Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Pardon Me?

As the investigation into the Trump Administration’s ties to Russia continues to heat up, Trump has reportedly asked for more information about the power of his presidential pardon. Specifically, he has asked about the power he has to pardon his aides, family members, and even himself.

In 1974, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) explained that Nixon could not pardon himself. https://t.co/KKfSVe3Vzx

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) July 21, 2017

He has also asked questions about the reach of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. According to the New York Times, Trump’s team has been looking into whether it’s possible to fire Mueller or some members of his staff. Trump claims that Mueller should not be looking into any issues other than the allegations of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. That worry isn’t without precedent. Kenneth Starr’s investigation into former President Bill Clinton’s land deals in Arkansas eventually led to his impeachment after it was discovered he had lied about an affair. But many point to Trump’s shakiness when it comes to Mueller as evidence that his team is increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of scrutiny placed on the president.

Bonus: for more info on what a presidential pardon actually is, check out Law Street’s explainer.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Ehe für alle (marriage for all) may soon become the law of the land in Germany after Chancellor Angela Merkel softened her stance on same-sex marriage during an interview on Monday. Merkel said the Parliament ought to carry out a “vote of conscience” on the issue. The body intends to do so on Friday.

Germany is one of the only Western European countries that has yet to legalize same-sex marriage. The country allowed same-sex couples to enter civil partnerships in 2001 and numerous legal battles since then have also won couples the right to inherit items and property. The bill, proposed by the left and green parties following Merkel’s call for a free vote, would add to this list the rights to marry and adopt.

The bill is expected to pass easily on Friday, in part because many believe this law is long overdue. A YouGov poll estimates that two thirds of Germans would advocate for a law allowing LGBTQ individuals to wed and over half of Germans support adoption.

A political move, more than a historic one?

Amid the excitement surrounding the vote, many are speculating that Merkel’s pivot emerged as a political play in her campaign for Germany’s September election, in which she is running for a fourth term.

Merkel, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union, has long resisted demands for same-sex marriage to be passed. “For me, personally, marriage is a man and a woman living together,” Merkel said. But, in recent months, she has faced pressure to follow in the footsteps of more progressive parties on this issue.

Her main opponent in the race, Martin Schulz, is the chosen candidate for the Social Democratic party. On Sunday, Schulz promised that same-sex marriage would be legalized in any government involving his party. Family “is not only father, mother, child,” Schultz told supporters. Family is “there wherever people take responsibility for each other.”

We will push through marriage equality in Germany. This week.

— Martin Schulz (@MartinSchulz) June 27, 2017

Two other parties, the Free Democratic Party and the Green Party have said they would not form a coalition with Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) if same-sex marriage was not on the agenda.

Merkel’s call for the vote may have broadened her pool of potential voters, however she risks alienating the CDU’s sister party: the Bavarian conservative Christian Social Union (CSU).

“Germany has more paramount issues to address,” said CSU legislator Peter Ramsauer.

Despite the political motivations behind this decision, many Germans, Europeans, and LGBTQ advocates have expressed their delight that Germany will likely soon join the ranks of countries where same-sex couples can legally marry and establish families–and just in time for the end of Pride month.

For my English speaking followers: German parliament will vote on gay marriage tomorrow – on the 48th anniversary of Stonewall. #Ehefueralle

— Stina ⛱ (@Stinalotte) June 28, 2017

Now only 48% of EU citizens live with marriage equality. From Friday it will be 64%.

#Ehefueralle

— Filipe Henriques (@FHenriques) June 28, 2017

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Merkel Softens Stance On Same-Sex Marriage, Prompting Snap Vote appeared first on Law Street.

Capping off a years-long pursuit of power, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan strengthened his rule on Sunday, as a referendum passed that changes the constitution from a parliamentary system to a presidential system. While supporters claim the new system will stabilize a government that faces growing internal and external threats, detractors say it will effectively give the Middle East yet another authoritarian leader. With the constitutional change, Erdogan could lead the country until 2029.

The referendum passed by a much narrower margin than many observers–including Erdogan–expected: 51.4 percent of the country supported the system change, while 48.6 percent opposed it. The narrow result shows just how divided Turkey is at a time of growing tensions both at home and abroad.

