The blast you tolerate and the blast you fear by Robert Perez

History rarely punishes inconsistency. Power simply explains it away. Few examples illustrate this better than the stark contrast between how the United States responded to North Korea’s nuclear ascent and how it confronts Iran’s nuclear ambitions today.

North Korea built its nuclear arsenal almost in plain sight. Across decades Pyongyang tested missiles, violated agreements, withdrew from treaties, and detonated nuclear devices while Washington protested, sanctioned, negotiated and ultimately adjusted. Today North Korea possesses dozens of nuclear weapons and the world, uneasily but unmistakably, has learned to live with it. No American president seriously contemplates invading North Korea to eliminate its arsenal. The risks are too obvious, the costs too catastrophic.

Iran, by contrast, has not built a nuclear weapon. Yet the rhetoric surrounding Tehran often carries the language of imminent confrontation, preventive war and existential urgency. The difference is not technological. It is political, geographic and psychological.

North Korea sits in East Asia, boxed in by China and Russia, buffered by geography and constrained by its own strategic isolation. Any military strike risks immediate devastation of Seoul and potential confrontation with Beijing. The calculation in Washington became painfully clear: stopping North Korea militarily would be worse than accepting a nuclear North Korea. Deterrence, however uncomfortable, prevailed.

Iran presents a different strategic picture. It occupies the center of the Middle East, a region deeply intertwined with American alliances, energy markets and decades of military involvement. Unlike North Korea, Iran is not isolated from regional politics; it is embedded within them. It supports armed groups, competes for influence across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen and challenges the regional balance favored by Washington and its partners.

To American policymakers, an Iranian nuclear weapon does not simply mean another nuclear state. It threatens to reshape an entire regional order. Saudi Arabia might pursue its own bomb. Israel, already living under existential anxiety, could feel compelled toward permanent military readiness or preemptive action. The fear is less about one weapon and more about a cascade of them.

But there is another, less acknowledged truth: credibility and timing shape policy as much as principle. North Korea crossed the nuclear threshold slowly while American attention was divided by Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism and financial crises. By the time Washington recognized the strategic failure, North Korea already possessed a deterrent. The window had closed.

Iran exists in the shadow of that lesson. American officials, whether openly admitting it or not, view Iran through the lens of North Korea’s success. The implicit argument is simple never again allow a state to reach the point where military options disappear. Threats toward Iran are therefore as much about preventing repetition as about Iran itself.

Yet this logic carries its own danger. Preventive pressure can become self-fulfilling. The more Iran feels encircled or threatened, the stronger its incentive to pursue the very deterrent Washington fears. North Korea’s experience sends an unmistakable message to any regime under American pressure, nuclear weapons guarantee survival. Iraq gave them up and was invaded. Libya abandoned its program and collapsed. North Korea built the bomb and remains untouched.

This contradiction lies at the heart of American policy. The United States opposes nuclear proliferation but its actions sometimes reinforce the belief that nuclear capability is the ultimate insurance policy against regime change.

What separates North Korea and Iran then, is not morality or legality. It is perception, of risk, of alliance commitments, of strategic geography and of political memory. Washington tolerated one nuclear reality because it felt powerless to stop it. It threatens confrontation with another because it believes it still can.

Whether that belief prevents catastrophe or accelerates it remains the unanswered question hovering over the Middle East and perhaps over the future of nuclear diplomacy itself.

World NGO day in an age of suspicion by Shanna Shepard

World NGO Day arrives this year under a cloud heavier than at any moment in recent decades. Across continents the political mood has shifted sharply. Governments once eager to showcase partnerships with civil society now treat non-governmental organizations with scepticism, hostility or outright contempt. The result is a strange paradox, NGOs are more necessary than ever, yet increasingly portrayed as enemies of the people they serve.

The renewed political influence of Donald Trump in the United States has symbolized a broader global trend rather than a uniquely American phenomenon. From Europe to Latin America, from parts of Asia to Africa, populist and far-right administrations frame NGOs as unelected actors interfering with national sovereignty. The accusation is simple and emotionally effective, NGOs are foreign agents, elitist activists or ideological machines disconnected from ordinary citizens.

This narrative resonates because it feeds existing frustration. Many voters feel abandoned by globalization, distrust institutions and question experts. NGOs, despite their diversity, become convenient targets. They lack armies, borders or electoral mandates. They are easy to criticize and difficult to defend in political slogans.

