Ius Gentium

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


2 Comments

Global Warming, Climate Change, and the Kyoto Protocol

Jasmine Pope

Australia is known for many things: kangaroos, koala bears, whale watching, surfing, swimming with dolphins, and grilled shrimp on the barbie. But that’s not all it’s famous for: The Great Barrier Reef brings in hundreds of thousands of tourists to Australia every year. The Great Barrier Reef is considered to be one of the seven wonders of the natural world[1], was granted World Heritage status in 1981,[2] and is larger than the Great Wall of China.[3]  The reef consists of 300 coral cays, 600 tropical islands, and 3,000 individual reef systems.[4] But, the Great Barrier Reef is more than a tourist attraction or an economic resource: it’s a network of marine sanctuaries and, unfortunately, it is dying.[5]

Pope_Blog1_Photo1

Global Warming and the Great Barrier Reef

In the past thirty years, the Great Barrier Reef has lost more than half of its coral cover, with global warming resulting in coral bleaching.[6] Coral bleaching is the loss of algae[7] and has affected more than 900 miles of the Reef.[8] Bleaching is a result of rising water temperatures, which have been exacerbated by man-made climate change.[9] Since 1998, bleaching has occurred four times (1998, 2002, 2016, 2017), but this latest bout of bleaching has demonstrated the shortest gap ever: one year. Just last year the Reef saw an unprecedented amount of coral bleaching. Approximately 67% of corals died in the worst-hit northern section in 2016.[10] Scientists are almost certain that the rising water temperature is a direct result of carbon emissions and climate change.[11]

The Kyoto Protocol and Climate Change

The Kyoto Protocol, based on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is a binding international agreement that sets emission reduction targets.[12] It was adopted in Japan on December 11, 1997 and entered into force on February 16, 2005.[13] The Kyoto Protocol sets binding targets for countries party to the agreement.[14] More than 150 years of industrial activity from developing countries is in large part responsible for the high levels of greenhouse gases.[15] The Kyoto Protocol requires countries to mainly use national measures to meet their targets. During the first few years , thirty-seven countries and the European community agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly all States have ratified the treaty with the exception of one big player: The United States.

Pope_Blog1_Photo2

Many people view the Kyoto Protocol as being the first step towards combatting climate change.[16] Former President Bill Clinton called the Kyoto Protocol “environmentally strong and economically sound.”[17] But not everyone is convinced that the Kyoto Protocol has lived up to its expectations. The U.S. Senate voted 95-0 against the treaty and ultimately, in 2002, Former President George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. support from the deal deeming it “fatally flawed.”[18] Ultimately, Former President Bush was not wrong. Three major polluters of the world are free from the restraints of the Protocol: the United States, China, and India.[19]

What to Do?

The Kyoto Protocol was the first step, but it cannot be the only step. Scientists are warning us that the Great Barrier Reef is now “at a terminal stage – with large portions having no hope of recovery.”[20] The World Wildlife Fund-Australia is looking to not only halt the decline of species and the health of the ecosystem: they’re also looking to reverse it.[21] It is not a Sisyphean task for the corals to recover under normal conditions, but it would take decades. The coalition government in Australia recently announced that $18 million would be spent on six projects to improve and protect the Great Barrier Reef.[22] Jon Brodie, a water quality expert, called the $18 million package “small and unlikely to return any real gains.”[23] The Great Barrier Reef Water Science Taskforce estimated that with would cost $8.2 billion for water quality targets to be reached by 2025.

Global warming is happening and this is not an alternative fact. We need to stop writing off climate change as an issue that the next generation can fix. The time to act has long since come and gone, but there is still a lot that we can do now. This damage is not completely permanent. If we take action now to decrease carbon emissions and greenhouse gases, we can work towards reversing a lot of the damage that has already been done and unfortunately time is not on our side.

Pope_Blog1_Photo3

It is not enough to say that global warming and climate change are happening: steps beyond the Kyoto Protocol need to be taken. What those steps are? I’m not exactly sure. Maybe it is cooperation from multiple nations, donating money, and man power to protect and rehabilitate the Great Barrier Reef. Maybe it’s an international agreement dedicated solely to saving the Great Barrier Reef, as well other wonders that are in jeopardy. Maybe it’s simply more awareness on the issue and getting people to care. But one thing I am sure of is that if we don’t act now, it is possible that we could be the last generation to experience the wonder of the Great Barrier Reef.

Jasmine Pope is a second year law student at the University of Baltimore. She graduated from Towson University in 2015 with a Bachelor of Science in Political Science, with a minor in History. Jasmine is extremely interested in and passionate about international human rights, particular the rights of women and children. She also participated in the Summer Study Abroad Program in Aberdeen, Scotland. She has also studied abroad in Benalmádena, Spain. Currently, she serves as the Secretary for the International Law Society. Jasmine is currently a member of the Inter-American Human Rights Moot Court Team. Jasmine is also a Staff Editor for the Journal of International Law and works for the Law Office of Hayley Tamburello.

[1] http://www.greatbarrierreef.org/

[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-39524196

[3] http://www.greatbarrierreef.org/

[4] http://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/oceans/great-barrier-reef#gs.0Lc6RdQ

[5] http://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/oceans/great-barrier-reef#gs.0Lc6RdQ

[6] http://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/oceans/great-barrier-reef#gs.0Lc6RdQ

[7] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-39524196

[8] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-39524196

[9] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-39524196

[10] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-39524196

[11] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-38127320

[12] http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

[13] http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

[14] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/mar/11/kyoto-protocol

[15] http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

[16] http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

[17] http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/02/16/kyoto-protocol-10-years-of-the-worlds-first-climate-change-treaty/

[18] http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/02/16/kyoto-protocol-10-years-of-the-worlds-first-climate-change-treaty/

[19] http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/02/16/kyoto-protocol-10-years-of-the-worlds-first-climate-change-treaty/

[20] https://futurism.com/scientists-announce-that-the-great-barrier-reef-is-officially-terminal/

[21] http://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/oceans/great-barrier-reef#gs.0Lc6RdQ

[22] http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/04/13/18-million-great-barrier-reef-projects-too-late-scientist

[23] http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/04/13/18-million-great-barrier-reef-projects-too-late-scientist


Leave a comment

International Law, the Eighth Amendment, and the Death Penalty

Christian Kim

Should international views be given greater consideration in the interpretation of the evolving standards of the Eighth Amendment?

