The Inquiry

Serbia’s citizens have been protesting for over six months, taking part in demonstrations around the country in reaction to their government’s alleged corruption. Though the country’s president, Aleksandar Vučić, has attempted to appease them, the movement shows no sign of slowing down.Situated in the Western Balkans, Serbia has had a long history of conflict; from the Ottoman Empire to the dissolution of Yugoslavia, but the ongoing civil unrest comes at a crossroads moment for President Vučić. Serbia is awaiting approval to join the European Union yet remains closely tied with the Kremlin.As the Serbian government seeks to solidify its place in the world, protestors continue their calls for transparency and accountability. This week on The Inquiry we ask “Will Serbia’s mass protests unseat the president?”Contributors: Gordana Andric, Executive Editor at Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, Belgrade, Serbia Dr. Andi Hoxhaj OBE, Lecturer in Law and the Director of the European Law LLM pathway programme, King’s College, London Ivana Randelovic, Senior Programme Officer for Europe at Civil Rights Defenders, Belgrade, Serbia Dr. Helena Ivanov, Associate Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, Belgrade, SerbiaPresenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Daniel Rosney Researcher: Maeve Schaffer Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: James Bradshaw Production Management Assistant: Liam MorreyImage credit: Srdjan Stevanovic via Getty Images

Scientists at a bio-technology firm made headlines when they announced the “de-extinction” of the dire wolf, a species of wolf that went extinct on Earth over 10,000 years ago. Colossal Biosciences examined DNA from ancient dire wolf fossils and used it to create wolf puppies with traits of the extinct species. The gene editing technology sparked curiosity around the world, and although the new wolves were not exact replicas of the originals they had similar traits. The development raises serious questions about what de-extinction really means.Mass extinctions have shaped the history of life on Earth, and nature has adapted across the millennia, but with almost half of all species already in decline, including some frogs, how seriously is de-extinction technology being taken? Contributors: Dr. Beth Shapiro, Chief Science Officer, Colossal Biosciences, California, USA Dr. Daniel Pincheira-Donoso, Associate Professor of Evolutionary Biology and Global Change, Queen's University Belfast, UK Torill Kornfeldt, Science Journalist and author, Sweden Dr. Jay Odenbaugh, Professor of Philosophy, James F. Miller Professor of Humanities, Lewis and Clark College, Oregon, USAPresenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Louise Clarke Researcher: Maeve Schaffer Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey

Earlier this month President Trump announced radical new taxes on foreign imports amounting to what he described as ‘Liberation Day' for the United States. It was a promise he made to American voters during last year’s election campaign but the scale of the tariffs caught many countries by surprise.Global financial markets plunged as investors braced themselves for a shock to the flow of international trade. Faced with prolonged market turmoil, within days the US president paused most of his plans.A to-and-fro between Washington and Beijing has left many world leaders confused who to side with, as many look towards the White House wondering if there is a detailed plan at the heart of these unprecedented few weeks.Contributors: ● Carla Sands, Vice Chair for the Center for Energy and Environment at America First Policy Institute and former US Ambassador to Denmark ● Emily Kilcrease, Senior Fellow and Director of the Energy, Economics and Security Program at the Center for a New American Security ● Victor Gao, Chair professor at Suzhou University and Vice President at the Center for China and Globalization ● Gillian Tett, Provost of King’s College at Cambridge University and Financial Times columnistPresenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Daniel Rosney Researcher: Katie Morgan and Ben Hughes Sound engineer: Nicky Edwards Production co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Editor: Tara McDermott(Photo: US President Donald Trump holds a chart and delivers remarks on reciprocal tariffs at an event entitled Make America Wealthy Again, at the White House, Washington DC, 2 April, 2025. Credit: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

For Russia’s President Putin, the return of President Donald Trump to the White House ushered in a new world order. This has created new diplomatic space for Russia, as Trump’s world view seems more closely aligned with Moscow’s ambitions. Support for Ukraine has diminished, peace talks have been floated, and speculation has grown about a lasting ceasefire. While the relationship between Washington and Moscow appears to be warming, recent tensions show how unpredictable diplomacy between the two leaders can be.Putin’s ambition for Russia as an influential superpower remains but with shifting global alliances how much potential leverage does Putin have to reshape the international order?Contributors: • Kadri Liik, Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations • Maria Snegovaya, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies • Ivan Klyszcz, Research Fellow, International Centre for Defence and Security • Mark Galeotti, Director, Mayak Intelligence; Honorary Professor, University College LondonPresented by Victoria Uwonkunda Produced by Louise Clarke Researched by Katie Morgan Technical producer James Bradshaw Production Co-ordinator Liam Morrey Editor Tara McDermottImage credit GAVRIIL GRIGOROV via Getty Images