Yet this criticism ignores a basic reality. NGOs often step into gaps left by governments themselves. When refugee systems collapse, when environmental disasters strike, when healthcare systems fail vulnerable communities, it is frequently NGO workers who arrive first and leave last. They operate in war zones, famine regions and marginalized neighbourhoods not because it is profitable or politically advantageous, but because someone must do the work.

The danger today is not simply criticism. Debate about accountability is healthy. NGOs should be transparent, efficient and open to scrutiny. The danger lies in deliberate delegitimization. Laws restricting foreign funding, bureaucratic harassment, smear campaigns and public rhetoric portraying activists as traitors create a chilling effect. Civil society shrinks quietly, long before citizens notice the consequences.

History shows that weakening NGOs rarely strengthens democracy. Instead it concentrates power. Independent organizations act as early warning systems, documenting abuses, amplifying minority voices and challenging governments when policies harm human rights. Removing those watchdogs does not eliminate problems; it merely removes witnesses.

Ironically, many politicians who attack NGOs benefit indirectly from their work. Disaster relief reduces social unrest. Humanitarian assistance stabilizes regions that might otherwise produce migration crises. Development projects create opportunities governments alone cannot sustain. NGOs often perform functions states depend on but prefer not to acknowledge.

World NGO Day should therefore be less about celebration and more about reflection. The sector must confront its own shortcomings: occasional paternalism, lack of local representation and communication failures that allow critics to define the narrative. NGOs must listen more closely to communities and explain their missions in plain language rather than institutional jargon.

But governments and citizens also face a choice. Do we want societies where only state power and market forces operate, or ones enriched by independent civic action? NGOs represent organized compassion, structured dissent, and collective responsibility beyond national borders.

In an era marked by polarization and suspicion, defending NGOs is ultimately about defending the idea that ordinary people can organize to solve shared problems without waiting for permission from political leaders. That idea is uncomfortable for authoritarian instincts, but essential for democratic resilience.

World NGO Day reminds us that civil society is not an obstacle to democracy. It is one of its last lines of defence.

Loyalty without gravity by Kingsley Cobb

Politics rewards loyalty but blind loyalty has a shelf life. In the case of Kristi Noem, that expiration date may arrive sooner than many in Donald Trump’s orbit expect. What once looked like political devotion strong enough to secure her place in the former president’s inner circle increasingly resembles something more volatile: a liability disguised as allegiance.

Noem built her national profile by positioning herself as one of Trump’s most dependable defenders. She embraced his rhetoric, mirrored his confrontational style and carefully crafted an image of ideological alignment that appealed to his base. For a time, that strategy worked brilliantly. In the modern Republican ecosystem, proximity to Trump functions almost like political currency, and Noem spent years accumulating it.

But loyalty alone does not guarantee durability. Trump’s political brand thrives on strength, momentum, and control. The moment an ally begins to generate more controversy than advantage, the relationship changes. Political history shows that Trump rarely hesitates to distance himself from figures who stop serving his narrative of winning.

Noem’s recent public struggles have shifted the perception surrounding her. Instead of appearing as a disciplined messenger advancing a shared agenda, she increasingly comes across as a source of distraction. Controversy can energize supporters when it reinforces a larger political message; it becomes dangerous when it feels personal, chaotic, or self-inflicted. The difference is subtle but decisive.

The risk for Trump is not ideological disagreement, he tolerates very little of that anyway but reputational drag. His political instincts are transactional. Allies are valuable when they amplify his dominance or broaden his coalition. When they begin drawing headlines that compete with his own or create unnecessary turbulence, loyalty becomes secondary to optics.

Noem’s predicament illustrates a broader phenomenon in Trump-era politics. Many rising Republican figures believed unwavering public loyalty would secure permanent favor. Yet Trump’s political ecosystem operates less like a traditional alliance and more like a constantly shifting reality show cast. Visibility matters, but so does control over the storyline. Anyone who disrupts that narrative risks becoming expendable.

There is also a deeper strategic issue. Trump’s movement increasingly revolves around personal branding rather than shared governance priorities. That structure leaves little room for ambitious allies trying to build independent national identities. Noem’s attempts to elevate her profile may have been intended to demonstrate usefulness and leadership potential. Instead, they risk signaling competition rather than support.