The United States has been pressured by the international community for its stance on capital punishment.  This pressure has recently been reignited with the state of Arkansas announcing the execution of eight death row inmates in the span of ten days at the end of the month.[1]  Although historically many nations exercised capital punishment, the majority of modern day states have either curbed or completely outlawed capital punishment.[2]   In the case of S v. Kaywanyane and Another, South Africa’s highest court ruled that, “[e]veryone, including the most abominable of human beings, has a right to life, and capital punishment is therefore unconstitutional.”[3]  Canada, after a five year moratorium, passed the C-84 bill, which abolished the death penalty.[4]  As one of the prime leaders in the world for human rights movements, the international community has been puzzled by the United States’ archaic stance on capital punishment.  Despite attempts to kick outside influence from our courts, we have seen such international influence creeping in starting as early as Paquete Habana.  Even the heated topic of capital punishment has not been immune to international influence.

Kim_Blog1_Photo1

In Thompson v. Oklahoma[5], the Supreme Court found that the execution of an individual under the age of 16 would be a cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment’s contemporary standards of decency.  The plurality talked about the “evolving standards of decency,” which was stated in Trop v. Dulles as an indicator of a “maturing society.”[6]  To reach this evolving standard of decency, the court stated that it “is also consistent with the views expressed by… other nations that share the Anglo-American heritage” and additionally, “by the leading members of the Western European Community.”[7]  The court even referred to three human rights treaties that prohibit juvenile capital punishment in the footnotes, specifically: Art. 6(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 4(5) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Art. 68 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.[8]

Kim_Blog1_Photo2

In Roper v. Simmons[9], the Supreme Court concluded that capital punishment for a juvenile is unconstitutional.  While the court elaborated that international views “do not dictate the outcome of our Eighth Amendment inquiry” the court mentioned that the international community is “instructive for its interpretation of the Eight Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’”[10]  The court looked at various statistics in the world to point out that “only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990.”[11]

In Atkins v. Virginia[12], the Supreme Court ruled that imposing the death penalty on mentally handicapped individuals would be a cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.  Even though the court relied on its conclusion based on only domestic findings, the majority mentioned in a footnote that the internationally community opposes capital punishment for mentally handicapped individuals[13]

Kim_Blog1_Photo3

To determine what constitutes cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment, our courts placed an emphasis on the “evolving standards” in our nation.  Although there has been a lot of opposition on the use of international views to determine our constitutional rights, it is not a novel practice to have our courts cite international laws or sources, as shown throughout history.  Through transnational seminars and conferences, legal dialogues between our judges and judges from around the world are increasingly common.  From the cases observed here, the international views our courts referenced were not contrary to our values.  In fact, our courts aligned with foreign views which brings up the idea that there is an international consensus against certain penal practices.  Foreign law and international law, are still very persuasive laws.

It is time for the United States to re-examine our capital punishment policies with the international community’s views as a persuasive source.  Even though our nation has shifted in the same direction as these abolitionist countries, the United States is in the minority where capital punishment is acceptable.  Our nation joins a small group of countries who are regularly seen as one of the biggest human right violators, such as North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, China, Iran, and Egypt.  Our capital punishment policy has been nothing but a failed project on criminal deterrence and its continued use is an international embarrassment.  When our officials criticize other nations that have terrible human rights records, those countries deflect our criticisms and point out our archaic retentionist policies.[14]  As a result, it would be in our nation’s best interest to re-examine the death penalty, with the international view as a persuasive source, and to persuade the Arkansas governor to halt the execution of these eight individuals, in light of the evolving standards of decency.

 

[1] http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/03/03/Death-penalty-opponents-outraged-at-Arkansas-assembly-line-of-executions/4681488566121/

[2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/07/world/south-africa-s-supreme-court-abolishes-death-penalty.html

[4] http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/rht-drt/08-eng.shtml

[5] Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 830 (1988).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 831.

[9] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

[10] Id. at 575

[11] Id. at 577.

[12] Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

[13] Id. at 316.

[14] www.nytimes.com/2001/06/10/world/veteran-us-envoys-seek-end-to-executions-of-retarded.html.


Leave a comment

United in Paralysis

Bradley Willis

On April 1, 2017, the armed forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad launched a chemical weapon attack on a Syrian hospital.[1]  Unfortunately, this attack is not the first instance of chemical warfare in the Syrian Civil War.[2]

Raging for the past six years, the Syrian Civil War has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children.[3]  In 2012, then-President Barack Obama drew the non-infamous “redline”, claiming it would “change my calculus” if chemical weapons were used in the Syrian War. [4] While the Obama Administration appeared to be heading towards another intervention in the Middle East, the administration soon reversed itself, placing its hopes on a deal reached with the Russian Federation.  In this 11th hour deal, the Russians were to oversee the destruction of President Assad’s chemical weapons.[5]

While the United States may well have avoided another Middle Eastern quagmire and may well have ceded prestige and influence to the Russians, the world largely watched the horror unfold as thousands of Syrian citizens were rendered helpless by chemical nerve agents.  The world was horrified at the effects of the nerve agents, and yet the world continued with business as usual.

