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]

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]

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]

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/

They Who Shall Not Be Named: The Unspoken Situation in Myanmar (Part Deux)

Kia Roberts-Warren

Last semester, I discussed the dire situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar. It seemed like Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi was working to bring a peaceful solution with the Rohingya. The situation seemed hopeful. Yet, here we are once again discussing this situation.

“Things Have to Get Worse Before They can Get Better?”

On October 9, 2016, the situation escalated, resulting in death. The Harakah Al-Yaqin launched three predawn attacks on three police border posts.[1] One of the posts was the security headquarters; the assault involved several hundred assailants and included planting improvised explosive devices and setting an ambush on the approach road, delaying the arrival of army reinforcements, while the attackers looted the armory.[2] On November 12, 2016, in another encounter, a senior army officer was killed.[3]

The Tatmadew, the Myanmar military, retaliated with a counterinsurgency operation. This operation was disproportionate and failed to distinguish between civilians and combatants.[4] This resulted in about 1,500 buildings being torched in the township of Maungdew, an estimated 65,000 people have fled to Bangladesh as a result.[5] Documentation shows extrajudicial killings, rapes, arbitrary arrests, and beatings by the government security forces.[6] The Tatmadew have also almost entirely sealed off the northern area of Arakan in the Rakhine State.[7] The government has banned the Rohingya from using their boats to fish in order to “prevent insurgents from leaving or entering the country by sea,” leading to many risking their lives on makeshift rafts in order to get food for their families.[8]

These human rights violations by the Tatmadew have not been handled well by the government. The government has admitted that people have been found dead and that those arrested were suspected members of Harakah Al-Yaqin and their supporters.[9] However, the government’s rebuttal to the human rights abuses have been undesirable. The country’s Attorney General’s office have posted “Fake Rape” on its website to discredit reports that the Tatmadew officers have committed rape.[10] Furthermore, the government has denied accredited journalists and human rights investigators access to verify the abuse.[11] The government formed a special investigative committee led by former General Myint Swe (now Vice President of Myanmar) to look into the October violence. Unsurprisingly, the committee quickly dismissed any and all claims of misbehavior by security forces.[12]

However, a few weeks ago the advisory committee created by Aung San Suu Kyi and headed by Kofi Annan met with Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya residents from two villages.[13] The Secretary of Kaman National Development Party, Tin Hlaing Win, met with the advisory committee to tell the committee about the Rohingyas losing their rights over the last four years and their wish to return home.[14] The committee told Win that that would submit their demands to the government with their recommendations.[15]

  Over forty Myanmar-based civil society groups issued a statement asking for an independent investigation by the international community to into the human rights abuses by the Tatmadew.[16] Specifically, these groups requests that an investigation  “fully assess the totality of the situation in Rakhine state and provide clear recommendations for the current government to effectively address and prevent further problems in the Rakhine state.”[17] This statement came a day before foreign ministers of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, an intergovernmental body of 57 member nations, met in Malaysia to discuss the plight of the Rohingya in Rakhine state.[18]

“The Other Side of the Coin: Harakah Al-Yaqin”

Although many Rohingya are peaceful, the October attack was launched by a group of Rohingya that the International Crisis Group has labeled the group as a Muslim insurgency. The group Harakah Al-Yaqin (the Faith Movement) was established after the 2012 riots between Muslims and Buddhists and is currently a group of twenty Rohingya who have experience in modern guerilla warfare and are leading operations in Northern Arakan.[19] A committee of Rohingya emigres based in Mecca oversees Harakah Al-Yaqin.[20] The Harakah Al-Yaqin have obtained fatwas from senior clerics in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan to enhance its religious legitimacy, backing its cause under Islamic law.[21] The group has spent the last two years training hundreds of local recruits in guerilla warfare and explosives.[22] There are some indications of training and solidarity links with international jihadist organizations, but it is important to distinguish the aims and actions of the Harakah Al-Yaqin – to secure the rights of the Rohingya in Myanmar using insurgency tactics against security forces.[23]

“Momma is Stepping in”

  As a result of the escalating violence and the actions of the Myanmar government, the United Nations human rights envoy to Myanmar, Yanghee Lee, went on her biannual 12-day visit in January.[24] Lee had discussed with Aung San Suu Kyi the security situation in the northern Rahkine State, the reports of the abuses by the security forces, and the increasing need for humanitarian assistance for people displaced by fighting between the government army and ethnic guerilla groups in war-torn Shan and Kachin states.[25]

Lee also met with Vice President Myint Swe, chairman of the special investigation committee, to question the investigation methods of the committee.[26] This was due to the interim report issued on January 3 that the rape allegations resulted insufficient evidence to take legal action and the accusations of torture, arson, and illegal arrests were still being investigated.[27] Moreover, Lee did not allow the authorities to join her when she visited villages in Maungdaw township to talk to residents.[28] She also met with Rohingya Muslims in adjacent Buthidaung township and visited the local prison there.[29] Yet, reports indicate she was denied access to certain areas.