Ironically, the very enthusiasm that elevated her could accelerate her political decline within Trump’s circle. Blind loyalty often discourages self-correction. When political figures define themselves entirely through allegiance, they lose the flexibility needed to recalibrate when circumstances change. What begins as disciplined support can evolve into overexposure.

For Trump, the calculation will be simple, does Noem help him win, or does she complicate his message? If the answer leans toward complication, history suggests sentimentality will play no role in the outcome.

The lesson extends beyond one politician. Modern populist politics rewards intensity but punishes missteps harshly. Loyalty may open doors, but it cannot replace strategic judgment or political restraint. In an environment driven by constant media scrutiny and rapid narrative shifts, even the most devoted allies can become cautionary tales.

Kristi Noem may still believe unwavering loyalty secures her future. The harder truth is that loyalty without gravity eventually spins out of orbit and in Trump’s political universe, falling stars rarely get a second launch.

Me My Mind & I #08: Felon #Cartoon by Patrick McWade

 

A different way to check internal and external ...thoughts!
'Me My Mind & I' is a cartoon series by Patrick McWade.
For more 'Me My Mind & I' HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

Roberto Assagioli: Synthesis of the Kundalini Ascent by Rene Wadlow

Roberto Assagioli (1888-1974) whose birth anniversary we mark on 27 February was an Italian psychotherapist, father of an approach called “Psychosynthesis”, a younger collaborator of C.G. Jung and S. Freud before the break in approach between Jung and Freud.  Although Assagioli is closer in spirit to the work of Jung, Assagioli is often considered as the person who introduced the thinking of Freud to Italians.

Assagioli was born into an intellectual Jewish family in Venice, a family which was very interested in the thinking of India.  Assagioli's mother was an early member of the Theosophical Society, interested in Hindu and Buddhist approaches to the development of the person.  Roberto Assagioli continued this interest, but did not mention it in his writings.  As Jean Hardy notes in the analysis of Assagioli's work A Psychology with a Soul (1) “He explicitly kept these mystical interests separate from psychosyntheis, but clearly his wide knowledge of many centuries of spiritual thought is relevant to the theory and practice eventually developed in psychosynthesis - though this is rarely acknowledged in his therapeutic writing. This split has made the job of tracing the influences on psychosynthesis quite difficult, and sometimes speculative...Like Freud, and indeed most psychiatrists today, he was determined that his work should pass muster and be accepted as a respectable scientific theory.  In the twentieth century, a scientific study of the unconscious has just begun.  But psychosynthesis, like psychoanalysis, was developed outside the universities, in a 'school'; it is still not widely accepted or known by academics.”

However, if one knows something about the founding and early period of the Theosophic Society founded by Helena Blavatsky (1831 – 1891) and the important place that teaching about the role of chakras played in the early days of the Society, one can easily see how the mother of Roberto Assagioli passed on to her son the chakra teachings which form the structure of psychosynthesis.  One can also see why, if one wants to be taken seriously within the scientific milieu, one would not stress the chakras and kundalini as the heart of one's approach.  To start with, it is not clear if the chakras are within the physical body or are energy centers outside the body but closely related – an energy body separate but very close to the physical body.

Each of the chakras is a power center involved with the experience and expression of the energy particular to its individual function. Each energy center is moving at different speeds, and can be symbolized as a wheel – the meaning of chakra in Hinduism. The chakras are totally interconnected but each is partially closed or open.  When a chakra is fully open, it gives power of perception and creativity.

The seven major chakras are located at the base of the spine, at the genitals, the solar plexus, the heart, throat, middle of the forehead (the third eye) and at the top of the head (the crown) which when open is an avenue for cosmic energy. At the base of the spine is said to be a fire-like energy, the kundalini, which, with practice, can flow upward to open and balance the other chakras, making for a harmonious synthesis.  The techniques for the upward flow of the kundalini are the use of the power of the will, the use of visualization, and the techniques of controlled breathing – all techniques which Assagioli uses in psychosynthesis – His best known book being The Act of Will. These techniques are not to be used mechanically but with care and attention.  With practice, experience, intelligence and intuition, much progress can be made.