Willis_Blog2_Photo1

Just as then-President Obama was torn between military intervention in the Syrian Civil War and non-intervention, President Trump is torn between intervening in a years-long war and remaining on the sidelines.  Even though candidate Trump campaigned on an “American First” platform, consistently claiming he was against the Second Iraq War from the beginning, the President must understand that America must stand for the non-use of chemical or biologic weapons against citizens, or even on the battlefield.

America, from its founding, has stood for the universal rights of freedom and self-determination, enshrined in our Declaration of Independence from George III, chief among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  While, like all nations, the history of the United States is tainted with horrific episodes, the United States stands for human rights.  In the history of the world, the United States is one of the only, if not the only, nation that fought a brutal civil war to set other men free from bondage.

Furthermore, the United States, and its allies, fought two World Wars under the principles of self-determination and freedom from tyranny, persecution, and genocide.  From the ashes of the Second World War rose the United Nations.  That institution too, seems incapable of stopping Assad’s gas attacks.

Willis_Blog2_Photo2

     Protected by the Chinese and Russian veto, the Syrian government will probably never pay for its gross violation of international law and the laws of war.  This then begs the question: if the United Nations is no longer an institution capable of protecting the innocent, then what is its purpose in its current form?  What would make this institution capable of truly bringing violators to justice and face the consequences of their actions?

There has been some discussion on reforming the United Nations Security Council.  In what form would such an arrangement take?  Would there be any permanent members removed from their permanent positions?  Who would take their place?  In the event present permanent members are not removed, what members would receive permanent membership?  Finally, how would that affect the veto powers?

Some have offered the addition of the “BRIC(S)” as permanent members to the Security Council, minus the already-permanent members of Russia and China.  As the leading emerging economies Brazil, India, and South Africa would receive permanent status as well as a veto.

Willis_Blog2_Photo3

As the largest country in South America, Brazil would add diversity to the Council, as it would be the only permanent member from South America.  As another emerging economy with a large population, and a democracy, India would be a leading candidate to receive permanent status.  However, given various geopolitical concerns, China would likely vocally oppose any such appointment to the Security Council’s permanent members.  Pakistan, India’s longtime rival, would oppose such an appointment as well.  Given the absence of an African voice on a permanent basis, South Africa would probably receive the veto and permanent status.  But the question would then turn to the following: given the dilution of the veto, what would be its power? 

Would the United Nations determine that since there would be as many as eight members, would any veto require just one permanent member to halt a resolution, or would two members be necessary?  Could this body become more democratic, with “majority rule” be the rule?  If that is the case, how would the decidedly non-democratic states of Russia and China respond?  They could, one could plausibly foresee, cut back on their involvement in the Security Council, deciding that they no longer have as much of a stake in the body.

While the United Nations has been unable to protect the innocent in conflicts like Rwanda, the Sudan, Syria, or Eastern Ukraine, the UN must reevaluate its work.  The United Nations appears paralyzed and incapable of living up to providing for peace and prosperity for all nations.  Perhaps a remedy for this apparent paralysis could include more permanent members of the Security Council while revising the current rules regarding the veto powers of the permanent members.  

While the United Nations expressed outrage as from this most recent chemical weapons attack against an innocent civilian population, the UN has not taken any concrete actions against Bashar al-Assad.  While President Trump campaigned on an “America First” platform, the president’s most recent actions[6] are polar opposites of such a course.  United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley stated that, regime change in Syria is “inevitable.”[7]

Willis_Blog2_Photo4

It appears that President Trump is evolving in his new role as commander in chief and as leader of the free world.  From campaigning on an “America First” platform to his strikes against Syria, and the dispatching of the USS Carl Vinson strike group to the Korean Peninsula, President Trump has shown he is willing to use military force to further the interests of the United States in the absence of United Nations action.[8]

Bradley Willis is a 3L at the University of Baltimore School of Law.  He graduated from the University of Delaware (2014) with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and minors in History and French and studied abroad in Caen, France.  His areas of interest are international relations, history, politics, and the laws of war.  Bradley spent a semester externing with the Hermina Law Group, researching and writing sovereign immunity issues as well as embassy law.  Last year, he participated in the Philip C. Jessup Moot Court Competition.  He is currently a law clerk for the Law Office of David B. Love, P.A.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/09/middleeast/syria-missile-strike-chemical-attack-aftermath/index.html

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?utm_term=.4ada9a3de471

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/world/middleeast/death-toll-from-war-in-syria-now-470000-group-finds.html?_r=0

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/?utm_term=.598421a987c9

[5] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23876085

[6] Fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles were launched from two American destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea against the airfield the Syrian armed forces launched their chemical attack

[7] http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/09/middleeast/syria-missile-strike-chemical-attack-aftermath/index.html

[8] http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/09/politics/navy-korean-peninsula/


Leave a comment

The Walls Are Closing In! Torture in Global Prison Systems

Bryana Spann

On March 1, 2017, Spike TV premiered the first episode of “Life: The Kalief Browder Story”, a six-part docu-series about the life, incarceration and death of Kalief Browder. In 2010, Browder was arrested at the age of sixteen for allegedly stealing a backpack and then held in pretrial detention at Riker’s Island for over 1,000 days, with more than 700 days in solitary confinement.[1] For many, his questionable detention is reminiscent of the “The Angola 3”, three men who were held in solitary confinement for a combined total of more than 100 years for the killing of a prison guard at Louisiana State Penitentiary.[2] Even in 2013, a South Carolina inmate was sentenced to 13,680 days (37.5 years) in disciplinary detention for posting on Facebook 38 times.[3] Once again, we must bring to our attention what seems to be an unrestrained administration of solitary confinement in the United States and the rest of the world.

