Search Results

Corona Covid-19 by Jayaratnam Caniceus Article by Hayley Durudogan, On Monday, Pfizer and BioNTech announced the development of a vaccine that is “more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19.” The news was met with worldwide jubilation, providing people across the globe with “a glimmer of hope” that the pandemic would soon be over. The announcement, however, came with a significant, though not immediately discernible disclaimer: “we expect to produce globally up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021.” While the production of 50 million vaccines is no small feat, especially given that there are under two months left in 2020, the development would result in a global immunization rate of just .67% by year’s end, meaning that the end of the pandemic is not so much in sight as it is beyond the horizon. Even with the production of 1.3 billion doses in 2021, only 17.67% of the world’s population would have access to the vaccine. This disheartening revelation raises an ever-present issue in COVID-19 vaccine discussions: distribution. In the absence of a coordinated distribution strategy, a COVID-19 vaccine could wreak havoc on the global economy and international relations. For instance, nations unable to purchase a vaccine en masse may “in their quest to obtain vaccines...search for any form of leverage they can find, including blocking exports of critical vaccine components, which will lead to the breakdown of supply chains for raw ingredients, syringes and vials.” Other potential issues include disruptions in “cross-border supply chains,” if nations gain access to the vaccine at different rates, and vaccine price inflation due to “countries ‘bidding’ against each other” and thereby “increas[ing] the cost of vaccines for everyone.” Equity concerns about which nations and which individuals will first have access to the vaccine are as troubling as they are complex. The World Health Organization (WHO) has released a distribution plan addressing “vaccine nationalism” and stating the plan’s goal to “vaccinate some people in all countries rather than all the people in some countries.” Vaccine nationalism is “the idea that each country should prioritize its own citizens” when it comes to purchasing and distributing a COVID-19 vaccine. Although the rationale of protecting one’s own citizens is “understandable,” the impulse is dangerous. In fact, researchers have asserted that “vaccinating one nation at a time will ultimately prolong the pandemic, lead to more lives lost and continue to devastate the world economy.” Such outcomes are obviously antithetical to the purpose of developing a vaccine in the first place. In a recent Op-Ed, economists Thomas Bollyky and Chad Bown argued that vaccine nationalism could produce: "not only needless economic and humanitarian hardship but also intense resentment against vaccine-hoarding countries, which will imperil the kind of international cooperation that will be necessary to tackle future outbreaks–not to mention other pressing challenges such as climate change and nuclear proliferation." The WHO’s distribution plan, while a significant step towards combatting vaccine nationalism, cannot succeed in its goals unless it secures “a formal and tangible commitment by powerful nations.” Unfortunately, the “world’s largest economy–the US–has decided to sit Covax out.” We need a concerted global effort to ensure that, when the vaccine is ready for mass distribution, we are ready to effectively and equitably distribute it in a way that neither enforces extant power structures nor exacerbates the impact of the pandemic. Unless we have such an effort, our global goal of ending this pandemic cannot be achieved, no matter how effective a vaccine may be. Author Hayley Durudogan (J.D. Candidate, Class of 2023) is a Contributor to Travaux. Hayley's interests include international human rights law, reproductive justice, and gender justice. Prior to attending Berkeley Law, Hayley worked in political communications in the field of reproductive rights.

Photo by Iga Gozdowska Article by Julia Bennett, The Paris Agreement was launched on Earth Day of 2016. The Agreement became effective six months later, on November 4, 2016, following ratification by 55 states representing 55% of global emissions. Its mission is to strengthen the international community’s response to climate change. Its cornerstone feature is a commitment to limit global temperature rise during this century to less than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. The success of the Agreement is predicated on “best effort” cooperation by all signatories towards achieving their individually appointed nationally determined emissions contributions. Secretary John Kerry signed the Agreement on behalf of the US in 2016. However, just a few months later in June of 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the US would withdraw from the Agreement. It has taken nearly 2.5 years for the US to formally pull out of the Paris Agreement. UN regulations dictated that November 4, 2019 was the earliest date at which a state could initiate the withdrawal process. Last year, Secretary Mike Pompeo filed the necessary paperwork which was automatically finalized after a one-year waiting period. As a result, just one day after the results of the general election were announced, the U.S. has yet again balked at its international environmental obligations. US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is a stark reminder of the nation’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocols, the last attempt by the international community to establish global climate goals and reduce greenhouse emissions. While the U.S. has now formally withdrawn from the Agreement, the withdrawal does not preclude them from rejoining. In fact, President-elect Joe Biden has stated that he will re-enter the Agreement. On November 4, President-elect Biden tweeted that the U.S. would rejoin the Agreement in 77 days, on his first day in office. However, if the U.S. rejoins, the country will face penalties. For example, the UK, EU, and UN are planning a fifth anniversary celebration for December 12, in which the US would be unable to participate. More concerning, however, is the general censure from the international community that this move has garnered. America’s withdrawal has larger international implications than simply contributing to global greenhouse emissions (15% of which the U.S. is responsible for). America’s international standing has taken a hit. Many states, especially those in the EU, view the nation’s leaving the Agreement as turning back on their word. Moreover, while US withdrawal is not likely to inspire other states to leave just yet, key countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Russia have hinted at a willingness to side with the U.S. on global warming and push back against international emissions standards. There is a sense that they are sitting on the fence, to see how leaving plays out for the U.S. The U.S. is the world’s largest and most powerful economy. Its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement has signalled to other states that combating climate change is not a priority and does not pay. Author Julia Bennett (J.D. Candidate, Class of 2023) is a Contributor to Travaux. Her interests include human rights law and public policy. Julia graduated from the University of St Andrews in the U.K. with a degree in International Relations and Modern History. Julia is currently working with Berkeley's chapter of the International Refugee Assistance Project.