For Assagioli, each chakra is the location of a “subpersonality”.  The subpersonality may be so strong as to fix the kundalini, preventing it from continuing its course to open all seven chakras harmoniously.  Thus, one of the first steps in psychosynthesis is to “dis-identify” with a particular subpersonality. To give two common examples: the kundalini may remain fixed in the genitals giving an over-emphasis to sexual pleasure which can then go from pleasure in a sexual mode to a total identification with one's sexual orientation and to a constant craving.  Likewise, if the kundalini is blocked in the solar plexus, home of emotions, the emotional aspect of life can become overdeveloped and lead to imbalance rather than harmony.

Assagioli remains outside the major psychoanalytic schools – Jungian or Freudian but is better known in New Age circles and in trans-personal psychotherapy – a thinker well worth knowing.

Note
1)      Jean Hardy. A Psychology with a Soul (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987, 245pp.)

 **************

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

Puppi & Caesar #40 #cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Another cartoon with a mean and know-all of a bully cat, Puppi and her intellectual, pompous companion categorically-I-know-all, Caesar the squirrel!  

For more Puppi & Caesar, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

The quiet exodus from the American dream by Virginia Robertson

For generations the United States stood as the ultimate destination, a place where ambition met opportunity, where reinvention was not just possible but expected. The “American Dream” was more than a slogan; it was a global promise. Yet today a subtle but undeniable shift is taking place. Increasing numbers of Americans are not arriving in search of that dream, they are leaving it behind.

This migration is not driven by a single political figure or one election cycle, even though the era of Donald Trump undeniably accelerated national divisions and forced many Americans to reassess their future. The deeper story stretches across three decades of transformation. The America many citizens grew up believing in feels increasingly distant from the reality they now inhabit.

The most immediate pressure is economic. The cost of living in major American cities has spiraled beyond recognition. Housing, once the cornerstone of middle-class stability, has become an exhausting financial battle. Rent consumes salaries. Home ownership, once an attainable milestone, now feels like a luxury reserved for the wealthy or the lucky few who bought property decades earlier. Even professionals with solid careers, teachers, engineers, nurses, find themselves financially stretched in ways their parents never experienced.

Healthcare remains perhaps the most alarming symbol of this change. In the wealthiest nation on earth, illness can still mean bankruptcy. Americans carry a quiet fear that a medical emergency could undo years of work overnight. The absence of universal healthcare has created a psychological burden as heavy as the financial one. By contrast, many European countries offer systems that prioritize stability over profit, allowing citizens to live without calculating the price of survival.

Education, once America’s proud export to the world, has also shifted. University degrees increasingly arrive alongside lifelong debt. Younger generations question whether higher education still guarantees upward mobility. Public schools struggle with inequality tied to geography and income, reinforcing divisions rather than dissolving them.

Social tensions add another layer to the departure. Political polarization has hardened everyday conversations into ideological battlegrounds. Crime anxiety, whether statistically consistent or amplified by perception, shapes how communities experience public space. Meanwhile, debates around race, identity and belonging have intensified, leaving many Americans exhausted by a culture of constant confrontation. For some, relocation to Europe represents not escape but relief, a chance to live in societies perceived as calmer, safer and less defined by permanent crisis.

Europe, of course, is no paradise. It carries its own economic struggles, bureaucratic frustrations and political uncertainties. Yet many Americans arriving there speak less about perfection and more about balance. Walkable cities, accessible healthcare, public transportation and a slower rhythm of life create an appealing alternative. The attraction is not luxury but livability, a cozy apartment, reliable services, evenings that do not revolve around financial anxiety.

What makes this moment remarkable is its symbolism. For much of modern history, migration flowed toward America. Now, the current moves in both directions. The shift suggests not the collapse of the United States but a recalibration of expectations. Americans are no longer convinced that success must be pursued within national borders.

The American Dream has not disappeared; it has simply lost its monopoly on hope. As citizens pack their lives into suitcases bound for European towns and cities, they are not rejecting their homeland entirely. They are searching for something increasingly rare: stability, dignity, and the freedom to live without constant struggle. In doing so, they force a difficult question back home, when people begin leaving the dream what does that say about the dream itself?

The legacy of barbed wire by John Kato

History rarely remembers political movements for the policy details they debated in committee rooms. Instead it remembers symbols, walls, speeches, images that crystallize an era’s moral choices. For critics of former U.S. President Donald Trump and much of the modern Republican Party, one such symbol has become unavoidable: detention centers filled with migrants, families separated, and a border policy defined less by administration than by deterrence through suffering.