Lee is to submit a report to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in March.[30]

“Where Do We Go From Here?”

The situation in Myanmar has left the international community thinking “what now?” Until Yanghee Lee releases her report in March, the advisory committee will continue talks with Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingyas in the Rakhine State. The committee will hopefully foster negotiations between the government and the Rohingya to help them attain such basic rights as citizenship, the right to life, access to government resources, among other rights. Meanwhile, the Rohingya continue to wait and suffer.

Unfortunately, the most complicated part of this situation is the intervention of Islamic countries, which only adds to the tension. These countries do not involve the government of Myanmar government in these conferences. Moreover, neither the UN nor the Myanmar government is addressing such involvement. Yet, the primacy of territorial sovereignty makes interference by other States into Myanmar a precarious situation.

Kia Roberts-Warren is a 3L at UB Law. She is concentrating in international law. Kia graduated from Temple University receiving a BA in East Asian Studies during that time she spent a semester in Tokyo, Japan. Kia has an interest in international trade and human rights. She is also interested in fashion law and art law in the international context. Last year, she held the position of Career Development Director of the International Law Society and participated in the 2016 Philip C. Jessup Moot Court Competition. She recently attended UB’s Aberdeen Summer Abroad Program. 

[1] http://time.com/4601203/burma-myanmar-muslim-insurgency-rohingya/

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/opinion/the-rohingya-the-ladys-problem-from-hell.html?_r=0

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/banned-boats-myanmar-rohingya-fish-rafts-junk/

[9] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/opinion/the-rohingya-the-ladys-problem-from-hell.html?_r=0

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] http://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/un-rights-envoy-meets-with-aung-san-suu-kyi-to-discuss-volatile-rakhine-state-01182017160404.html

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] http://time.com/4601203/burma-myanmar-muslim-insurgency-rohingya/

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] http://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/un-rights-envoy-meets-with-aung-san-suu-kyi-to-discuss-volatile-rakhine-state-01182017160404.html

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] Id.

All’s Fair in Love and Cyberwar

Elizabeth Hays

A United States drone strikes a car near a gas station in Syria.[1] Inside that car, Junaid Hussain lays lifeless.[2] Though a seemingly normal 21-year-old British man with an education and a wife, Junaid possessed exceptional computer hacking skills and ties to ISIS’s cyber division.[3] Instead of the United States sending a sniper to take out Junaid, a person used his or her trigger finger to direct the drone strike from a computer miles away from the gas station.[4] Throughout history, technology has drastically changed warfare. The advances in cyberspace technology are no exception and the law is struggling to keep up.

While country-on-country cyber-attacks have made headlines in the 21^st century, such attacks can be dated as far back as the Cold War.[5] In June 1984, a United States satellite detected a large blast in Siberia.[6] That blast turned out to be an explosion on a Soviet gas pipeline.[7] A malfunction in the computer-controlled system that the Soviets stole from a firm in Canada caused the explosion.[8] Unware to them, the CIA caused the malfunction by tampering with the software, resetting  the pump and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond the capabilities of the pipeline welds, which  ultimately resulted in destruction.[9]

The most recent and controversial cyber-attack resulted in WikiLeaks publishing a series of confidential emails exchanged between several key members of the Democratic National Committee.[10] The release negatively impacted the Democratic Party in the public eye and resulted in the call for resignation from the DNC chairperson, the CEO, the CFO, and the Communications Director.[11] Despite President Trump’s initial accusation, these hackers are not just 400 pound guys in a basement; they are sophisticated and, potentially, dangerous adversarial governments.[12]

The United States accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of ordering an “influence campaign” aimed at weakening Hilary Clinton’s campaign and strengthening Donald Trump’s.[13] The campaign consisted of hacking Democratic groups and individuals and releasing that information via third party websites, including WikiLeaks.[14]  Intelligence agencies concluded with high confidence that Russia had intended to undermine American faith in the electoral system by hurting Hilary Clinton’s chances of winning.[15] As a result, in December 2016, America responded with what was arguably its strongest response yet to a state sponsored cyberattack.[16] “All Americans should be alarmed by Russia’s actions” stated Former President Obama.[17] While there is partisan disagreement about the scope and intent of the Russian cyber-attack on the 2016 United States Presidential Election, 77% of Americans from a wide variety of political backgrounds believe that cyber-attacks against computer systems in the United States are a serious threat.[18] Meanwhile, 63% of Americans believe that the United States is not adequately prepared to deal with these cyber threats.[19]

While President Trump has repeatedly stated that the Russian hacking had no influence on the outcome of the election, it is becoming clear that cyber-attacks are becoming more prevalent and powerful.[20] Intelligence agencies reported that the Russian election intervention is an old-fashioned Soviet-style propaganda campaign made more powerful by the tools of cyberage.[21] While it may seem like this was a onetime event and new attack, it was actually a part of a campaign that went undetected for years.[22]