Spann_Blog2_Photo1

Solitary confinement is defined as the physical isolation of individuals who are confined to their cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day.[4] Although a popular tool of punishment, it has several negative psychological effects. In an interim report, the Special Rapporteur of the on Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Juan E .Méndez drew attention to the widespread use and disadvantages of solitary confinement.[5] Symptoms include anxiety, depression, paranoia, and self-harm for those who had no history of mental illness. [6] In fact, suicides occur disproportionately more often in segregated units than elsewhere in prison.[7] For those who entered with mental illness, there can be an exacerbation of those symptoms. [8] Even post isolation, these symptoms can continue and affect social interactions because of lack of mental health services.[9] The lack of sustained social interaction can cause impairment in the human brain similar to a traumatic injury.[10] In December 2007, several experts and in psychology and law convened at the International Psychological Trauma Symposium to issue the Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement.[11] The joint statement also noted that the psychological pressure when used on purpose of isolation regimes can become coercive and can amount to torture, especially when the pressure pre-trial detainees to plead guilty. [12] Effort is required to raise the level of meaningful social contacts for prisoners, via psychologists, psychiatrists, religious prison personnel, or even family and friends, to decrease the harmful effects of solitary confinement.[13] The joint statement, along with many other rights advocacy groups, has encouraged the prohibition of solitary confinement for children under the age of 18, mentally ill prisoners, and death row or life-sentenced prisoners by virtue of their sentence.[14]

Torture has long been acknowledged as a jus cogens norm in international law, meaning that a State cannot derogate from the prohibition. In the context of international organs, prolonged solitary confinement (longer than 15 days) can amount to acts prohibited by article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and torture as defined in article 1 if the Convention against Torture due to the severe adverse health effects and the possible irreversible psychological effects.[15] The Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture has pointed out that solitary confinement should not be used in the case of minors or the mentally disabled.[16] The Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Prevention of Torture have both urged states to abolish the use of solitary confinement, or at least use it only in exceptional circumstances under strict regulation.[17]

Spann_Blog2_Photo2

Although the Convention on Torture has been widely ratified with 160+ state parties, including the United States, extended solitary confinement has been one that many countries seem to make excuses for. The primary justifications for solitary confinement usually fall under five general categories: to punish an individual; to protect vulnerable individuals; to facilitate prison management of certain individuals; to protect or promote national security; or to facilitate pre-charge or pre-trial investigations.[18]

Spann_Blog2_Photo3

These justifications seem to seep into the perception of the public, especially those who are opposed to the death penalty. Ramzi Yousef, the man behind the World Trade Center bombing, was sentenced to 240 years plus life in solitary confinement in 1998.[19] Anders Bering Breivik, the right-wing extremist who killed 77 people in Norway, has been kept in solitary confinement since his 21 year sentence was handed down in 2012. This is notable, since Norway has signed and ratified the ICCPR, the Convention on Torture, and the European Convention on Human Rights, including Protocols 1 – 15.[20] Most people would not deny the danger these persons pose to the public but the conversation becomes murkier when the conversation of solitary confinement turns to immigrants or prisoners of war. With over an estimated 80,000 U.S. prisoners being kept in isolation,[21] there has to be a shift in dialogue to a more humane form of punishment that does not break the psyche. As of now, the imposition of solitary confinement is at the discretion of prison administrators[22], whose main concern is to maintain prison order. However, criminal recidivism has been occurring at a higher rate for those in solitary confinement,[23] which in general poses a greater risk to the public. It may be time to look at alternative methods of punishment or make it more of a policy issue that involves the legislature so that stories, such as the Kalief Browder story, stop themselves from replicating.

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/time-kalief-browder-story-review-185022084.html

[2] http://www.npr.org/2016/03/19/470828257/after-decades-in-solitary-last-of-the-angola-3-carry-on-their-struggle

[3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/hundreds-south-carolina-inmates-sent-solitary-confinement-over-facebook

[4] http://solitaryconfinement.org/istanbul

[5] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/GA66session.aspx

[6] Id.

[7] http://jaapl.org/content/38/1/104

[8] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/GA66session.aspx

[9] Id.

[10] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/03/30/hellhole

[11] http://solitaryconfinement.org/istanbul

[12][12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id. See also, http://www.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Documents/Issues/Disability/A.63.175.doc&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1; http://www.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Documents/Publications/Slides/SlidesChapter8.pptx&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1.

[15] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx

[16]http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT%2fOP%2fPRY%2f1%2fADD.1&Lang=en

[17] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/GA66session.aspx

[18] Id.

[19] http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/09/solitary.confinement/index.html

[20] http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/search-on-treaties/-/conventions/chartSignature/3; http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=129&Lang=EN

[21] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35813348

[22] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/03/30/hellhole

[23] http://solitarywatch.com/facts/faq/


Leave a comment

The Bahrain Blues

Elizabeth Hays

Bahrain, its name meaning “two seas,” is a small island nation located on the eastern coastline of Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf.[i] Dating back to the time of the Romans, Bahrain was an important trading center.[ii] Centuries later, the Al Khalifa tribe rose to power in 1820 and established a treaty relationship with Great Britain.[iii] Bahrain became an independent state in 1971.[iv] Considered a constitutional monarchy with an elected legislative assembly, Bahrain has been ruled by King Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa since 1999.[v] When he first became Head of State in 1999, King Khalifa released all political prisoners and gave women the right to vote.[vi] Lately, however,  the Bahrain government has been accused of major human rights violations and has seen an increase of low level unrest between security forces and protestors.[vii]