Day 3 - Border Wall from the US Side - Nogales, Arizona, USA by Peg Hunter Article by Paulina Montez, Since March 2020, the Trump administration has used Title 42, a part of the US Code commonly used to promote public health, to prohibit asylum seekers from entering the U.S. After being processed, the asylum seekers are then returned to the country they entered the U.S. through, their country of origin, or another location designated by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). While the administration says the law is being used to reduce exposure to COVID-19 in the U.S., others disagree, saying the use of the law is unprecedented and that this is the first time it has been implemented broadly enough to apply to all people entering through the U.S.-Mexico border. Activists say this is the newest way the Trump administration is seeking to prevent people from being able to engage with the asylum process within the U.S. The Administration is doing so by sending asylum seekers back to where they came from, rather than abiding by usual immigration processes, such as temporarily holding them in US facilities. Physicians for Human Rights released a public comment saying the use of Title 42 is violating US and international legal obligations by infringing on the rights of asylum seekers who are seeking a safe haven in the country. The organization emphasizes the importance of evidence-driven policy and points out that there is no evidence demonstrating that asylum seekers pose a greater threat of spreading COVID-19 than any other group. While COVID-19 provides an excuse to use Title 42, it is just one of the many strategies the Trump administration is implementing to dramatically reduce access to the asylum process. Exactly 206,783 Title 42 expulsions occurred at the border between March and September. As Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not make a great effort to return asylum seekers to their origin countries, most individuals are being returned to Mexico, even though they are not Mexican and usually have little-to-no resources to survive. Global organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have denounced the expulsions, saying the law is forcing thousands of people to live in unsafe, unsanitary, and inhumane conditions in some of the most dangerous parts of Mexico. As a result of the pandemic, asylum hearings for non-detained cases at courts without an announced date have been postponed through late November, forcing asylum seekers to wait even longer for their hearings than before. As they wait, they are forced to live in tent communities, making it difficult to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. When faced with the choice between returning to living in fear in their country of origin or remaining in Mexico to await a hearing that may never come, many choose to wait in Mexico. The communities continue to live in makeshift camps near the border where populations already existed as a result of the “Remain in Mexico” policy, also known as the Department of Homeland Security’s “Migrant Protection Protocols.” The policy was enacted in January and requires certain asylum seekers who arrived by land at the border and passed a credible fear screening to return to Mexico to await their asylum hearings. Unable to find jobs, some survive on the limited funds of charitable organizations, and live in cramped conditions without access to showers. The communities have faced relocation due to the flooding of the Rio Grande river in the aftermath of Hurricane Hanna, deaths of community members, and cartel violence. Migrants are particularly susceptible to cartel violence as they are viewed as targets to kidnap and extort because cartels assume they have relatives in the U.S. who are able to pay a ransom. Migrants are also commonly susceptible to sexual assault and robbery. In addition to the issues asylum seekers must cope with in their tent communities, they face an uphill legal battle. Asylum seekers must file for asylum within one year of their entry into the U.S., and for some, their year has run out as a result of the delayed hearings. There has been no indication whether they will be allowed an extension. The administration is purposefully violating the country’s domestic and international legal obligations which dictate that the country must allow anyone who enters the US to apply for asylum. Guidance by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees states that any new measures enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic cannot deny people’s opportunity to apply for asylum. In addition to Title 42 and the Migrant Protection Protocols, the Trump administration has implemented other policies to deny access to asylum proceedings. For example, the administration has negotiated agreements with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador that require asylum seekers to apply for status in other countries first. All three countries have high rates of violent crime perpetrated against their migrant populations. Corruption is widespread, and there are especially high rates of crime against women and marginalized groups such as LGBTQ+ individuals. Moreover, the countries lack the capacity to provide resources to help migrants through the asylum process, as well as humanitarian aid to assist them when they are able to re-settle. Finally, many asylum seekers come from those exact countries seeking refuge from corruption and poverty. The U.S. must cease the use of these laws, allow people to go through the asylum process safely, and refer to public health professionals to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. International organizations assert that these agreements violate the country’s duties stemming from the 1951 Refugee Convention, which upholds that countries cannot expel refugees to an area where their life would be threatened on account of various factors such as race, religion, and membership of a particular social group. As asylum seekers continue to face dire conditions on the Mexican side of the border, so do other migrants on the American side. Thousands of people cross the US border every year to flee persecution, violence, and poverty, and end up in ICE detention centers that are notorious for alleged human rights abuses. One of the most recent alleged abuses includes accusations that women at two US detention centers were forced to undergo hysterectomies without their consent. The rumors began when a nurse who worked at one of the detention centers demonstrated concern about the number of hysterectomies being performed on the detained women. ICE rejected the allegations, saying hysterectomies would never be performed without a detainee’s consent. Marcelo Ebrard, the Secretary of Foreign Relations of Mexico, along with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, attended a press conference where they said that the alleged forced sterilizations of Mexican women and other migrants in US detention camps was unacceptable. Ebrard said they were in contact with six women of Mexican nationality who were potentially subject to the procedure. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that the Mexican consulates in Georgia and Texas were investigating the procedures on the women in both states. The Mexican government requested detailed information about the issue from the U.S., and also suggested that it might take legal action against the U.S. if the allegations are found to be true. If the allegations are proven to be true, they would illustrate only one example of many in which the U.S. has violated migrants’ human rights. Title 42, the Migrant Protection Program, and safe third country agreements are being successfully used to significantly hinder access to the asylum procedures in the U.S. Attacks on asylum seekers' human rights will persist until the Trump administration’s goal to end migration from Central American countries and others is achieved. The asylum process is meant to create a way for people to seek refuge from harmful conditions to which they are subject in their home countries. The current process being enforced by the U.S. only further reinforces the cycle of violence by forcing asylum seekers to wait indefinitely in dangerous conditions for the slim chance that they will be able to relocate to the U.S. The US government has failed its duty to maintain safe and fair immigration proceedings for asylum seekers and other migrants alike. Migrants’ faith in the US immigration process is diminishing, and the international community should denounce the precedent the U.S. is setting for current and future migrants as the country continues its assault on their human rights. Author Paulina Montez is a J.D Candidate at UC Berkeley School of Law. She is interested in the intersection of international human rights law and criminal law.

Locaux de Charlie Hebdo by Brigitte Djajasasmita Article by Pream Akkas, On October 2, French President Emmanual Macron delivered a speech outlining his government’s proposed law, which will be unveiled later this year, to fight “Islamist seperatism.” He described Islam as “a religion that is in crisis all over the world today.” Two weeks later, on October 16, French teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded after showing his students controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed published by French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo during a class on free speech. Islamic tradition explicitly forbids images of the Prophet and such depictions are offensive to Muslims. On October 21, Macron delivered a speech honoring Paty, defending the magazine, and refusing to denounce the caricatures. Charlie Hebdo has made headlines numerous times for its offensive cartoons, including cartoons unrelated to Islam. A few examples include its crude depictions of the body parts of victims of the Sinai air crash in 2015 and of Italian earthquake victims as pasta dishes in 2016. The former resulted in criticism from Russian leaders, and the latter received widespread condemnation on social media. In 2006, the magazine reprinted controversial cartoons of Prophet Muhammed that originally appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, sparking international protests over the caricatures. Two French organizations, the Great Mosque of Paris and the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, sued the magazine for making “public insults against a group of people because they belong to a religion.” But a Paris court acquitted Phillippe Val, editor-in-chief of the magazine, because “there was no deliberate intention to offend [Muslims].” Then-French President Jacques Chirac condemned the magazine’s decision to reprint the cartoons as an “overt provocation.” In 2011, the Charlie Hebdo offices were destroyed in a petrol bomb attack after publishing another caricature of the Prophet. In 2015, the offices, along with a policewoman and a Jewish store, were attacked again, killing a total of 17 people. In the days following the attacks, millions of people around the world rallied or used social media to express solidarity with the journalists by sharing the slogan “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”). This past September, Charlie Hebdo reprinted the controversial cartoons from 2015 the day before the trial of the 14 alleged accomplices involved in the 2015 attacks began. Macron stated that he refused to condemn Charlie Hebdo because, in light of France’s freedom of expression, it is never the place of a president to pass judgement on the magazine’s decision to re-publish the cartoons. However, just days before re-publication of the cartoons, Macron joined other French leaders in condemning the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles for its depiction of a Black lawmaker as an enslaved African who was put up for auction. Macron’s remarks criticizing Islam as a religion “in crisis” and his refusal to denounce these caricatures have culminated in international fury, protests denouncing Macron, and boycotts against French products. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded to Macron’s comments in a recent speech and stated that Macron needed a “mental check” for “behav[ing] in this way to millions of people living in his country who are members of a different faith.” Charlie Hebdo responded by printing a cartoon depicting Erdogan sitting in his underwear, drinking a beer, and lifting up a woman’s hijab to expose her bare backside. On October 28, the Turkish president filed a criminal complaint against the magazine to prosecutors in Ankara, stating that the content amounted to “criminal libel” that is “not covered by freedom of expression.” The Ankara Chief Prosecutor’s office launched an investigation into Charlie Hebdo managers for insulting the president, a crime in Turkey that is punishable by up to four years in prison. Erdogan also called on Turks to boycott French products, joining several Muslim-majority countries where French goods have been pulled from supermarket shelves in response to the continued publication of caricatures and Macron’s remarks. The ongoing domestic lawsuits in France and Turkey concerning Charlie Hebdo illustrate the significant difference between how international leaders weigh interests in freedom of expression and speech where expressions incite a violent response or offend religious feelings. International law grants States wide discretion in defining this balance. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that the right to freedom of expression is “subject to certain restrictions … [as] are necessary ...[f]or the protection of national security or of public order … or of public health or morals.” Similarly, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states the right to freedom of expression “may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary... for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals.” In 1995, the European Court of Human Rights found in Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria that the government seizure and forfeiture of a film that contained trivial imagery of Chrisitianity did not violate the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Court held that national authorities are entitled to a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the necessity of imposing restrictions to avoid offending religious beliefs. International criticism of Charlie Hebdo and Macron has illustrated that France has a significantly higher threshold in determining what speech necessitates restrictions relative to other countries. While French courts have already held that Charlie Hebdo is not guilty of public libel, many Muslim leaders echoed Erdogan’s concern that the caricatures and Macron’s refusal to condemn them encouraged Islamophobia. Pakistan’s parliament even passed a unanimous resolution accusing Macron of propagating “hate-driven acts under the garb of freedom of expression.” Members of France’s Musims community have complained of increased Islamophobia over the past two weeks. Last week, two women wearing hijabs were stabbed repeatedly and called “dirty Arabs” under the Eiffel Tower, and in a different incident, two Jordanian siblings were assaulted after racist insults were continuously hurled at them for speaking Arabic. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “[a]ny advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrmination, hostility, or violence shall be prohibited by law.” The UN Human Right Council’s Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue states that “the right to freedom of expression includes expression of views and opinions that offend, shock or disturb” and restrictions should never be applied to “expression of opinion and dissent, religion or belief, including by persons belonging to minorities or vulnerable groups.” The standard for what speech “constitutes incitement” or is beyond “offensive and disturbing” leaves wide discretion for state leaders to determine what freedom of expression–and what justice for Charlie Hebdo–looks like. Author Pream Akkas (J.D. Candidate, Berkeley Law Class of 2023) is interested in international humanitarian law and immigration and refugee law. Pream holds a B.A. in Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies from Columbia University. She is fluent in Bengali and conversational in Spanish and Arabic.