The same international laws apply to cyberspace as they do to traditional warfare domains. Yet, cyber-attacks are difficult for the international community to analyze due to their complexity and secrecy. In response to this challenge, the NATO Cyber Centre wrote the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare.[23] Applying the principles of the international law of war in cyberspace, the manual has been the primary guide for armed conflicts.[24] According to the principles in the manual, the Russian cyber-attacks on the DNC are below the threshold of an armed conflict.[25] On the other hand, if Russia had destroyed America’s cyber infrastructure, it would likely be enough to be a use of force and thus a violation.[26]

Yet others experts, such as the chairman of the U.S. Naval War College’s international law department Michael Schmidt, believe that the DNC hack was in fact a violation of international law.[27] For example, the hack could have threatened U.S. sovereignty.[28] The hackers attempted to intervene into the internal fairs of the United States affairs, which includes running elections.[29] However, there would need to be proof that Russia not only stole information but used the information to manipulate election results.[30]

Therefore, the DNC hacks still lie in a legal gray zone. While the Tallinn Manual provides excellent guidance on applying international law in cyberspace, the Tallinn Manual 2.0 is in the works to expand upon it.[31] The goal of this additional manual is to examine how international law applies to cyber-attacks below the threshold on an armed conflict.[32] Until then, clever nations will continue to use cyber-attacks, like the DNC hack, to cause harmful effects but not cross the line that would trigger an armed response.[33]

 

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.

[1] Nick Gutteridge, ISIS Top Hacker Dead: British Jihadi Junaid Hussain Blown up in US Drone Strike in Syria, Express, (Aug. 27, 2015).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] War in the Fifth Domain, The Economist (Jul. 1, 2010).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Harold Stark, How Russia Hacked Us in 2016, Forbes (Jan. 24, 2017).

[11] Id.

[12] Scott Shane, Russian Intervention in American Election Was No One-Off, N.Y. Times (Jan. 6, 2017).

[13] Jill Dougherty, U.S. Election Hacking: Russia Hits Back at ‘Unfounded’ Allegations, CNN Politics (Jan. 15, 2017).

[14] Id.

[15]Paul Krugman, Russia’s Hand in America’s Election, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 2016).

[16] David E. Sanger, Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election hacking, N.Y. Times (Dec. 29, 2016).

[17] Id.

[18] Sarah Dutton, Most Americans Think Russia Tried to Interfere In Presidential Election, CBS News (Jan. 18, 2017).

[19] Id.

[20] Jill Dougherty, U.S. Election Hacking: Russia Hits Back at ‘Unfounded’ Allegations, CNN Politics (Jan. 15, 2017).

[21] Scott Shane, Russian Intervention in American Election Was No One-Off, N.Y. Times (Jan. 6, 2017).

[22] Id.

[23] Jill Dougherty, NATO Cyberwar Challenge: Establish Rules of Engagement, CNN Politics (Nov. 7, 2016).

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] Id.

[31] Id.

[32] Id.

[33] Id.

Embargo-ing Going but Not Quite Gone: Smoke Begins to Dissipate Between Cuba and the U.S.

Margie Beltran

Photo Credit: http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/tag/cuba/

“[I], John F. Kennedy, President of the United States of America, acting under the authority [of the] Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, do hereby proclaim an embargo upon trade between the United States and Cuba…of all goods of Cuban origin and all goods imported from of through [Cuba].”[1]

–President John F. Kennedy, February 3, 1962, Proclamation 3447 – Embargo on All Trade with Cuba

And thus ended the free flow of the forbidden fruits that were Cuba’s earthy, intense cigars and premium rum.  To prevent supporting a communist-run country in the midst of the Cold War and months before the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy announced the United States would put an indefinite halt on any trade with Cuba.[2]  The embargo against Cuba prevented Americans from bringing home the coveted cigars and alcohol, even if they were purchased in third countries.[3]

Photo Credit: http://passportto.iberostar.com/2013/05/cigars-and-rum-the-authentic-flavor-of-cuba/

Fast forward about a half a century later to October 17, and the White House has released a directive to lift more sanctions against Cuba.[4]  Note the word sanctions.  The embargo has not been lifted in full.

In 2014, President Barack Obama announced that his administration would begin working to re-establish a diplomatic relationship with Cuba by changing travel and trade restrictions set forth in Proclamation 3447.[5]  On April 11, 2015, President Obama and President Raul Castro of Cuba met in there face to face.[6]  Both have joined efforts to normalize the long-standing negative relationship between the two countries.

In March 2016, Obama was the first U.S. president to visit Cuba in nearly 90 years.[7]  In a press conference following their meeting on the island, Obama announced that they were on a track to ending the embargo, but provided no projected date.[8]  Castro agreed with the projected outcome of ending the embargo because he believed it would help Cuba and the U.S. make more progress.[9]  The two leaders continue to hold vastly different views on human rights and political freedoms.[10]

Photo Credit: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-21/obama-castro-call-for-trade-embargo-on-cuba-to-be-lifted)

However, following Obama’s announced intentions of mending the relationship, Congress denied to support his decision.  Congress members and other political leaders felt that this change in trade relations with Castro is not benefitting the U.S., but merely benefitting Cuba.[11]  They are concerned that merely lifting trade sanctions will not incentivize Castro to improve political freedoms and human rights for the citizens of Cuba.

