Ius Gentium

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


4 Comments

My Hair Is Beautiful Too: The Plight of the Black Girls in South Africa and the US

J. Michal Forbes

Both the US and South Africa are parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which aims to eliminate racial discrimination and promote understanding amongst all races.[i] In fact, both countries have representatives on the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which is tasked with implementing the ICERD and meets twice a year to work on resolving international issues of discrimination. One issue that has emerged recently that could have wider implications for both state parties is hair style enforcement in public schools.

In the last 6 weeks there have been controversies in the US and in South Africa regarding school policies discriminating against hairstyles worn by black students. School administrations came under scrutiny for both blatant and subtle policies that did not accommodate for reasonable ethnic and cultural practices.

In Pretoria, South Africa, the students at the Pretoria High School for Girls (“PHSG”) alleged that school officials were telling them to straighten their hair. This news took Twitter by storm and the hashtag #StopRacismAtPetoriaGirlsHigh nearly broke the Internet. An online petition started, which now has over 32,000 signatures, claims that the school’s code of conduct discriminates against Black and Muslim girls, the students are banned from speaking in African languages (such as Xhosa, Sotho, Zulu and Venda) at school, and students are prohibited from socializing with one another.

On its face, the school’s policy is not blatantly discriminatory. However, it does imply that African hair in its natural state is “messy.[ii]”  The school’s code of conduct policy states that cornrows and braids were allowed be only a maximum of 10 millimeter in diameter, go straight back, and have no beads or decorations. Hairstyles should be conservative and neat and students should refrain from any kind of eccentric fashion styles. However, what constitutes eccentric? What constitutes a style that is fashionable?

forbes_blog2_photo3

Looking closely at the language in the school’s policy, many popular styles that black teenager girls would wear would be deemed inappropriate under the policy. Typically black teenagers, in both the US and South Africa wear extensions, beads, Afros or even patterned cornrows in their hair. Under the policy, all of those hairstyles are prohibited.

As a result of international media attention to these issues, PHSG stated that they plan on revising the Code of Conduct and would look for input from all of the students, regardless of ethnicity, and their parents.[iii]  PHSG also reported that they needed to “end all hostilities” and resume classes as normal.

This situation isn’t too far removed from instances in the United States. This past July, Butler Traditional High School in Louisville, Kentucky decided “dreadlocks, braids, twists, and “cornrolls” (they likely meant cornrows) are “extreme and distracting and not allowed to be worn by any of its students.[iv] Essentially, the school banned hairstyles primarily worn by the school’s black population. This wording went unchallenged until the sole black female in the Kentucky State House took to Twitter to display her disgust and disappointment.

forbes_blog2_photo7

A month later, the school suspended the policy and updated it to better reflect its student population. However, the original policy and the outrage it caused gained little to no media coverage. In fact, most of the time when black students in the US face discrimination in schools, there is no international media coverage.[v]

The blatant ban against black hairstyles in Kentucky and the implied ban against black hairstyles in South Africa are similar. Yet, why does the incident in South Africa receive significantly more coverage and press? News outlets such as NPR, CNN and the Washington Post all covered the issue. But, the incident in Kentucky was covered only by local newspapers and Essence Magazine.

Why is this a bigger deal in South Africa? Perhaps it is that the US is seen worldwide as a melting pot where all racial groups are treated equally.  South Africa is still a fairly new democracy, with apartheid ending less than 25 years ago. It may also be that in South Africa, black Africans make up 76% of the population versus, in America, blacks make up a mere 12.3% of the population.[vi]

When the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination meets again in May 2017, it will be interesting to see if the banning of black hairstyles is discussed. Considering that the U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that it is legal for businesses to discriminate against employees with dreadlocks, the world should be paying attention to the work of the Committee next year and any potentially impacts this judicial decision could have.[vii] If this issue is not resolved across the globe, black hair will continue to be seen as unruly, untamed and naturally untidy, instead of as BEAUTIFUL.

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

In her free time, Ms. Forbes enjoys eating frozen yogurt with her husband and learning Arabic.

[i] Parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination“. United Nations Treaty Collection.

[ii] S Africa: Black students protest ‘racist’ hair ruleshttp://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/africa-black-students-protest-racist-hair-rules-160829083905084.html.

[iii] The Way Forward Letter, http://www.phsg.org.za/uploads/cms/files/way_forward_letter.pdf.

[iv] Kentucky High School’s Dress Code ‘Stinks of Racism,’ Bans Dreadlocks, Cornrows And Braids, http://www.essence.com/2016/07/28/kentucky-high-school-bans-natural-hairstyles-racism.

