions targeting European defense companies involved in arms sales to the island. The measures, announced by China, restrict exports of dual use goods to seven firms, marking a rare move against European entities over Taiwan related issues.

Despite the escalation, Taiwan’s Defence Minister Wellington Koo said the sanctions would not disrupt the island’s ability to procure military equipment.

China’s Expanding Use of Sanctions

Beijing has increasingly used economic and trade restrictions to respond to foreign involvement in Taiwan’s defense. While similar sanctions have frequently targeted U.S. arms manufacturers, extending them to European companies signals a broader willingness to pressure multiple partners simultaneously.

The move reflects China’s ongoing effort to isolate Taiwan internationally and deter military cooperation with the island.

Limited European Military Role

Europe’s direct role in arming Taiwan has historically been limited. Major defense exports such as fighter jets have not been supplied for decades due to concerns about damaging relations with China.

However, smaller scale cooperation and component level trade have continued, making these sanctions symbolically significant even if their immediate practical impact is modest.

Diversified Supply Strategy

Taiwan relies heavily on the United States for its defense needs, but it has also worked to diversify procurement channels in recent years. According to Koo, this strategy ensures that disruptions from any single source, including sanctioned European firms, can be mitigated.

Growing support from parts of Central and Eastern Europe, particularly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has also provided Taiwan with additional diplomatic and logistical avenues.

Geopolitical Context

The sanctions come amid heightened global tensions and shifting alliances. China views Taiwan as its own territory and strongly opposes any foreign military assistance to the island.

At the same time, Taiwan’s security concerns have intensified, prompting it to strengthen international partnerships and defense preparedness.

Analysis

China’s decision to target European companies represents an escalation in its economic statecraft, aiming to widen the cost of supporting Taiwan beyond the United States. While the immediate impact on Taiwan’s military capabilities appears limited, the move could have a chilling effect on future European involvement.

Taiwan’s confidence reflects its reliance on U.S. support and its broader diversification strategy. However, repeated sanctions and pressure campaigns could gradually narrow its options, especially if European firms become more risk averse.

For Europe, the sanctions pose a strategic dilemma between economic ties with China and growing political alignment with Taiwan and its partners. For China, they reinforce its stance on sovereignty while testing how far it can push back against international support for Taiwan without triggering broader backlash.

Overall, the episode underscores how economic tools are increasingly being used in geopolitical competition, even when their direct material impact remains limited.

With information from Reuters.

Shipping companies said several things had to be clarified, including the presence of mines, Iranian conditions, practical implementations.

Shipping companies have cautiously welcomed Iran’s announcement that the Strait of Hormuz is open but said they would require clarifications, including about the risk of mines, before vessels move through the entry point to the Gulf.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the Strait of Hormuz was open to all commercial vessels during a 10-day Lebanon ceasefire accord, prompting a fall in oil and other commodity prices while stock markets rose.

All commercial ships, including United States vessels, can sail through the strait, although their plans need to be coordinated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a senior Iranian official told the Reuters news agency.

Transit would be restricted to lanes which Iran deemed safe, adding that military vessels were still prohibited, the official said.

“We are currently verifying the recent announcement related to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, in terms of its compliance with freedom of navigation for all merchant vessels and secure passage,” said Arsenio Dominguez, secretary-general of the United Nations shipping agency, the International Maritime Organization.

The Norwegian Shipowners’ Association said several things had to be clarified before any ships could transit the strait, including the presence of mines, Iranian conditions and practical implementation.

“If this represents a step towards an opening, it is a welcome development,” said Knut Arild Hareide, CEO of the association which represents 130 companies with some 1,500 vessels.

Shipping association BIMCO cautioned members on returning to the strait.

“The status of mine threats… is unclear and BIMCO believes shipping companies should consider avoiding the area,” said Jakob Larsen, BIMCO’s chief safety and security officer.

The threat posed by mines in parts of the strait is not fully understood, and avoidance of the area by ships should be considered, a US Navy advisory on Friday, seen by Reuters, also said.

German shipping group Hapag-Lloyd on Friday said it was working for its ships to sail through the strait “as soon as possible”, but added that several questions remained.

“Our crisis committee is in session and will try to resolve all open items with the relevant parties within the next 24-36 hours,” it added.

Its Danish peer Maersk said it was closely monitoring the security situation and would act based on its risk assessment.

France’s CMA CGM and Norwegian oil tanker group Frontline declined to comment.

A recent route imposed by Tehran through its territorial waters near Larak Island would present navigational challenges even if vessels were not required to pay a toll, and would raise questions regarding compliance and insurance, said Matt Wright, lead freight analyst at data intelligence firm Kpler.

US President Donald Trump on Friday said Iran had agreed to never close the strait again, and that it was removing sea mines from it.

