Ius Gentium

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


Leave a comment

United in Paralysis

Bradley Willis

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

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

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

Willis_Blog2_Photo1

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

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

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

Willis_Blog2_Photo2

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

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

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

Willis_Blog2_Photo3

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

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

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

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

Willis_Blog2_Photo4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements


2 Comments

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

 Roman Msaki 

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

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

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

Msaki_Blog1_Photo1

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

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

Msaki_Blog1_Photo2

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

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

Msaki_Blog1_Photo3

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

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

Msaki_Blog1_Photo4

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

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

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

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

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

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

[5] PWC stands for “Pricewaterhouse Coopers”.

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

[7] Ibid.

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

[9] Supra: note 4

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

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

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


2 Comments

The Right Not to Work

Robert Steininger 

In the growing age of globalization and the rise in the use of technology, many have difficulties disconnecting from work. Smartphones have replaced the computer, the newspaper, the telephone, and much more. We are always connected, and that connection is just as tied to our employer as it is to our personal lives. Companies are starting to realize that their employees health and production have been negatively effected. One country has taken the initial steps necessary to reestablish the wall between employees’ personal and work life.[i]

On May 10, 2016, the French government used a constitutional provision to push through the El Khomri law. The law is named after Labor Minister Myriam El Khomri. Many provisions in the law were seen to benefit employers at the expense of employees, and therefore not welcomed by the French people. However, the most well liked article had the employees’ needs in mind. The law went into effect on January 1, 2017, in which France now requires employers to negotiate what rights their employees have to ignore work emails and other forms of communication. While the idea is commendable and its expected effects laudable, the complete lack of an enforceability mechanism in the law is an issue but that does not take away from the effect it can have on employees.

The right not to disconnect requires employers to negotiate what those specific rights would be for their employees, however, if the employer fails to do so, or breaks the terms of that right there is no mechanism to penalize the employer. This leaves employees in an odd place, they have a right but no means to enforce that right. It will be interesting to see if courts will take action if case is brought.

 

steininger_blog1_photo1[ii]

For the rest of the world, however, employees still have to dread whether that vibrating phone is a friend or their employer, which can increase their stress levels. This stress can lead to what experts are calling “digital exhaustion.”[iii] Employers have taken this researched and asked themselves to consider the effect that being tied to your email can have on the overall productivity of that employee. For example, the productivity levels in the United Kingdom are poor not only because U.K. citizens work the longest hours in Europe but also due to the fact that U.K. citizens are biggest users smart devices.[iv] Britons work an average of eight and half hours a day, which equates to 1677 average annual hours with £18.64 hourly productivity.[v] A Luxembourger, by comparison, works about 1643 average annual hours, with £45.71 hourly productivity.[vi]

While the average annual hours are relatively close, the hourly productivity numbers are drastically different. This could be because not only do Britons work longer hours, but also cannot disconnect from work once they leave. Although this study was looking at the number hours worked, it could be interesting to see how many hours Britons work when not on the clock. I suspect the average annual hours would rise and the amount hourly productivity would decrease even more. However, France and England are not the only countries facing this dilemma.

 

steininger_blog1_photo2[vii]

In 2015, a Japanese company, Dentsu, an employee committed suicide after working over 105 overtime hours in a month.[viii] In response, Tokyo’s governor ordered government employees to end their day by 8 PM.[ix] Additionally, Dentsu has since barred workers from putting in more than 65 hours of overtime a month. Japan may need to follow suit with France’s law to help further disconnect their over worked employees.

This issue of needing to disconnect can affect more than the happiness of the employees. In South Korea, employees are working so much that they are not taking time to have families. Thus, in response South Korea’s Ministry of Health introduced a monthly Family Day, where the office lights are turned off at 7 PM to encourage staff either to spend time with their families or to use that time to create a family. The Ministry had the goal of increasing South Korea low birth rate.[x]

  As globalization continues and as we stay more connected than ever, the labor laws of countries need to adapt. Employees are spending all their time increasing the profits of their employer without seeing added benefits for that work. Overall, countries need to realize that their citizenry are not there to be cogs in the machine, but to build their lives as they see fit, which means being able to have lives outside their employment.