Now, in the final three months of Obama’s presidency, he has been working to change the U.S. policy, which would allow trade and commerce to grow exponentially between the two countries.[12]  While this olive branch approach in which the U.S. was to change their policies in the areas of medical and scientific research, the Cuban citizens feel differently.[13]

Photo Credit: http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2014/12/us_must_attach_conditions_to_l.html

 

According to Josefina Vidal, head of the U.S. Department at the Cuban Foreign Ministry while speaking at a rally held at the University of Havana, “Obama is finishing his term, but the blockade remains.”  Vidal explained during the rally, that while it is a nice attempt, the embargo has not been lifted.  The sanctions are easing the tension between the country’s; however, there is still a lot of limitation brought forth by the embargo.[14]

The Cuban people are under the belief that the island will not and cannot commit themselves in full to restoring diplomatic and normalized partnerships with the U.S. so long as the U.S. does upholds the embargo.[15]

It will be interesting upon the start of a new presidential term how the U.S. relationship with Cuba continues to develop, if it develops at all.  Both candidates have stated that they are in favor of developing diplomatic relationships with Cuba.

 

Photo Credit: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/05/opinions/clinton-trump-made-for-each-other-opinion-zelizer/

Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton believes the U.S. should increase their influence of human rights policy on Cuba.[16]  She also stated that if Congress prevented her efforts, she would impose her executive authority to make it easier for the American people to visit the island and support small businesses in Cuba.[17]  GOP candidate, Donald Trump believes 50 years has been long enough for an embargo and supports Obama.[18]  This opinion strays from some of the other major influencers of the GOP such as Florida politicians, Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Jeb Bush.[19]  Senator Rubio referred to the diplomatic olive branch as “a lifeline for the Castro regime that will allow them to become more profitable…and allow them to become a more permanent fixture.”[20]

As one of the longest embargos in the world, it seems best the U.S. works towards a more amicable resolution and to eventually achieve their human rights goals around the world.  Based on the current candidate stances, the increased diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and Cuba will continue to grow.

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.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=58824

[2] http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/cold-war-history

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/americas/cuba-cigars-us-embargo-lifted/index.html

[4] http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/14/pf/cuban-cigar-rum-sanctions/index.html

[5] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/17/world/americas/cuba-sanctions.html

[6] Id.

[7] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-21/obama-castro-call-for-trade-embargo-on-cuba-to-be-lifted

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2016/10/19/cuba-official-reaction-to-obama-easing-embargo-restrictions-protests/

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/remarks-miami-cuba-embargo/

[17] Id.

[18] http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/donald-trump-cuba-diplomatic-opening/

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

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.

 

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

Turkey’s Breach of the Principle of Non-Refoulement

Yasmine Akkad

Non-refoulement is a fundamental principle in international law that was first laid out in the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in 1954.[i] Article 33(1) of the convention provides that: “no Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”[ii] Recently, Turkey breached this principle of non-refoulement by illegally returning thousands of Syrian refugees to war-torn Syria.[iii]

According to a report conducted by Amnesty International, about 100 Syrians have been sent back to their war-torn country every day since January.[iv] This news comes shortly after Turkey struck a deal with the European Union (aimed at stemming the flow of refugees arriving in Greece), agreeing to accept refugees in return for aid and political concessions.[v] Under the agreement, all “irregular migrants” arriving in Greece from Turkey on 20 March onwards will face being sent back.[vi] The agreement further stipulates that the EU will take in one Syrian (who has made a legitimate request) for each Syrian migrant returned to Turkey.[vii] The process, which is known as “one in, one out,” is meant to discourage illegal migration into Europe.[viii]

Amnesty says this latest report exposes the flaws in the deal between Turkey and the EU.[ix] Critics of the deal say the EU is irresponsibly returning Syrian refugees to an unsafe country, in a desperate effort to seal its borders.[x] In the Amnesty report, John Dalhuisen remarked, “in their desperation to seal their borders, EU leaders have willfully ignored the simplest of facts: Turkey is not a safe country for Syrian refugees and is getting less safe by the day.”[xi]

Turkey’s recent breach of international law is symptomatic of a larger issue. There is no end in sight for Syria’s civil war, and the number of people fleeing Syria will only increase. Since Syria’s civil war began more than five years ago, Turkey has taken in more refugees than any other country worldwide.[xii] Put simply, Turkey is overwhelmed. The country has struggled to accommodate the refugees, who are putting a strain on Turkey’s economy and healthcare system.[xiii] While it is not acceptable for Turkey to return refugees to war-torn Syria, it is also not acceptable for the world to sit idly by as thousands of Syrians flee the ongoing violence and hostility in Syria.

Yasmine Akkad is a third year law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law J.D. Candidate (’16). She holds a Bachelors of Science in Law and American Civilization and a minor in English from Towson University. Her primary interests include international law and international human rights law. In addition to being a CICL Fellow, she competed in the 2014-2015 Jessup International Moot Court Competition, Mid-Atlantic Region, and is an active member of the American Society of International Law.