UNMISS Conducts Riot Control Training Exercise, Juba by United Nations Photo Article by Julia Bennett, United Nations (UN) Peacekeepers help countries, such as the Central African Republic and Lebanon, navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace. However, in recent years, a slew of allegations has revealed that UN Peacekeepers have often been a threat to the very populations they are tasked to protect. In 2017, the Associated Press reported that 100 UN Peacekeepers who ran a child sex ring in Haiti over a ten year period faced no prosecution for their unlawful conduct. The situation in Haiti is only the most recent in a series of ongoing underreported abuses. As the UN system grows larger and more complex in nature, the perpetration of such crimes has increased. Continued sexual abuse by UN Peacekeepers is a stark example of the systematic failures of international law. Local authorities often lack the ability to uphold their own laws and prosecute Peacekeeper violations. By the very nature of their mission, Peacekeepers are stationed in active conflict zones where the rule of law often goes unenforced. The national laws of many countries in which Peacekeepers are stationed are insufficient to or do not address sexual abuse; legal deficiencies, coupled with political and cultural resistance towards prosecuting these sorts of crimes often leave perpetrators of sexual abuse unpunished, and victims without redress. The UN has failed to monitor and follow up on the legal obligations of troop-contributing countries (TCCs). International law often fails to prosecute Peacekeepers because soldiers operate under an assumption of immunity. Peacekeepers are members of the UN civil service and as such are guaranteed immunity from jurisdictions in any country in the world, for all acts undertaken in service of their mission. The UN justifies this all-encompassing immunity as a way to protect Peacekeepers from superficial or pernicious interference by the relevant host state. However, the current legal framework has permitted the UN’s inability or reluctance to hold Peacekeepers who commit offenses against the civilian population responsible, fostering a culture of impunity. The UN has created a system in which they hold all power, while host states are forced to accept that Peacekeepers can act with immunity within their borders. This state of affairs infringes on host-state sovereignty. The UN is able to assert such power over host states because unlike in bilateral relations, a counterbalance between host states and visiting states does not exist. In bilateral relations, host-states and visiting states have a more balanced relationship because each has diplomats in the other’s country. The impunity of Peacekeepers, coupled with this systemic counterbalance makes it nearly impossible for Peacekeepers to be prosecuted. In addition, international law provides a series of loopholes through which civilian and military Peacekeepers routinely escape prosecution. For instance, civilian Peacekeepers are exempt from prosecution in local courts for any actions that fall within the purview of their official functions. In theory, because sexual abuse does not fall within the definition of a Peacekeeper’s official functions, host-states should prosecute civilian Peacekeepers engaging in such conduct. However, in reality the existing international legal framework is too weak to enforce local rule of law. Without enforcement through international law, local laws lack the capacity to prosecute. One of the core responsibilities of Peacekeepers is to build rule of law and security institutions in host countries. Thus, fostering a system in which host countries necessarily have difficulty bringing charges against Peacekeepers. International law and UN regulation lay out conduct for which Peacekeepers can theoretically be punished. The standards of conduct for military Peacekeepers are laid out in two publications: (1) Ten Rules: Code of Personal Conduct for Blue Helmets (the “Code”); (2) United Nations Peacekeeping Standards of Conduct. While both publications prohibit sexual exploitation, Rule 4 of the Code requires that military Peacekeepers “not indulge in immoral acts of sexual, physical or psychological abuse or exploitation.” In comparison, the “Standards of Conduct” explicitly states that the “UN has a zero tolerance policy with respect to sexual exploitation and abuse.” While the UN lays out the expected conduct of military Peacekeepers, they operate under the exclusive purview of their TCC’s. Therefore, TCCs rather than the UN are responsible for the prosecution of military Peacekeepers. This perpetuates a cycle where victims are too afraid to speak up, which in turn grants Peacekeepers another level of immunity. The UN has attempted to create international laws and regulations to monitor military Peacekeepers. For example, the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and 1990 Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) act as jurisdiction guides for military personnel. The MOU states that TCCs have “the primary responsibility to prosecute acts of misconduct...by a member of its national contingent”. The SOFA states that host nations must “waive jurisdiction over Peacekeepers for violations of host nation law.” While TCCs are expected to take responsibility for the actions of military Peacekeepers in host countries, they are under no legal obligation to exercise such jurisdiction. The UN’s sole mechanism of legal accountability over military Peacekeepers is repatriation. However, once repatriation occurs, the TCC has no legal obligation to prosecute the individual or to provide the UN with status updates. Julia Julia Bleckner, a former Human Rights Watch associate and current doctorate student at Yale, suggests that the UN knowingly incorporates immunity into international law under the guise of state sovereignty in order to secure troop contributions from member states. The laws and policies pertaining to Peacekeeper conduct comprise an ad hoc system that makes their prosecution for sexual abuse nearly impossible. A combination of weak laws and the assumption of state functions by international organizations has resulted in a total lack of accountability under international law. When the UN was created, its drafters did not foresee the necessity of Peacekeepers. Therefore, they had no impetus for drafting Peacekeeper-governing law. Instead, violations by Peacekeepers fall under a combination of general international law frameworks and the development of bilateral and multilateral agreements. This is especially pronounced in the different ways in which international law treats civilian and military Peacekeepers. The application of different laws to each category creates a complex system rife with flaws. While prosecution of Peacekeepers under a UN Tribunal might seem like a simple solution, international law would not recognize the creation of such a commission. In August 2006, the Group of Legal Experts was appointed by the Secretary General Kofi Annan to create a report on accountability of UN staff. The Group explored feasibility of jurisdiction in an international court or tribunal. International tribunals have authority over crimes including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. While rape and solicitation of a prostitute are serious offenses, unless undertaken as part of a systematic attack for the advancement of state policy, they would not fall under an international tribunal’s jurisdiction. Assuming that the international tribunal solution is not feasible, international laws must be strengthened, TCCs incentivized to prosecute crimes, and host nations supported in the enforcement of their laws. A core principle of international humanitarian law and moral responsibility of the UN is the “protection of civilians in armed conflict”. There are currently over 80,000 civilian and military Peacekeepers stationed in over 16 countries. Peacekeeper training, command, and discipline should be centralized in order to facilitate the effectiveness of international law as it applies to them. Under the existing system, TCCs have a near monopoly on these functions, limiting the UN’s ability to enforce international law and internal standards of behavior. However, the U.S. and other powerful member states refuse to grant the UN authority over Peacekeepers. The UN currently lacks the authority to punish, bring criminal charges, or convict Peakeepers who commit offenses such as sexual abuse. In a UN Security Council Press Release, Mr. Rivero, the Peruvian representative, stated that the UN must “implement comprehensive prevention strategies backed by real sanctions” in order to prevent Peacekeeper abuses. Mr. Rivero suggested that a Code of Conduct be annexed to the MOU notifying TCCs of their legal obligations and stressing the primacy of international human rights law, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sexual abuse of civilian populations by UN Peacekeepers is an ongoing issue. So far, international law has failed to hold them accountable. Peacekeepers continue to abuse local populations shielded by the immunity afforded by international law. Perhaps as public awareness of such abuses grows, incongruity coupled with public demand for redress will force the international legal community to take action where historically they have been silent. Author Julia Bennett (J.D. Candidate, Class of 2023) is a Contributor to Travaux. Her interests include human rights law and public policy. Julia graduated from the University of St Andrews in the U.K. with a degree in International Relations and Modern History. Julia is currently working with Berkeley's chapter of the International Refugee Assistance Project.