Robert Steininger is a third year law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law.  (Candidate for J.D., May 2017).  He holds a Bachelors of Arts in Linguistics with a minor in Japanese from the University at Buffalo – SUNY.  As part of his international law studies, he took part in a winter study abroad program in Curaçao taking classes in European Union Economic law and Comparative Confession law.  He also studied in Japan at Konan University while completing his undergraduate degree. In addition to being a CICL fellow, Robert currently serves as the Volume V Managing Editor for the University of Baltimore’s Journal of International Law and the President of OUT Law.  He is also a Maryland Rule 19-217 Student Attorney with the Immigrant Rights Clinic. He is currently a Law Clerk at the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.

 

[i] France ‘Right to Disconnect’ Law: Do We Need Rules to Reclaim Personal Time?, http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/france-right-disconnect-law-do-we-need-rules-reclaim-personal-n704366

[ii] http://www.cultofmac.com/253917/apples-iphone-repair-guides/.

[iii] Id.

[iv] France ‘Right to Disconnect’ Law: Do We Need Rules To Reclaim Personal Time?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/france-right-disconnect-law-do-we-need-rules-reclaim-personal-n704366

[v] The Most Productive Countries in the World Also Have the Shortest Work Days, https://www.indy100.com/article/the-most-productive-countries-in-the-world-also-have-the-shortest-work-days–ZJWJ1Vvw8Pb

[vi] Id.

[vii] JAMIE GRILL VIA GETTY IMAGES

[viii] France’s ‘Right to Disconnect’ and 4 Other Countries Trying to Improve Work-Life Balance, http://time.com/4620532/countries-work-life-balance/.

[ix] Id.

[x] Id.


1 Comment

From the Age of Big Brother, [TITLE CONTENT CENSORED (and that *might* not be a terrible thing…)], Greetings!

Margie Beltran

 

 

The mystique of a dystopian society has maintained a consistent intrigue across the history of mankind.  The imagination of man runs wild when he thinks about the “what ifs” and how they would affect the way we live.

The Time Machine; 1984; Brave New World; Planet of the Apes; The Giver; The Hunger Games; The Divergent Series; and, of course, that paramount episode of The Twilight Zone when all that poor man wanted to do was read his books – he becomes the last man on Earth and can finally sit on the remains of the post-apocalyptic library, reading for the rest of his days. And then, he accidentally steps on his glasses and yells, “That’s not fair, there was time now!”

We have seen the same theme time and again: mankind begins to self-destruct and in the bout of chaos and anarchy, a powerful leader/governing body rises from the ruins and reshapes society into a peaceful and balanced ecosystem.  Beautiful, no? So, what’s the catch? To have order and peace, one must forego the right to freedom and privacy.

My friends, hold on to your Mockingjay pins, for the dawning of the dystopian society may be upon us.

On November 29, 2016, The Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) was passed in the UK set to be enforced in January 2017.[i]  Not the first of its kind among the EU Member States, the IPA was satirically dubbed the “Snooper’s Charter” by those who opposed it. The Act grants law enforcement easier access to the private communications of UK citizens.[ii]  Some of the major provisions[iii] include, but are not limited to:

  1. Power to issue warrants for intrusive surveillance granted to ministers.
  2. Easier access for the government to retain browser history from popular websites.
  3. Ability to collect bulk communications data and to hack suspect’s electronic devices.

Over the past few years, terrorist attacks have become a consistent and troubling threat throughout Europe.[iv]  Although aware of the threat posed by terrorism, many within the EU are concerned since allowing the government into their phones and personal computers was not quite what many had in mind, as far protective measures go.[v]  Amnesty International (AI) criticized the UK, a nation considered to be a fierce protector of human rights, for setting such an example to other EU-Member States.[vi] According to AI, the Snooper’s Charter is “a modern twist of the Orwellian ‘thought crime,’ [in which] people can now be prosecuted for actions that have extremely tenuous links to actual criminal behavior.”[vii]

I sympathize and empathize with this issue under two lenses: the first, my rose-colored-goggles human rights activist perspective, in which I feel the rights of the people should be staunchly protected and the foremost concern of the governing body to any nation because it is what is just and humane; and the second, as a young American adult who remembers being a nine-year old, enveloped with gut-wrenching fear for reasons I could not even comprehend, living just minutes from Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001, and seeing the glazed-over eyes and clenched jaws of my peers whose parents worked downtown trying to hold back their tears in school for weeks following the attack.

The day the government is definitively tracking every communication we send and receive will be a disturbing one for sure.  Even if they have nothing to hide, many people are bothered knowing a third party is always reading, analyzing, and judging everything they type or say.

