Ius Gentium

University of Baltimore School of Law's Center for International and Comparative Law Fellows discuss international and comparative legal issues

huchla_blog1_photo4


Leave a comment

Labor Activism Brings Spotlight to Freedom of Speech

Daniel Huchla

Have you ever wondered how your food is made?  More specifically, have you ever wondered if your food is produced ethically? There is one approach that aims to promote compliant business.[i]  The second approach is to expose unethical business practices through investigative journalism. For attempting to expose allegedly unethical practices Andy Hall faced the prospect of up to seven years in prison on the basis of the Thai law of defamation. What about freedom of speech and the press? Using U.S. law as a model, Thailand should modify its law to eliminate the possibility of criminal liability for defamation.

huchla_blog1_photo1

Photo Credit: Kevin Casper – Public Domain Pictures

 

Andy Hall, a British lawyer and academic, collaborated with Finnwatch, a Non-Governmental Organization based in Finland, as a researcher on labor standards in the Food Industry in Thailand.[ii]  This venture resulted in the 2013 publication “Cheap Has a High Price”, exposing immigration and labor issues related to specific producers of tuna and pineapple products in Thailand.[iii]  As a result, Natural Fruit Company Ltd. lost business and brought suit against Andy Hall in Thailand alleging defamation.[iv]  During the course of the multiyear litigation there was a degree of public outcry from elements of the international community on Andy Hall’s behalf.[v] On September 20, 2016, the Bangkok South Criminal Court found Andy Hall guilty of criminal defamation and cybercrimes.[vi]  Hall received a suspended three year sentence and a 150,000 baht ($4,300) fine.[vii]  But, civil liability still looms in the distance, especially if Thailand follows res judicata, by which Hall could be precluded from arguing his civil liability since he has already been found criminally liable, which presumably has a higher standard of proof.[viii]

 

As a  sovereign nation, Thailand has control over the laws and their application within its borders. The issue of domestic sovereignty echoes the common phrase “When in Rome do as the Romans do.”[ix] Under Thai law, defamation can result in criminal and civil liability.[x] Criminal defamation is defined as “imput[ing] anything to the other person before a third person in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned.”[xi] Because Mr. Hall’s work was published online (albeit in Finnish), he was additionally subjected to liability under the Computer Penal Code, which has stiffer penalties.[xii]

huchla_blog1_photo2

Photo Credit: MBogdan – Mary’s Rosaries

Thailand does allow defenses in actions for defamation. A defendant may prove the truth of his statement, or if the plaintiff is a “subject of public criticism” the defendant may assert the statement was a “fair comment” made in “good faith.”[xiii]  In the case of Andy Hall it is uncertain where the gap exists that the defense of truth was unsuccessful. But, there has been criticism regarding the limited sample size for interviews, leading one to believe that the facts may not be inherently false, but just overgeneralized.[xiv]  That this is sufficient to find liability is an unfortunate byproduct of a system that places the burden upon the defendant to prove truth.

huchla_blog1_photo3

What if Andy Hall had investigated a company in the United States instead? Under United States law, the company as Plaintiff would have to show that a false statement was made.[xv]  Changing the burden of proof in this instance would have drastic effect. If the publication was just overgeneralized, it would be equally difficult to prove the statement was false in the United States as it was to prove that it was true in Thailand. Even if the company were able to prove the statement to be false there are further protections for speech in the United States. Depending on whether the company is considered private or public, they would additionally be required to show either negligence or knowing culpability (“actual malice”) on behalf of Mr. Hall.[xvi] With all these protections, Mr. Hall likely would not have been found civilly liable for defamation in the United States. Within the U.S., there are several states that allow for criminal liability for defamation; but, these laws are confined by the same robust protections as civil defamation.[xvii]

However, these protections have not always existed in the United States. The law of defamation has evolved massively over the past sixty years in the United States. Prior to 1964, defamation allowed for per se liability.[xviii] Under this system, falsity was the only thing that needed to be proved.[xix] We don’t have to look very far in United States history for some level of liability to be foreseeable. This change additionally reflects that legal reform is possible and valuable.

huchla_blog1_photo4

Going forward, what should be the reform priorities on this issue in Thailand? Ideally, the burden of proof should be shifted from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Placing the burden upon the defendant can have a chilling effect on speech. The burden of proof coupled with criminal responsibility for defamation is guaranteed to limit speech. In this regard, Andy Hall is just the tip of the iceberg; a Thai woman is facing similar criminal charges for attempting to bring light to the alleged graphic murder of her relative.[xx]

Daniel Huchla is a third year law student at the University of Baltimore and a graduate of Miami University with a Bachelor of Music. During his undergraduate studies, he performed in an International Opera Festival located in Brazil. He also serves as Associate Managing Editor for the University of Baltimore Law Review. Areas of interest include Administrative Law, International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law, and National Security Law. He is currently a Law Clerk with the Law Offices of McCabe, Weisberg & Conway.

[i] http://fairtradeusa.org/about-fair-trade-usa/mission

[ii] http://www.finnwatch.org/en/news/408-andy-hall-found-guilty-in-a-shock-ruling-by-bangkok-court

[iii] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37415590

[iv] Id.

[v] See e.g. https://www.walkfree.org/andy-hall/

[vi] BBC, supra note iv.

[vii] Id.

[viii]  Finnwatch, supra note iii; see e.g. Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008).

[ix] http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/when-in-rome-do-as-the-romans-do.html

[x] See Finnwatch, supra note iii.

[xi] https://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thailand-penal-code.html#325

[xii] https://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/computer-crime-act.html

[xiii] http://kellywarnerlaw.com/thailand-defamation-laws/

[xiv] http://www.dw.com/en/rights-activist-andy-hall-sentenced-for-defaming-thailand-fruit-company/a-19562755

[xv] See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986); 1 Law of Defamation § 5:13 (2d ed.).

[xvi] 1 Law of Defamation § 1:34 (2d ed.)

[xvii] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/criminal-libel-statutes-state-by-state

[xviii] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

[xix] Id.