Hays_Blog2_Photo1

On February 21st 2017, Bahrain’s Council of Representatives voted 31-1 on a proposed amendment to Bahrain’s Constitution that would enable military courts to try civilians.[viii] The Council of Representatives is the elected lower house of Bahrain’s National Assembly and is made up of 40 seats.[ix] Next, the proposed amendment will go to the upper house of Parliament,[x] the Consultative Council, which is made up of 40 members that are appointed by King Khalifa.[xi] Article 120 of Bahrain’s Constitution states that proposed amendments to the Constitution require the approval of 2/3 of both chambers of Parliament and approval of King Hamad.[xii] If approved there and by King Khalifa, the amendment is implemented and could have detrimental effects on the Bahraini people.[xiii]

Currently, Article 105(b) of Bahrain’s 2002 Constitution states that “the jurisdiction of military courts shall be confined to military offenses committed by members of the Defense Force, the National Guard, and the Security Forces.”[xiv] If approved, this bill effectively removes limitations on military courts by expanding their jurisdiction to civilians[xv] This change would further empower security forces amid a crackdown on dissent at a level not seen since the 2011 Arab Spring protests.[xvi] Yet, Brig. Gen. Yussef Rashid Flaifel, head of the country’s military courts, said the change is necessary to fight rampant terrorism in the nation.[xvii] The explanatory note on the proposed amendment confirms this intent by citing that the spread of terrorism in the region and the military courts flexibility and speed in investigations and sentencing justifies removing the restriction.[xviii]

Despite the national security concern, activists are outraged over this potential amendment.[xix] “The Bahraini king is effectively creating a police state with this de facto marital law” said Sayed Alwadaei, the director of advocacy at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy.[xx] The last time military courts prosecuted civilians was in 2011 in state of emergency in Bahrain. During that three-month time frame, the courts convicted approximately 300 people of political crimes in prosecutions designed to punish those in the opposition and to deter political opposition [xxi] Doctors, nurses, and the Bahrain 13 (a group of political leaders and human rights defenders sentenced to between five years and life imprisonment) were among the 300 convicted.[xxii] In June and August 2011, King Hamad transferred these cases to civilian courts, which upheld the results of the convictions, which were based on exercising basic rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.[xxiii]

Hays_Blog2_Photo2

Furthermore, the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (“BICI”), an international panel appointed by the King to investigate abuses, determined that the fundamental principles of a fair trial, including prompt and full access to legal counsel and inadmissibility of coerced testimony, were not respected in the courts.[xxiv] This has been an ongoing trend as civilian criminal and military Bahraini courts have been a part of the subpar fair trial standards in the wake of political dissent.

For instance, Bahrain civilian courts have routinely convicted defendant’s purported crimes that involved merely a defendant’s expression of political views.[xxv] To justify sentencing prominent opposition activists to long prison terms, a civilian court found that while unlawful means, such as the use of force, must be employed to qualify an act of terrorism, the force need not necessarily be military because terrorism can be the result of moral pressure.[xxvi] The increase of more speed and flexibility into an already unjust justice system in Bahrain is the wrong direction to go in.[xxvii]

Besides the clear and obvious unfairness, international human rights bodies have determined that trials of civilians before military tribunals violate the right to be tried by a completely independent and impartial tribunal.[xxviii] Civilians should be tried by military courts only under exceptional circumstances and only under conditions that genuinely afford the full due process.[xxix] Leading Bahraini legal experts expressed fear that civilians will be prosecuted and denied fair trials and access to lawyers.[xxx]

Hays_Blog2_Photo3

This prediction stems from the execution of three torture victims in January 2017 after civilian criminal courts convicted them and sentenced them to death under a broad anti-terror law.[xxxi] Judges dismissed the credible reports of torture and denied defendants access to legal counsel. UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings investigated and determined that executions were, in fact, extrajudicial.[xxxii] Also in January 2017, the king reinstated the Bahrain National Security Agency’s (“NSA”) power to arrest. NSA is Bahrain’s intelligence service, that was involved in a systematic arbitrary detention and torture in 2011, resulting in death of at least one detainee.[xxxiii] The re-empowerment of the NSA began exercising its renewed power in February 2017 with the arrest of medical professional for providing treatment to a protestor.[xxxiv]

The unconditional support provided by its allies in London and Washington has influenced and increased these dictatorial efforts, which ultimately harms the people of Bahrain.[xxxv] With important allies like United States ignoring such human rights violations and preparing to sell arms without reform conditions, the problem will only worsen without a strong international censure of this move. This is exactly why President Trump’s deal to approve a sale of fighter planes to Bahrain without any conditions is concerning.[xxxvi] Instead of giving aid to countries unconditionally, the United States should be using that leverage to promote basic human rights. It is even more necessary to promote this for allies, such as Bahrain, in order to continue international progress and ensure human rights are respected worldwide.

Elizabeth Hays is a third year law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law. She completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Baltimore, where she majored in Jurisprudence. Her legal interests include administrative law, national security law, and maritime law. Elizabeth has previously interned with the U.S. Army JAG Corps and the U.S. Coast Guard JAG Corps. Additionally, she participated in the winter study abroad program in Curaçao in 2015/16. She is currently the Co-President of University of Baltimore Students for Public Interest (UBSPI) and a Staff Editor for University of Baltimore Law Forum.

[i] Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights, NGOs to Bahrain: Do Not Allow Military Courts to Judge Civilians, Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, Feb. 6, 2017.

[ii] Bahrain, Word Atlas, (2017).

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Bahrain Country Profile, BBC News, Sept. 1, 2017.

[vi] Bahrain, World Atlas, (2017).

[vii] Jon Gambrell, Bahrain Lawmakers Approve Military Trials for Civilians, Yahoo News, Feb. 21, 2017.

[viii] Bahrain: proposed military trials of civilians, Human Rights Watch, Feb. 23, 2017.

[ix] Jon Gambrell, Bahrain Lawmakers Approve Military Trials for Civilians, Yahoo News, Feb. 21, 2017.