While freedom of speech is of the utmost importance, I continually find myself reverting to the lenses of nine-year old me.  If the ones I love are at risk of being hurt, I would give up my right to privacy within the confines of this act.  Maybe not permanently – and that is a risk that holds high with a law challenging a fundamental freedom – but at least until this state of emergency in Europe eases.

Think about The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (far more commonly known as The USA PATRIOT Act) enacted during the George W. Bush Administration in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks which enabled law enforcement to detect and prevent terrorism attacks by expanding the scope of their investigatory practices.[viii]  The USA PATRIOT Act passed in Congress across the bipartisan margins.[ix]  In the Senate, the act passed with nearly a unanimous at a 98-1 vote, while the House voted in favor with a 357-66 vote.[x]

Regarding terrorist attacks, the US has not faced an attack of the magnitude of 9/11 since the act was decreed.  While the USA PATRIOT Act has its flaws, as most laws do, the original purpose for introducing the bill has generally been satisfied.  The UK appears as if the IPA has received the same treatment by Parliament.[xi]  According to London-based journalist, Ewen MacAskill, the bill passed “with barely a whimper.”[xii]  Further, he said the marginal resistance to the bill did not come from outside of the parliament’s four walls, indicating the people of the UK and Parliament are both in support of the IPA.[xiii]  If the citizens of the UK are not complaining about the new law and choosing to exercise their right of privacy by foregoing their right of privacy, then so be it.  They have the right to invite Big Brother into their lives.

To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone – to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone…from the age of Big Brother – greetings!” – George Orwell, 1984[xiv]

 

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.

[i] http://www.natlawreview.com/article/uk-investigatory-powers-act-2016-how-to-prepare-digital-age

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/17/uk-counter-terror-laws-most-orwellian-in-europe-says-amnesty

[v] Id.

[vi] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/01/eu-orwellian-counter-terrorism-laws-stripping-rights-under-guise-of-defending-them/

[vii] Id.

[viii] https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm

[ix] Id.

[x] Id.

[xi] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/19/extreme-surveillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper

[xii] Id.

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] 1984 by George Orwell

 

 


Leave a comment

The Double-Edged Sword in the Stone: London’s Fate as a Seat of International Arbitration Post-Brexit

Esther-Jane Grenness

Her chest tightened and her palms began to sweat when an email popped up in her inbox with the subject line, “Attention HSBC London Employees.” Her worst fears were confirmed. Her job was moving to Paris as “preemptive action” in response to Brexit uncertainties.[1] She picked up her phone and dialed her father’s number. A Welsh collier who eagerly voted “Yes!” to leave the EU, he picked up the phone, happy to see his daughter calling. Without even saying hello, she blurted, “Thanks a lot, Da! My job’s to move to France because you an’ all voted to give them the boot.” Tears welled up in her eyes. After a moment’s pause, her father exclaimed, “Bloody foreign loving bastards! Shame on them. They’re a British bank.” Dejected, she mumbled, “It’s all because of Brexit.”

Brexit is the term used to describe the United Kingdom’s June 2016 referendum in which 51.9% of the eligible electorate voted to leave the European Union.[2] Not expecting it to actually happen, the United Kingdom must now decide how, and when, to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU – or Lisbon Treaty). Article 50 gives the U.K. two years in which to negotiate its exit, but the legislation that links the U.K. and EU is exceedingly complex. Not surprisingly, experts argue it could take ten years to unravel legal ties going back 45 years to the enactment of the European Communities Act of 1972.[3]

The Razor Edge

There is no doubt that Brexit has the British financial markets in turmoil. In addition to HSBC’s dash for the door, VTB Bank, a Russian bank, announced recently that it will also relocate due to Brexit.[4] Moves like this highlight the depth of the Brexit sword’s cut. London is a major player in the financial clearing sector, which is where banks act as intermediaries in business transactions.[5] As a member of the EU, the U.K. enjoys what is known as passporting, which allows the free flow of funds between countries in the European Economic Area (EEA).[6] Without such a free flow, additional regulatory authorizations would be necessary.[7] Brexit strips the U.K. of these EU benefits and leaves the U.K.’s financial market clout teetering on the edge of a sea of quicksand. And it’s not just the free flow of money that’s implicated in Brexit. The heretofore mobile workforce with expertise in “complex and multi-jurisdictional matters”[8] will be curtailed. British lawyers who are currently allowed to “provide interstate services on a temporary basis” in EU member states could lose that right if Brexit goes through.[9] Indeed, experts argue London could lose as many as 18,000 jobs in the legal and accounting services sector, and 83,000 total jobs over the next seven years as a direct result of Brexit.[10]