[xx] http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/6590

grenness_blog1_photo1


Leave a comment

In Defense of Villainy

Esther-Jane Grenness

Mr. International-Lawyer sits down at his desk and boots up his laptop. As is his usual practice, he opens his email and sips his coffee while the morning sun streams pleasantly through his office window. He first peruses a Listserv email from the international arbitration committee of which he is a member. In that email, there are links to a four-part BuzzFeed investigation[1] examining investment treaty arbitration (ITA), sometimes referred to as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Mr. International-Lawyer’s interest is highly piqued, after all, he has served as arbitrator on several investment treaty tribunals.

The opening image of the BuzzFeed investigation’s first installment is enough to get Mr. International-Lawyer’s intellectual-battle-adrenaline pumping. He opens the articles one-by-one and reads on, glued to the pages, his indignation rising with each salacious detail. His fingertips rest on his warm coffee cup. Heat travels from his fingertips along the length of his arm, rushes up his neck, and boils over into his face. He’s almost, though not quite, livid. Having finished reading the exposé, Mr. International-Lawyer fires off a reply-all to the recipient list of the original email. The four-part BuzzFeed article, he argues, is full of wild claims and factual errors. Most graciously, Mr. International-Lawyer directs his colleagues to a factsheet[2] published by the International Bar Association (IBA), which contains point-by-point refutations of assertions made by critics of ITA/ISDS.

grenness_blog1_photo1

In the four-part BuzzFeed series, there are several examples of the very worst abuses of ISDS mechanisms available to foreign investors in the 3,000+ investment treaties dotting the globe. When discussing the role of the lawyers in these examples, one of Mr. International-Lawyer’s colleagues referred to the behavior as the “gamesmanship” in which less scrupulous counsel sometimes engage. While the stories are despicable, and an in-depth analysis of investment treaty arbitration is beyond the scope of this post, a couple things did stand out to me as I read two of the narratives in particular.

In the case of Sri-Lanka’s[3] bad oil-derivatives investment with a contract that was despicably one-sided, I’m quite struck at how little responsibility the BuzzFeed article placed on the executive who signed the deal. Conventional wisdom would say that one should have to pay the natural consequences of one’s own foolish actions, but the BuzzFeed article placed blame entirely on the bank for not doing the executive’s due-diligence for him. Any person heading a corporation, whether state-owned or not, should be at least marginally business savvy. The man who bound an entire nation was one who merely “dabbled” in the stock market. He admitted he didn’t completely understand what he was signing, yet he didn’t seek counsel from those who would understand the contract—lawyers. Even worse, he didn’t even read all parts of the contract.

grenness_blog1_photo2

Ashantha de Mel, the man who didn’t read the contract

While there certainly is an expectation of good-faith negotiations and sound policy reasons for protecting against unconscionable contracts, we’re talking about the head of a corporation here, not a sole-proprietor with little to no bargaining power. Advocating against allowing the bank to collect its money is disruptive to the rule of law—certainly in this instance at least. While morally despicable, law and morality don’t always intersect. Sri-Lanka wanted to block a legitimate enforcement of a contract because it deemed the contract “substantially tainted” and heartily disliked the manner in which the bank courted a signature. Sri-Lanka’s refusal to honor its foolishly-entered obligation is the very sort of arbitrary State action against which investment treaties are designed to protect. Unfortunately, sometimes such a reprehensible outcome is the unsavory result. But the burden lies on the signer to do his due diligence—especially one who signs on behalf of a corporation where a nation foots the bill. The burden should not be placed on a foreign investor to sift through another country’s policies on signatory authority to determine whether the person signing actually had the power bind the corporation over which he presides. An ordinary executive, acting in the ordinary course of business, usually has the authority to bind the company he heads. As such, the bank had a legitimate expectation and a legally vested right to realize its profits, ill-gained as they may have been.

The Mississippi funeral home case[4] is a clear illustration of why investment treaties have provisions to protect foreign investors in the first place. It makes no difference here that the nation against whom the case was brought has a well-developed, usually fair justice system. When the law of the country in which a foreigner invests returns an unjust, clearly biased result, investors have recourse to remedy the wrong. Without such recourses for individuals against States, an investor would have to rely on his or her country of citizenship to intervene. Nations have a choice whether they will intervene on their national’s behalf or not. Investment treaty ISDS mechanisms provide individuals with standing against a Nation.

While the Canadian investor may certainly have been at fault and deserved to lose his case, he was entitled to a fair trial. Clearly, xenophobia, and outright hostility to the “other” element in the case prevailed. Had this been a situation in which the tables were turned and it was an American investor who received the same treatment in, say, Mexico, there would have been no sovereignty objection. The possibility of a foreign tribunal having the ability to question and overturn a sovereign nation’s determination would have been applauded. Only recently have developed countries been truly faced with having to answer for their own capricious actions, if any. Why is it that we now hear such loud protestations over threats to America’s sovereignty? Suddenly objecting to ISDS mechanisms we largely wrote, and founding the objection on grounds of sovereignty and the availability of sophisticated judicial systems is plain arrogance.

grenness_blog1_photo3

Mississippi case jury award

Notwithstanding the above defenses, the BuzzFeed investigation was truly appalling. As one reads the articles, questions churn within one’s mind: How on earth can this happen?!? Who would sanction such egregious abuses? Aren’t the provisions meant to incentivize infusions of much-needed capital into developing countries? Isn’t this a system that protects foreign investors from the vagaries of all-too-often capricious regimes? What went awry? Unfortunately, the answers, and the possible solutions that may reform a legitimacy-challenged system, are complex and difficult to boil down into a high-level, easily digestible summary. There are no easy approaches, but before we advocate for throwing out the kitchen with the sink, we need to consider the costs of dismantling an entire system.

­

<img height=”1″ width=”1″ style=”display:none” src=”https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=1772280696341572&ev=PageView&noscript=1″ />

Esther-Jane Grenness is an evening student in her fourth year of studies at the University of Baltimore School of Law. She graduated from the University of Baltimore in 2013 with a Bachelor of Arts in Jurisprudence and obtained her Associate of Arts from Howard Community College in 2001. Esther is a member of the International Arbitration Committee’s Investment Treaty Working Group of the American Bar Association’s Section of International Law. She also participated in the Mentorship program with the Women in International Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law. In addition to her studies, Esther coordinates government procurement contracts in the mobility sales operations group for AT&T’s Global Business – Public Sector Solutions segment.