Domestically, the country is coping with the fall-out from last July’s coup attempt. Erdogan’s government has purged at least 100,000 workers from their jobs, and has jailed thousands of others, all accused of being followers of the exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen. Erdogan accuses Gulen, a onetime political ally, of fomenting the coup. Gulen lives in Pennsylvania.

Turkey has also gone from being a potential member of the European Union to being a thorn in its side. As the campaign for the referendum heated up in recent months, Erdogan sent over his ministers to Europe to drum up support among its millions of Turkish citizens who were eligible to vote–Germany alone has about three million Turkish citizens. The Netherlands, Germany, and others barred Turkish officials from campaigning; Erdogan likened their governments to Nazis. The relationship has soured ever since.

In addition to its domestic concerns, Turkey is a key player in the Syrian conflict. It holds small slices of territory in Syria’s northern border with Turkey, and cooperates with the U.S.-led coalition in airstrikes against Islamic State militants. Though differences remain between the U.S. and Turkey’s goals in the region–Turkey considers the Kurdish fighters, a U.S. ally, terrorists–the two remain vital partners in the fight against ISIS.

Sunday’s referendum result concerns those that see Erdogan as being on a mission to tighten his grip on the country’s politics. Since taking the presidential post in 2014, Erdogan has effectively swapped the job titles of prime minister and president. The presidential perch was designed to be ceremonial, and the prime minister–a position he held for ten years following his switch to president–was the position meant to wield power.

Among other sweeping changes, the new presidential system scraps the prime minister position altogether. It also allows a president to serve for up to two terms of five years each, with a possible extension to three terms. The president can directly appoint top public officials, including judges, and also has the authority to intervene in judicial decisions. New presidential and parliamentary elections are scheduled for November 3 2019.

Some observers saw Erdogan’s campaign as unfair–the main opposition party is calling for a recount. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) derided the tactics of the government.

“The campaign rhetoric was tarnished by some senior officials equating ‘No’ supporters with terrorist sympathizers, and in numerous cases ‘No’ supporters faced police interventions and violent scuffles at their events,” said OSEC in a  statement.

Immediately after the results came in, Erdogan gave a speech to his supporters in Istanbul. “We are enacting the most important governmental reform of our history,” he said. Erdogan also suggested that he would hold a referendum on bringing back the death penalty to Turkey, which would effectively end its bid to become an EU member-state.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkey Passes Referendum Giving President Erdogan Unprecedented Power appeared first on Law Street.

On April 23, French voters will choose two presidential candidates–the two highest vote getters–to advance to a run-off scheduled for May 7. Recent polls suggest a tight race. The projected victors of the first round–National Front’s Marine Le Pen and En Marche’s Emmanuel Macron–are both expected to net 22 percent of the April 23 vote. But after two successful debate performances, far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon is hovering just behind the front-runners at 20 percent. Francois Fillon, the conservative candidate who is ensnared in a corruption scandal, is right behind at 19 percent of the first-round vote. Though 11 candidates are in the mix, one of these four is likely to be France’s next leader.

Marine Le Pen

Le Pen, the self-professed “candidate of the people” needs no introduction. A populist firebrand in the same vein as U.S. President Donald Trump, Le Pen heads the National Front Party on a platform steeped in anti-immigrant and anti-EU messaging. With a potent brew of Islamaphobia and nationalism, Le Pen has stunned political observers with her success so far, especially considering her family tree. Her father, the former National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, was a blatant anti-Semite and racist. Under his leadership, the party was a fixture of France’s fringe, but never gained traction with a large chunk of voters. That is changing under Marine.

Francois Fillon

Fillon’s campaign has been marred by a corruption scandal that has overshadowed his policies. Fillon has been accused of paying his wife Penelope a hefty salary for a job that didn’t actually exist when he was a member of Parliament. His politics resemble a traditional conservative in the U.S.: he has pledged to cut taxes, open up the market, cut public spending, and increase the number of law enforcement officers.

Emmanuel Macron

A centrist and political novice–though he did serve as Minister of the Economy–Macron’s campaign has surged in recent months as French voters seek a candidate without Fillon’s establishment ties or Le Pen’s anti-EU nationalism. Macron is pro-EU. He has proposed a tax cut for corporations, and an influx of public spending. His social views are largely liberal, and he supports France’s secular society; he has said, however, that Muslim head scarves should not be banned at universities.

