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/

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.

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.

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.

Nigeria’s Economy – Help is on the Way!

Carolyn Mills

The economy of Nigeria is the largest economy in West Africa, experiencing massive growth in the last 24 years. While the African continent, as a whole, has experienced rapid growth and development, there is concern amongst the international community regarding the threat of terror organizations, such as Boko Haram and the internal rampant corruption. The economy of Nigeria has recently faced difficulty and has made several appeals to the international community for support. Without this crucial intervention international organizations the threat of collapse could be imminent.

Currently Boko Haram has taken a large foothold in the northern Nigeria, and is notably known for the kidnapping of 300 school girls in 2014, which sparked the #BringBackOurGirls movement. Boko Haram’s terror is indiscriminate as the organization is known for attacking both Christians and Muslims. Boko Haram began as a peaceful organization until 2009 when the government of Nigeria launched investigations into their activities. [1] The terror group has been credited with the death of nearly 17,000 Nigerians since its reign of terror began in 2010. [2] Corruption has been a further impediment to the growth of Nigeria’s economy. A recently published article, one of the most notable and egregious cases of corruption occurred when $195 billion naira (nearly 10 billion dollars) was pilfered from a pension fund that was intended for retired workers.[3]

2014 was a year of great exploits for Nigeria, as it was named the largest economy in Africa (as well as most populous)[4].  Its largest industries are its growing entertainment sector known as ‘Nollywood’, followed by its large agricultural sector.[5] In the past 2 years, however, Nigeria has experienced a fall in the valuation of their currency (the naira) as oil prices have fallen below $30 per barrel. Initially following the election of President Muhammadu Buhari the stock market peaked at the hope of a new president with a new economic policy, however hopes were quickly dashed. [6] The falling price of crude oil in the country coupled with their need to import refined fuel has put much pressure on the economy and President Buhari. [7]

In an effort to assist the country in its efforts to fight Boko Haram, the European Union has pledged more than $50 million dollars to aide in the fighting against Boko Haram[8]. The European Union has also recently pledged to assist in diversifying its nearly exclusive oil dependent economy[9]. The attractive package comes with many caveats (read strings). The EU Ambassador to Nigeria, based in Lagos, stressed the importance of business owners and investors having protection under Nigerian laws stating.[10] Although how Nigeria will ensure the protection of potential investors is still in flux, Foreign Minister Geoffrey Onyeama remains hopeful that any future agreements with other countries will provide Nigeria with technical assistance to make the transition from a primarily agrarian economy to a fully industrialized economy.[11] The more pronounced role of other states and organizations is necessary to help usher in Africa’s largest economy and assist in sustained growth—rather than a mere suggestion from the EU.

Despite the recent call for help from President Buhari, Germany has been the only state to show interest in contributing to the development and investment in Nigeria’s now lackluster economy. Among other things, German President Joachim Guack has pledged support in the move to eliminate corruption, which is seen as the country’s number one enemy to progress. [12]

The threat of global terrorism should not deter international development. With increased investment comes increased infrastructure—infrastructure that is undoubtedly linked to the safety of the country’s border. Without such investment, the economy will stagnate and most of its resources will be sunk into their safety and defense forces, rather than development.  It is a harrowing catch-22 for government of Nigeria, as they attempt to advance their economic and social strength, while combating terrorism and corruption that seeks to slow progress. Germany’s advanced (and seemingly sole) role in the elimination of terror and the diversification of the economy will hopefully prove to be altruistic and non-imperialistic in nature as Nigeria fights to remain a forerunner on the African Continent.

Carolyn Mills is a graduate from of Bowie State University  and holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. Carolyn is a 2L at the University of Baltimore School of Law. She serves as 2L Representative for the International Law Society.  Her interests and focus areas are on Central America and West Africa; she has traveled to both Guatemala and Honduras and hopes to visit Ghana this summer. She is currently a law clerk for the Department of Homeland Security’s Human Rights Law Section.  

[1] http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11250530

[2] http://www.globalresearch.ca/boko-haram-in-nigeria-the-destabilization-of-the-world-through-the-war-on-terror/5504014

[3] https://www.naij.com/402850-top-12-corruption-cases.html

[4] http://leadership.ng/features/502916/nigerian-economy-global-appeal-nwanze

[5] http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/how-nigeria-became-africas-largest-economy-overnight/360288/

[6] http://qz.com/595453/the-precarious-state-of-nigerias-economy-right-now-captured-in-two-charts/).

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] ( http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/eu-pledges-to-assist-nigeria-diversify-economy/232283/)

[10] http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/eu-pledges-to-assist-nigeria-diversify-economy/232283/.