 grenness_blog1_photo2

The Blunt Edge

Where does this financial sector flight leave the international arbitration business in London? According to a 2015 survey, London is one of the most popular seats of international arbitration.[11] British law is also among the most widely chosen law to govern international commercial contracts—whether or not the contract was formed, performed, or even remotely related to Britain.[12] With such a top spot, the U.K. understandably doesn’t want to lose its primacy to competing international arbitration seats such as Paris, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Geneva, New York, Zurich, and Stockholm.”[13]

grenness_blog1_photo4

Most writers on the subject believe London’s primacy as a seat for international arbitration will chug along “business as usual.”[14] There are two major reasons. First, EU law doesn’t govern arbitral awards. Rather, any awards granted in London are governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, also known as the New York Convention. This Convention allows parties to enforce arbitral awards in the domestic courts of any of its 156 member states. Second, the U.K.’s Arbitration Act of 1996 is very friendly to arbitration. Britain’s courts take a largely hands off approach but will step in to assist arbitral tribunals with such things as compelling witnesses to testify, preserving evidence, and ordering injunctive relief.[15]

Other arguments posed are that because the U.K. would no longer be bound by rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), any precedent considered harmful to arbitration could be cast aside.[16] They argue further that in the field of investor-state arbitration, Brexit has its perks. After Brexit, the U.K. would not be bound by the EU’s recent move away from investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) to an untested investment court system (ICS). Under the current ISDS model, investors are allowed a voice in choosing the arbitrators that will hear their case. Under the EU’s new ICS model, investors would no longer have a voice in arbitrator selection. Only member states would manage the names on a revolving roster of randomly appointed arbitrators. In a post-Brexit world, investors could continue to cherry pick from the various investment treaties to which the U.K. is a party in its own right. Investors could also happily anticipate the new investment treaties the U.K. would now be free to negotiate on its own behalf.

grenness_blog1_photo5

Given these sunny predictions, one quickly nods one’s head in agreement with such common sense arguments. The sword is still in the stone, however. More recent studies have pointed out that the proponents of these arguments are largely U.K. centered practitioners, who are naturally biased in favor of keeping London at the top of the list.[17] In addition, optimists downplayed the significance of the financial sector’s flight. Even the most myopic commentators had to acknowledge London’s primacy as a seat of arbitration is “undeniably influenced by its role as an international business hub,” but they were quick to soften the potential “knock-on effect” as “expected to be minimal.”[18] A more realistic prediction for this blunt side of the sword is that an “exodus of businesses” would eviscerate London’s status as the financial hub in Europe.[19] Therefore, if London lost its status “and something else becomes the financial center of Europe, over time you may see arbitration gravitate that way.”[20]

grenness_blog1_photo6

As a British national living abroad, I wasn’t eligible to participate in the U.K. referendum. I wish I could say I agree with the optimists, but the writing is on the wall. Most of the financial sector jobs are moving to Paris.[21] Because Paris is one of London’s competitors for international arbitration market share, it’s only a matter of time before the arbitration business bleeds out of London. The people of Britain have their hands on both edges of the Brexit sword, but as they pull it out of the stone, London’s international arbitration market is likely to wind up cut just as deeply as that of its financial sector.

­

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

 

[1] Chris Johnson, HSBC Prepares to move 1,000 U.K. Jobs to Paris Due to Brexit Confusion, Law.com (Jan. 11, 2017), http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/01/11/hsbc-prepares-to-move-1000-u-k-jobs-to-paris-due-to-brexit-confusion/?et=editorial&bu=Law.com&cn=20170111&src=EMC-Email&pt=ALM%20Morning%20Minute&slreturn=20170021202538.

[2] King & Wood Mallesons, Brexit and Arbitration: Shaken but not Stirred, KWM News & Insights (Sept. 15, 2016), http://www.kwm.com/en/knowledge/insights/the-impact-of-brexit-on-international-arbitration-20160915.

[3] Caroline Simson, What Brexit Could Mean for International Arbitration, Law360 (Jun. 22, 2016, 5:22 PM EDT), https://www.law360.com/articles/808801/what-brexit-could-mean-for-international-arbitration.