[1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/globalsupercourt

[2] http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=1dff6284-e074-40ea-bf0c-f19949340b2f

[3] https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrishamby/not-just-a-court-system-its-a-gold-mine?utm_term=.bjWJaxGwM#.lyzX4wNOq

[4] https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrishamby/homegrown-disaster?utm_term=.jtNOQjN3w#.bcN9yEN0K


1 Comment

Welcome to the New Age, to the New Age (of Dark Tourism): They’re Breathing in…the Chemicals

Margie Beltran

April 26, 2016 marked the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, the most devastating nuclear power plant meltdown in global history.[1]  To celebrate the disaster site’s big “3-0,” Chernobyl has opened its doors to welcome tourists from around the world.[2]  While Prypyat, Ukraine, home of the Chernobyl power plant, was deemed a tourist site in 2011[3], the increased interest in dark tourism has drawn crowds at astonishing numbers over the past year.[4] Kiev-based touring company, SoloEast, estimates that they will be escorting at least 10,000 tourists annually to the abandoned ghost-town and they are not alone in this business venture.[5]

Three decades removed, the Chernobyl disaster has faded from front-page headlines.  The 1986 meltdown is believed to be a consequence of flawed Soviet engineering, lack of safety culture during the Cold War, and detrimental mistakes made by the plant operators during routine testing.[6]  During the test, a lethal interaction of cooling water and hot fuel mixed in the reactor, leading to overwhelming pressure and eventual destruction of the reactor, entitled Chernobyl 4.[7]

Researchers have calculated that the exposure of the inner reactor following the explosive pressure released a mere 5% of the radioactive reactor core.[8]  The materials released are believed to be 400 times more radioactive than the materials released from the atomic bomb used to attack Hiroshima, Japan in World War II.[9]

On the evening of the incident, two plant workers were killed and, throughout the following weeks, 28 more people died due to acute radiation poisoning.[10]  Further, in 2005, 4000 lives were taken from cancer strongly correlated with the exposure of the incident.[11]  The meltdown has also led to an epidemic of thyroid cancer in radiation-exposed children (estimates totaling at least 1800 children)[12] and caused over a third of a million people to flee from their homes, leaving their possessions behind.[13]

Knowing full well of the ongoing devastation and the health risks of radioactive exposure, tour groups continue to flock to Prypyat in astounding and increasing numbers to see first-hand the remnants of the Ukrainian town.

Initially, it seems crass and disrespectful, but here’s the thing: this draw to the morbidity and darkness of human history is not a new development.[14]

Think about it:

  • Pompeii
  • New York City’s Ground Zero
  • Auschwitz Concentration Camp
  • Alcatraz Island
  • London Dungeon

To name a few, all of these sites are hugely popular stops for tourists.  Yes, it is bothersome that there are some companies capitalizing on the exploitation of human disaster areas as a source of revenue, but the macro-level impact of exposing the masses to the darker side of history generally outweigh this concern.  Giving people the opportunity to experience walking along the paths of human atrocity can stimulate conversations and create forums for sharing ideas on how to improve international human relations.

Louisiana State University’s faculty member, Michael Bowman made a statement to U.S. News critiquing the term dark tourism, “It’s more than just gawking at the misery of other people…One of the most profoundly human things we can do is to walk in another person’s shoes, even if only for an hour-long tour.”[15]  In fact, many tour operators in Chernobyl have personal ties to the area.[16]

So then, why is the draw to visiting Chernobyl so disconcerting?  Well, visiting Chernobyl gives rise to potentially dangerous radiation exposure and increased health risks.[17]  Since the incident, the United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has been monitoring the and short- and long-term effects of acute radiation exposure.[18]  While the health effects are not as severe as researchers assumed post-meltdown, there are still increased risks of developing cancer and other disturbing health risks.[19]

Chernobyl is not simply a touring area.  Tour businesses are capitalizing on the dark tourism movement and are putting their customers in danger.  The effects of radiation exposure have been measured and Chernobyl continues to hold high levels of radiation.[20]  Admittedly, researchers who have been monitoring Chernobyl feel the long-terms effects of the radiation should not hold such high concern and the outlook is relatively positive compared to the previously assumed horrors.[21]

However, researchers from both the U.S. and Japan monitoring the long-term radiation health effects of atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki for over 60 years fear there are continued risks including, but not limited to, accelerated immunological aging, higher likelihood of cardiovascular disease, thyroid disease, cataracts, and various cancers.[22]  Some of these diseases have developed over 50-55 years post radiation exposure and are continuing to do so at higher than average rates.[23]  Also, let’s not forget that Chernobyl released materials that were 400 times more radioactive than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.[24]

While the tour groups and researchers promise safe trips to Chernobyl, they really have no way of knowing how much risk they are exposing their tourists to.  Dark tourism is meant for learning about the history of human death and destruction…not to continue the death and destruction.

Margery Beltran is a third year law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law (Candidate for J.D., May 2017).  She holds a Bachelor of Science in Family Science with a minor in Psychology from Towson University.  Her interests include mental health and disability law and international alternative dispute resolution. Margie currently serves as the Volume V Comments Editor for the University of Baltimore’s Journal of International Law. She participated in the 2016 Summer Abroad Program at the University of Aberdeen School of Law in Aberdeen, Scotland.  She is currently an intern in Washington D.C. for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Alternative Dispute Resolution Division.

 [1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/25/world/containing-chernobyl-dome-anniversary-radiation/index.html

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3047031/Chernobyl-thriving-holiday-destination-following-rise-dark-tourism-phenomenon.html

 [3] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

[4] Id.

[5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3047031/Chernobyl-thriving-holiday-destination-following-rise-dark-tourism-phenomenon.html

[6] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

 [7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-12/chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-marks-30-years-with-extreme-tours/7317678

 [10] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx (Acute radiation poisoning is a rare illness primarily found in people near places where nuclear industrial accidents have occurred or those exposed to the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan in WWII.  Radiation sickness is caused by exposure to large doses of radiation usually over a small period of time.  Symptoms vary depending on the amount of radiation the body absorbed, whether contamination is external or internal, and the sensitivity of the tissue affected.  In cases of very severe exposure, weakness, fatigue, disorientation, hair loss, bloody vomit and stools, infections, and poor wound healing are among the immediate effects of radiation exposure.  See, http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/radiation-sickness/basics/definition/con-20022901).