Jean-Luc Melenchon

In recent days, Melenchon, a 65-year-old admirer of Mao Zedong and Hugo Chavez, has been biting at the heels of Macron and Le Pen. His views are so far left that some worry he is an undercover communist. He would like to see a huge increase in public spending, he is skeptical of the EU, and he proposes France leave NATO. This is not his first rodeo; Melenchon ran in 2012, capturing 11 percent of the vote. But with his competitors stalling, and as France, like much of the rest of the West, seeks radical solutions, his star is on the rise.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet the Top Contenders in France’s Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official: the process for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, known as Brexit, has begun. Prime Minister Theresa May triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty Wednesday afternoon, starting a two-year window of negotiations between the United Kingdom and the EU. If two years pass without a deal, an unlikely but plausible scenario, Britain would not be allowed back in to the bloc, which now consists of 27 member states.

Britain’s ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow, hand delivered a letter, May’s official invocation of Article 50, to European Council President Donald Tusk in Brussels. The letter outlines the UK’s goals moving forward:

It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats.

After receiving the six-page letter, Tusk said the goal moving forward for the EU is “to minimize the cost for EU citizens, businesses and member states.” Faced with the unenviable task of negotiating what is sure to be an uncomfortable divorce, Tusk added: “There is no need to pretend that this is a happy day, neither in Brussels or in London. After all most Europeans, including almost half the British voters, wish that we would stay together not drift apart.”

Within 48 hours, Tusk said, the European Council will draft guidelines for Britain’s withdrawal, effectively setting the parameters in which the negotiations will take place. In April or May, leaders from the remaining 27 EU states will meet to finalize the guidelines, after which negotiations will officially begin. Negotiations will feature a range of thorny issues, including immigration, the UK’s access to the EU trade market, and the status of EU citizens living in the UK.

A final agreement must pass two EU bodies before the separation can be chiseled in stone. First, the European Parliament, the bloc’s lawmaking arm, will vote. A simple majority is needed to advance the resolution to the Council of the European Union, where 20 of the 27 members must approve the agreement for it to pass.

According to a recent poll, the British public–at least in England, which decidedly voted “leave” in the June referendum–still supports the break with Europe. Sixty-nine percent of respondents said the Brexit should move forward, and 48 percent said that May has done a good job since the referendum. But not everyone is happy. Scotland, a semi-autonomous region of the UK for over 300 years, might seek a second referendum on its independence from the UK, chiefly because it would like to remain part of the EU. In fact, a majority of Scots–62 percent–voted to “remain” with the bloc.

Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon announced her intention to pursue a second independence referendum–in 2014, voters elected to remain a part of the UK–in a speech earlier this month. On Tuesday, the Scottish Parliament voted in favor of holding another referendum, but a vote cannot commence until the British Parliament supports it as well. May recently said that will not happen until the uncertain Brexit process is complete. May, in remarks after she triggered Article 50, articulated what all parties involved in the Brexit process likely are feeling: “This is a historic moment from which there can be no turning back,” she said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Theresa May Triggers Article 50, Kicking Off Brexit Negotiations: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

On March 29, Prime Minister Theresa May will trigger Article 50 and initiate the United Kingdom’s official withdrawal from the European Union. Once EU officials receive notice of the UK’s intention to leave, the two parties will be able to formally negotiate the terms under which it will leave, and how it will interact with the union going forward. Much has been made about the likelihood that EU negotiators will be keen to make an example of the United Kingdom so as to send a message to other member states who may be eyeing an exit. However, if Theresa May’s political history is anything to go by, a comprehensive split with the European Union will suit her government just fine.

Following the referendum, there was much debate over whether May’s government ought to pursue a “soft Brexit,” which would have allowed Britain to stay in the Common Market, or sever all existing ties with the European Economic Area and undertake a “hard Brexit.” Polls released the day before May’s speech on her plan to leave the EU showed that more Britons supported either remaining in the European Union or at least the Common Market. May ultimately committed to a “hard Brexit,” claiming that remaining within the single market “would, for all intents and purposes, mean not leaving the EU at all.”