[4] Chris Johnson, EY Report: Brexit Could Cost London 18,000 Legal, Accounting Jobs, The Am Law Daily (Nov. 14, 2016), http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202772254983/EY-Report-Brexit-Could-Cost-London-18000-Legal-Accounting-Jobs?mcode=1202617075486&curindex=0&curpage=ALL&slreturn=20170021203506.

[5] Clearing, Investopedia, http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/clearing.asp (last visited Jan. 20, 2017).

[6] What is Passporting? Definition and Meaning, Market Business News, http:/marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/passporting-definition-meaning/ (last visited Jan. 20, 2017).

[7] Id.

[8] James Rogers, Simon Goodall and Charles Golsong, How will Brexit impact arbitration in England and Wales? It’s Business As Usual, Norton Rose Fulbright, 16 (Sep. 25, 2016), http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/files/international-arbitration-report-issue-7-142408.pdf.

[9] Caroline Simson, Post-Brexit Barriers Could Hurt London Arbitration: Study, Law360 (December 15, 2016, 5:18 PM EST), https://www.law360.com/articles/872676/post-brexit-barriers-could-hurt-london-arbitration-study.

[10] Chris Johnson, EY Report: Brexit Could Cost London 18,000 Legal, Accounting Jobs, The Am Law Daily (Nov. 14, 2016), http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202772254983/EY-Report-Brexit-Could-Cost-London-18000-Legal-Accounting-Jobs?mcode=1202617075486&curindex=0&curpage=ALL&slreturn=20170021203506.

[11] Caroline Simson, Post-Brexit Barriers Could Hurt London Arbitration: Study, Law360 (December 15, 2016, 5:18 PM EST), https://www.law360.com/articles/872676/post-brexit-barriers-could-hurt-london-arbitration-study.

[12] James Rogers, Simon Goodall and Charles Golsong, How will Brexit impact arbitration in England and Wales? It’s Business As Usual, Norton Rose Fulbright, 16 (Sep. 25, 2016), http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/files/international-arbitration-report-issue-7-142408.pdf

[13] Caroline Simson, Post-Brexit Barriers Could Hurt London Arbitration: Study, Law360 (December 15, 2016, 5:18 PM EST), https://www.law360.com/articles/872676/post-brexit-barriers-could-hurt-london-arbitration-study.

[14] James Rogers, Simon Goodall and Charles Golsong, How will Brexit impact arbitration in England and Wales? It’s Business As Usual, Norton Rose Fulbright, 15 (Sep. 25, 2016), http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/files/international-arbitration-report-issue-7-142408.pdf

[15] James Rogers, Simon Goodall and Charles Golsong, How will Brexit impact arbitration in England and Wales? It’s Business As Usual, Norton Rose Fulbright, 16 (Sep. 25, 2016), http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/files/international-arbitration-report-issue-7-142408.pdf

[16] King & Wood Mallesons, Brexit and Arbitration: Shaken but not Stirred, KWM News & Insights (Sept. 15, 2016), http://www.kwm.com/en/knowledge/insights/the-impact-of-brexit-on-international-arbitration-20160915.

[17] Maxi Scherer and Johannes Koepp, Consequences of “Brexit” on International Dispute Resolution: Special Issue of Journal of International Arbitration, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, (Oct. 21, 2016), http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2016/10/21/consequences-brexit-international-dispute-resolution-special-issue-journal-international-arbitration/.

[18] James Rogers, Simon Goodall and Charles Golsong, How will Brexit impact arbitration in England and Wales? It’s Business As Usual, Norton Rose Fulbright, 18 (Sep. 25, 2016), http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/files/international-arbitration-report-issue-7-142408.pdf

[19] Caroline Simson, What Brexit Could Mean for International Arbitration, Law360 (Jun. 22, 2016, 5:22 PM EDT), https://www.law360.com/articles/808801/what-brexit-could-mean-for-international-arbitration.

[20] Id.

[21] Chris Johnson, HSBC Prepares to move 1,000 U.K. Jobs to Paris Due to Brexit Confusion, Law.com (Jan. 11, 2017), http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/01/11/hsbc-prepares-to-move-1000-u-k-jobs-to-paris-due-to-brexit-confusion/?et=editorial&bu=Law.com&cn=20170111&src=EMC-Email&pt=ALM%20Morning%20Minute&slreturn=20170021202538.


4 Comments

A Tale of Two Irelands; Is Unification Possible in the Wake of Brexit?