[x] Bahrain: proposed military trials of civilians, Human Rights Watch, Feb. 23, 2017.

[xi] Jon Gambrell, Bahrain Lawmakers Approve Military Trials for Civilians, Yahoo News, Feb. 21, 2017.

[xii] Bahrain: proposed military trials of civilians, Human Rights Watch, Feb. 23, 2017.

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Id.

[xv] Jon Gambrell, Bahrain Lawmakers Approve Military Trials for Civilians, Yahoo News, Feb. 21, 2017.

[xvi] Id.

[xvii] Id.

[xviii] Bahrain: proposed military trials of civilians, Human Rights Watch, Feb. 23, 2017.

[xix] Jon Gambrell, Bahrain Lawmakers Approve Military Trials for Civilians, Yahoo News, Feb. 21, 2017.

[xx] Id.

[xxi] Bahrain: proposed military trials of civilians, Human Rights Watch, Feb. 23, 2017.

[xxii] Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights, Bahrain: Constitutional Amendment Frees Military Courts to Try Civilians, Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, Feb. 21, 2017.

[xxiii] Bahrain: proposed military trials of civilians, Human Rights Watch, Feb. 23, 2017.

[xxiv] Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, Bahrain: Constitutional Amendment Frees Military Courts to Try Civilians, Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, Feb. 21, 2017.

[xxv] Bahrain: proposed military trials of civilians, Human Rights Watch, Feb. 23, 2017.

[xxvi] Id.

[xxvii] Id.

[xxviii] Id.

[xxix] Id.

[xxx] Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, Bahrain: Constitutional Amendment Frees Military Courts to Try Civilians, Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, Feb. 21, 2017.

[xxxi] Id.

[xxxii] Id.

[xxxiii] Id.

[xxxiv] Id.

[xxxv] Id.

[xxxvi] Josh Rogin, The Trump’s team deal with Bahrain could ignore its human rights abuses, The Washington Post, Feb. 19, 2017.


1 Comment

Donbass Passports: The Russian Itinerary for Certain Individuals

 

John Rizos

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin signed an executive order on Saturday, February 18, 2017 in which he declared recognition of identification documents issued by eastern Ukrainian separatist authorities.[1] The order allows Ukrainian citizens and stateless persons who live in certain parts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine to enter Russia without a visa or a visa application[2] by presenting civil registration documents issued by rebels in eastern Ukraine.[3] Documents include identification documents, diplomas, birth certificates, marriage certificates, and vehicle registration plates,[4] which would allow people to not only enter and travel to Russia, but also to work and study in Russia.[5] Ukrainian separatist authorities began distributing passports in January 2017.[6] It is estimated that 48,000 passports have been distributed in the region.[7]

Rizos_Blog1_Photo1

Ukrainian forces have been fighting pro-Russia and Russia-backed separatist rebels in the Donbass area of eastern Ukraine since May 2014[8], following a referendum vote in favor of self-autonomy from the area’s two main regions, Donetsk and Lugatsk, to be recognized as the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR)[9].

On September 5, 2014, the Ukrainian Government and the pro-Russian separatists signed the Minsk Protocol in order to implement a resolution and a ceasefire agreement under the auspices of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The Protocol was comprised of 12 objectives, including an immediate bilateral ceasefire, withdrawal of illegal armed groups, decentralization of power and local elections in Donetsk and Lugatsk, OSCE monitoring, and continuation of national dialogue.[10] On September 19, 2014, there was follow-up agreement for the removal of heavy artillery from a certain area and the continued OSCE monitoring.[11] However, the Protocol was a failure as intense fighting and violations continued from both sides.[12]

Rizos_Blog1_Photo2

On February 12, 2015 Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, Petro Poroshenko signed the Minsk II agreement in order to implement and to add onto the measures from the Minsk Protocol.[13] The measures were similar to the Protocol, however, they also included a renewed ceasefire to be implemented by February 15, 2015, constitutional reforms and decentralization from Donetsk and Lugatsk by the end of 2015, safe delivery of humanitarian aid based on an international mechanism, withdrawal of all foreign-armed formations, full social and economic restoration in affected areas, and full Ukrainian control over conflict-zoned Russian border[14]. The leaders also agreed, under a joint declaration, that they were committed to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.[15] The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2202 in February 17, 2015, in which it endorsed the ceasefire agreements and the full implementation of the Minsk II agreement.[16]

The Minsk II stalemate was eventually disrupted by resurgences from both sides,[17] mainly due to the failures by Ukraine to adapt to the DPR’s and the LPR’s political and economic changes, specifically, regarding constitutional reforms.[18] The Russian Foreign Ministry stated that the order is temporary[19] and based on humanitarian grounds[20] until the Minsk deal and the Ukrainian obligations towards Donetsk and Lugansk have been implemented.[21]

Although the order has been well-received by the DPR and the LPR, Ukrainian and US officials have declared it contradictory to any peace agreements between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko has labeled the order as a violation of international law[22] and the Minsk agreements[23]. Ukraine Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin stated that the Russian order is an intentional military and humanitarian escalation.[24] The US Embassy to Ukraine stated that it contradicts the agreed-upon goals of the Minsk Agreements.[25] Following a meeting with US Vice President Michael Pence, Poroshenko rejoiced in the US’s support of Ukraine.[26]

