Ius Gentium

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


1 Comment

Donbass Passports: The Russian Itinerary for Certain Individuals

 

John Rizos

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

Rizos_Blog1_Photo1

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

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

Rizos_Blog1_Photo2

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

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

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

Rizos_Blog1_Photo3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements


1 Comment

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

Margie Beltran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

Margery Beltran is a third year law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law (Candidate for J.D., May 2017).  She holds a Bachelor of Science in Family Science with a minor in Psychology from Towson University.  Her interests include mental health and disability law and international alternative dispute resolution. Margie currently serves as the Volume V Comments Editor for the University of Baltimore’s Journal of International Law. She participated in the 2016 Summer Abroad Program at the University of Aberdeen School of Law in Aberdeen, Scotland.  She is currently an intern in Washington D.C. for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Alternative Dispute Resolution Division.

[1] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=58824

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

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

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

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

[6] Id.

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

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

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

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

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

[17] Id.

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

[19] Id.

[20] Id.


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

Legitimizing China’s Claim in the South China Sea

John Rizos

Conflict in the South China Sea is an alarming threat to international peace. The current situation between the US and China navies is reminiscent of a newspaper’s reaction to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution during the Vietnam War. The US is planning to exercise its “freedom to navigation” through a third voyage in the South China Sea[1]. The voyage is said to be an assurance that China is not colonizing any disputed islands and not restricting trade or rights described in international law.

The Pentagon has been tracking Chinese military activity closely[2]. Officials have stated that China has increased spending on and usage of military modernization and has expanded its presence in the South China Sea[3]. US officials and military personnel have stated that such activity, especially in disputed areas, is destabilizing and poses a threat to trade routes in the region. This threat could damage America’s, and its allies’, trade route and competitiveness[4]. To emphasize the importance of the trade route in this region, $5Tr worth of shipping passes through the South China Sea each year[5]. Increased suspicious activity includes the construction of airfields on a man-made island on the Mischief Reef[6], attacks on Filipino fishermen[7], the deployment of anti-ship missiles in the area[8], and the attempted reclaims of Scarborough Shoal near the Philippines[9].

Although the Chinese government has condemned America’s intervention as indicative of a “Cold War” mentality and against modern trends for peace and cooperation, the US government has reassured that it will continue to send vessels to conduct freedom of navigation exercises[10]. It has made clear that it will not usurp to Chinese demands to stop such voyages. The US claims that China’s suspicious activity is against international law as preparations to colonize or annex disputed territories[11]. Maritime law allows for states to include seas up to 12 miles from their coast within their internal boundaries[12]. China claims that the US voyages will violate the 12-mile rule and will directly interfere with Chinese sovereignty[13]. US officials have stated that the navy will go wherever international law allows and any attempt of China to implement an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) would be ignored[14].

25-nine-dashed-line-in-the-south-china-sea

An ADIZ would allow for complete control of the sky over disputed territories, which would require aircrafts to alert the government of their entry/exit. Failure to alert may result in military action. China has implemented an ADIZ over the disputed Japanese Senkaku Islands, but has never exercised it against US aircrafts that constantly ignore it [15]. The US is treaty bound to protect Japan and the Philippines. It will begin operating from five different bases in the Philippines[16]. The bases are strategic in regards to the widespread claims, which include small islands in dispute amongst China, Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. The base locations are significant since they are located in the eastern South China Sea and face all the sovereign states and disputed islands of the region.

According to China, the U.S. violations of state sovereignty are direct challenges to the state’s national interests [17]. China claims control in many of the disputed islands based on “ancient activity.”[18] The US has responded to disputed claims by stating that the voyages are not meant to establish support on any sovereignty’s claim but rather to conduct operations that no unlawful restrictions on international law rights and freedoms exist[19]. Further, the China’s naval spear,[20] Hainan Province, is geo-strategically important. It is located in the South China Sea and it faces the region eastwardly and southwardly. China asserts that it should have authority over these islands and would manage and supervise these territories from the Hainan Base. It would include nearby islands within its 12 mile boundary and close off routes as internal waters. The Hainan base is stocked with nuclear submarines, through which China can and will defend itself [21].

It is understandable for China to view the U.S. voyages as challenges to their assertion of sovereignty. Article 17 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, however, allows foreign ships to navigate “innocently” through another sovereign’s territorial sea. Article 19 of the Convention establishes the criteria of “innocent passage.” Under the criteria, a foreign ship is prohibited from using weapons or any threat of force, collecting state information, spreading propaganda, launching military devices or vehicles, loading or unloading commodities, fishing, polluting, conducting research, interfering with communications, and exercising any other activity that does not have a direct bearing on passage. Because China is arguing that these islands constitute a part of its territory, the waters could be considered part of its territorial sea. Further, China clearly does not buy the fact that the U.S. would not be collecting state information, conducting research, or interfering with its communications.