Controlling immigration has long been the priority for the former Home Secretary, which is a key factor in why she was elevated from her position to prime minister in the wake of a referendum result that was largely motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment. In the run up to the referendum, May backed the Remain campaign but her support was unenthusiastic; she rarely spoke in favor of EU membership. On a rare occasion May did speak, she still expressed her distaste for freedom of movement. During her time as home secretary, May put forward a number of hardline immigration policies that were criticized by many as being overtly harmful to immigrants and their families.

Considering May’s feelings on immigration, it is no surprise she opted to pursue a “hard Brexit” plan that would allow Britain to have absolute control over immigration policy. Wishing to avoid a domino-like collapse of the union, EU negotiators would have likely rejected a plan that allowed the UK to remain within the Common Market. However, considering that a “soft Brexit” would have carried provisions for the freedom of movement of people, it is unlikely May would have gone for these terms anyway.

Relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union are likely somewhat tense. Once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations begin, both sides will be trying to score political points. May’s government will hope to convince the British public and the world that the United Kingdom would be better off outside of the EU. The EU will be aiming to stem the tide of euro-skepticism by demonstrating value of EU membership and the cost that exiting the union incurs.

While the two parties have distinct goals, their plans for achieving their respective objectives appear to be largely the same: pursue a definitive break. In her speech announcing a “hard Brexit,” May declared that she would not be bullied by the EU claiming that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.” In October, President François Hollande said that “there must be a price” for leaving the EU and that Britain cannot expect to “to enjoy supposed benefits [of EU membership] without downsides.”

Both the UK and the EU have drawn lines in the sand. As of now, a “hard Brexit” appears to be the mutually agreeable course of action, but only time will tell whether both, neither, or just one of the parties were well advised in pursuing such a conclusive break.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The UK and EU Both Seem to Want a “Hard Brexit,” but for Different Reasons appeared first on Law Street.

These days, fake news is everywhere. After all, 2016 was marked by “post-truth” becoming the word of the year and the made-up news stories that made their way around the internet. Some of the stories that sprung up last year were so bizarre it is incredible anyone would believe them, but fake news is now being blamed for things like Donald Trump’s victory. Back in March 2015, a group of 11 European diplomats, bureaucrats, and former journalists based in Brussels started investigating the origins of fake news stories under the name East StratCom. In the 16 months since, the group has debunked about 2,500 stories.

The European Union has a new unit to combat Russian propaganda, an 11-member team called East Stratcom. https://t.co/TtsfAd8bJZ

— Steven Lee Myers (@stevenleemyers) February 21, 2017

Incorrect information has always been easily spread. But last year was different, given the controversial U.S. election, and how quickly fake stories could spread via social media, especially Facebook, which came under fire for trending fake articles in the fall. The problem was also spurred on by Google, where stories that went viral would pop up toward the top of searches because of the traffic they had gained. Purveyors of fake news would also try to make their websites look like real news sites, and place their fake stories next to genuine ones.

The European Council created East StratCom specifically “to address Russia’s ongoing disinformation campaigns.” Most of the team members know Russian and they work full time scanning the web for fake stories. They try to debunk stories in real time on social media, send out newsletters and inform their followers about fake news. They have over 14,000 followers on both Facebook and Twitter. But they say it is impossible to cover as much as they would want to.

Conspiracies: the bread & butter of pro-Kremlin disinformation. Don’t be deceived & read #DisinfoReview: https://t.co/7tkJBWaRaR pic.twitter.com/14mAFDuFFR

— EU Mythbusters (@EUvsDisinfo) February 17, 2017

This year, France, Germany, and the Netherlands all will hold elections and many people are worried that outside efforts will succeed in influencing the outcomes, like it seems they did in the U.S. The Russian goal is believed to be to undermine the European Union and gain more control in the region. And several of the team members have received death threats, with one of them being accused twice on Russian TV of being a spy.

President Donald Trump has made a point out of calling mainstream media “fake news” but has also spread incorrect information himself. In a speech at a Florida rally last weekend, Trump mentioned something that allegedly happened in Sweden when talking about immigrants and crime, implying that there had been some sort of terror attack. He later explained on Twitter that he was referring to something he’d seen on Fox News, and once again attacked Sweden and the “fake news media.”