[v] See 6 Times Black Kids Faced Discrimination in School, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/6-times-black-kids-faced-discrimination-in-school_us_562f882fe4b06317990f5a4b.

[vi] See Mid-year population estimates available at http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022013.pdf; Census: White majority in U.S. gone by 2043, http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-white-majority-in-us-gone-by-2043.

[vii] Federal Court Rules It Legal to Discriminate Against Employees With Dreadlocks, http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/beauty/a3616858/dreadlocks-discrimination-case/.

Advertisements


4 Comments

In Defense of Villainy

Esther-Jane Grenness

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

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

grenness_blog1_photo1

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

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

grenness_blog1_photo2

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

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

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

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

grenness_blog1_photo3

Mississippi case jury award

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

­

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

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

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

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

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

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


7 Comments

Burkini & Beachside Oppression: Islamophobia Wave Hits France

J. Michal Forbes

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

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

 

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

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

forbes_blog1_photo3

 

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

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

forbes_blog1_photo4

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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


Leave a comment

A Comparative Look at Off-Label Pharmaceutical Use

Jasen Lau

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

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

Lau_Blog 2 Photo 1

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

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

Lau_Blog 2 Photo 2

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

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

Lau_Blog 2 Photo 3

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

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

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

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

[3] Id. at 155.

[4] 21 U.S.C. § 355.

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

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

[7] Id.

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

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

[10] Lenk, supra.

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

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

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Lenk, supra.

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

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

[19] Id.

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

[21] Lenk, supra.

[22] Id.

[23] Oberoi, supra.

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

[25] 2013 Aspatore Special Rep. 5.

[26] Oberoi, supra.

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


4 Comments

No Country for Palestinians: The Deportation Paradox

Alison Aminzadeh

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

Aminzadeh Blog 3_Photo1

Palestine and Israel territory over the past 70 years

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

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

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

Aminzadeh Blog 3_Photo3

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

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

Aminzadeh Blog 3_Photo4

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

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

[11] Washington, supra note 1.

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

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Washington, supra note 1.

[18] Id.

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

[20] Id.

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

[22] Washington, supra note 1.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

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

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

[28] Washington, supra note 1.

[29] Id.

[30] Id.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[38] Washington, supra note 1.

[39] Id.


2 Comments

Understanding and Combatting Slavery in Mauritania

Alison Aminzadeh

Mauritania is a country in West Africa, and has become the fourth country overall and second African country to approve a UN Treaty designed to put “teeth” in its efforts to stop modern day slavery – specifically, forced labor and trafficking[1].  The 2014 Protocol modernizes the Forced Labour Convention of 1930.[2] The states that ratify the new protocol must “change laws to improve victim protection, compensation, and access to justice.”[3] . The protocol includes (1) measures to prevent modern forms of slavery and (2) to compensate victims. The International Labor Organization (ILO) seeks to have at least fifty countries sign the protocol by 2018. The ILO estimates that 21 million people are forced into labor worldwide, which is a $150 billion dollar a year industry (in illegal profits). Common places where slaves are used include: brothels, farms, fisheries, factories, construction and domestic service.[4]

Mauritania Political Map

Mauritania Political Map with capital Nouakchott, national borders, most important cities, rivers and lakes. 

However, one problem that arises when discussing slavery in Mauritania is that Americans do not have a framework for what slavery looks like in other countries.  Slavery in Mauritania looks different than slavery in American history books.[5] The slavery that dominated the southern U.S. states was based on human exploitation. Some argue that in Mauritania, in contrast, is a “rural fiefdom within an agro‑pastoral lifestyle, marked by social stratification and division of labour” rather than “systematic torture and segregation.” Slaves are still subordinate in society, but not marked by shackles and physical abuse in the way it was in the American south.[6] One particular gendered form of slavery is that girls from Mauritania are commonly trafficked to the Middle East, according to U.S. State Department’s Annual Trafficking Report.[7]

Slavery in Mauritania is also determined by a caste system. The slave caste is called the Haratin, descended from Black African ethnical groups along the Senegal River. They are usually Herders and domestic servants.[8] In contrast, the ruling caste – a minority – is the Beydanes (Arab-Berbers), who hold the wealth and political power.[9]

Aminzadeh Blog 1_Photo4

Slavery is a de jure crime in Mauritania, but it is still practiced.[10] Mauritania criminalized slavery in 2007. In 2015, the government passed a new law that makes the offense a crime against humanity, doubling the prison term to twenty years.[11] However, the Global Slavery Index indicates that Mauritania has the highest prevalence of slavery in the world, with 4% of population is enslaved (Four percent of the population totals about 150,000 people).[12] Although now technically freed according to the law, majority of those not enslaved still live in slums and unemployment.[13]