 [11] http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2006/04/inside-chernobyl/stone-text/2

 [12] http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/travel/chernobyl-tourism/index.html

 [13] http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2006/04/inside-chernobyl/stone-text/2

 [14] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-26/chernobyl-a-toxic-tourist-destination

 [15] Id. (U.S. News notes that tours in New Orleans, LA observing post-Hurricane Katrina damage have led tourists to return to the city as volunteers, relocate, or invest in the rebuilding.).

 [16] Id.

[17] http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907953/

[23] Id.

[24] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-12/chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-marks-30-years-with-extreme-tours/7317678

forbes_blog1_photo4


6 Comments

Burkini & Beachside Oppression: Islamophobia Wave Hits France

J. Michal Forbes

Warm sand, clear blue skies and a seamlessly endless ocean. France’s beaches along the Mediterranean have been known as some of the most beautiful beaches in the world, as well as some of the sexiest.  Whether it’s Cannes or Saint-Tropez, visitors expect the same things from French’s shores—sunlight, small swimsuits and sexy women. Then along came the burkini, which to some, threatened France’s cultural beach identity.

Last month, amidst much international scrutiny and speculation, over 30 French towns banned the burkini from their shores.[i] The first question that comes to most people’s mind is what exactly is a burkini.  Designed by Australian Aheda Zanetti, the burkini is a custom swimsuit designed specifically for Muslim women who adhere to the Islamic tradition of dressing modestly.[ii]  The burkini resembles a full body suit and covers the whole body with the exception of the swimmer’s face, hands and feet.

 

Within a matter of hours, the ban on burkinis took social media by storm and suddenly the entire world was looking at France’s shores. French Premier Manuel Valls even supported the towns that wanted to ban the burkinis claiming that France’s beaches should be “free of wardrobe associated with religion and politics”.[iii] He also said the burkini is “an expression of a political project, a counter-society, based notable on the enslavement of women.” Social scientists around the world even chimed in, alleging that the ban was not about swimwear, but about protecting France’s non-Muslim majority from having to confront a changing word and protecting Muslim women from patriarchy. [iv]

France’s ban on burkinis, did not last however. In matter of a few weeks, France’s highest courts held that mayors do not have the right to ban burkinis.[v] Since 1905, the French government has practiced laïcité, under which the government does not recognize any kind of religious influence in governmental affairs. The current ban on burkinis was seen by some as a violation of laïcité, and the government’s interface in religious affairs.

forbes_blog1_photo3

 

The question arises: is the ban on burkinis really an attempt to maintain and cultivate the culture of France’s shores? It may have been originally, but around the world many critics see it as France’s latest attempt to suppress the Islamic faith within its country.  In light of the recent terrorist attacks in Nice this past summer, the ban, which was enacted weeks later, is more like Islamophobia masked as cultural preservation.

The ban on the burkinis was nothing more than a push to further ban Islamic garments. A movement that first began in 2004, when the French government previously banned Muslim headscarves (hijabs) from schools. Then again, in 2011, when France became the first European country to ban wearing in public the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil with an opening for the eyes. Though the ban was ultimately upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in 2014, debate still occurred across the world whether or not this constituted religious oppression. This burkini ban is just the latest law enacted to suppress Islam within France.

forbes_blog1_photo4

The debate surrounding the Ban on Burkinis is far from over. This issue will likely reemerge in the next French presidential election slated for 2017. There is no doubt that the issue of keeping France “homogenous “will be at the forefront.  Once again, burkinis may be banned from France’s shores.

 

If the ban on burkinis becomes national law in France where does religious oppression stop? Will nuns be prohibited from wearing coif? Perhaps priest will be prohibited from wearing clerical collars? However in a country where Catholics make up almost 88% of the population those bans are likely not to happen.[vi] The real issue is Islam and Islamophobia within France.  France’s attempts to remain homogeneous in a world that is multicultural could lead to negative implications for France. And to think, the ban on burkinis was the spark that started the fire.

 

J. Michal Forbes is a proud native of Prince George’s County, Maryland, Ms. Forbes has a fiery passion for international law, travel and frozen yogurt. After receiving her B.A. in Political Science from the University of Maryland, Baltimore she taught ESOL in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area before joining the US Peace Corps in 2011. Ms. Forbes served in the Peace Corps in Ukraine from 2011 to 2013, in a small town between the Red Sea and the Black Sea in Crimea. Fluent in Russian, Ms. Forbes soon caught the travel bug and traveled/worked extensively throughout Eastern Europe during her 27 month commitment. Currently a 3L, Ms. Forbes is a member of the International Law Society, Immigration Law Society, Black Law Student Association and the Women Lawyers as Leaders Initiative. She has worked for Maryland Legal Aid and the NAACP’s Office of the Attorney General. She was recently awarded the honor of being named Article Editor with the University of Baltimore Law Forum, a scholarly legal journal focused on rising issues in Maryland. It is her dream to work for the U.S. government assisting with asylum seekers and refugee. In her free time, Ms. Forbes enjoys eating frozen yogurt with her husband and learning Arabic.