Alexander Ayer

On June 23, 2016 the U.K. shocked the world (and arguably themselves) by voting to leave the European Union.[1] The vote has left the U.K. and Europe as a whole wondering what will come next. However, in the wake of this event one group of people in the U.K. took an unprecedented action. Following Brexit so many people in Northern Ireland filed for Irish passports that the system came under significant strain and the Belfast Post Office ran out of application forms.[2] For the first time since the separation of the countries almost a century ago, Northern Irish citizens are discussing peacefully leaving the U.K. to join the Republic of Ireland.

ayer_blog1_photo1

While England voted to leave the E.U., Northern Ireland voted 55.8% to 44.2% in favor of staying, which has caused some to question whether it might be in Northern Ireland’s best interests to split off from the U.K. as it splits off from the E.U.[3] This wouldn’t be the first time a part of the U.K. moved for independence. Just two summers ago Scotland moved to stay in the Union after a vote on independence. However, unlike the Scottish vote and for rather unique political reasons which will be discussed later, Northern Ireland might not need the approval of the current U.K. government to leave.

Historically there has been a lot of bad blood between the Irish and the British. The Irish had suffered political disenfranchisement, religious intolerance, racial prejudices, and other injuries under British rule. At the turn of the last century and in the middle of WWI, Ireland again erupted in rebellion. It has been remembered as the Easter Rising, and was organized by the Irish Republican Brotherhood. The rebellion was crushed, but the surviving members reformed, gathered support, and the rebellion soon turned into a revolution. This was the birth of the Irish Republican Army, the IRA.

ayer_blog1_photo2-jpg

Eventually, the British government agreed to negotiate, and an autonomous Irish Free State was created which would soon thereafter become the fully independent Republic of Ireland. However, when the Free State was created, six counties in the North of Ireland were excluded and left as part of the U.K. These six counties became Northern Ireland. They were excluded at the time for several reasons, both practical and philosophical, but one major issue was that Northern Ireland was mostly Protestant while the rest of the island was Catholic. [4]

However, the situation deteriorated in the 1960s. Catholics in Northern Ireland faced discrimination in many aspects of life, including employment and housing, as well as violence from Protestants. The situation eventually boiled over, Catholics took up arms, and formed the Provisional IRA. What ensued was thirty plus years of fighting, with the IRA on one side and Unionist paramilitary units and the British government on the other. The level of violence tore the North apart. The fighting was eventually ended in 1998 with the Good Friday Agreement. As part of the agreement, the IRA agreed to renounce violence as a means of effecting change, Sinn Fien (which was the political wing of the IRA) would share power in the government with protestants, Catholics where guaranteed equality, Northern Ireland would stay in the U.K., but left the future possibility of unification on the table.[5]

ayer_blog1_photo3

Which leaves us where we are now. Brexit may bring the U.K. into conflict with many facets of the Good Friday Agreement. For example, one major argument for the pro-Brexit camp was that leaving the E.U. would allow the U.K. to secure its boarders.[6] However the only land boarder the UK has with the E.U. is the border between the Republic of Ireland and North Ireland. As part of the Good Friday Agreement, the U.K. promised not to limit movement across the Irish boarder.[7]  If the U.K. is going to secure its border with Europe, then it will be brought into contention with the Good Friday Agreement. Further, Northern Ireland receives aid through the Agreement from the E.U. to help rebuild after the fighting and maintain peace.[8] Many argue that Brexit is inconsistent with the Agreement, and a constitutional argument is being made before the High Court in Belfast to challenge the legality of Brexit at least as it relates to North Ireland.[9]

There have been concerns over the threat Brexit might pose to peace. The peace isn’t even 20 years old, and while most of the Provisional IRA has laid down its arms and renounced violence, most does not mean all. New offshoots of the IRA remain somewhat active, even if they are smaller than the old IRA and lack most of its capabilities.[10]

As mentioned earlier, the U.K. government might not get a say in the matter. Under the Good Friday Agreement, the possibility of unification was left open. Specifically, the Agreement states that North Ireland was granted the right to have a vote in the future to join the Republic if they so desired.[11] It was done at a time when London believed that such a strong sentiment would not exist for decades.[12] However, with Brexit and the threat it could pose to Northern Ireland’s economic and social wellbeing this provision has suddenly become relevant. If North Ireland decides to have a vote, it votes to leave, and the Republic of Ireland agrees to accept them that might be the end of the discussion. Unlike the Scottish independence vote two summers ago, Northern Ireland doesn’t require the approval of Parliament to have a vote to leave – they already have it.