Even after slavery was criminalized in 2007, those campaigning for its abolition still face many obstacles. Anti-slavery advocates allege that “complaints [that people are still being enslaved] are not properly investigated and that anti‑slavery campaigners have been arrested and jailed [for making those complaints].”[14] The jailing of these advocates is not surprising in the context of Mauritania’s judicial system, as the assertion that the justice system is failing victims of slavery in Mauritania is not unprecedented. The judicial system is heavily influenced by the government and has a reputation for being corrupt. Most of the members of the judicial system are also Beydanes, the ruling caste.[15] Nema Oumar is a journalist who wrote an article that alleged that a defense attorney had bribed three judges with 25 million ouguiyas (68,650 euros) to release a police officer and businessman accused of drug trafficking. Oumar was arrested and held for defamation as a result of his article.[16]

Aminzadeh Blog 1_Photo2

Shortly before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva was set to review the “Roadmap to Combat Vestiges of Slavery” (a 49-page report published by the Mauritanian government), a group of NGOs released a report of their own. This group consisted of the Society for Threatened Peoples, in cooperation with the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), Anti‑Slavery International, IRA‑Mauritania, SOS‑Esclaves, and Kawtal Ngamyellitaare. Their report, titled “Slavery in Mauritania: The Roadmap to combat the vestiges of slavery is not being implemented convincingly,”  argues that the Roadmap has failed to effectively implement any of its goals. Speaking on behalf of the group, Johanna Green of the UNPO stated that “[t]he lack of implementation of the Roadmap clearly points to the absence of political and judicial will to address the problem of slavery which is exacerbated by the Mauritanian Government’s denial of its very existence.”[17] Her statement summarizes the critical position that many have taken to the Mauritanian government’s efforts, which is that there needs to be more support among government officials, judges, and attorneys in order to effectively enforce the goals involved in ending slavery.

Aminzadeh Blog 1_Photo3

The ILO’s Africa director (Aeneas Chapinga Chuma,) stated that the ratification of the UN Protocol is “a first concrete step in putting in place the legal framework to protect people from the scourge of human exploitation and forced labor.[18] By essentially updating the Forced Labour Convention and improving laws to focus more on victims, states such as Mauritania will have more powerful enforcement mechanisms in place for ending slavery, a practice that is woven into the fabric of its culture.

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] The other three countries are Norway, Niger, and Britain. Jasmine Nelson, Mauritania Joins Fight Against Modern-Day Slavery, Approves U.N. Treaty to End Trafficking, Atlanta Blackstar (Mar. 16, 2016), available at http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/03/16/mauritania-joins-fight-against-modern-day-slavery-approves-u-n-treaty-to-end-trafficking.

[2] International Labour Organization (ILO), Forced Labour Convention, C29, 28 June 1930, C29, available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ddb621f2a.html (accessed 21 March 2016).

[3] Atlanta Blackstar, supra note 1.

[4] Id.

[5] Ahmed Meiloud & Mohammed El Mokhtar Sidi Haiba, Slavery in Mauritania: Differentiating Between Fact and Fiction, Middle East Eye (last updated Apr. 21, 2015), available at http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/slavery-mauritania-differentiating-between-facts-and-fiction-103800371.

[6] Id.

[7]Atlanta Blackstar, supra note 1.

[8]Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Mauritania Fails to Implement Roadmap to Combat Vestiges of Slavery, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organizations (Feb. 29, 2016), available at http://unpo.org/article/18958.

[11] Atlanta Blackstar, supra note 1.

[12] Id.

[13] Middle East Eye, supra note 5.

[14] Atlanta Blackstar, supra note 1.

[15] Alexis Okeowo, Freedom Fighter, New Yorker (Sept. 8, 2014), available at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/08/freedom‑fighter.

[16] Mauritania: A Journalist and Publisher Arrested for Accusing Judges of Corruption, African Press Organization (Jul. 22, 2008), available at https://appablog.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/mauritania-a-journalist-and-publisher-arrested-for-accusing-judges-of-corruption/.

[17] Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organizations, supra note 12.

[18] Atlanta Blackstar, supra note 1.


Leave a comment

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]

JB Blog 1_Photo1

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 FFIs – creates a likelihood that corrections will take months, even years, to sort out in litigation against the IRS or a foreign tax administrator.

JB Blog 1_Photo2

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.

JB Blog 1_Photo3

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 consequencesMass 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/