One of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints, disruption in the strait has forced shipping companies to suspend sailings, reroute cargo and rely on costly workarounds to keep goods moving in and out of the Gulf.

The International Monetary Fund has downgraded its global growth forecast for 2026 from 3.3 to 3.1 percent, citing the impact of the United States-Israeli war on Iran and the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz on the world economy.

The war has damaged energy infrastructure across the Gulf, while critical exports like oil, gas, chemicals and fertiliser remain largely stranded by Iran’s shutdown of the strait and the subsequent US naval blockade of Iranian ports.

In the worst-case scenario of a prolonged war, the IMF said global growth could fall to 2.5 percent in 2026, with low-income and developing economies hit the hardest by soaring commodity and energy prices. The global shipping and logistics industry is facing a separate crisis.

But every economic crisis also has beneficiaries: despite the dire macroeconomic outlook, some corners of the global economy are thriving on the uncertainty.

Here’s a look at five industries that are doing well either despite – or because of – the darkening economic outlook.

Wall Street investment banks

Global investors have been on a rollercoaster since the start of US President Donald Trump’s second term last year. The president’s erratic decision-making, where he often issues an ultimatum one day and then changes it the next, has led traders to coin the term “TACO trade”, where TACO stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out”.

The recent volatility has made some investors anxious, but it’s been a boon to investment banks, which make millions in commissions and revenue from the surging volume of trade, according to Sean Dunlap, a director of equity research at Morningstar Research Services.

“Clients want to reposition, so they trade frequently,” he told Al Jazeera. “Spreads tend to increase, which increases the profitability for trade intermediaries like banks.”

First-quarter results for 2026 – released this week – showed that Morgan Stanley reported a profit of $5.57bn, up 29 percent year on year, while Goldman Sachs reported a profit of $5.63bn, up 19 percent year on year.

JP Morgan Chase also reported major gains, with first-quarter earnings of $16.49bn, up 13 percent year on year. The banks all cited high levels of trading, deal-making, and “robust client engagement” as the reasons behind surging profits.

The boomtime for banks could reverse course, however, if volatility persists for too long, Dunlap warned, because investors may become increasingly cautious and less willing to borrow money to make trades.

Prediction markets

As mainstream Wall Street banks reap profits, the crypto-based prediction platform Polymarket has been earning upwards of $1m a day since the start of the month by letting users make peer-to-peer bets on everything from sports tournaments to elections.

Polymarket has been doing well since the start of the war, but it revised its fee structure on March 30 to cash in even more on its popularity.

Rival platforms like Kalshi, Novig and Robinhood also follow the same business model, but Polymarket has been the standout winner of 2026 because it controversially allows users to bet on the outcome of conflicts like the Iran war.

Polymarket revised its fee structure on March 30 to cash in on its popularity. The change has already netted the platform more than $21m in fees since April 1, up from $11.6m for all of March and $6.23m for all of February, according to DefiLlama, a website that provides data analysis for decentralised finance platforms.

If the current trend continues, Polymarket could make $342m in fees this year alone, according to DefiLlama’s analysis.

Anonymous users have also made millions correctly predicting the dates of major events like the US-Iran ceasefire, but the outcomes for rank-and-file users are typically less impressive.

Researchers found that the top 1 percent of Polymarket users captured 84 percent of all trading gains, according to a new report released this month analysing 70 million trades from 2022 to 2025. The returns are so high that US federal regulators have pledged to crack down on insider trading in prediction markets following suspiciously well-timed bets on Iran war outcomes.

Aerospace and defence

Unsurprisingly, the aerospace and defence industries are booming this year due to major conflicts in Ukraine, Iran, Sudan, Gaza and Lebanon and a surge in global defence spending.

About half of the world’s countries have increased their military budgets over the past five years, according to an April report from the IMF, which means they are also buying everything from drones to missiles — more than ever before. Demand is growing particularly fast in Europe, where NATO countries have committed to raising defence spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035.

The defence industry has, in turn, seen major gains on the stock market. The MSCI World Aerospace and Defence Index – which tracks aerospace and defence stocks across 23 global markets – reported net returns of 32 percent year on year at the end of March.

The defence index outpaced the MSCI World Index, which tracks 1,300 large and mid-cap companies across the same 23 markets. The index, which gives a broader overview of global stock markets, reported net returns of 18.9 percent over the same period.

Artificial intelligence

Last year, the United Nations Trade and Development (UNCTAD) office predicted that the AI industry would grow from $189bn in 2023 to $4.8 trillion by 2033, and the Iran war does not seem to have dented the outlook.