[11] (http://allafrica.com/stories/201602100215.html).

[12] http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/02/we-have-lost-lives-economy-because-of-corruption/

British Cabinet Drops Its Obligation to International Law from Code

Shane G. Bagwell

David Cameron has led the British Parliament since 2010 and, since that date, has not shied away from controversy. Policies such as increases in tuition fees for university education, privatization of the National Health Service, and military action in Libya have led to protests in the streets. While his leadership has been unpredictable and his policies at times self-contradicting, he has grown the Conservative Party to the point where it holds an outright majority in the House of Commons. His most recent controversy involves the Government’s self-proclaimed obligations (or lack thereof) to protect and uphold international law.

The Cabinet of the United Kingdom is the collective decision-making body of Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom, made up of the First Lord of the Treasury (also known as the Prime Minister), and members of Parliament appointed by the Prime Minister to lead government departments.^[1] Though typically selected from the House of Commons, it is not entirely uncommon for members of the House of Lords to be selected for certain posts. The most senior members of the Cabinet are the Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary.^[2]

            Unlike in the American system, Cabinet Ministers are not necessarily experts in their field, and rely heavily on the input of members of the Civil Service for developing and implementing policy.^[3] Additionally, members of the Cabinet in the United Kingdom have joint responsibility for government departments, and may, pursuant to the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975:

(a) provide for the transfer to any Minister of the Crown of any functions previously exercisable by another Minister of the Crown;
(b) provide for the dissolution of the government department in the charge of any Minister of the Crown and the transfer to or distribution among such other Minister or Ministers of the Crown as may be specified in the Order of any functions previously exercisable by the Minister in charge of that department;
(c) direct that functions of any Minister of the Crown shall be exercisable concurrently with another Minister of the Crown, or shall cease to be so exercisable.

Cabinet Ministers are bound by the Ministerial Code, which provides ethical guidelines for the performance of their duties and outlines their relationship with Parliament. The first sentence of the Ministerial Code reads, “[t]he Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life.” This is not how the sentence has read historically, however. Until October of 2015, the Ministerial Code began with providing an obligation for members of the Cabinet “to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations…” On October 22, the Guardian published an article noting the deletion of references to international law from the Code.^[4] As an executive body of the British system of government, this change (though subtle) has potentially enormous implications for the United Kingdom’s relationship with the rest of the world. Philippe Sands QC, a professor of law at University College London, said the change was “shocking. Another slap to Magna Carta and the idea of the rule of law. A government that wants to ditch Europe and sever the connection with the European Convention on Human Rights now wishes to free itself from the constraints of international law and the judgments of international courts.”^[5] Ken MacDonald QC, a former director of public prosecutions, piled on to the mounting criticism of the Government’s move, stating that “[i]t is difficult to believe that this change is inadvertent. If it’s deliberate, it appears to advocate a conscious loosening of ministerial respect for the rule of law and the UK’s international treaty obligations, including weakening responsibility for the quality of justice here at home.”^[6]

Mr. MacDonald’s claim that the Government’s change in policy was deliberate doesn’t require particularly deep research to back up. The Tory website hosts a pamphlet called “Protecting Human Rights in the UK : the Conservative’s Proposals for Changing Britain’s Human Rights Laws,” in which the party promises that “[w]e will amend the Ministerial Code to remove any ambiguity in the current rules about the duty of Ministers to follow the will of Parliament in the UK.”^[7] The Conservative Party has a fair amount of support from Euroskeptics, and has attempted to woo voters away from the UK Independence Party (UKIP) by not-so-subtly promoting an anti-EU agenda. With an upcoming referendum on the UK’s continued membership in the EU, the Conservative party has crafted its international law obligations to reflect their desire for Parliament to once again be the supreme body of law, without interference from Brussels.

What is extremely troubling about this is that the European Union is already on shaky ground with the recent crises surrounding Greek debt, the influx of Syrian refugees, and others. The Cameron Government’s decision to distance itself from the international community is a regressive policy which stands only to harm British interests. Without a strong commitment to establishing itself as a participating member of the international community, let alone a voice within the European community, the Cabinet finds itself in the precarious situation of being Europe’s least social member. As the world becomes more interconnected and reliant on international commerce, Britain’s continued aversion to participation could spell out its downfall from the international stage. While Britain retains a seat on the U.N. Security Council, it appears to be a holdover of those lost days when Britain held its head high as a global power and exercised itself as a force for good. While David Cameron backs both horses and pledges personal loyalty to the EU, yet simultaneously dismantles Britain’s obligations to the mainland, he belittles Britain’s prestige, rather projecting his country to the world as a manic and indecisive antique, wrestling with the opposing forces of its colonial past and potentially tumultuous future.