SpaceX has revolutionised space travel, making reusable rockets a reality and dramatically reducing the cost of reaching orbit. But two high-profile Starship explosions have raised concerns about the company’s approach to innovation and risk.Commercial spaceflight has rapidly expanded, with private companies looking to harness space resources and build new economies beyond Earth. Reusability has been a game-changer, significantly lowering launch costs and enabling more ambitious missions.SpaceX operates with a philosophy of rapid iteration, treating test failures as learning opportunities rather than setbacks. While this approach has led to major breakthroughs, repeated failures raise questions about long-term reliability and safety. Meanwhile, growing competition from other private space firms suggests the industry is no longer dominated by a single player.With rivals gaining ground and technological hurdles ahead, does SpaceX still have the edge in the new space economy?Contributors: Professor Michelle Hanlon, Executive Director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law in the USAJack Burns, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics in the USADr Ella Atkins is Fred D. Durham Professor and Head of the Kevin T. Crofton Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Department at Virginia Tech in the USADavid Thomas is Director of the Thunderbird School of Global Management's Initiative for Space Leadership, Policy and Business at Arizona State University.Presenter Charmaine Cozier Producers Vicky Carter and Louise Clarke Researcher: Katie Morgan Editor Tara McDermott Production co-ordinator Liam Morrey Technical producer Matthew DempseyImage credit: Brandon Bell via Getty Images

In November, a far right, pro-Russia figure came from almost nowhere to become favourite for the presidency. Calin Georgescu, with no affiliated political party and whose campaign had been largely on social media, won the first round of Presidential elections in Romania. The result sent shockwaves across the continent. But serious allegations surfaced over the legitimacy of Georgescu’s campaign, resulting in Romania’s Constitutional Court annulling the vote and barring Georgescu from standing. After mass demonstrations across the country, it’s clear Romania’s political landscape has been upended. Ahead of the rerun of the vote for president on 4 and 18 May, what will happen now with Romania’s elections? Will the country lean towards a more nationalist future or back the mainstream parties that were previously in power?Contributors: Veronica Anghel, assistant professor at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at The European University Institute, Italy Oana Popescu-Zamfir, director of the GlobalFocus Center, associated expert at Carnegie Europe and associate researcher for the European Council on Foreign Relations, Romania Dr Radu Cinpoes, associate professor of politics and international relations at the University of Greenwich, United Kingdom Costin Ciobanu, political scientist with Aarhus University, DenmarkPresenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Nicky Edwards Editor: Tara McDermott

European leaders have had cause to rethink their roles within Nato recently, in light of statements coming from the US Government. The Trump administration’s dealings with Russia to try and broker a peace deal in Ukraine, have called into question America’s support for the alliance. But whilst the Trump administration say they are not pulling out of Nato and remain committed to the defence partnership with Europe, they have warned that they will "no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency". Nato currently asks member states to spend at least 2% on defence, but US President Donald Trump has consistently told European allies to spend much more than that target. The alliance’s famous Article 5 holds that Nato members will come to the defence of an ally which comes under attack and the assumption has always been that the US would continue to be the anchoring power. But now Europe’s leaders are having to consider whether they could potentially go it alone without American military aid. So, do we need a new Nato?This week's experts include John Deni, author and research professor, US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, USA; Rachel Ellehuus, director-general, The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), London, UK; Toomas Hendricks Ilves, Former President of Estonia, professor at Tartu University; Estonia, Irina Borogan, deputy editor Agentura.ru, non-resident senior fellow, The Centre for European Policy Analysis, London, UK.Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Katie Morgan Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Production co-ordinator: Janet Staples and Liam Morrey (Photo: Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte participates in a bilateral meeting with U.S. Vice President JD Vance (not pictured) at the Commerzbank in Munich, Germany, 14 February, 2025. Credit: Leah Mills/Reuters)