Protest in Gdansk against Poland's new abortion laws by Lukasz Katlewa Article by Hiep Nguyen, On Thursday, October 22, 2020, the Polish Constitutional Court ruled that abortions of fetuses with deformities are unconstitutional. Fetal defects account for 98% of Poland’s abortions. The Court’s ruling revokes the constitutionality of one of four exceptions Poland had previously made when it first enacted its abortion ban in January 1993. Without the allowance of abortions for fetal abnormalities, Poland now only permits termination of pregnancy in the cases of rape, incest, and/or health conditions that would threaten the mother’s life. The Court took up this case upon the request of far-right members of the Polish parliament earlier this year, who argued that existing legislation allowing abortions in the cases of fetal deformities discriminated against the right to life of unborn children. Opponents, including human rights and women’s organizations, condemned the far-right argument, stating that a judicial removal of the exception would strip women of bodily autonomy, place women’s lives in danger, and defy the status quo in Europe, where 41 out of 47 countries currently allow abortions. Since abortion restrictions first came into effect in Poland 27 years ago, an increasing number of Polish women have sought abortions in neighboring countries. Masses are retaliating against the ruling by taking to the streets of major Polish cities such as Warsaw and Poznan. Opinion polls show that a majority of Poles oppose the Court’s decision. The Court’s ruling will set the stage for Jaroslaw Kaczyński’s governing far-right Law and Justice (PiS) party to implement stricter legislation formally banning abortions in the case of fetal defects. PiS’s appointments occupy most seats on the Polish Constitutional Court. Kaczyński has used misinformation campaigns and harnessed public discontent over refugee resettlement to steadily increase his grip on Polish politics over the last decade. He has used his fortified political grip to execute constitutional makeovers that have packed judicial seats with PiS loyalists and cracked down on basic freedoms of speech, religion, and the press. These changes and their results, including this Court’s sharp curtailment of abortion, defy longstanding European Union (EU) laws and precedents, placing Warsaw in increasing contention with Brussels. This Court’s judgment represents only the latest controversy in the EU’s multi-year struggle with right-wing Eurosceptics. EU leadership, which is mostly composed of centrists like former Polish president Donald Tusk, have long advocated for European integration: free movement, multiculturalism, a single currency, and unified liberal economic and social policies. Centrists see the EU as a bulwark against the re-emergence of white nationalism that resulted in World Wars I and II. Newly emergent right-wing leaders like Kaczyński and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stand in direct opposition to this vision. While neither has advocated for complete withdrawal from the EU, they openly enact stricter border controls, celebrate ethno-religious nationalism, and regularly defy bloc-wide economic and social policies. Kaczyński has not suffered consequences for his government’s actions beyond a verbal censure from Brussels. The question for EU leaders remains: should they accommodate far-right governments like those of Poland and Hungary to keep the dream of some integration alive, or crack down on these actors to send a message to those who might consider violating bloc-wide economic and social policies? Brussels’ forthcoming precedent will reverberate across the bloc for decades to come. Author Hiep Nguyen is a first year at Berkeley Law who is interested in regulatory and comparative law. Hiep received his undergraduate degree from Cal (Go Bears!).  Before law school, Hiep worked for a public health agency and a political campaign.

Permanent Premises of the International Criminal Court by United Nations Article by Amina Fahmy, On Thursday, October 1, the Open Society Justice Initiative and four US-based law professors filed suit against President Donald Trump and several officials over their authorization of sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its supporters. The suit alleges that the sanctions violate the plaintiffs’ free speech and prevent them from carrying out work in support of international justice. President Trump first issued a broad and convoluted executive order condemning the ICC in June, and issued sanctions specifically naming Head Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and Head of Jurisdiction Phakiso Mochochoko in sanctions on September 2. Both rounds of sanctions were prompted by the ICC’s March decision to move forward with its investigation into potential crimes against humanity carried out by the US military and the CIA in Afghanistan, and for a potential investigation into crimes committed in Palestine. The ICC is able to proceed with the investigation because Afghanistan is party to the court. The lawsuit requests that the enforcement of President Trump’s executive order be halted until the court has come to a decision about the constitutional concerns it raises. In the meantime, the plaintiffs have paused some of their work in support of the ICC, in fear that the broad nature of the order could threaten academics and human rights groups cooperating with the ICC. Even Berkeley Law’s International Human Rights Workshop declined to participate in a project directly in support of ICC lawyers. Though this move by President Trump is unprecedented and has been widely condemned in the legal and academic communities, it is only the latest in a long history of American opposition to the ICC. Though President Clinton paid the institution lip service at the end of his term by signing the Rome Statute, he did not support its ratification, and American support for the ICC was effectively quashed by the 2002 enactment of the American Service-Members’ Protection Act. Amidst this background of American opposition to the ICC, Trump’s recent move is particularly concerning because his use of sanctions is perverse or as Richard Dicker, International Justice Director at Human Rights Watch describes, “devised for alleged terrorists and drug kingpins, against prosecutors seeking justice for grave international crimes.” The outcome of the lawsuit remains to be seen, but it is clear that Trump, even as he faces a potential end to his presidency, remains determined to withdraw the United States from the international community. If Trump is voted out of office, the succeeding president will likely reengage with a number of international organizations to a relative degree. However, America’s longstanding refusal to participate in the court and its ongoing investigation into US actions raises concerns that future American leaders will be less inclined to reengage with the ICC. Author Amina Fahmy is a first year law student at Berkeley who is interested in civil rights and international human rights law. Amina's interests in law are rooted in her undergraduate study of social and political movements in the Middle East. Prior to attending Berkeley, Amina spent two years living, working, and studying Arabic in Cairo as a Center for Arabic Study Abroad Fellow.