It is important to note that Article 17 is only applicable to waters within the borders of a sovereign, which would include the 12 mile extension rule of territorial seas from a sovereign’s border. The South China Sea, however is not (currently) part of China’s waters, rather it is open for international navigation. Even if China attempted to create an archipelagos by creating artificial islands or annexing disputed territories in the South China Sea, innocent passage for international navigation would still be allowed under Article 53 of the Convention[24]. China should watch out regarding its reliance on UNCLOS to save them in this fight, however, since Article 60 explicitly states that, “artificial islands…may not be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognized sea lanes essential to international navigation.”[25]

thumb_758_402_1446019919666

However, absent the artificial islands, China might have a case in claiming many of these territories based on a landmark international arbitration case. The 1928 “Las Palmas Case” in the Permanent Court of Arbitration held that in a disputed territory, an inchoate title could not prevail over continuous and peaceful display of authority by another state. Further, it is not necessary that display of sovereignty should go back to a very far distant period. In that case, the Netherlands’ display of authority prevailed in claiming Dutch possessions in the Philippines over the US’ claim on title of discovery[26]. Thus, it might be persuasive for China in showing that the mixture of its “ancient activity” and its continuous intervention in affairs over a territory might suffice as creating the disputed territories proper Chinese claims (in fact, it somewhat mirrors adverse possession on a global scale).

John Rizos is a 2L at the University of Baltimore School of Law. He has an interest in human rights and international criminal law. In addition to being a CICL Fellow, he is the Secretary for Phi Alpha Delta. He graduated with honors from Towson University with a BA in International Studies (2013). He has interned at the Press Office of the Greek Embassy in Washington, D.C. and the International Civil Advocacy Network (ICAN), a non-profit organization advocating for women’s rights in the Middle East.

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa-idUSKCN0WZ018

[2] freebeacon.com/national-security/pentagon-concerned-chinese-anti-ship-missile-firing/

[3] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/chinas-activities-in-south-china-sea-may-pose-threat-to-trade-routes-us/articleshow/51612043.cms

[4] Id.

[5] http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160402/1037392985/us-challenges-china-tests-sovereignty-south-china-sea.html

[6] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa-idUSKCN0WZ018

[7] http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/03/31/u-s-will-not-recognize-chinas-south-china-sea-borders/

[8] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/pentagon-concerned-chinese-anti-ship-missile-firing/

[9] http://www.morningnewsusa.com/china-war-south-china-sea-hainan-2368508.html

[10] http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/03/31/u-s-will-not-recognize-chinas-south-china-sea-borders/

[11] Id.

[12] http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160402/1037392985/us-challenges-china-tests-sovereignty-south-china-sea.html

[13] Id.

[14] http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/03/31/u-s-will-not-recognize-chinas-south-china-sea-borders/

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160402/1037392985/us-challenges-china-tests-sovereignty-south-china-sea.html

[18] http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/03/31/u-s-will-not-recognize-chinas-south-china-sea-borders/

[19] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa-idUSKCN0WZ018

[20] http://www.morningnewsusa.com/china-war-south-china-sea-hainan-2368508.html

[21] Id.

[22] http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf at 30.

[23] Id. at 31.

[24] Id. at 42.

[25] Id. at 45.

[26] http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_II/829-871.pdf


2 Comments >

Christian Kim

As a rat scampers across the deck, the crashing of the waves violently rocks the floor. Lieutenant Mangidia, grabs onto the rusty side rails and hears one of his men heaving last night’s dinner into the ocean. He carefully steps over the cratered deck and pats the crewmember on his back. As Lieutenant Mangidia glances up, he spots the glistening beam of two brand new Chinese ships, coasting around the Sierra Madre like predatory sharks. The other nine members on the ship acknowledge their presence and collectively drone out a sigh of frustration.

CK Blog3_Photo2.png

The Sierra Madre, from an outsider’s point of view, seems like nothing more than a rusting World War II remnant. To the Philippines, it is much more. In order to assert their claims on the Second Thomas Shoal, the Sierra Madre was deliberately grounded near that area in 1999.[1] The Sierra Madre houses 10 Philippine Marines, who stay on the ship at all times to protect a nearby island.[2] This island, known as the Pagasa Island, has one of the few aircraft landing strips in the South China Sea.[3] It is also home to several hundred citizens of the Philippines and it is the only island in the South China Sea with a permanent population.[4] Even though the crew members of the Sierra Madre face morale issues and the citizens of Pagasa Island are in constant fear of imminent war, they know that their role is vital. The Pagasa Island and the Sierra Madre are two important, yet fragile, frontlines between the Philippine’s claim on the Second Thomas Shoal against China.