“Despite the shocks from the Iran war, we’re still seeing resilience in a lot of sectors like artificial intelligence and renewable energy,” said Nick Marro, lead analyst for global trade at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

One metric for the AI boom has been the high volume of semiconductor chips still being exported out of East Asia, he said. At the top of the chart is chipmaking powerhouse Taiwan, which reported record-breaking merchandise exports of $80.2bn in March, up 61.8 percent year on year, according to EIU analysis.

The surge was led by exports to the US, which grew by 124 percent year on year, the EIU said.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the world’s top chipmaker better known by its acronym “TSMC,” on Thursday posted a net income of 572.8 billion New Taiwan Dollars (NTD) ($18.1bn) for the first three months of 2026 – up 58 percent year on year in NTD.

Another metric, initial public offerings or “IPOs,” also shows that the industry is confident for the moment, with industry leaders Anthropic and OpenAI both planning to go public this year.

Renewable energy

The Iran war has highlighted the need to transition from fossil fuels not only for environmental reasons, but also for reasons of energy security. The war marks the third major energy shock this decade, following the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The Iran war has “boosted” renewable energy “given the urgency to switch away from fossil fuels and diversify towards renewable sources,” Marro of the EIU said.

Even before the Iran war began, the International Energy Agency reported that global governments were already taking active measures to invest in renewable energy for geopolitical reasons.

According to an IEA report released this month, “150 countries have active policies to advance renewable and nuclear deployment, 130 have energy efficiency and electrification policies, and 32 have policies to incentivise supply chain resilience and diversification across critical minerals and clean energy technologies.”

The Iran war has triggered another flurry of policymaking in Asia, which typically buys 80 to 90 percent of the oil and gas that transits through the Strait of Hormuz. Since the shutdown, the region has been struggling to find alternative sources of energy, forcing governments to deploy emergency measures like fuel rationing and price caps.

South Korea, Thailand, India, Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines have all announced a variety of measures from tax breaks for at-home solar panels to commissioning new renewable energy projects – and even restarting nuclear reactors.

The surge in policymaking has been good for the renewable industry. The S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index, which tracks 100 companies that produce solar, wind, hydro, biomass and other renewable energy across emerging and developed markets, is up 70.92 percent year on year.

April 16 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer put the big five social media firms on notice Thursday that he was considering state intervention, including the nuclear option of a ban, if they did not do more to protect children from being harmed by their products.

Starmer warned executives from Meta, Snap, Google, TikTok and X at a meeting in Downing Street that something had to give, saying a ban on children accessing their platforms would be “preferable to a world where harm is the price” for social media use.

“Things can’t go on like this, they must change because right now social media is putting our children at risk. In a world in which children are protected, even if that means access is restricted, that is preferable to a world where harm is the price of participation,” said Starmer.

“I am determined we will build a better future for our children, and look forward to working with you on this. I do think this can be done. I think the question is not whether it is done, the question is how it is done,” he added.

Executives attending the meeting included Google U.K. managing director Kate Alessi, Markus Reinisch, a public policy principal at Meta, and X’s global government affairs director Wifredo Fernandez.

TikTok was represented by Alistair Law, director of public policy for northern Europe, while Snap was represented by Europe president Ronan Harris.

Starmer put to the firms the negative impacts of social media use on children’s ability to concentrate, their sleep, relationships and the way they view the world that have been flagged by parents and child experts.

“It’s clear to me that parents aren’t asking us for tweaks at the edges, they’re asking us whether a system that clearly isn’t working for children should be allowed to continue at all. Companies have to grip this and work with us to do better by British children,” he said.

No. 10 had earlier acknowledged that some of the tech firms had “stepped up” by disabling autoplay of videos for children by default and providing better tools to parents to limit the amount of time their children spend looking at screens, but took a much tougher line at Thursday’s meeting.

Starmer’s Labour administration has previously pushed back on pressure from parents, educators and child safety advocates for an Australia-style ban for children younger than 16 on fears it could drive them onto the dark web and make them more vulnerable when they eventually begin using the apps by hindering development of their digital skills.

Most social media sites operating in Britain do not permit children younger than 13 to use their products.

However, in the past three months, Starmer’s administration has twice been forced to use its House of Commons majority to override two efforts by the House of Lords, the upper chamber of Parliament, to amend a government bill to include a ban for children younger than 16.

The most recent of these was on Wednesday in which the government defeated the Lords’ latest attempt to force through a ban, but with a reduced majority from the previous vote on March 10. More than 240 of 650 MPs either failed to show or abstained.

In January, 60 Labour Party backbenchers signed a letter urging Starmer to bring forward a ban.

The government managed to fend off the first challenge in March by launching a three-month public consultation on how to proceed with anticipation inside his administration growing that Starmer will yield to pressure for a ban when the findings are published in the summer.