Rizos_Blog1_Photo3

Further, German and EU officials have stated that they will not recognize any documents issued by the separatist authorities[27] as they, alongside Russia’s order, contradict the Minsk Agreements by undermining Ukrainian unity and territorial integrity.[28] The OSCE also declared that the order and the distribution of documents contradict any peace-settlement objectives between Ukraine and Russia.[29] The OSCE Chairmanship declared that documents, such as the passports, are only valid on a sovereign territory, such as Ukraine, if they are issued by internationally recognized authorities.[30] The unilateral actions of document distribution and recognition jeopardize peaceful resolution, especially if they are not finalized under the auspices of the OSCE.[31] Such actions “chill” relations among the parties involved, which result into difficult implementation of the objectives in the Minsk Agreements.[32]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov does not believe that the order violates international law, since the law “does not prohibit the recognition of documents needed to implement the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the authorities which are not internationally-recognized.”[33] Contrarily, Lavrov rebutted accusations of international law violations by OSCE Secretary-General Lamberto Zannier by stating that the DPR and the LRP authorities and leaders were actually recognized parties to the conflict by signing the Minsk Agreements, which had been approved by the UN Security Council.[34]

Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov agreed that the order does not violate international law as it is merely “the de jure alignment of the situation that existed de facto.”[35] The spokesman indicated that the order is based solely on humanitarian grounds instead on grounds for recognizing statehood by claiming that the embargo on the Donbass by Kiev prohibits persons in the DPR and LPR from renewing and/or acquiring necessary documents to seek refuge or asylum in another county.[36]

Russia’s order seems dubious. The Foreign Minister is playing “fence politics” by switching Russia’s legal argument for recognizing separatist authorities in order to not upset the international lawmakers or to divert them from investigating the possibility that Russia is providing actual support to the separatists. Further, basing the order on humanitarian grounds is a contrived effort for persuading the rest of the world that the order is necessary, instead of damaging to Ukraine’s integrity and beneficial to Russia’s stance. The order is in violation of the peace agreements and of international law, as it is enforced unilaterally by Russia, without accordance to the Minsk Agreement. It also demonstrates recognition of competent authorities, which is an indicator of recognition of statehood, without consultation of the agreed-upon self-autonomy Minsk objectives. Since the UN Security Council, which operates on international law, has adopted and endorsed the Minsk Agreements, the violations also violate UN law and, thus, international law.

John Rizos is a 3L at the University of Baltimore School of Law with a concentration in International Law. He has an interest in human rights and international criminal law. In addition to being a CICL Fellow, John has served as the Secretary for Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity and has completed HarvardX’s online course, “Humanitarian Response to Conflict and Disaster.” In June 2016, John was a member of the Fellows team that, under the supervision of Professor Moore, assisted in drafting an amicus brief to the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, which was later approved and published. John graduated with honors from Towson University with a BA in International Studies (2013). He has interned at the Press Office of the Greek Embassy in Washington, D.C. and the International Civil Advocacy Network (ICAN), a non-profit organization advocating for women’s rights in the Middle East. John currently serves as a MD Rule 19 Student-Attorney with the Juvenile Justice Project at the University of Baltimore.

[1] http://english.cctv.com/2017/02/19/ARTIBZihT9cbzHu5jM3SPOSW170219.shtml

[2] http://english.cctv.com/2017/02/19/ARTIBZihT9cbzHu5jM3SPOSW170219.shtml

[3] http://www.euronews.com/2017/02/20/russia-defends-decision-to-recognise-rebel-passports-in-eastern-ukraine

[4] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1033802.shtml

[5] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1033802.shtml

[6] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1033802.shtml

[7] http://www.euronews.com/2017/02/20/russia-defends-decision-to-recognise-rebel-passports-in-eastern-ukraine

[8] http://www.euronews.com/2017/02/20/russia-defends-decision-to-recognise-rebel-passports-in-eastern-ukraine

[9] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/05/referendum-on-self-rule-in-ukraine-passes-with-over-90-of-the-vote/362062/

[10] http://uk.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-summit-idUKL5N0VK2C520150210

[11] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/573951/EPRS_BRI(2016)573951_EN.pdf

[12] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/573951/EPRS_BRI(2016)573951_EN.pdf

[13] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-Briefing-548991-Minsk-peace-summit-FINAL.pdf

[14] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/573951/EPRS_BRI(2016)573951_EN.pdf

[15] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-Briefing-548991-Minsk-peace-summit-FINAL.pdf

[16] https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc11785.doc.htm

[17] http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-documents-russia-idUKKBN15Z1N5

[18] https://www.rt.com/news/378032-peskov-passports-ukraine-east/

[19] http://www.euronews.com/2017/02/20/russia-defends-decision-to-recognise-rebel-passports-in-eastern-ukraine

[20] http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-documents-russia-idUKKBN15Z1N5

[21] http://english.cctv.com/2017/02/19/ARTIBZihT9cbzHu5jM3SPOSW170219.shtml

[22] http://english.cctv.com/2017/02/19/ARTIBZihT9cbzHu5jM3SPOSW170219.shtml

[23] http://www.euronews.com/2017/02/20/russia-defends-decision-to-recognise-rebel-passports-in-eastern-ukraine

[24] http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/404643.html

[25] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1033802.shtml

[26] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1033802.shtml

[27] http://www.euronews.com/2017/02/20/russia-defends-decision-to-recognise-rebel-passports-in-eastern-ukraine

[28] http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-documents-russia-idUKKBN15Z1N5

[29] http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/404643.html

[30] http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/404643.html

[31] http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/404643.html

[32] http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/404643.html

[33] http://www.euronews.com/2017/02/20/russia-defends-decision-to-recognise-rebel-passports-in-eastern-ukraine

[34] https://dninews.com/article/russian-mfa-dpr-and-lpr-leadership-recognized-signing-minsk-agreements

[35] https://www.rt.com/news/378032-peskov-passports-ukraine-east/

[36] https://www.rt.com/news/378032-peskov-passports-ukraine-east/


2 Comments

WALKING A MILE IN HER SHOES -FEMALE EMPLOYEES VS. EMPLOYERS IN MODERN DAY UNITED KINGDOM

 Roman Msaki 

The history of women and high heels is very interesting. Our early ancestors they didn’t care about putting shoes leaving alone high heels. In all likelihood, they went barefoot. Shoes in the form of sandals emerged around 9,000 years ago as a means of protecting bare feet from the elements (specifically, frostbite).