Whether fair or politically charged, the question lingers, will the detention infrastructure built and expanded in the early twenty-first century become the defining legacy of Trump-era conservatism? Trump did not invent immigration enforcement. Detention facilities existed under previous Democratic and Republican administrations alike. Yet his presidency transformed immigration from a bureaucratic challenge into a cultural battlefield. The language shifted dramatically, migrants framed not merely as unauthorized entrants but as existential threats to national identity. Policy followed rhetoric. Family separations, prolonged detentions and the normalization of harsh holding conditions became not unfortunate side effects but visible instruments of political messaging.

Supporters argued that sovereignty requires enforcement. They saw chaos at the border, overwhelmed asylum systems, and communities demanding order. To them, tougher detention policies represented realism rather than cruelty, a government finally willing to enforce laws others hesitated to uphold.

But politics is not judged only by intent; it is judged by imagery and consequence. The photographs of children behind fencing, overcrowded facilities and stories of desperate families traveled far beyond American partisan debates. Internationally, they reshaped perceptions of the United States, a country long accustomed to presenting itself as a moral leader on human rights.

Critics contend that this was not simply immigration policy but moral theater. Detention became spectacle, proof of strength aimed at voters anxious about globalization, demographic change and economic insecurity. In this view, the Republican Party’s embrace of hardline border politics reflected a deeper transformation: from advocating limited government and free markets toward mobilizing cultural fear as a central organizing principle.

The political calculus was clear. Immigration energized a base that felt ignored by elites. Tough enforcement polled well among core supporters. Electoral incentives reinforced escalation. Once detention became a symbol of political resolve, retreating from it risked appearing weak.

Yet legacies are unpredictable. Political movements rarely control how future generations interpret their choices. Policies framed as necessary security measures today may later be remembered as moments when compassion yielded to anxiety. The debate over detention centers is therefore less about logistics and more about national identity, what kind of power America believes itself to be.

For Republicans, the challenge moving forward is whether border enforcement remains synonymous with harsh confinement or evolves into a broader vision balancing security with humanitarian credibility. Parties survive by adapting; legacies harden when adaptation fails.

Trump’s era forced Americans to confront uncomfortable questions about borders, law, and belonging. But history’s verdict will not hinge solely on whether detention worked as policy. It will hinge on whether the images associated with it, barbed wire, crowded rooms, frightened families, come to define an entire political generation.

If that happens, critics may indeed label the detention system the enduring monument of Trump-era politics, not legislation carved in marble, but a memory etched in steel fences and moral controversy.

#eBook The Return of the Cold by Ethan Campbell

 

The winds howled through the jagged peaks of the Carpathian Mountains, a shrieking, unearthly cry that carried with it a suffocating chill, colder than any mortal had ever known.

It was a wind that clung to the skin and gnawed at the bones seeping into every crack and crevice, whispering of forgotten horrors. The sky, once clear and bright, had now darkened, the final embers of daylight flickering out like a dying star. Night fell not with the usual stillness, but with a kind of ominous weight, as though the earth itself was holding its breath.

At the base of these ancient mountains, nestled within the crumbling stone walls of a secluded village, an old man sat by the fire. His name was Lorenz, and in his weathered hands he held a tattered journal. Its pages, yellowed with age, had been passed down through the generations, pages written by those who had sought to learn the truth and had never returned.

He had seen the world change around him, but this truth had remained constant, lurking in the shadows of time.

Ethan Campbell, natural born stand-up comedian who never made it any further from his toilet’s mirror, so he turned into writing fantasy and paranormal stories.

Ovi eBook Publishing 2026

The Return of the Cold

---

Read it online or download HERE!
Read it online & downloading it as PDF HERE!
Or enjoy reading it online & downloading it as PDF HERE!
All downloads are FREE!

**********************************

Check Ovi eBookshelves HERE!

2nd opinion, quarantined! 26#04 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Seriously, a human hater self-centred agoraphobic in quarantine!
I think you’ll need a second opinion after this.