Give the public a break – The FAKE NEWS media is trying to say that large scale immigration in Sweden is working out just beautifully. NOT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2017

This tendency to quote false information as if it were real is an actual danger to democracy, says British politician Damian Collins who is examining the phenomenon. “There are concerns shared by many governments that fake news could become weaponized,” he said. “The spread of this type of material could eventually undermine our democratic institutions.”

And while East Stratcom works as hard as possible to debunk fake news stories, the speed of information sharing on social media has many experts doubting whether the efforts will have any effect. And given the anonymity of the internet, it is virtually impossible to find the perpetrators.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A European Task Force is Battling Fake News, One Story at a Time appeared first on Law Street.

As humans create smarter and more advanced robots, and they start to take over human jobs, maybe it’s about time to think about their legal status. The European Union is currently considering giving robots the rights of “electronic persons,” based on a draft report. But it’s not quite as sci-fi as it sounds. Robots won’t start thinking all by themselves and demanding equal rights anytime soon. This legal definition is instead a way to hold companies accountable for things their robots do. And it’s not law yet, only a draft of a series of recommendations for EU lawmakers. Member of European Parliament Mady Delvaux, from Luxembourg, who wrote the draft report said:

A growing number of areas of our daily lives are increasingly affected by robotics. In order to address this reality and to ensure that robots are and will remain in the service of humans, we urgently need to create a robust European legal framework.

As robots become advanced enough to make decisions without a human’s input, they can be considered to be more than simple tools. But it’s hard to say just what they are. Legislation would help define that, as well as ensure that someone is liable, for example, if a driverless car has an accident.

EU MEPs endorse Robot rights proposal: “electronic persons” status, kill switches https://t.co/HzmM9yXyMx#Legal #status #EU #robotics #AI pic.twitter.com/zcTIweoxgv

— Ian Hannigan (@IanHannigan) January 12, 2017

Delvaux and other MEPs are campaigning to create a new European agency for robotics and artificial intelligence. In such a new and quickly developing area, experts are needed to ensure that public authorities can easily get access to technical and ethical information. They also suggest streamlined rules for robot appliances and an ethical code of conduct to determine who, in case of a conflict, is to be held accountable for any social, environmental, or health impacts caused by robots. The guidelines would include the recommendation of a kill switch for all AI machines, in case of emergency.

If a robot were to be seen as an “electronic person,” it would “clarify responsibility in cases of damage,” a press release for the draft report said. So it’s not really about making a robot into a person. “Robots are not humans and will never be humans,” Delvaux said to The Verge. Legally, it just makes things less complicated. Legislation like this would ensure that companies can’t just say “it’s not our fault” if a self-driving car crashes and kills whoever is traveling in it.

The next step is for the draft to be passed on to the European Commission, the EU body that makes the laws. An actual decision on the matter could take years.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The EU May Legally Define Robots as “Electronic Persons” appeared first on Law Street.

Prime Minister Theresa May kicked off the Brexit proceedings in a speech on Tuesday that outlined Britain’s future as an independent, globally engaged nation. After weeks of guessing at what May’s opening salvo would look like, Tuesday’s speech laid the groundwork for official negotiations between Britain and the European Union, which are set to begin in March. The entire withdrawal process is expected to take up to two years.

Speaking at the decadent Lancaster House in London, May spoke of a future where Britain is free from certain EU-related constraints while holding on to some privileges. For instance, she sees Britain as a global trading partner, outside the single market of the bloc, while also enjoying tariff-free trade with member states as part of the customs union.

“What I am proposing cannot mean remaining in the single market,” May said, adding that she wants “a new and equal partnership–between an independent, self-governing, global Britain and our friends and allies in the EU.” May specifically denounced a “half in, half out” approach to the future Britain-EU relationship. “We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave,” she said.

But in suggesting Britain can sign trade deals with non-European countries, while also engaging in tariff-free trade with the 27 members of the bloc, May laid out an ambitious plan that might be rejected in negotiations with EU officials in March. In the European single market system, members freely exchange goods, services, and people. If Britain opts out of the single market–a so-called “hard Brexit”–it will forfeit fluid capital movement within the bloc, but would gain autonomy to deal with other actors outside of it.