President Trump and the First Lady Participate in an Abraham Accords Signing Ceremony by The White House Article by Amina Fahmy, For decades after the establishment of Israel in 1948, what is now thought of as a conflict between only two parties was a conflict between Israel and the entire MENA region. Israel fought five wars with various Arab states including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and the then Transjordan, and the fighting was largely seen as a threat to Israeli existence. The issue of Palestinian sovereignty spurred Pan-Arabist movements, providing Arab countries with an issue upon which to build political and social cultures; Egypt and Syria even merged, for a short time, to form the United Arab Republic. When Egypt did take steps to normalize relations with Israel as a result of the 1980 Camp David Accords, other MENA countries criticized then-president Anwar Sadat and distanced themselves from the country. Since then, with the exception of the 1982 and 2006 wars between Israel and Lebanon, an uneasy peace has prevailed over the region and conflict has largely turned inward. Many assumed that Israeli-Palestinian peace would preceed, or at least be a major factor in, the establishment of further diplomatic relationships with Arab nations. However, President Trump’s administration foiled any chances of that happening. Unlike his predecessors, President Trump has prioritized brokering relationships between Israel and the MENA region, rather than attempting to create Israeli-Palestinian peace. President Trump has stopped concerning himself with Palestinian issues and opened the door for others to do the same. While the normalization of diplomatic relationships with Arab countries presents prima facie victories, they are detrimental to the establishment of peace with Palestine. On Sunday, October 18, Israel and Bahrain formalized their September agreement to establish diplomatic ties. The UAE and Bahrain are only the third and fourth Arab nations that have done so, prompting hope that others will follow suit. On Friday October 23, Sudan joined Bahrain and the UAE in normalizing relations with Israel. In proceeding with their agreements, the UAE and Bahrain made well-reasoned calculations to put their people first, as their new relationships will likely spur economic and scientific developments and reinforce geopolitical security. However, their agreements do not include any substantive discussion of Palestine and signal a further willingness of the international community to ignore the fact that Israel, in its treatment of Palestine and Palestinians, is violating international law. Perhaps more importantly for practicality’s sake, these are missed opportunities to negotiate the conflict and make a two-state solution less and less likely. Indeed, as it stands now, the Israel-Palestine conflict is an example of the limits of international law in protecting the people it was designed to protect. Representatives from Israel and Bahrain attended a September meeting with President Trump at the White House to celebrate the Abraham Accords, hailed as a diplomatic victory for both President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. President Trump and Netanyahu face uphill general election battles, and the Abraham Accords mark a significant development in Arab-Israeli relations that is expected to bolster their respective political stances. Although the accords fall far short of President Trump’s promised Mid-East peace deal, the Abraham Accords did halt Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plan to annex parts of the West Bank. After the agreement was signed in September, Israel and the UAE issued contradicting statements about the status of the planned annexation. Israel claimed the annexation was simply paused while the UAE announced that they had put a stop to the plan. The international community and Palestinian authorities criticized Netanyahu’s June announcement to annex up to 30% of the occupied West Bank. The West Bank, established as a Palestinian territory in 1949 by a UN brokered peace agreement, is home to approximately 2.5 million Palestinians and lies to the west of the River Jordan. It has been illegally occupied by at least 430,000 Israeli settlers since the 1967 Middle East war, and an Israeli annexation would essentially erase the possibility of a two-state solution. Not only would a significant portion of the imagined Palestinian state be gone, but also, reversal of the annexation would require majority support of Israeli MPs–which is highly unlikely due to myriad political factors. Furthermore, even in a context not specific to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, unilateral annexation of a territory is illegal under international law. Despite this promise to hold off the official annexation, the Israeli government has reportedly approved approximately 5,000 additional settlements in October, and has continued with home demolitions throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The settlements are in a number of West Bank neighborhoods, including some deep within the territory, threatening the continuity of a future Palestinian state. In late September, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas spoke before the UN General Assembly, requesting a conference in early 2021 to establish Middle East peace consistent with international law. It is easy to understand why Abbas felt the need to raise these concerns now: a broader Arab recognition of the state of Israel, without the caveat of requiring a reduction in the number of settlements, demonstrates a dwindling interest in the establishment of a two-state solution. Dr. Michael J Koplow, writing for the Israel Policy Forum, contextualized the decision to speed up settlement-building: “The Israeli government cannot count on American policy remaining supportive of unilateral annexation or declaring that Israeli settlements are inherently not in conflict with international law.” Dr. Koplow acknowledges that the United States, despite not being party to the Rome Statutes, is in a position to declare international law relevant. At the beginning of the Trump presidency, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the US no longer considers West Bank settlements illegal, reasoning that “calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn’t worked. It hasn’t advanced the cause of peace.” The move by President Trump, along with his decisions to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and cut funding to the UN agency that assists Palestinian refugees, is a stark departure from traditional US foreign policy. It is certainly possible, but unlikely, that normalization of diplomatic relationships in the MENA region could have occurred under past American administrations. Previous American foreign policy, and particularly Obama’s platform, suggested that the US would not play a substantive role in establishing diplomacy between Arab nations and Israel without including Palestine at the table. By turning his back on policies that offered albeit limited support to Palestinian authorities, President Trump cleared the way for Netanyahu to pursue relationships with Arab leaders with little regard for the Palestinian population, allowing Arab leaders to do the same. Now, as even more of the world, including the region closest to questions of Palestinian statehood, have apparently accepted Israeli violation of what would be Palestinian sovereignty, a two-state solution is more elusive than ever. Author Amina Fahmy is a first year law student at Berkeley who is interested in civil rights and international human rights law. Amina's interests in law are rooted in her undergraduate study of social and political movements in the Middle East. Prior to attending Berkeley, Amina spent two years living, working, and studying Arabic in Cairo as a Center for Arabic Study Abroad Fellow.