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

^[1] http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/government-and-opposition1/her-majestys-government/

^[2] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british-politics/the-executive-in-british-politics/the-cabinet-and-british-politics/

^[3] http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/

^[4] http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/oct/22/lawyers-express-concern-over-ministerial-code-rewrite

^[5] Id.

^[6] http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/11/no-10-legal-challenge-ministerial-code-rewrite-international-law

^[7] https://www.conservatives.com/~/media/files/downloadable%20Files/human_rights.pdf

North Korea: Actions, Not Words

Christian Kim

On February 7, 2016, North Korea drew heavy criticism from the United Nations by launching the Taepo Dong 3, a long-ranged missile.(1)  North Korea’s defense to the launch was that this was not a sign of aggression but, rather, a peaceful satellite test.(2)  This was not the first time that North Korea launched a missile test.  North Korea launched seven separate missile tests ever 1993, three of which occurred in the past four years.(3)  Although the first series of missile tests were unsuccessful, North Korea their success rate increases with every launch.  The missile test prior to the Taepo Dong 3 had the capability of reaching 10,000km, with the potential to target over 38% of the United States.(4)  With Taepo Dong 3, the coverage extended to 13,000km, allowing North Korea to target as far as New York City and Washington D.C. (5)

The international community needs to take North Korea’s recent missile launch as a serious threat.  North Korea has consistently spewed hostile rhetoric of annihilating the United States, as well as the “puppets” of the United States, South Korea. (6)  Further indication that the Taepo Dong 3 missile test was far from innocent is North Korea’s past acts of aggression towards South Korea.   Even though the two Koreas signed an armistice agreement in 1953, they are still technically at war.(7)  In 2002, North Korea launched a surprise attack on a South Korean vessel, resulting in the death of six South Korean sailors.  (8)  In 2010, North Korea sunk the Cheonan, a South Korean naval vessel, in the Yellow Sea.(9)  Over 46 sailors were killed in this belligerent attack from the North.(10)  Despite North Korea’s denial of these attacks, South Korea had proof that North Korea was responsible.(11)   Almost eight months after the sinking of the Cheonan, North Korea unleashed an artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island, destroying over 70 buildings and killing two South Korean soldiers as well as two civilians.(12)

Although the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned North Korea’s long-range missile test, this condemnation along with their proposed economic sanctions will not change North Korea’s attitude.(13)  Past economic sanctions on luxury items were unsuccessful because the North Korean regime managed to smuggle luxury items in through their biggest ally, China.(14)  Even though China’s relationship with North Korea has significantly deteriorated in the past few years, they still consider each other as important allies.  This is evident in the amount of trading that goes on between the two countries: 57% of North Korea’s imports and 42% of their exports are with China.(15)  It is unlikely that China will follow in the steps of the international community since China will have a lot to lose if they agree to the economic sanctions.  To convince China will take a lot more than simple persuasion and the change will not occur overnight.  For now, the most immediate step the international community can take is to convince South Korea to shut down the Kaesong Industrial Park indefinitely and to continue blasting anti-North Korean messages on their DMZ loudspeakers.

The Kaesong Industrial Park (“Kaesong”) is a joint economic collaboration between North and South Korea.  Kaesong is located in North Korea, approximately six miles north from the Demilitarized Zone.(16)  Over a hundred South Korean companies set up factories in Kaesong to employ over 50,000 North Korean workers.(17)  These North Korean workers work for a significantly cheaper wage than their Southern counterparts, so this is a profitable venture for the South Korean companies.(18)  Even though the South Korean companies pay wages directly to the North Korean workers, these workers are forced by the North Korean government to give the majority of their pay to the government.(19)  As a result, the North Korean government sees this region as a very important source of income.  There have been proposals in the past to have watchdogs ensure that wages stay with the Kaesong employees; however, the Kaesong employees were picked by the regime for their loyalty.(20)  It does not matter how many measures South Korea takes to ensure the wages go where they belong, it will eventually end up financing the very programs that South Korea is adamantly against. Although South Korea has pulled out of the Kaesong complex because of Taepo Dong 3 missile test, this is most likely a temporary decision.  Kaesong has been prone to shut downs and re-openings depending on the fluctuating tensions on the Korean peninsula.(21)  As soon as North Korea “apologizes” in regards to the missile test, it is almost certain that South Korea will restart operations at Kaesong.  Since these South Korean companies are indirectly financing the North Korean regime’s missile and nuclear tests, the South Korean government should step in and force these companies to shut down their operations in Kaesong indefinitely.  Even though the indefinite shut down of Kaesong will dampen the relations on the Korean peninsula, North Korea will realize that their neighbors down South are done playing games.