At the beginning of this year, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa signed a bill into law which allows for private land to be seized by the government. Known as the Expropriation Act, it’s a power that many democratic governments around the world can exercise – the seizure of private property for public use in return for compensation. But in South Africa’s case, the plan is not to offer compensation, in certain circumstances, such as if land was needed for public use and all other avenues to acquire the land exhausted. And it is this caveat that has provoked strong reactions both domestically and on the international front. Even within the President’s own party, the ANC, there are those who would prefer more consultation before the law can be implemented. Whilst the Democratic Alliance, the second largest party in South Africa’s coalition government, says that it supports legislation addressing land restitution, it does takes issue with the process followed by the country’s parliament to enact the law. It is testing the Act’s constitutionality with legal action. And now President Trump has signed an executive order cutting US financial aid to South Africa, the order claims that this Act would enable the government to seize the agricultural property of ethnic minority Afrikaners without compensation. For his part, President Cyril Ramaphosa has announced that he’ll be sending envoys to various countries to explain South Africa’s positioning on the Expropriation Act, amongst other recent policy changes. So, on this week’s Inquiry, we’re asking, ‘Can South Africa solve land inequality’?Contributors: Thula Simpson, Author and Associate Professor, Department of Historical and Heritage Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa Tanveer Jeewa, Junior Lecturer, Constitutional Law, Stellenbosch University, South Africa Dr Ralph Mathekga, Author and Political Analyst, Pretoria, South Africa Christopher Vandome, Senior Research Fellow, Africa Programme, Chatham House, UK and Ph.D. Student in International Relations, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Co-Producers: Jill Collins and Bara’atu Ibrahim Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Broadcast Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Image Credit: Shadrack Maseko, whose family has been residing on Meyerskop farm for three generations, looks over a piece of land, in Free State province, South Africa, February 9, 2025. REUTERS/Thando Hlophe

Undersea cables form the backbone of global communication, with over 95% of global internet traffic relying on hundreds of fibre-optic cables criss-crossing the globe. But recent incidents such as disruption to cables in the Baltic Sea have highlighted concerns over their security and raised the possibility of ‘grey zone warfare’. We examine who owns and runs this vast global network, what happens when things go wrong, and what the future holds for underseas cables. Are they powerful enough to sustain future communications, and what role could quantum technology play in their future? To discuss all this are Lane Burdette, research analyst, TeleGeography, Jovan Kurbali, director of the Diplo Foundation and head of Geneva Internet Platform, Erin L Murphy,  senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC and Kristine Berzina, managing director at the German Marshall Fund, Washington DC.Presenter: Gary O'Donoghue Producer: Dan Hardoon and Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: James Bradshaw Editor: Tara McDermott (Photo: Employees of Orange Marine work on the installation of the very high speed submarine cable SEA-ME-WE 5, linking Singapore to France, 1 March, 2016. Credit: Boris Horvat/AFP)

The International Criminal Court was founded to prosecute the world’s worst crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It has secured historic convictions, but its effectiveness is under scrutiny.US opposition has been a long-standing challenge. Donald Trump previously rejected the ICC’s legitimacy, and now, early in his second presidential term, he has imposed sanctions on its top prosecutor. The move echoes past tensions but raises new concerns about the court’s ability to function under external pressure.The ICC also relies on member states to arrest and transfer suspects. A recent case in Italy has highlighted the court’s enforcement difficulties, as Italian authorities deported a Libyan suspect instead of extraditing him to The Hague. Such incidents fuel questions about the ICC’s global authority.Despite its high-profile cases, the court has only secured 11 convictions in 23 years. Its slow trials and high costs have drawn criticism, leading some to question whether reform—or even an alternative—is needed. But with 125 member states still backing its mission, is the ICC an institution the world can afford to lose?Contributors: Dr Viviane Dittrich, Deputy Director of the International Nuremberg Principles Academy in Germany Gerry Simpson, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics in the UK  Rachel Kerr, Professor of War and Society at King's College London in the UK  Mark Kirsten, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, CanadaPresented by Charmaine Cozier Produced by Louise Clarke and Bara’atu Ibrahim Editor Tara McDermott Technical Producer Toby James Production co-ordinator Liam MorreyImage credit: Michael M. Santiago via Getty Images