Border Flags by David Stanley Article by Pream Akkas, On September 27, conflict broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh (NK), also known to Armenians as “Artsakh.” The NK/Artsakh region is a disputed territory recognized under international law as the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan. However, to Armenians and the Armenian-majority population of the region, “Artsakh” is a de facto self-governing state that has been independent from Azerbaijan since 1994. Over the past three weeks, military clashes and missile strikes have killed over 700 people and have marked the biggest escalation of the conflict since the end of the Nagorno-Karabakh War, known to Armenians as the Artsakh Liberation War, in 1994. Turkey’s recent direct military intervention in support of Azerbaijan has further escalated the level of violence and created calamitous political and humanitarian implications. Shortly after the conflict erupted at the end of September, President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, called on Azeris to expel Armenians from the NK/Artsakh region and pledged that “Turkey continues to stand with the friendly and brotherly Azerbaijan with all its facilities and heart.” Armenia’s foreign ministry also delivered a statement claiming that “[t]he Turkish military experts are fighting side by side with Azerbaijan, who are using the Turkish weapons, including UAVs and warplanes. According to credible sources, Turkey is recruiting and transporting foreign terrorist fighters to Azerbaijan.” With the support of a significant military power like Turkey, the current attacks on Armenia and the NK/Artsakh region are likely to have devastating consequences on the Armenian population if international actors do not intervene to ensure a successful ceasefire. Background Armenia and Azerbaijan are both former republics of the Soviet Union. In 1923, then Soviet Commissar of Nationalities Joseph Stalin decided that NK would become an autonomous administrative region of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, even though over 94 percent of the region’s population was ethnically Armenian and protested that Azerbaijan discriminated against them. As the Soviet Union was coming to an end in 1988, the majority of ethnic Armenians living in the region demanded that the territory be transferred from Soviet Azerbaijan to Soviet Armenia. But Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s subsequent refusal initiated the Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh Liberation War. After Azerbaijan’s proclamation of its independence in 1991 (after the fall of the Soviet Union), The Republic of Artsakh declared its independence in a referendum, and has since practiced self-determination under rule by a democratically-elected president and parliament and its own flag (which resembles the Armenian flag, without a white line to symbolize separation from Armenia). In 1994, Azerbaijan ceded control of the NK/Artsakh region as well as seven Azerbaijani neighboring districts, creating a land connection to Armenia. More than one million people were displaced with ethnically Azeri people fleeing Armenia and the NK region and ethnically Armenian people fleeing Azerbaijan. Russia then warned Turkey not to intervene with support for Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan supplies Turkey with natural gas and crude oil via pipelines that pass within 10 miles (16 kilometers) of the Azerbaijan-Armenia border and 30 miles of the conflict zone. As a result, Turkey has long sided with Azerbaijan on the NK/Artsakh region dispute. Additionally, Turkey has closed borders and does not have any diplomatic relations with Armenia, partly due to the conflict over the NK/Artsakh region, and partly because of tensions resulting from the 1915 Armenian genocide. Anti-Armenian Sentiment in Turkey and Azerbaijan Turkish support furthers the Armenian argument that the recent attacks are a continuation of Turkish and Azeri efforts from the twentieth century to “ethnically cleanse” Armenians. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed during a call with U.S. officials that Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan “is a continuation of the genocidal policies carried out by Turkey against the Armenians.” Such claims of systematic violence against Armenians are well-grounded in historical precedent. Between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Empire (modern-day Turkey) killed an estimated 1.5 million Armenians. In 2014, President Erdoğan offered his condolences to descendants of victims of the atrocities, marking a significant departure from previous leaders of Turkey who were silent on the genocide against Armenians and even criminally punished Turks for referencing the atrocities. Nevertheless, President Erdoğan continues to deny that the killings were systematic and constitute a genocide and has refused to meet demands for an apology. Similarly, Azerbaijan carried out a series of pogroms against Armenians in Azerbaijan during the Nagorno-Karabakh War, many in the form of Azeri-organized mob violence against Armenians living in Azerbaijan. It is important to note that Armenians have carried out similar acts of violence against Azeris in Armenia, in the NK/Artsakh region, and in provinces between Artsakh and Armenia, where the Armenian populations were negligible prior to 1994, but increased as a result of the displacement of the Azeri population during the 1988-1994 war. As a result of the ongoing conflict in the NK/Artsakh region, anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan continues to be very high and pro-Azerbaijan statements over the dispute not only target Armenians living in Armenia, but also portray Armenians living in Azerbaijan as enemies and traitors. This past July, during a pro-war rally in Azerbaijan with tens of thousands of participants, protestors chanted, “Death to the Armenian” and “we are not going without Karabakh,” conveying anti-Armenian sentiment and refusing to recognize Armenians as legitimate citizens of Azerbaijan. Accordingly, if Azerbaijan were to regain control of the NK region, the ethnically Armenian population would face dire consequences. While officials in Azerbaijan have defended their recent attacks as a defensive response to Armenian attacks, they have also stated that “Azerbaijan will continue to fight for its occupied territories until their liberation.” International Intervention The international community widely continues to assert Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over the NK/Artsakh region and surrounding territory and denounces “occupation” by Armenians. In March 2008, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted Resolution 62/243, which reaffirmed “continued respect and support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Azerbaijan “within its internationally recognized borders,” demanded the “immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of Azerbaijan,” and emphasized that “no state shall render aid or assistance” to maintain the occupation of Azerbaijani territories. In 1992, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Minsk Group (OSCE) was founded to develop a peaceful solution to the NK conflict but has yet to do so. The group is co-chaired by France, the Russian Federation, and the United States, and its members include Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. Earlier this week, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs delivered a joint statement “call[ing] on Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan to take immediate steps to execute in full the obligations of the sides according to the October 10 Moscow statement, in order to prevent catastrophic consequences for the region.” While the leaders of France and Russia have denounced Turkey’s intervention, President Trump has been silent. Prime Minister Pashinyan, during a call with U.S. National Security Adviser Robert O’ Brien, raised the issue of America’s silence in response to a longtime U.S. ally, Turkey, not only attacking ethnic Armenians, but also using American-made F-16 jets to do so. Despite being a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk group, the U.S. was the last major international actor to issue a statement on the crisis, alluding to the administration’s disinterest in the issue and foreshadowing the unlikelihood that the Administration will denounce its ally, Turkey’s involvement. A failure of international actors to take action to stop Turkey’s intervention and develop a resolution will likely have catastrophic political and humanitarian consequences because the Azeri forces have the potential to instigate a large-scale ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population. The population of Armenia is only about 3 million and the population of the NK/Artsakh region is only about 150,000 (a small fraction of Azerbaijan's population of over 10 million). Even without military intervention from Turkey, Azerbaijan’s military spending is more than five times that of Armenia. While Turkey and Azerbaijan have denied Turkey’s intervention in the recent conflict, Turkey’s military exports to Azerbaijan surged to $36 million in August and $77.1 million in September (compared to a total of $20.7 million in 2019) following clashes in July over the NK/Artsakh region and before the recent fighting began. Moreover, the potential role of Russia (which has strong relations with both Armenia and Azerbaijan), the proximity of Iran, which is allied with Armenia, and the presence of major oil and gas pipelines in the region are all factors that can cause this conflict to escalate on an international scale. A successful resolution of the dispute where the international community recognizes the rights of the Armenian people is long overdue. Earlier last week, Hagar Chemali, former spokesperson for the U.S. Mission to the UN, stated in an interview with MSNBC, “[t]his isn’t about two sides fighting over a piece of land...it’s about a group of ethnic people, a community, that is worried about the wiping out of their race.” It is imperative for international leaders to recognize the pattern of violence against Armenians as more than a territorial dispute and to take action to prevent a repeat of the atrocities of 1915. Author S. Pream Akkas (J.D. Candidate, Berkeley Law Class of 2023) is interested in international humanitarian law and immigration and refugee law. Pream holds a B.A. in Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies from Columbia University. She is fluent in Bengali and conversational in Spanish and Arabic.