While shutting down Kaesong indefinitely is one solution, restarting the DMZ loudspeakers would be an even better move.  In 2015, two South Korean soldiers were injured by landmines while patrolling the DMZ.(22)  These bombs were planted by North Korean soldiers with the intent to harm South Korean soldiers.  Once again, North Korea denied any involvement and refused to apologize.(23)  In response, the South Korean government reactivated their loudspeakers on the DMZ border.(24)  These loudspeakers can be heard up to 7.5 miles past the DMZ during the day and almost 15 miles past the DMZ at night.(25)  The loudspeakers are a source of concern for the North Korean government since news is broadcasted that the regime has attempted to keep from its citizens.(26)  These broadcasts, often, highlight the reality of the terrible conditions in North Korea.  At other times, the loudspeakers blast news stories from daily lives in the South or K-Pop music.(27)  North Korea has constantly threatened to fire at these loudspeakers, but were warned by the South that any attacks would be reciprocated.(28)  In order to have the South Korean government turn off the speakers, North Korea begrudgingly agreed to claim their sorrow at the South Korean soldiers’ injuries.(29)  Even though this wasn’t the best apology one could have hoped for, it was nevertheless an apology from a country that rarely acknowledges their mistakes.  If these loudspeakers made North Korea agree to take responsibility for the planted bombs, perhaps the continuation of these loudspeakers could make the North fess up to their “peaceful” missile tests and to take action against any future tests.

Whether or not China agrees to apply economic sanctions to North Korea, the first step for the international community is to urge South Korea to take immediate action against the North.  Once South Korea has implemented the previously suggested measures, the next step should be for the entire international community to place harsh economic sanctions on North Korea.  Aside from medical and food sanctions, the international community should place a ban on any trade of non-essential goods.  The North Korean regime relies on the idea of self-reliance (“Juche”). If the citizens of North Korea realize that the government is no longer self-sufficient, the North Korean regime’s façade of a successful country will deteriorate.  When this realization occurs, the regime will have no choice but to listen to the demands of the international community.

Christian Kim is a 2L at the University of Baltimore School of Law and graduated from the University of Maryland with a Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice. He currently serves as the President of the Asian Pacific American Law Student Association as well as the 2L Rep for the Student Bar Association. His interests are East Asian politics, international conflicts, and human rights.  Before Law School, Christian has worked for the Korean Ministry of Education as a TaLK (Teach and Learn in Korea) Scholar and Coordinator for two years. He is currently a legal intern at the Hermina Law Group and a law clerk for the Law Office ofHayley Tamburello.

(1) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/07/north-korea-missile/79963198/#

(2) http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-08/north-korean-missile-launch-prompts-new-calls-for-sanctions-tough-response

(3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15278612

(4) http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/bruce-klingner/north-koreas-missile-launch-shows-it-could-target-us-homeland

(5) Id.

(6) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/09/north-korea-says-souths-propaganda-broadcasts-taking-it-to-brink-of-war

(7) http://www.bbc.com/news/10165796

(8) https://medium.com/war-is-boring/north-koreas-history-of-violence-b9af3d35c17a#.rvt3ch8e0

(9) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32013750

(10) Id.

(11) http://www.bbc.com/news/10130909

(12) http://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2010/nov/24/south-korea-north-korea-pictures

(13) http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/07/asia/north-korea-rocket-launch-window/

(14) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/north-korea-sanctions-luxury-goods_n_2910005.html

(15) http://www.anser.org/babrief_nk-economy-feature

(16) http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22011178

(17) Id.

(18) Id.

(19) http://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/north-koreans-make-less-money-than-their-counterparts-at-kaesong-08142015164241.html

(20) http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/business/north-korea-economy-explainer/

(21) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-south-korea-resume-work-at-joint-kaesong-industrial-park-after-5-month-shutdown/

(22) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3192103/South-Korea-accuses-North-Korea-planting-landmines-maimed-two-soldiers-patrolling-volatile-border-threatens-make-Pyongyang-pay-harsh-price.html

(23) Id.

(24) http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/08/17/north-and-south-korea-turn-up-loudspeakers-to-blare-propaganda-at-each-other.html

(25) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35278451

(26) Id.

(27) Id.

(28) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/11813728/North-Korea-attacks-South-Korea-military-border-unit-and-fires-shots-at-loudspeaker.html

(29) http://fox6now.com/2015/08/24/tensions-eased-as-northsouth-korea-reach-deal-on-apology-loudspeakers/