[i] http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/glossary/refoulement/

[ii] Id.

[iii] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35941947

[iv] Id.

[v] Id.

[vi] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/04/eu-turkey-deal-syrian-refugees-germany-istanbul-hanover

[vii] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35956836

[viii] http://www.ibtimes.com/syrian-refugees-forced-back-war-zone-turkish-authorities-eu-turkey-agreement-goes-2348127

[ix] Id.

[x] Id.

[xi] Id.

[xii] https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/iraq-jordan-lebanon-syria-turkey/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisis

[xiii] http://www.ibtimes.com/syrian-refugees-forced-back-war-zone-turkish-authorities-eu-turkey-agreement-goes-2348127

Renunciations on the Rise: U.S. Natural Status Is Dangerous Under FATCA

 

Julia Brent

On March 18, 2010, President Obama signed a “jobs” bill into law, paid for by the revenue raising Foreign Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).  Execution of FATCA would access a deep pocket: there is an estimated $40 billion per year in international tax evasion.[i]  Thus far, the U.S. Treasury has taken in $800 million in FATCA-related revenue.[ii]  FATCA doesn’t change the obligations of U.S. taxpayers to pay their taxes on overseas earnings, but creates an enormous reporting obligation on 200,000 foreign financial institutions (FFIs) worldwide to pass on information from accounts of U.S. citizens to the IRS. [iii]  Failure to do report results in a 30% penalty on payments into the account, payable to the IRS.[iv]

The simple solution is to take advantage of one of several U.S. Tax amnesty programs, and many are struggling to pay their taxes before the reporting begins.  However, the legislation has created complex problems for both the institutions and for taxpayers.  For example, an FFI to merely register its own company with the IRS (much less implement the giant reporting scheme) must master a 135-page guide of registration details.  Similarly, taxpayers face multiple forms and banker’s-box size submissions. For many, hiring an accountant to handle compliance is prohibitively expensive.[v] Some foreign individuals who were born in the U.S. but raised overseas by foreign parents don’t realize they have U.S. citizenship.  Some are “accidental Americans” because their parent was born in the U.S.  Staff at the IRS report that they have been overwhelmed by calls from Americans overseas regarding what they are supposed to furnish under FATCA.[vi]

The result of this high-consequence complexity is that many individuals overseas are eliminating their U.S. citizenship. Those that hold dual citizenship often are nationals with a “quality” country – the EU, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand – and are allowed travel without a visa through much of the world (including to the United States).[vii]  In the face of accessing the value of their U.S. passport, the conclusion by many is that there is a real danger.  Many institutions are ill-equipped to handle FATCA compliance, much less retracing steps to correct an error.  Already, the IRS has extended reporting deadlines because foreign governments and FFI’s haven’t finished developing IT systems, and aren’t prepared.  Some believe the scale of implementation is so large that the cost of implementing FATCA will “far outweigh the revenues.”^[viii] Scotia Bank in Canada, alone, has already spent $100 million.^[ix]  There is a high likelihood of a taxpayer getting caught between the cracks of an imperfect system, and being the victim of incorrect reporting, which comes with significant consequences.  An account holder does not have to be a U.S. citizen for their FFI to report them based on “U.S. indicia” – the distinguishing information on their account.  “U.S. indicia” can mean as little as a U.S. telephone listed as contact information.  One would hope that if an account held by a true non-U.S. citizen was incorrectly reported as that of a U.S. citizen, the false report would be quickly corrected.  However, the sheer size of the players – the IRS, state governments, and FFI’s – creates a likelihood that corrections will take months, even years, to sort out in litigation against the IRS or a foreign tax administrator.

In addition to imperfect reporting, those with American only or dual citizenship are concerned that FACTA requirements compromise privacy and the right to data protection as a taxpayer.  Many governments have executed Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs), either without considering the rights of the individuals affected or complying by means of what is essentially coercion.[x]  Privacy issues for Canadians have been raised by former Canadian Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty.  His concern is the “far reaching and extraterritorial implications” of FATCA which, in effect, mandate that Canadian banks become extensions of the IRS and jeopardize Canadians’ privacy rights.[xi] Banks in Canada are not required to know the nationality of their clients, and, to conform to FATCA, Canada would have to change its privacy laws.[xii]  All the countries under the Model 2 International Governmental Agreements (IGA’s) have laws which either prevent disclosure or require individual consent.[xiii]  The difficulty with consent is that in many cases it is logistically impossible.  For example, Japanese banks have several hundred million bank accounts, not digitized, all with opening forms in Japanese.[xiv]

FATCA has changed Americans into outsiders in the international financial world.[xv]  As one officer of a global bank reported, the banks are ridding themselves of the “U.S. Person pollution!”[xvi] American Citizens Abroad (ACA) has received multiple testimonies from Americans abroad who have had their foreign bank accounts closed, been refused entry into a foreign pension fund, or who cannot enter into insurance contracts overseas.[xvii]  Some claim that “American citizens are being denied savings accounts, investment accounts, mortgages, credit cards and many of the basic financial services required to live and work in modern society, raise a family and to save for retirement.”[xviii] This is due to the fact that, while there are 780 million American bank clients overseas,^[xix] this number is a drop in the bucket for banks who serve a much higher number of non-Americans.