AP Photo/Noah Berger Article by Ishvaku Vashishtha, In September, British Petroleum (BP) announced that the world had passed “peak oil” demand in its 2020 Energy Outlook report. At the same time, Earth experienced its hottest September on record, the American West Coast has been ablaze on a larger scope and frequency than in past years, and hurricanes continue to batter the Gulf Coast. BP’s announcement has tremendous implications for environmental advocacy in the United States and the global geopolitical order, as it signals the end of the disastrous growth of global oil demand and suggests an imminent energy transition towards more sustainable sources. It is imperative to consider the new peak in global oil demand within the context of COVID-19. BP’s chief executive, Bernard Looney, suggested that coronavirus has contributed to the peak in global oil demand. Lawmakers ought to consider the material correlation between coronavirus and global oil demand as they design their economic recovery plans. Some may consider the crisis an opportunity to transition into widespread use of sustainable energy sources; however, when assessing the degree of pollution, food insecurity, accelerating natural destruction, and rising dissatisfaction with the state of democracy around the world, the pandemic, in combination with the aforementioned factors, should be considered a mandate for a green transition. As a matter of geopolitics, transitioning away from the global dominance of oil is sure to reshape the global order, as it will weaken the power of OPEC countries (“petrostates”), who have long played a central role in the global economy. States that are able to transition quickly may gain geopolitical leverage as they take the helm of a new market for green energy equipment. The United States and China certainly have a significant interest in–and capacity for–doing so, given the twin superpowers’ shared objective to remain global superpowers. Mitigating the catastrophic consequences of climate change should be enough of an incentive to transition towards sustainable energy; nonetheless, millions of people have risen up across 160 countries to participate in a mass movement condemning the international community’s lackluster efforts to address climate change. In the United States, contemporary environmental advocacy takes the form of grassroots organizations like the Sunrise Movement and lawmakers supporting the Green New Deal. While domestic legislative reform is necessary to achieve an energy transition and grassroots movements can play a vital role in reforming local approaches to climate change, the environment is a global issue that requires a global solution. For example, the United States is responsible for only 15 percent of global CO2 emissions. A localized effort to curb carbon emissions is necessary; however, efforts that are not global in nature will be insufficient in curbing the effects of climate change. Thus, countries should center climate change in their foreign policy efforts in order to mitigate its effects, with the United States as a bold leader in the fight. The United States can lead efforts against climate change by engaging in pronounced climate diplomacy, working with large emitters like China and India in order to deliver significant climate action initiatives. An insufficient but important measure the United States can take is to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement. The United States can also use its voting power in global institutions like the World Bank to redirect investments from fossil fuel to clean energy projects and invest in the Green Climate Fund, ideas that have been proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders. Climate change is simply too consequential and its effects too catastrophic for it to be merely a tangential consideration in American foreign policy. Climate change ought to be central to foreign policy reform. President Carter declared that human rights ought to be a “central concern” of U.S. foreign policy, believing that protecting international human rights would advance American interests. Carter’s doctrine rings perhaps even truer today, given the expeditious nature of environmental decline. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ landmark decision in Indigenous Communities Members of the Lhaka Honhat Association v. Argentina further establishes the universal right to a healthy environment. The Court declared that states have a duty to ensure compliance with their human rights obligations, including their obligation to protect the right to a healthy environment through ex-ante prevention of violations by private actors within the given state's territory. Insofar as climate change threatens the right to a healthy environment, it poses a threat to human rights. Any effort by the United States to advance human rights must necessarily account for climate change as a central component of its decision-making. In taking up its mandate, the United States has an opportunity to usher in a new era of global cooperation in thwarting a common enemy of our own creation. What we have before us is an opportunity, a mandate, and a choice. What is clear, is that we must act, now. Author Ishvaku Vashishtha (J.D. Candidate, Class of 2023) is a Contributor to Travaux. His interests include human rights law, international political economy, democratization, and economic justice. Ishvaku holds a B.A. in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley. Before law school, Ishvaku worked as a paralegal specialist for the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division and as an organizer for Elizabeth Warren's Presidential campaign. Currently, he is a student counselor with the Workers' Rights Clinic. He is conversationally fluent in Hindi.

Women's March Political Rally by Robert Jones Article by Hayley Durudogan, The Mexico City Policy (MCP) was harmful for reproductive healthcare access prior to the start of the COVID-19 era. The pandemic, however, has severely magnified its impact. Passed by the Trump Administration in 2017, the MCP, or Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Plan, requires “nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds…[to] neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.” Furthermore, if an NGO receives any global health funding from the US that is tied to the MCP, all their activities are restricted by the policy. This means that if an NGO runs two programs, one which is concerned with treating malaria, and one which is concerned with reproductive healthcare, even if US global health dollars are only used to fund the malaria program, the reproductive healthcare program cannot provide or advise patients on abortion care. The two programs could have no relation with one another aside from falling under the umbrella of the same NGO, and yet the reproductive healthcare program will still be bound by MCP limitations. In theory and in practice, the MCP hampers the work of foreign organizations by imposing US-centric, anti-choice constraints on their work and advocacy. In 64 nations across the globe, from South Africa to Nepal, the MCP prevents patients from accessing the reproductive healthcare services they need. The policy effectively subjugates patient needs to US foreign policy goals and enables the United States to pursue its course of isolationism as it exercises global influence on reproductive healthcare access. First enacted in the Reagan administration, the MCP is by no means a novel anti-choice approach to foreign policy. Republican administrations have uniformly enacted the policy while Democratic administrations have uniformly overturned it. The Trump Administration’s iteration of this hydra-esque policy goes further than any previous versions and drastically increases the types of funding tied to the MCP. Previously, the policy applied only to NGOs receiving US family planning funding. Today, the MCP restricts the services of organizations receiving federal funding for global health issues ranging from malaria to AIDS to maternal and child health. In 2019, the Administration further extended the policy to prevent NGOs receiving US global health funding from supporting organizations that provide abortion care. The policy’s efficacy derives in part from the fact that it “forces health care providers to choose between providing a comprehensive spectrum of reproductive health care and receiving critical US funding.” Faced with such a dilemma, many NGOs reasonably choose to accept funding for the sake of effecting some good, though at a high price. The MCP’s full potential for harm was not realized until March of 2020, however, when the COVID-19 pandemic began its lethal spread. The impact of COVID-19 on reproductive healthcare access has been disastrous, with “health facilities in many places…closing or limiting services.” A lack of providers, a shortage of personal protective equipment, and breakdowns in contraceptive production systems prevent patients from accessing reproductive healthcare and increase the risk of unintended pregnancies. While some nations, such as the United Kingdom, have expanded access through legislation permitting patients to access abortion care from home, many countries continue to render access to abortion care in the COVID-19 era difficult at best, and impossible at worst. In April, the United Nations Populations Fund released a groundbreaking report on the impact of COVID-19 on reproductive healthcare and family planning. Among its many concerning revelations, the report estimated that “if the lockdown continues for 6 months and there are major service disruptions due to COVID-19, an additional 7 million unintended pregnancies are expected to occur.” As the report was released in late April, we are quickly approaching the six month mark, with no end in sight and little hope for a vaccine available en masse in the near future. Many such unintended pregnancies will likely be the result of limitations on reproductive healthcare access caused by COVID-19 and compounded by the MCP’s restrictions. For patients in need of care, losing access to abortion can be lethal. Research by the International Women’s Health Coalition found that the restrictions imposed by MCP prompted many patients to make the heartbreaking choice to seek unsafe abortion care. When provided by a licensed medical practitioner, abortion is “one of the safest types of medical procedures.” In a report by the National Abortion Federation, a US organization, the rate of serious complications in early stage abortions is 0.5%. However, in contexts where safe abortion care is inaccessible, the rate of complications increases. In Kenya, a nation impacted by the MCP, unsafe abortions account for approximately 25% of all maternal mortality. The lives of patients in foreign nations should not be jeopardized by the US executive branch’s anti-choice ideology. As the largest global health funder in the world, the United States effectively uses its wealth to impose its domestic anti-choice agenda on the international community. According to a 2016 study by Kaiser Family Foundation, out of the 64 countries who receive global health funding from the United States, “37 allow for legal abortion in at least one case not permissible under the MCP.” Why should foreign citizens and nations, with no vote and no say, be harmed by the United States’ anti-choice agenda when they themselves have instituted domestic policies that diverge from that agenda? Not only is there no public health rationale for this policy but also the MCP runs afoul of the United States’ obligation to respect “the right to life of a pregnant woman or girl” under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. During times of great economic, social, and political turmoil, bodily autonomy and the right to decide if and when to have children is foundational to an individual’s capacity to live a safe and healthy life. In fact, a UN Working Group addressing discrimination against women stated in 2017 that “women’s human rights include the rights to equality, to dignity, autonomy, information and bodily integrity and respect for private life and the highest attainable standard of health, including sexual and reproductive health.” The report goes on to say that “expert international human rights mechanisms and entities have repeatedly concluded that, in some situations, failure to provide women access to legal and safe abortion may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or torture, or a violation of their right to life.” Unintended pregnancies exacerbate the stresses on individuals, communities, and nations already in the fight of their lives against COVID-19. Unfortunately, the toxic combination of COVID-19 healthcare disruptions and the MCP will likely extend far beyond the course of this pandemic. This is due in large part to the fact that the policy will effectively prevent organizations who need US federal funding from rebuilding reproductive healthcare networks post-pandemic. Fragile reproductive health ecosystems may not recover from the economic losses occasioned by COVID-19, meaning that those in nations where abortion access is tenuous or only newly available may see a backslide in access. Without US global health funding to help rebuild these systems, abortion access may cease to exist in many countries. The United States should not seek to engage in ideological imperialism by using strings-attached funding to make NGOs de-facto agents of US foreign policy goals. Under the auspices of providing aid, the MCP effectively extends US influence on a largely domestic policy issue far beyond the remit of US borders and into the many nations where NGOs use US global health dollars to effect change. With increasing isolationism in American foreign policy, the MCP effectively requires foreign organizations and citizens to abide by American-imposed healthcare restrictions at a time when the United States is taking a step back from its formerly key role in the international community. In effect, the United States’ withholding of funding to further its foreign policy aims not only bears devastating effects of Western imperialism, but also violates international human rights. In 2018, the United Nations affirmed that abortion access is a human right, declaring that “state parties may not regulate pregnancy or abortion...in a manner that runs contrary to their duty to ensure that women and girls do not have to undertake unsafe abortions, and they should revise their abortion laws accordingly.” If abortion access is to be upheld as a human right, regulations like the MCP must be challenged by the United Nations. It is not enough for the MCP to merely be overturned by an executive order or congressional mandate, because, as we have seen, whether or not the policy is in effect changes depending on who is in the White House. In order to ensure that the right to abortion is upheld and enforced, the UN must condemn the MCP as a violation of human rights. A right to abortion without access is futile–it is a right in name but not in nature. Medieval in its formulation and antiquated in its aims, the MCP allows the United States, without legislative power, to curtail the rights of foreign citizens, and that, in and of itself, should be sufficient to concern all those who believe in democracy and the rule of law. Author Hayley Durudogan (J.D. Candidate, Class of 2023) is a Contributor to Travaux. Hayley's interests include international human rights law, reproductive justice, and gender justice. Prior to attending Berkeley Law, Hayley worked in political communications in the field of reproductive rights.