Some of May’s political opponents were dismayed by her insistence on leaving the single market. “She claimed people voted to leave the single market,” said Tim Farron, head of the Liberal Democrats. “They didn’t. She has made the choice to do massive damage to the British economy.” He warned that in fleeing the single market, Britain could experience “higher prices, greater instability, and rising fuel costs.”

The Brexit vote last June, when over 17 million Brits voted to leave the EU, came at a time of great concern about maintaining sovereignty in the face of increased immigration from the Middle East and Africa. But the result also caused British citizens living in other EU countries (1.2 million people), and citizens from other EU countries living in Britain (3.2 million people), to worry about their future.

May addressed those concerns in her speech. “We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can,” she said. May added that resolving the conflict is an “important priority,” and she would like to find a solution with the EU immediately, to “give people the certainty they want straight away.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Britain’s Prime Minister Details Brexit Strategy in Long-Awaited Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

No Dakota Pipeline…For Now

There’s been a lot of bad news lately, but yesterday the people won a small victory over big corporations when the U.S. Army Corps announced that it would not grant the easement for the Dakota Pipeline to be built near the Standing Rock reservation. Protesters and Native Americans have blocked the construction of the oil pipeline for months and endured clashes with the police that have left many injured.

The army said in a statement: “Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it’s clear that there’s more work to do.” It will look at alternative routes for where the pipeline can go instead.

President-elect Donald Trump, who is only about a month away from moving into the White House, is a big supporter of the pipeline, so this certainly doesn’t mean the fight is over. But for now, many people are celebrating.

We will forever remember Dec. 4th,2016 as a day of victory, but as we celebrate today, tomorrow we continue to work towards a better future. pic.twitter.com/uP2a2z1ua4

— Urban Native Era (@UrbanNativeEra) December 5, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 5, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

It is hard to believe that in 2016 in a European country, a government could propose a new law that would make child marriage legal, and also protect rapists from being punished by the law as long as they marry their victim. But that is exactly what is happening in Turkey. The new bill was approved on Thursday and is scheduled to undergo a final vote on Tuesday. If it passes, it will take away the punishment for sexual assault if there is no force or if the victim and perpetrator are married. This would include girls under the age of 18. So how could sexual assault without force be criminalized, and how could sexual violence in marriages be punished? Put simply: they likely couldn’t be.

WTF Turkey with this project of law to decriminalize rape if it ends in a marriage??? “rape legalization”, that’s the true meaning of it…

— mandubianhotep (@mandubian) November 21, 2016

If a man rapes a girl, he can escape punishment by agreeing to rape her for the rest of her life. #Islam #Turkey https://t.co/CrLGhzXM46

— Anne Marie Waters (@AMDWaters) November 19, 2016

Over the weekend, thousands of people took to the streets to protest the proposed law, carrying signs that read “Punish the rapist, not the child,” and “Rape cannot be pardoned.” According to reports even the daughter of Turkey’s President, whose party introduced the bill, protested it. “Pardoning the crime of sexual assault, or dropping it due to prescription, is out of the question. People who commit sexual assault and rape crimes cannot be cleared,” one protester said to the AP.

The government claims it didn’t create the bill to pardon rapists, but to solve some legal challenges in connection with the widespread custom of child marriage. According to Prime Minister Binali Yildrim, it would release men who were imprisoned after marrying underage girls in religious ceremonies. But critics say the law would pardon rape and basically take away the rights of women and children. Now some United Nations agencies, like UNICEF, are urging Turkey to not go ahead with the law, as it would work against the country’s ability to “combat sexual abuse and child marriages.” A spokesperson said that UNICEF is “deeply concerned,” and that “these abject forms of violence against children are crimes which should be punished as such.”

Motion to ‘protect child marriage’ in #Turkey draws criticism and claims of pardoning rape. #EndChildMarriage https://t.co/FIfDpo2Fkr pic.twitter.com/KFUNI04FY8

— Edward Herbert (@ed_herbert) November 21, 2016

Turkey has one of the highest rates of child marriage in Europe, especially in more rural areas. The changes would apply to cases between 2005 and November 16 of this year.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Public Uproar: Turkey Moves Ahead With Child Marriage Law appeared first on Law Street.