These difficulties explain why the amount of renunciations since FATCA was implemented has quadrupled.^[xx]  Renunciations have caused such a backlog of paperwork that, in November last year, the fee for renunciation was increased by 400%.^[xxi] The U.S. response has been inadequate:  Robert Stack, Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary of International Tax Affairs, described the claim that Americans living abroad will give up their U.S. citizenship because of liabilities and burdens created by FATCA as “Myth No. 3.”[xxii]  Meanwhile, the New York Times reports, “The bureaucratic burden of identifying, verifying and reporting has caused many banks to regard American clients, particularly those of moderate means, as more trouble than they are worth.”[xxiii]

There is currently a push to make renunciation “easy and harmless,” financially and mentally, since new regulatory burdens on non-resident US citizens make living with that status nearly impossible.[xxiv]  Recently, a “renunciation meeting” was held in Canada, the first of its kind, to permit 22 Americans together to renounce their U.S. Citizenship, in spite of the $2,350 fee and paperwork. Tara Ferris, then Senior Counsel at Chief Counsel IRS, and others did an outstanding job in drafting the internal revenue rules and regulations of FATCA, an unprecedented behemouth of legislation.  However, the code implements policies that have significant unintended consequences.  “Mass renunciations,” a sort of reverse of our naturalization ceremonies, may become a thing of the future.[xxv]

[i] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40623.pdf, Summary

[ii] Id.

[iii] http://www.acfcs.org/fatca-may-identify-tax-cheats-but-its-dragnet-for-financial-criminals-may-produce-an-even-bigger-yield/

[iv] http://fatca.thomsonreuters.com/about-fatca/

[v] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gabrielle-cintorino/tax-laws-pushing-americans-living-abroad-renounce-their-us

[vi] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-04-08/an-emotional-audit-irs-workers-are-miserable-and-overwhelmed

[vii] http://opiniojuris.org/2012/01/08/fatca-fallout-mass-renunciations/

[viii] http://www.acfcs.org/fatca-may-identify-tax-cheats-but-its-dragnet-for-financial-criminals-may-produce-an-even-bigger-yield/

[ix] http://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/electronic-spying-a-big-issue-for-banks-scotia-ceo-waugh-says

[x] http://www.keepcalmtalklaw.co.uk/accidental-americans-the-us-citizenship-conundrum/

[xi] http://sundominica.com/articles/fatca-and-you-1462/

[xii]http://web.archive.org/web/20130601041733/http://americansabroad.org/issues/fatca/fatca-is-bad-for-america-why-it-should-be-repealed/

[xiii] https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/FATCA-Governments

[xiv] http://web.archive.org/web/20130601041733/http://americansabroad.org/issues/fatca/fatca-is-bad-for-america-why-it-should-be-repealed/

[xv] Id.

[xvi] http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Republicans%20Overseas,%20Inc.1.pdf, page 3

[xvii] Id.

[xviii] http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Republicans%20Overseas,%20Inc.1.pdf

[xix] http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/americans-citizenship-renunciation/

[xx] http://intltax.typepad.com/intltax_blog/2016/02/new-expatriate-record-2015-nearly-4300-expatriations.html

[xxi] http://www.bbc.com/news/35383435

[xxii] https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Myth-vs-FATCA.aspx

[xxiii] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/opinion/an-american-tax-nightmare.html?_r=0

[xxiv] http://www.keepcalmtalklaw.co.uk/accidental-americans-the-us-citizenship-conundrum/

[xxv] http://opiniojuris.org/2012/01/08/fatca-fallout-mass-renunciations/

Faux-Pas Fashion “Caveat Emptor”: Let The Buyer Beware

Kia Roberts Warren

Growing up in one of the fashion capitals of the world (NYC), I am, admittedly, a bit of a fashionista. I learned at a very young age that if you go down to Canal Street and enter a store looking for a Chanel boy bag that someone will take you to the small back room or a van filled with every designer name imaginable. This is the second oldest profession: counterfeiting. Many consumers believe that these counterfeiters are doing a service because consumers do not want to pay an exorbitant price for the real thing. However, counterfeiting is not a victimless crime.