 

[i] http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/europe/woman-burkini-nice-beach-incident-trnd/

[ii] The Surprising Australian origin of the ‘burkini’, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/17/the-surprising-australian-origin-story-of-the-burkini/

[iii] Manuel Valls: Burkini ‘not compatible’ with French values, http://www.politico.eu/article/manuel-valls-burkini-not-compatible-with-french-values/

[iv] France’s ‘Burkini’ Bans Are About More Than Religion or Clothing, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/world/europe/frances-burkini-bans-are-about-more-than-religion-or-clothing.html?_r=0

[v] French court suspends burkini ban, http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/26/europe/france-burkini-ban-court-ruling/

[vi] The Church in Decline: France’s Vanishing Catholics, http://www.ibtimes.com/church-decline-frances-vanishing-catholics-1125241

Lau_Blog 2 Photo 1


Leave a comment

A Comparative Look at Off-Label Pharmaceutical Use

Jasen Lau

On December 2012, the Second Circuit of the U.S. ruled in favor of the defendant in U.S. v. Caronia, stating that the non-misleading speech of off-label[1] promotion by a pharmaceutical representative is protected by the First Amendment. The case drew nationwide attention by pharmaceutical companies, public health scholars, government officials, and health lawyers. Many worried that First Amendment protections trumped public safety in off-label promotion. While the actual ramifications are debatable, Caronia certainly warrants further inquiry. After all, the U.S. is not the only country where off-label prescription and promotion of medications take place. From France to Germany to Japan to India, off-label prescriptions and policies thereof exist, and while most of the policies are similar on the overarching principles, the subtle nuances reflect an ulterior motive that may or may not be noble. Many nations of the world have different yet very similar approaches to off-label prescription use regulation.

The Caronia case arose out of the promotion of a drug called Xyrem, a very powerful central nervous system depressant.[2] The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) deemed the medication’s side effects so severe that the drug warranted a black box warning, the most serious kind of warning the FDA may give.[3] Caronia and Dr. Peter Gleason, representatives for Xyrem’s manufacturer, promoted an off-label use; Gleason said he personally treated patients far younger and older than the approved scope of use. However, the court found that the actual speech of the off-label promotion is protected. In the U.S., off- label promotion is not inherently illegal, but off-label promotion may be used as evidence of misbranding, which is illegal.[4] However, the U.S. does not entirely prohibit all kinds of off-label promotion. In fact, the system is set-up such that pharmaceutical manufacturers may fund research that helps find new off-label uses. The manufacturers may then disseminate the research results.[5] Many concerns arise from Caronia’s ruling: manufacturers will start promoting, while disregarding  public safety; research will no longer be funded; the FDA will be limited in power, and so forth. However, the U.S. is not the only country to tackle the issue of off-label prescription use.

Lau_Blog 2 Photo 1

Off-label use is not a rare phenomenon and nor is it exclusive to the U.S. In fact, off-label use is a very common medical technique used to treat numerous patients worldwide. In Paris, a statistical study suggests that nearly 62% of prescriptions are for an unauthorized use.[6] In the first quarter of 1999, nearly 13% of all prescriptions for children and adolescents in Germany were prescribed off-label.[7] Similarly, 22 German medical centers said off-label use was “common” for a vast majority of the physicians.[8] In Spain, 61% of pediatric physicians prescribe for medications in an off-label manner.[9] 

Yet, how each nation regulates off-label use and the public policies that stem therefrom differ in only the subtlest of ways.The European Union (EU) has established a general policy for off-label use; drugs should be approved and authorized for specific treatments. However, the EU also believes that its Member States should incentivize further research. One possible incentive is a six-month extension to a Supplementary Protection Certificate,[10] extending a manufacturer’s exclusive property rights.[11]  Second, the manufacturer is granted an extra two years of market exclusivity if research is done on a drug that affects less than 5 in 10,000 patients or has become a drug where, without incentives, no pharmaceutical company would want to conduct further research for lack of a justification to the necessary investment of research but the drug still holds potential to treat a condition that otherwise cannot be treated with alternative medicines – also called an orphan drug.[12] The EU did not want “rigid and compelling legal regulations” but a system of incentives to nurture the desire for research over penalizing the lack thereof.[13] This desire stems from the need for pediatric research. Nearly 21% of the EU’s population – nearly 100 million – are vulnerable children with inadequate drug supply.[14] In fact, 50% of medications were never even tested for children before becoming orphan drugs.[15] However, many of the Member States are silent on the issue of off-label prescription in their legislation, relying mostly on the EU. On the other hand, France has a very specific approach that defies the EU’s principles.

Lau_Blog 2 Photo 2

In France, a manufacturer may apply for a “temporary recommendations for use” (RTU) application with the Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé (ANSM). A RTU allows manufacturers to promote a current drug for an off-label use for 3 years. However, this approval is a contractual relationship; upon approval, the manufacturer is legally obligated to scientifically observe and evaluate the affected population.[16] To obtain a RTU, the manufacturer must prove that no other viable treatment for a current disease except for the off-label use of the drug in question.[17] This approach places the burden on the manufacturer, with much less incentive than the EU’s approach. Yet, there are other approaches in the world warrant further analysis. For example, in India, off-label use of any kind is strictly prohibited without exception.[18] In Japan, if the medication is for certain diseases, it can be approved for off-label use without the “preliminary clinical evidence of [the drug’s] effectiveness.”[19] So, approaches vary greatly between nations.

More importantly, the underlying policy behind these regulations – or lack thereof – must be assessed. In the U.S., the ability to prescribe for off-label use is a necessary “corollary of the FDA’s mission to regulate pharmaceuticals.”[20] The goals of pharmaceutical regulation are to protect the public safety, ensure a drug benefits specific patients groups as well as the overall population, and ensuring justice and equity in patients’ access to safe and effective drugs.[21] The regulation of drugs is specifically to ensure that physicians know that off-label use is prescribing a drug for a use that the “regulatory body has not stated is safe and effective.”[22] While these are very noble goals, a nation must not forget that off-label use is integral in medicine since many market drugs have no labeling or approved uses for specific populations.[23] For example, in Calabria, “less than 15%” of all the drugs on their market are meant for children on the basis of clinical trials.[24] While many people also fear off-label use for its inherent risks, the use of medicine is always a balancing act of benefit vs. risk. The FDA’s drug approval process requires drugs to be “safe and effective,” with the definition of safety changing on a case-by-case basis.[25] Drugs cannot always be completely void of risks, which is why a balancing act is necessary. However, if all off-label use is prohibited (as it is in India)  or, arguably, greatly stifled (like in France), then it is impossible to do a risk-benefit analysis since there is no chance to know of the benefits.[26] Therefore, a careful analysis of which underlying principle to adopt is necessary.