Furthermore, not only could the vote happen, Sinn Fien, now one of the major parties in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, has already said they want to have the vote.[13] The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland went so far as to say that a vote for unification might happen in the wake of Brexit.[14]

ayer_blog1_photo4

It would be inspiring to see Northern Ireland, a place which has experienced so much bloodshed and division to stand unified peacefully for the benefit of all their people. However, there is still a lot of tension, and Brexit may not be enough to create a successful unification effort. However, there are some things that could help push North Ireland towards unification.

  1. If Scotland leaves. Scotland also voted overwhelmingly to stay in the E.U., and after Brexit there was a surge of interest in another independence vote. If Scotland declares its independence, or at least has another vote for independence it could encourage North Ireland to take the plunge. Further, there seems to be a sense in both Northern Ireland and abroad that if Scotland attempts independence again, the possibility of Northern Ireland leaving the U.K. substantially increases.[15]
  1. The economy begins to suffer. The U.K. economy suffered noticeably in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote.[16] While it has stabilized somewhat since then, uncertainty remains. There have been justifiable concerns that if the U.K. actually cuts ties with the E.U., it could have significant negative economic impacts.[17] If Brexit actually happens and it begins to take a toll on the economy, while Ireland remains reasonably stable, it would provide the biggest help` in pushing for unification.
  1. A guarantee of equal rights for Protestants and/or a degree of autonomy for the region. The old wounds still ache from time to time. Fear of Catholic reprisals may keep hard-core unionists or even moderate Protestants from going along with unification. While the Republic has always had a distinctly Catholic tone. Divorce was not a legally recognized right until the 1990s.[18] If the Republic of Ireland can reassure the Protestants that they shall have equal rights and access to political participation, then unification may go more smoothly. Northern Ireland may even be granted a degree of regional autonomy, which when combined with the economic and social benefits of continued E.U. membership may be enough to overcome old suspicions.[19]

If these things happen, and the U.K. actually leaves the E.U., then I think the chances of Irish Unification increase noticeably and may happen in the coming years.

Alexander Ayer  is a third year (3L) law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law. His undergraduate studies were completed at Hood College, where he majored in history and graduated cum laude in 2014. Alexander is expected to graduate from the University of Baltimore School of Law in the Spring of 2017. As part of his international law background he took part in a study abroad program at the University of Aberdeen School of Law in Scotland. Alexander is drawn to international law by the comparative approach of seeing how different societies solve similar problems in different ways, as well observing how history has effected the laws and policies of various nations, and the behaviors demonstrated by counties interacting with each other on the world stage. In addition to international law, Alexander is also interested in disability law and copyright law.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/28/a-stampede-for-irish-passports-in-the-wake-of-brexit-vote/

[3] http://time.com/4383916/brexit-vote-revived-calls-united-ireland/

[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/will-ireland-reunify-afte_b_10745358.html

[5]http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IE%20GB_980410_Northern%20Ireland%20Agreement.pdf

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/brexit-threat-northern-ireland-border-communities

[7]http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IE%20GB_980410_Northern%20Ireland%20Agreement.pdf

[8] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/northern-ireland-brexit-challenge-involve-attorney-general-john-larkin-a7326531.html

[9] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/northern-ireland-brexit-challenge-involve-attorney-general-john-larkin-a7326531.html

[10] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-10866072

[11]http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IE%20GB_980410_Northern%20Ireland%20Agreement.pdf

[12] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/will-ireland-reunify-afte_b_10745358.html

[13] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-northern-ireland-eu-referendum-result-latest-live-border-poll-united-martin-mcguinness-a7099276.html

[14] http://time.com/4412381/ireland-prime-minister-enda-kelly-referendum-northern-ireland/

[15] http://time.com/4383916/brexit-vote-revived-calls-united-ireland/ & http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/will-ireland-reunify-afte_b_10745358.html

[16] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36956418

[17] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36956418 & http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/will-ireland-reunify-afte_b_10745358.html

[18] http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Historical_Information/The_Constitution/February_2015_-_Constitution_of_Ireland_.pdf

[19]http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IE%20GB_980410_Northern%20Ireland%20Agreement.pdf


2 Comments

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.

2955

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.

SBagwell Blog 2 Photo 1.png

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