A counterfeit is a trademark infringement, a manufactured good being passed off as an original under the trademark.[1] This is harmful to luxury brands because their trademark is their business. Luxury brands rely on their trademarks to attract consumers and the brand mark signals to consumers the high quality of their products. Counterfeiting hurts the economy. The United States economy loses up to $250 billion in sales each year and 750,000 jobs lost.[2] In 2015, the EU economy reported a value 9.7% of their total sales every year or $28.7 billion and 363,000 jobs lost.[3]

Counterfeiting is a $600 billion industry and represents 5-7% of total world trade.[4]  And, these numbers are only increasing due to modern technology and the Internet. Because consumers can now shop within their own homes, counterfeit sales are on the rise because companies cannot watch the internet 24/7 looking for counterfeit sites [5] In 2007, for example, $119 billion worth of knock-off merchandise were purchased on the web.[6]

If clothing does not interest you like it does me, just know that more than clothing and handbags are counterfeited. Counterfeits have spread to toys, electronics, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals,[7] many of which are sold through legitimate retail stores and websites.[8] These are public safety issues; these counterfeits are made with hazardous materials to the environment and to people’s health. Counterfeit luxury goods, also, have serious criminal ramifications that are not known to most consumers.

Shakil Khan, 10, has worked for 4 months in a garment factory in Old Dhaka, making money for his impoverished family in Chandpur, Bangladesh. Nafeesa Binte Aziz/Toronto Star

Counterfeit luxury goods aren’t just hurting the economy, but promote child labor exploitation, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and even terrorism as well as other civil, criminal, and administrative crimes.[9] A Vietnamese crime gang leader earned $13 million selling counterfeit watches in New York.[10] Children, as young as six, are treated to excessively cruel and criminal treatment.[11] Forced laborers are smuggled into the country with the products to sell them and to place the finishing touches on the goods after getting across the borders.[12] There have been reports of authorities uncovering operations where proceeds from drug trafficking were channeled into counterfeiting and, vice versa, where profits from the sale of counterfeit goods were used to further other illicit operations.[13] The FBI has evidence that the World Trade Center 1993 bombing was financed with counterfeit luxury goods on Canal Street.[14] In 1996, the FBI found that followers of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind cleric who was sentenced to 240 years in prison for plotting to bomb New York City landmarks, had made millions of dollars selling counterfeit t-shirts bearing Nike and Olympics logos.[15]

So what can be done to protect fashion maisons and stop crime? Louis Vuitton employs about 40 lawyers, 250 independent investigators, and spends over $20 million each year to fight counterfeiting of its products.[16] Fashion maisons also turn to MarkMonitor (a corporation that accesses data and detects unauthorized channels and shuts them down) for help.[17] Of course, all of these costs get passed on to the consumer. There are also national laws in place. For example, the U.S. enacted the Lanham Act and Copyright Act of 1976.[18] In France, consumers can be forced to pay a costly fine and possible jail time for owning a counterfeit.[19] This idea is catching on in Italy and Britain as well. The European Union has placed two new regulations dealing with counterfeits.[20] On the international level there is International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (IACC), Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, Anti-Counterfeiting Group, International Intellectual Property Alliance. The World Trade Organization has its members sign the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement.[21]

In 2008, Louis Vuitton sued eBay in a French court. The French court ruled that eBay did not do enough to prevent the counterfeit sales from occurring on the site and eBay was ordered to pay $60.8 million in damages.[22] In a UK court, Cartier and Montblanc were recently granted orders ruling Internet providers to block websites selling counterfeit watches under their trademark.[23] Moncler has recently become victorious in the judicial arena. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) granted the transfer of 50 domain names incorporating its trademark.[24] In its case against Royalcat (a Chinese company), the Beijing IP Court awarded the maximum statutory damages in a trademark infringement action.[25]

As consumers we have the power to stop the counterfeiting industry. We are hurting ourselves. We have a responsibility to protect ourselves and each other. So, if you see someone considering buying a counterfeit Prada tell them “caveat emptor.” We need to educate each other about where and who are money is going to.

For more info on how to spot a fake, click here.

Kia Roberts-Warren is a 2l at University of Baltimore. She has always had an interest in international affairs. She is interested in private international law as well as international humanitarian law. She is on the executive board of ILS as the Career Development Director and is on the Phillip C. Jessup Moot Court Team.

[1] http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/2090589.pdf

[2] http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=honors

[3] http://qz.com/460932/fakes-are-costing-europes-fashion-industry-10-of-its-sales-and-thousands-of-jobs/

[4] http://michiganjb.org/issues/1/article4.pdf

[5]http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=honors

[6] http://michiganjb.org/issues/1/article4.pdf

[7] https://www.iwu.edu/economics/PPE17/lewis.pdf

[8] https://www.iwu.edu/economics/PPE17/lewis.pdf

[9]  https://www.unodc.org/documents/counterfeit/FocusSheet/Counterfeit_focussheet_EN_HIRES.pdf

[10] https://www.iwu.edu/economics/PPE17/lewis.pdf

[11] https://www.unodc.org/documents/counterfeit/FocusSheet/Counterfeit_focussheet_EN_HIRES.pdf

[12] https://www.unodc.org/documents/counterfeit/FocusSheet/Counterfeit_focussheet_EN_HIRES.pdf

[13] https://www.unodc.org/documents/counterfeit/FocusSheet/Counterfeit_focussheet_EN_HIRES.pdf