Lau_Blog 2 Photo 3

The EU’s incentive approach certainly drives more research because there is seldom a greater incentive than financial. However, France’s approach to patient safety and care – while noble – places a greater burden on drug manufacturers without necessarily promising greater investment returns. However, if patient safety were the only concern, perhaps India’s approach to absolute prohibition would be the best, forcing manufacturers to conduct research for each and every possible use. Yet, Japan’s take could also allow much needed access to medications that would otherwise be either unavailable or not covered by insurance.[27] In the U.S., the approach is to allow research funding but not off-label promotion directly by the manufacturer. Each nation has a specific approach but what is truly at hand is the underlying idea of why each regulation is – or is not – viable. Indeed, it is a balancing act between the public safety, the preservation of regulatory authority, incentivizing research, keeping the manufacturers liable, and ensuring patient access to much needed drugs. Certainly, there is no one true answer – merely a set of ideas that should be adopted only after a nation knows what would be best for its people.

Jasen Lau is a third year law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law. He graduated from the University of Maryland in 2013 with a Bachelor of Arts in English. Jasen took it upon himself to become a certified pharmacy technician and studied several continuing education credits that focus on Medicare Fraud and Abuse prevention, HIPAA privacy and security laws, and ethics in the pharmacy workplace. Jasen has long been in the health care field either working directly with patients or as an assistant to providers. During that time, his obsession with working in health care has grown into policy analysis and counseling. Along with being a CICL fellow, he is also a law clerk for Johns Hopkins Hospital.

[1] The term “off-label” is defined as any use that is not authorized by the FDA.

[2] U.S. v. Caronia, 703 F.3d. 149 (2012) (Xyrem’s active ingredient is gamma-hydroxybutyrate more commonly known as the “date rape drug”).

[3] Id. at 155.

[4] 21 U.S.C. § 355.

[5] Mariestela Buhay, Off-Label Drug Promotion Is Lost in Translation: A Prescription for A Public Health Approach to Regulating the Pharmaceutical Industry’s Right to Market and Sell Its Products, 13 J. Health Care L. & Pol’y 459, 488 (2010).

[6]Christian Lenk & Gunnar Duttge, Ethical and legal framework and regulation for off-label use: European perspective, 10 Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Mgmt. 537 (2014).

[7] Id.

[8] N. Ditsch, et al., Off-label use in germany – a current appraisal of gynaecologic university departments, 16 European J. Med. Res. 7 (2011) (22 medical centers responded to a questionnaire, and of those physicians who responded, 91% said they commonly prescribed off-label use medications).

[9] Roi Piñeiro Pérez, Results from the 2012-2013 paediatric national survey on off-label drug use in children in Spain (OL-PED study), 81 Anales de Pediatría (English Edition) 16 (2014).

[10] Lenk, supra.

[11] REGULATION (EC) No 1901-2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768-92, DIrective 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726-2004, Official Journal of the European Union, Dec. 27, 2006, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:378:0001:0019:en:PDF.

[12] REGULATION (EC) No 141/2000 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products, Official Journal of the European Communities, Jan. 22, 2000, http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2000_141/reg_2000_141_en.pdf

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Lenk, supra.

[17] Joseph Emmerich, et al., France’s New Framework for Regulating Off-Label Drug Use, 367 New Eng. J. Med. 1279 (2012)

[18] Sukhvinder Singh Oberoi, Regulation off-label drug use in India: The arena for concern, 6 Persp. In Clinical Res. 129 (2015).

[19] Id.

[20] 124 Am. Jur. Trials 487 (Originally published in 2012).

[21] Lenk, supra.

[22] Id.

[23] Oberoi, supra.

[24] Francesca Saullo, et al., A questionnaire-based study in Calabria ont he knowledge of off-label drugs in pediatrics, 4 J. Pharmacology * Pharmacotherapeutics 51 (2013).

[25] 2013 Aspatore Special Rep. 5.

[26] Oberoi, supra.

[27] Ditsch, supra; Pérez, supra; see also E. L. Trimble, et al., International models of investigator-initiated trials: implications for Japan, 23 Annals of Oncology 3151 (2012) (In all nations, unless some form of off-label use is either properly documented or approved, the state health insurance will not cover the medication).

SB Blog 3_Photo3


1 Comment

Lèse-majesté in 2016: Erdoğan’s New Ottoman Empire and the European Press

Shane Bagwell

On April 15, 2016, German Chancellor Angela Merkel authorized the prosecution of comedian Jan Böhmermann under Article 103 of the German Criminal Code, a lèse-majesté law prohibiting “defamation of organs and representatives of foreign states.”[1] The Article is so rarely used and outdated that many jurists were unaware of its very existence until recently. The case now heads to the German judiciary for potential prosecution, though the outcome is hardly certain to any of the parties involved. The Chancellor’s announcement represents the broader situation in Europe, which is facing a refugee crisis, culture clash resulting from thousands of migrants entering the EU, and dwindling influence outside of its borders.

Lèse-majesté is an ancient concept dating back to the Romans, who made it a criminal offense to injure the sovereign power of the Roman people. The concept has shifted in its use over the years, and now includes certain crimes against the government as well. The current German law dates back to 1871, when  Kaiser Wilhelm II expanded the definition to include non-royal heads of state in an effort to secure the country’s ability to conduct diplomatic relations more effectively.

Turkey has been an associate member of the European Union since 1963, has been waiting for membership since 1987. However, numerous concerns about issues ranging from human rights to free speech have blocked their accession in one way or another. Since the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War though, Turkish influence over Europe has increased dramatically. A recent agreement between the EU and Turkey provides for more asylum seekers to remain in Turkey in exchange for EU cash assistance and other concessions (including renewed talks of Turkish accession).

SB Blog 3_Photo2

As Europe has grown ever more reliant of Turkey and President Erdoğan for support during the refugee crisis, the Turkish government’s sway over Brussels (and Berlin) has grown drastically. Although Germany was previously one of the leading and most vocal critics of Turkish accession to the EU, Chancellor Merkel’s government has aggressively sought a warming of relations, some would say to the detriment of her own country’s power and prestige. And, with recent German municipal elections strongly favoring a fresh tide of right-wing, anti-immigrant sentiments, she has reason to worry. Not only does the crisis have the power to potentially bring down her government, it could well lead to a collapse of the Union itself. As countries within the Schengen area have closed their borders to prevent the flow of asylum seekers, the cracks within Europe are beginning to show.