The Greeks viewed shoes as an indulgence—a means of increasing status, though it was a Greek, actually Aeschylus, who created the first high heel, called “korthonos” for theatrical purposes. His intent was to “add majesty to the heroes of his plays so that they would stand out from the lesser players and be more easily recognized”.[1]

Greek women adopted the trend, taking the wedge heel to new heights that the late Alexander McQueen would have likely applauded. The adoption of shoes, and the heel, for Greeks appears to coincide with Roman influence, and ultimately Roman conquest. Roman fashion was viewed as a sign of power and status, and shoes represented a state of civilization[2].

Msaki_Blog1_Photo1

The widespread popularity of the heel is credited to Catherine de Medici who wore heels to look taller. When she wore them to her wedding to Henry II of France, they became a status symbol for the wealthy. Commoners were banned from wearing heels, although it’s doubtful that they would have been able to afford them anyway. Later, the French heel predecessor to the narrow, tall heel of today would be made popular by Marquise de Pompadour, mistress of Louis XV. These shoes initially required women to use walking sticks to keep their balance until the height of the heel was reduced[3].

In the United States the campaign “Walking a Mile in her Shoes” was designed to raise male awareness and condemn rape, sexual assault and gender violence[4]. The main aim of the drive was to enable men to experience a day on “heels”.

Msaki_Blog1_Photo2

But, the story of Nicole Thorp, a secretary of the London big accountancy firm “PWC”[5]  in United Kingdom tells us another story, a different perspective on wearing high heels. In her firm, high heels are mandatory. She was sent back home in December 2015 for wearing flats instead of high heels[6]. She refused to obey the then rules of her employment agency, Portico, that she should wear shoes with heels that were between two and four inches high. Ms. Thorp argued that wearing them all day would be bad for her feet.[7] She started a petition in 2016, which attracted about 150,000 signatures[8] far beyond the required number of signatures needed to trigger a response by the government.

“This may have started over a pair of high heels, but what it has revealed about discrimination in the UK workplace is vital, as demonstrated by the hundreds of women who came forward via the committees’ online forum…………… (words omitted for emphasis); The current system favors the employer, and is failing employees,” she said in reflection of what really going on in employment sector in United Kingdom.[9]

Msaki_Blog1_Photo3

The United Kingdom passed the Equality Act in 2010 in order to ensure equal treatment at work for all genders. However, dress code regulations have been solely left within employers’ hands. As a result, two House of Common committees, (the Petition committee and the Women and Equality Committee) invited the public to send in their own examples of discriminatory dress codes. As a result, they were inundated with examples. The committee heard from women who were asked to wear shorter skirts, to unbutton blouses, and of dress codes that specified shades of nail varnish and hair color choices.[10]

The committees report[11] revealed evidence dating from 1880 to the present day which showed a “direct causative relationship” between the protracted use of high heels and serious conditions including stress fractures bunions, lower back pain and posture change and increased energy demand, as energy consumption and heart rate increases with heel height. The Government response was positive, and it has agreed to review equality issues in a forthcoming parliamentary session in March 2017.

Msaki_Blog1_Photo4

Despite the long-term health effects resulting from wearing high heels, some women still believe that wearing high heels at work should be required. For them, wearing high heels give a woman source of power and a higher status at work. Yet should it be REQUIRED or just recommended?

What is happening in the U.K reminds me of the Louisiana Law on “separate but equal” which had existed for decades, until it was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education[12]. Is it fair to subject women to harsh and stringent dress code rules than men? They are equal because they got a chance to be employed, but treated separately because of sex. Here, women are clearly held to a separate and unequal treatment than their male counterparts.

Roman Msaki is currently a 2L student at University of Baltimore. He has a LL. B from the University of Dar-es-Salaam (Tanzania), a post-graduate diploma in legal practice from the Law School of Tanzania, and a LL.M in the Law of the United States from the University of Baltimore. He has an interest in international law due to participating in the Philip C. Jessup International Moot Court Competition in 2012 for his university in Tanzania. Since then, he has regularly served as a Jessup judge in both regional rounds (Kenya, Uganda and Ghana) and the international rounds, held annually in Washington D.C. Last semester, he was a research assistant to Prof. Nienke Grossman. He is a member of the International Law Society, Immigration Law Society, International Law Student Association and American Bar Association. His main areas of interest in international law are: International humanitarian law and use of force.

[1] Smith, E.O. High Heels and Evolution: Natural Selection, Sexual Selection and High Heels; Journal of Psychology, Evolution and Gender pg. 254, December 1999. Available at: eosmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/JournalArticle30.pdf. (Last visited January 29th).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4]  See for instance: www.walkamileinhershoes.org/ ; www.walkamileinhershoes.org/calendar.html accessed on 29th January 17.

[5] PWC stands for “Pricewaterhouse Coopers”.

[6] For her short interview see: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38737300 accessed on 29th January 17.

[7] Ibid.

[8]  See: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/129823; Accessed on 29th January

[9] Supra: note 4

[10] See: www.forbes.com/…/high-heels-and-workplace-dress-codes-urgent-action-needed-say..  Last viewed on 29th January.

[11]The report can be viewed at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/petitions-committee/news-parliament-2015/high-heels-and-workplace-dress-codes-report-published-16-17/?utm_source=petition&utm_campaign=129823&utm_medium=email&utm_content=reportstory, Accessed on 29th January 17.

[12] 347 U.S. 483 (1954).