Photo by UNHCR/Roger Arnold Article by Francesco Arreaga, At the end of 2019, there were 79.5 million forcibly displaced persons worldwide. Of those 79.5 million people, about 40% of them were children below 18 years of age. Refugees, asylum-seekers, and migrants often must overcome very challenging life circumstances that force them to leave their homes in search of opportunity and safety. International law, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention, codifies explicit protections for refugees and provide a framework for safeguarding human rights and international agreements. This blog post portrays how the 45th President of the United States and his administration have failed to uphold the United States’ duties under international law to protect refugees. It shows how deceptively named “Safe Third Country Agreements” (STCAs) between the United States and other nations violate the principle of non-refoulement under international law. Finally, I describe how a Canadian Federal Court recently rebuked the United States’ treatment of refugees, and conclude by emphasizing the importance of electing leaders who will ensure that our nation lives up to its responsibilities under international law to respect refugee rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered the foundation of international human rights law and provides in Article 14(1) that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” The principle of non-refoulement is enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. The Convention makes it clear that no country “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened on account of his [or her] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” The 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment also contains an explicit non-refoulement clause in Article 3. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Refugee Agency, is of the view that the non-refoulement principle is customary international law, and thereby applicable to all nations. On September 19, 2016, the United Nations unanimously adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. The declaration reaffirmed the obligations that nation states have to respect the human rights of refugees and migrants, the importance of supporting countries that shelter refugees, and a commitment to adopting a global compact on refugees as well as a global compact for safe, orderly, and regular migration. Unfortunately, under the 45th President’s administration, the United States has abandoned its responsibilities under international law to protect refugees and abide by the principle of non-refoulement. Instead of implementing policies that assist refugees, safeguard human rights, and give a helping hand to immigrants striving to achieve the American dream, this administration has committed human rights abuses by separating children from their parents at the border, is accused of forcefully sterilizing immigrant women at ICE facilities, and has disregarded the principle of non-refoulement by crafting deceptively named STCAs. In 1991, UNHCR published a background note providing some guidelines as to how the term “safe country” can be applied. UNHCR explains how the safe country concept applies where a nation is a non-refugee producing country or is one in which refugees can enjoy asylum without facing any danger. After being coerced by the United States through threats of a travel ban or “significant actions on remittances and/or tariffs,” the government of Guatemala entered into an STCA with the United States. On July 26, 2019 a Guatemalan newspaper, Prensa Libre, reported that the agreement designated Guatemala as a safe country for refugees as they await the adjudication of their asylum cases. Just Security published an English version of an unsigned copy of the agreement that is similar to the signed version in Spanish. Until the agreement came to fruition, the only STCA into which the United States had entered was with Canada in December 2002. In U.T. v. Barr, the ACLU and several other organizations filed a civil complaint alleging that the Asylum Cooperative Agreement, a regulation implementing the procedures for removing asylum seekers to nations like Guatemala under an STCA, is unlawful under domestic and international law. The individual plaintiffs in this lawsuit are being forced to choose between remaining in Guatemala, “where they fear for their lives, and returning to the countries from which they fled persecution.” Moreover, the complaint cites an asylum officer’s statement that the agreement between the United States and Guatemala is simply “a pretext to get rid of as many asylum claims as possible.” In addition to the pending litigation challenging the legality of the agreement between the United States and Guatemala, there is ongoing litigation in Canada (Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada) challenging the legality of the aforementioned STCA between the United States and Canada. A Canadian Federal Court ruled in July 2020 that the STCA between the United States and Canada is invalid because U.S. immigration practices reflect the “penalization of the simple act of making a refugee claim [and] is not in keeping with the spirit or the intention of the STCA or the foundational Conventions upon which it was built.” In its opinion, the Canadian Court provided examples showing the plight of several refugees such as Ms. Mustefa and other unnamed persons. Refugees were “all placed in solitary confinement immediately upon arrival at US detention facilities.” R.S. “was left without food and was not given the opportunity to bathe for the first three days she was in solitary confinement.” J.K. describes “being unable to sleep due to the cold; P.Q. describes asking for extra blankets, but not receiving any until she had a fever and needed to see a doctor, and R.S. stated that when prisoners would huddle together for warmth, the guards would pull the blanket.” Medical attention was woefully inadequate at detention facilities and disproportionate, as “R.S. observed the nurse in her detention facility ignore Black detainees while going out of her way to address medical issues of White detainees.” The circumstances at these U.S. detention facilities were so dire that Ms. Mustefa described her time in solitary confinement as “a terrifying, isolating and psychologically traumatic experience.” All of this led the Canadian Federal Court to conclude that Canada’s STCA agreement with the U.S regarding refugees is in violation of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The Canadian Court’s holding depicts how the United States is failing to abide by the refugee protections established by international law and cannot be considered a safe country for refugees. The United States has a troubling history of excluding people from our country based on racial animus, historically evident in laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Still, it remains shocking, sad, and disgraceful to know that the President of the United States and members of his administration have degraded the nation’s legal system with respect to immigration and human rights, to the extent that a Canadian Court has rebuked the treatment of refugees in the United States. The United States cannot expect to be a leader on the world stage that champions human rights if we ourselves do not practice what we preach. It is essential that we elect leaders who will ensure that our nation respects human rights and upholds the principles of international law that protect the millions of refugees and forcibly displaced people facing dire life circumstances. Author Francesco Arreaga (J.D. Candidate, Class of 2021) is a Contributor to Travaux. He has been a member of the Berkeley Journal of International Law since his first year of law school and has enjoyed writing for Travaux. Francesco holds a B.A. in Political Science and Chinese, as well as a minor in Global Studies from UCLA. He is currently the co-President of the American Constitution Society at Berkeley Law and last year served as the Co-President of the Berkeley Immigration Group. Francesco is passionate about ensuring that the voices of immigrants, working people, and communities of color are represented in government. Currently, Francesco is interning as a law clerk in the U.S. Senate.