For more 2nd opinion, quarantined!, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

Litigation and International Arbitration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence by Dr Fernando Messias, PhD

Efficiency, Legitimacy and the Future of Adjudication

Artificial intelligence is no longer an auxiliary technological resource. It has become a structural component of contemporary legal practice. In international arbitration in particular, AI is reshaping not only procedural efficiency but the epistemological architecture of decision-making itself.

In my recent book, The Practice of Law and International Arbitration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, I argue that AI must be understood not as a substitute for human judgment, but as a cognitive extension of it. From document analysis and predictive modelling to natural language processing and blockchain-assisted contracting, AI tools are redefining the operational reality of arbitral proceedings. Yet efficiency alone cannot justify their integration. The legitimacy of arbitration depends on fairness, transparency, and the preservation of procedural guarantees.

These themes are further developed in my article, Artificial Intelligence and International Arbitration: Ethical, Procedural and Regulatory Challenges under the New CIArb Guidelines, published in the Journal of Internet Law(Wolters Kluwer; February 2026). There, I examine the 2025 CIArb Guidelines as a pivotal normative moment in the governance of AI within arbitration. The Guidelines recognise the inevitability of technological integration while insisting upon principles of human oversight, accountability, data protection and procedural transparency.

The central tension is therefore clear: how can arbitral institutions and practitioners harness AI’s capacity to optimise evidence review, procedural management and decision support, without undermining party autonomy, equality of arms and the right to be heard?

AI-assisted arbitration introduces a fourth structural actor into proceedings: the algorithm. When algorithms assist in identifying relevant documents, modelling reasoning pathways or supporting drafting functions, they influence outcomes — even if indirectly. This raises questions that go beyond technical compliance. Can an award remain fully legitimate if essential analytical steps are shaped by systems whose internal logic may not be entirely transparent? Who bears responsibility when algorithmic tools materially affect legal reasoning?

Beyond efficiency, AI is also transforming the cognitive environment in which arbitration operates. Predictive systems can identify patterns in awards, litigation outcomes, and judicial behaviour, potentially influencing strategic choices long before a hearing begins. While this enhances analytical precision, it may also generate new asymmetries between technologically equipped parties and those with limited digital resources. In this sense, AI not only accelerates arbitration but subtly reshapes its balance of power.

Moreover, the regulatory landscape is evolving unevenly across jurisdictions. While the European Union advances a risk-based regulatory framework for AI and institutions such as CIArb provide soft-law guidance, other regions remain at the policy or strategy stage. This regulatory asymmetry creates additional complexity for international disputes involving multiple legal cultures and technological standards. Cross-border enforceability of awards may, in future, intersect with questions of algorithmic integrity and procedural transparency.

The debate, therefore, is not whether AI should be used in international arbitration — it already is. The true question is how to structure its use in a manner that enhances procedural integrity rather than dilutes it.

At the forthcoming conference Litigation and International Arbitration in the Age of AI (26 March 2026), hosted by the Global Academy for Future Governance – globally operating  consultancy organization with over 850 experts and 360 partners from 100 countries around the world, and its event’s supporters, these issues will be addressed from a multidisciplinary perspective, examining legality, authenticity, morality, trust and compliance in the digital era.

The GAFG half-day conference will particularly emphasize professional responsibility, confidentiality and data protecting whilst dwelling on judicial attitudes towards AI assisted lawyering. It will contextualize how predictive analysis and generative technologies can find their space in the courtroom, in a manner that is both ethical yet futuristic.

The future of arbitration will not be decided by technology alone. It will depend on whether we succeed in aligning innovation with the foundational values of justice. Artificial intelligence can accelerate proceedings, expand access to justice and improve analytical rigour — but only if governed by coherent ethical and regulatory frameworks grounded in human responsibility.

The age of AI is not the end of human adjudication. It is a test of its resilience.

---

Dr Fernando Messias, PhD is a lawyer, arbitrator and mediator based in Lisbon, Portugal. He specialises in international arbitration, international trade law, corporate strategy and competition law, with extensive experience in complex cross-border disputes and commercial negotiations.

He holds an LL.M in International Trade Law and a Postgraduate Diploma in International Arbitration, a PhD in Tourism, and a Postdoctoral qualification in Psychology. He is a Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb).

Dr Messias is the author of The Practice of Law and International Arbitration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence(Springer, 2025), where he explores the intersection between AI, law and adjudication, with particular emphasis on ethical governance and procedural integrity.