CK Blog3_Photo1

Anyone looking at this map can see that the territory China is claiming does not actually belong to China!

There are many island disputes in the Asian region; however, the South China Sea dispute has increased in tension dramatically in the early parts of 2016. This tension comes from both international and regional disputes. Depending on who you ask, the South China Sea can be referred to as the East Sea (Vietnam) or the West Philippine Sea (Philippines).[5] Countries such as China, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Brunei have laid claims to some or the entire part of South China Sea.[6] These countries base their claims on historical maps, landmarks, decaying ships (like the Sierra Madre), proximity, UN Conventions, and more.[7] In 1974, China went to war with Vietnam for control over the Paracel Islands, which led to the deaths of over 70 soldiers.[8] Since then, there hasn’t been any major battles fought over the area. Although the South China Sea is home to hundreds of small islands and coral reefs, it has no indigenous people.[9] So, what could possibly be the cause of all this commotion?

One of the biggest advantages of having a legitimate claim to the South China Sea is that the location is strategically important. Not only does the South China Sea link the Pacific and the Indian Ocean, it is also an important shipping channel.[10] More than half of the world’s annual merchant fleet pass through these waters.[11] Countries such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China receive their energy supplies through ships that cross into the South China Sea.[12] The South China Sea is also important for militaristic purposes in that manner as well.

CK Blog3_Photo4

The next big advantage is obvious! The South China Sea is rich in energy reserves, although the amount of energy reserves varies on the expert you ask. One estimate from the US Energy Information Administration is that there is approximately 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.[13] Even though the amount of barrel of oils might seem significant, it could only power China’s energy needs at an estimated range of three years.[14] The bigger resource in dispute is the natural gas deposit since it could possibly power China for ten times the previous suggested amount.[15]

The final big advantage of the South China Sea is that 10% of the world’s fishing is conducted in this body of water.[16] Millions of fishermen are employed in this region, but regional disputes have also led to conflict.[17] One of the biggest examples was back in 2012 when the Philippine Navy found a Chinese vessel fishing in the area.[18] The Philippines were trying to stop the illegal fishing when two Chinese surveillance ships blocked the Philippine Navy’s access.[19]

CK Blog3_Photo4

The South China Sea is just one of the few disputes that China is currently dealing with. Other issues such as their claims on Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, Senkaku or Diaoyutai Islands are on China’s agenda. With the international limelight on the South China Sea dispute, a sign of weakness on their claims to the South China Sea might become a slippery slope to the aforementioned claims. The international community has been voicing their concerns over the South China Sea and most of it has been aimed directly at China. At the end of a recent G-7 meeting in Hiroshima, the leaders expressed their concerns and had a “strong opposition to any intimidating, coercive or provocative unilateral actions that could alter the status quo and increase tensions.”[20] Even though China was not explicitly mentioned in this statement, China reacted to it as if addressed to them by stating that the disputed claims in the region were “exaggerated.”[21]

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

[1] http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/04/01/1307550/old-us-ship-home-filipinos-china-standoff

[2] Id.

[3] http://www.rappler.com/nation/93563-feature-pagasa-residents-philippines

[4] Id.

[5] http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/special-reports/106862/the-china-philippines-dispute-in-the-east-sea.html

[6] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/south-china-sea.htm

[7] http://csis.org/publication/southeast-asia-scott-circle-tumultuous-2016-south-china-sea

[8] http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1409007/vietnam-marks-40th-anniversary-chinas-invasion-paracel-islands

[9] http://aviation-defence-universe.com/south-china-sea-is-it-a-problem-with-no-solution/

[10] http://atimes.com/2016/01/china-and-the-south-china-sea-dispute-the-5-trillion-lie/

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-11/south-china-sea-tensions-deter-oil-exploration/6688988

[14] http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2015-05/11/content_7894391.htm

[15] Id.

[16] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/5-things-didnt-know-south-china-sea-conflict/

[17] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/11/philippines-china-stand-off-south-china-sea

[18] Id.

[19] http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/international-law-is-the-real-threat-to-chinas-south-china-sea-claims/

[20] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-11/g-7-raises-east-south-china-sea-disputes-in-hiroshima-statement

[21] http://www.ibtimes.com/g7-foreign-ministers-seek-calm-south-china-sea-2351631


4 Comments

Turkey’s Breach of the Principle of Non-Refoulement

Yasmine Akkad

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

YA Blog2_Photo1

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

YA Blog2_Photo2

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

YA Blog2_Photo3

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

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

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

[ii] Id.

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

[iv] Id.

[v] Id.

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

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

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

[ix] Id.

[x] Id.

[xi] Id.

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

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


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/