Within the last several months, Turkey has arrested scores of journalists and academics critical of the regime. Two journalists from the Turkist newspaper Cumhuriyet were tried for espionage after publishing a video that allegedly showed Turkey’s intelligence agency funneling weapons into Syria.[2] In March, two cartoonists were sentenced to 11 months and 20 days in prison for insulting Erdoğan on the cover of Penguen magazine, on which a cartoon figure of Erdogan is welcomed to the presidential palace by a public servant. Erdoğan tells him, “But this is so dry. We could have at least slaughtered a journalist.”[3] (A prime example of the President’s penchant for irony) The crackdown on journalists and academics syncs up with the Turkish government’s crackdown on Kurds in the southeast of the country, which has been subject to a media blackout, and has been harshly criticized by the free press group Reporters without Borders, whose Turkey page provides a truly damming assessment of free speech within Turkey. [4]

SB Blog 3_Photo1

Unable to resist the temptation of lampooning Turkey’s President over his increasingly dictatorial approach to governance, German comedian Jan Böhmermann released a video entitled “Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdoğan.”[5] The video shows footage of Erdogan’s most absurd public moments, intercut with crackdowns on protesters. “Equal rights for women: beaten up equally,” the song goes, as police beat women with batons.[6] Shortly after the video was aired on German television, the German ambassador in Ankara was summoned before the Turkish government to answer for the affront.[7] Within days, Böhmermann was at it again, this time specifically to test the limits of the free speech laws in Germany. The German ambassador was summoned once again, but this time rather than a verbal lashing, it was to receive a formal complaint that was required for prosecution under Article 103. Chancellor Merkel was faced with a tough decision: support the free speech rights of the Germans (indeed all of Europe), but risk the deal that had been hard worked between the EU and Turkey, or bow to Turkish pressure and cede German prestige and power to assure the agreement’s future. Unfortunately, Chancellor Merkel failed to remember that petulant and brutish tyrants such as Erdoğan will only be emboldened by concessions, a lesson which the rest of the world learned dealing with Germany in the 1930’s.

SB Blog 3_Photo3

Erdoğan’s response to Böhmermann has been to say, “I’m not some sort of tyrannical leader that is hostile to a free press, and to show it, I’m going to request that a foreign government prosecute a comedian for making fun of me.” The inability to recognize the irony of the situation only stands to bolster the argument that Erdoğan might need a lesson in what a “sense of humor is.” Free speech advocates around the world have lined up behind Böhmermann, not because his crass and offensive poem itself was valuable to the public discourse, but because art sometimes requires a shock to the senses in order to stimulate the discussion which this affair has.[8] The authorization for prosecution by Chancellor Merkel represents Germany’s bowing to the power of the new Ottoman Empire, and an abandonment of the core values which Europe seeks to protect. Perhaps the greatest joke here is that concerns such as these have been the largest impediment to Turkey’s accession to the Union. Now we wait to see who has the last laugh.

Shane Bagwell is a 3L at the University of Baltimore School of Law, and a graduate of West Chester University with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. He currently serves as the President of the Military Law Association. His interests are Middle Eastern politics, international conflicts, and the law of land warfare. He is currently a law clerk for the Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, Economic Crimes Division.

[1]Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) (Penal Code) § 103

[2]‘I’m not at war with press,’ says Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, CNN, 31 March 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/middleeast/recep-tayyip-erdogan-amanpour-interview/ (last visited 17 April 2016)

[3]Cartoonists convicted for insulting Turkey’s President, Zeynep Bilginsoy and Ivan Watson, CNN, 26 March 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/26/world/turkey-cartoonists-conviction/ (last visited 17 April 2016)

[4]Reporers Without Borders, Turkey, https://rsf.org/en/turkey (last visited 17 April 2016)

[5]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2e2yHjc_mc

[6]Erdowie Erdowo Erdogan The Video That Made Turkey Mad Enough to Summon the German Ambassador, Foreign Policy Watch, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/29/watch-erdowie-erdowo-erdogan-the-video-that-made-turkey-mad-enough-to-summon-the-german-ambassador/ (last visited 4/15/2016).

[7]Turkey asks Germany to prosecute comedian over Erdoğan poem, The Guardian, 11 April 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/11/turkey-germany-prosecute-comedian-jan-bohmermann-erdogan-poem (last visited 17 April 2016)

[8]Künstler solidarisieren sich mit Böhmermann, Die Zeit, 13 April 2016, http://www.zeit.de/kultur/film/2016-04/jan-boehmermann-satire-solidaritaet-prominente-offener-brief (last accessed 17 April 2016) (auf Deutsch) (in German)

 

Aminzadeh Blog 3_Photo3


4 Comments

No Country for Palestinians: The Deportation Paradox

Alison Aminzadeh

Hisham Shaban Galia traveled ten thousand miles to reach the United States, where he sought asylum.[1] Shaban was escaping the violence that plagued his home in the Gaza Strip, facing violence from both Hamas and Israel.[2] His asylum claim was denied because he failed to meet his evidentiary burden of producing documents to support his claim; he had represented himself pro se.[3] For the past sixteen months, Shaban has been held at an immigration detention facility in Arizona.[4] While Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has determined that Shaban cannot stay in the country, the fact that his home – Palestine – is no longer considered a state poses a problem: how can the U.S. deport someone to a state that, under the eyes of U.S. law, does not exist?[5]  Shaban has since obtained counsel from the non-profit, the Council on American-Islamic relations.[6] His counsel, Liban Yousef, filed a habeas corpus petition for supervised release; if granted, this would allow Shaban to have the opportunity to work.[7] While the petition is still being reviewed, ICE released a “Decision to Continue Detention.”[8] Shaban fears that he will spend his life in the limbo of the detention center, having already spent over five hundred days there.[9] While his case appears unusual, the war-torn Gaza Strip is likely to produce more asylum seekers with similar backgrounds who will be difficult to deport under U.S. law.