[14] http://michiganjb.org/issues/1/article4.pdf

[15] http://michiganjb.org/issues/1/article4.pdf

[16] http://michiganjb.org/issues/1/article4.pdf

[17] http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=honors

[18] http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=honors

[19] http://crefovi.com/articles/fashion-law/efficiently-fight-counterfeiting-fashion-luxury-sectors/

[20] http://crefovi.com/articles/fashion-law/efficiently-fight-counterfeiting-fashion-luxury-sectors/

[21] http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/2090589.pdf

[22] http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=honors

[23] http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/cartier-wins-court-order-blocking-sites-selling-fakes

[24] http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DNL2015-0031

[25] http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Magazine/Issue/59/News/Beijing-IP-Court-grants-maximum-amount-of-statutory-damages-for-the-first-time

Restricting Schengen – Keeping out Refugees

Raiven Taylor 

Recently, European countries have come up with plans to keep migrants out. In June of 2015, the EU had an emergency meeting and came up with a “10-point plan” to “capture and destroy” boats used to smuggle in migrants.[i] Not long after this plan hatched, Hungary and other European countries erected wire fences to keep migrants out. [ii] Germany, Denmark, Austria and a few other countries suspended their willingness to adhere to the Schengen rules and reintroduce border controls.[iii] The Schengen treaty allows for open travel in the 26-nation bloc known as the Schengen area.[iv] This area, created in 1995 and originally consisting of 26 EU nations, abolished passport controls at common borders.[v] The recent suspension of this was thought to shock the rest of EU when it came to border controls to deal with the migration crisis. Because Germany borders nine other countries, without its participation, Schengen fails.[vi] This led other countries to begin closing their borders, criminalizing most new arrivals as illegal immigrants.[vii] With all of the changes, it has been difficult for migrants to find a country that will allow them to enter. This also makes it difficult for those countries that CAN take these immigrants into their territory because resources are tight. As of September 2015, 63,000 asylum seekers from Hungary and Austria entered Bavaria, which is more than the total of asylum seekers for the enter year of 2014.[viii]

The EU proposed a deal with Turkey, promising $3.3 billion for it to close down its borders.[ix] Denmark has also passed a law allowing it to seize valuables from asylum seekers in order to pay for their upkeep.[x] All of this is leads to bigger problems because even though countries are locking down their borders, migrants are finding other, often very dangerous ways, to get in anyway. On February 12, 2016 the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) expressed its concern for the increasing restrictive measures on the part of EU states, stressing that something must be done to protect the fundamental human rights of the people trying to reach Europe.

Spokesperson for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR) stated that more than 80,000 migrants arrived in Europe by boat in the first 6 weeks of 2016, with 400 dying in their attempt. Statistics show that 58 percent of migrants coming to Europe are women and children. One in 3 people arriving in Greece are children, compared to the 1 in 10 in September 2015.[xi] It has also been reported that two children drown every day, on average, since September 2015 as their families attempt to cross the Mediterranean Sea, totaling more than 340 children.[xii] UNCHR and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) urge countries to cooperate and make dangerous journeys like this safer for children.[xiii]

A UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants, François Crépeau, stated that although “Europe has always been a strong advocate of human rights in Europe and elsewhere… its struggle to maintain control of its borders however…is being tested…[and by]stripping away the rights of asylum-seekers and migrants, Europe is creating a scary new ‘normal.’”[xiv] Over-reliance and securitization of borders will not work to keep migrants out because they will find another way in order to survive, allowing smugglers to continue to adapt, prosper, and exploit migrants.[xv] In order to combat smuggling, states must provide regular, safe and cheap mobility solutions, including both identity and security checks.[xvi]

The European public, predominantly, has the view that Europe needs stricter controls, bigger fences, and more military control.[xvii] Although the public might favor these stricter policies, politicians view them as an immoral and an unworkable approach.[xviii] The question is how will European countries pursue this issue and in what ways will immigration be affected long term? Will countries continue keeping its borders open? Will countries continue with daily limits on migrants? I believe countries should find a less dangerous way for migrants to travel while also coming up with a way to stem the tide of migration. It is somewhat understandable for countries to not want to be overpopulated and have an extra burden on state-run agencies. However, risking the lives of migrants is not the way to overcome this problem. Many organizations are attempting to convince the politicians to work this issue out as peacefully as possible and in a way that lessens the dangers for migrants. Something needs to be done – sooner, rather than later!

[i] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/31/europe-bind-act-morally-on-immigrants-heed-its-citizens

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/13/germany-border-crackdown-deals-blow-to-schengen-system

[v] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/31/europe-bind-act-morally-on-immigrants-heed-its-citizens

[vi] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/13/germany-border-crackdown-deals-blow-to-schengen-system

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/31/europe-bind-act-morally-on-immigrants-heed-its-citizens

[x] Id.

[xi] http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53217#.VsxxWMfiQtg

[xii] http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53272#.VsxxYsfiQtg

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53217#.VsxxWMfiQtg

[xv] id.

[xvi] Id.

[xvii] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/31/europe-bind-act-morally-on-immigrants-heed-its-citizens

[xviii] Id.