Aminzadeh Blog 3_Photo1

Palestine and Israel territory over the past 70 years

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 15 that everyone has the right to a nationality.[10] The history of Palestine is an interesting one: formerly seen as a “home for stateless Jews” in 1947, Palestine now finds itself in the reverse position: Israel has attained statehood, and Palestine has lost its status.[11]

There are four requirements for statehood.[12] First, there must be a population; this means that the alleged state must have people there.[13] Second, a state must have territory, meaning it must be based on some land.[14] Third, the state must have some government; in other words, there has to be some entity making the laws.[15] Finally, a state must have the capacity to enter into international relations.[16] This last requirement acts as a less-objective test and a safeguard for when the international community does not want to recognize a state. By not engaging with that would-be state, the international community can reinforce the idea that the entity is not a state.

There are about fifteen million stateless people worldwide, and the number is growing.[17] Based on the estimates provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Palestinians make up one-third of the stateless people worldwide.[18] Vicent Chetail writes that the Refugee laws for Palestinians are very strict.[19] While Shaban entered the U.S. for the legal purpose of requesting asylum, most Palestinian refugees are only able to enter other countries through illegal means.[20] In the United States, there are about 1,087 asylum seekers reported; however, given their lack of rights and access to resources, the number of asylum seekers in the U.S. is likely significantly greater.[21]

Aminzadeh Blog 3_Photo3

Shaban is not the first – nor will he be the last – Palestinian that the U.S. holds for deportation. When ICE was questioned on how Palestinians have been deported in the past, it asserted that it has coordinated with Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.[22] However, Shaban’s deportation officer gave him the option of being deported to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, or Iraq.[23] Shaban has never been to any of these countries, and considered that this might be a threat; even so, he said he would go anywhere as long as he was no longer in detention.[24]

In addition to the practical conundrum that follows the attempt to deport a stateless person, there are also considerable legal concerns surrounding the international rights of people like Shaban. Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention (1951) clearly states that no signatory shall impose penalties on refugees because of their illegal status, given the dire situations these refugees are fleeing.[25] The U.S., however, did not sign the Convention, but did sign the 1967 Protocol.[26] The Protocol appeared to retain the substantive portions of the 1951 Convention, and only removed the temporal and geographic restrictions, which focused mainly on events occurring in Europe.[27] Still, Chetail explained that the international community’s application of this Convention is problematic, as deportation should be used as a last resort and not a deterrent.[28] Shaban’s lawyer also alleges that the detention is unconstitutional, as it violates his client’s right to due process.[29] While statelessness is not a crime – in contrast, it is a mark of vulnerability – Shaban has remained in detention after being deemed inadmissible to the United States.[30]

Aminzadeh Blog 3_Photo4

Campaign to support the release of Hisham and Mounis Hammouda, also in detention

U.S. domestic law is not silent on the issue, either. The facts of Shaban’s case, as well as the cases of those like him, run directly contrary to the spirit of Zadvydas v. Davis.[31] The U.S. Supreme Court heard the facts pertaining to Kestutis Zadvydas’s detention. Zadvydas was born to Lithuanian parents in a German camp for displaced persons.[32] Neither Germany nor Lithuania would accept him upon deportation.[33] He was ordered to be deported due to his criminal record.[34] The removal period for aliens held in custody was ninety days.[35] After the ninety days passed, Zadvydas filed a writ of habeas corpus.[36] Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, expressed concerns over the constitutionality of a statute that would allow indefinite detention, writing that it is inconsistent with the Due Process Clause.[37] If one is to rely on stare decisis, it is evident that U.S. law does not permit holding Palestinians like Shaban indefinitely. Furthermore, during oral arguments, Justice Scalia had asserted that the burden of finding a country to be deported to lies with the petitioner.[38] Even if this is the standard for petitioners to meet, Shaban has already met it by wishing to be deported to his state of Palestine.[39] The conundrum lies in the refusal of the U.S. to recognize Palestine as a state, and its refusal to employ any alternative that would release Palestinian asylum seekers from indefinite detention.

To send a letter to Phoenix ICE Field Director Thomas Giles; ICE Director Sarah Saldaña, ICE Public Advocate Andrew Lorenzen-Strait, visit this website.

Alison Aminzadeh is a third year law student at the University of Baltimore. She is currently a Rule 16 attorney working on the Human Trafficking Project as a part of the Civil Advocacy Clinic. She is also a Senior Staff Editor for the Journal of International Law, and the former President of the Students Supporting the Women’s Law Center. 

[1] John Washington, The US wants to deport this Palestinian – but first it would have to recognize Palestine, The Nation (Mar. 28, 2016), available at http://www.thenation.com/article/can-you-be-deported-if-you-are-stateless/.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id., citing Universal Declaration of Human Rights , art. 15, Dec. 10, 1948.

[11] Washington, supra note 1.

[12] Motevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, art. I (Dec. 26, 1933).

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Washington, supra note 1.

[18] Id.

[19] Chetail is a professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. Id.

[20] Id.

[21]  Id., citing United Nations High Commissioner, Citizens of Nowhere: Solutions for the Stateless in the U.S., Refugees and Open Society Justice Initiative (Dec. 2012), available at http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/UNHCR_OSJI_STATELESSNESS_REPORT.pdf.

[22] Washington, supra note 1.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 (1951, 1967); States Parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol, UN High Commissioner on for Refugees (last accessed Apr. 10, 2016), available at http://www.unhcr.org/3b73b0d63.html.

[27] Haya Madanat, 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, Hopes for Women in Education (Nov. 15, 2012), available at https://blog.hopesforwomen.org/2012/11/15/1951-refugee-convention-and-the-1967-protocol-by-haya-madanat/; Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, supra note 26.

[28] Washington, supra note 1.

[29] Id.

[30] Id.

[31] Id., citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).

[32] Zadvydas v. Davis, 553 U.S. at 682.

[33] Zadvydas v. Davis, 553 U.S. at 682.

[34] Zadvydas v. Davis, 553 U.S. at 682.

[35] Zadvydas v. Davis, 553 U.S. at 682.

[36] Zadvydas v. Davis, 553 U.S. at 682; 28 USCS § 2241.

[37] Zadvydas v. Davis, 553 U.S. at 690; Washington, supra note 1.

[38] Washington, supra note 1.

[39] Id.