The process involving Britain’s exit from the European Union might start later than Prime Minister Theresa May had hoped, as the High Court ruled on Thursday that Parliament must vote on the matter before the “Brexit” can begin. May, who was sworn in earlier this summer after David Cameron stepped down, immediately signaled she would appeal the decision next month, and is still targeting March 2017 as the beginning of Britain’s withdrawal from the bloc.

Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, is the lead plaintiff in the case. Her argument is that Article 50, the part of the Lisbon Treaty that allows for an exit from the EU to begin, can only be approved with a vote from Parliament. In his ruling in favor of Miller, Lord chief justice John Thomas said: “The most fundamental rule of the U.K. Constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make or unmake any law it chooses.”

On June 23, 17.4 million Brits voted in support of a British exit from the EU. The result quickly sent shockwaves domestically and abroad: Cameron stepped down after the political embarrassment, May stepped in, stock markets plunged, and the pound hit historic lows. May promised to deliver on what the majority of her country desired, and set March of next year as the point when Article 50 would be invoked, and deliberations with the EU for a smooth exit would begin.

May’d my day #Brexit pic.twitter.com/Y3oBoUijaB

— Toni Giugliano (@ToniGiugliano) November 4, 2016

But Thursday’s ruling, while unlikely to reverse the Brexit result, might stall the process, and some analysts say it could limit May’s ability to seek her terms for the exit, and give her less flexibility in negotiations with the EU. Nigel Farage, former leader of the UK Independence Party and a staunch Brexit supporter, said he fears Thursday’s ruling could lead to a “half Brexit.”

“I think we could be at the beginning, with this ruling, of a process where there is a deliberate, willful attempt by our political class to betray 17.4 million voters,” he said in an interview on BBC Radio, promising he would return to politics in 2019 if Britain has not left the EU by then.

Miller, while capturing a legal victory, experienced first-hand the anti-immigrant undertones of Brexit following Thursday’s ruling. The daughter of Guyanese immigrants, Miller got hit with a barrage of hateful messages on social media, with one user on Twitter posting the message, “Kill her, she’s not even British.” Miller has lived in the country for 41 years, since she was 10 years old.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Parliament Stop “Brexit” from Happening? appeared first on Law Street.

On June 23, the United Kingdom held its long-awaited vote on whether or not to stay in the European Union. In a somewhat surprising development, 30 million people across the U.K. voted to leave the European Union. In the end, Leave voters won with 52 percent of the vote while Remain had 48 percent, in an election with the nation’s highest voter turnout since 1992.

While the debate over whether to leave the Union generated acrimony between the two sides involved, it also held the potential to leave a much larger impact on the world at large. Read on to find out more about the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, nicknamed Brexit, the immediate impact on the nation and the possible regional and global ramifications that may still play out.

The United Kingdom and the European Union

The European Union has its origins in the European Coal and Steel Community, an agreement made between six countries, notably including France and Germany, following World War II in an effort to prevent future wars. The agreement quickly evolved into the European Economic Community in 1957, furthering ideas such as free trade and free movement, which serve as the basis of the EU today.

Britain at first was hesitant to join, seeing itself as above the Union and on par with the great post-war powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union. However, following sluggish economic growth in the 1960s, Britain eventually reached out about joining. Britain finally joined in 1973 but in 1975, almost immediately after joining, the country actually had its first referendum on whether or not to stay in the union. In that case, the Remain vote was overwhelming.

Despite the positive referendum results, Britain’s two major political parties, Conservative and Labour, took turns decrying the EU and suggesting an exit during the 1970s and 1980s. Ultimately, though, the nation remained with some caveats, such as not buying into the union’s single currency. Support for the union increased and remained steady within British ruling politics throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Things began to turn on their irrevocable course beginning in 2005 when David Cameron assumed leadership of the Conservative Party.

Cameron had incorporated Euro-skeptics into his winning coalition and thus had to agree to policies that began distancing Britain from the EU. That move was combined with the rise of anti-immigration sentiment, anti-EU parties, and the EU’s own economic decline following the Great Recession. As part of his most recent election victory in 2015, Cameron promised a referendum on Britain’s EU membership, which ultimately led to Brexit.

Brexit

Clearly, the Brexit vote was a long time in the making as Britain seemingly always had one foot out the door. The argument took two sides. Those who opposed exiting the EU believed that Britain, as a small island, needed to be part of a larger unit to continue to enjoy economic success and to remain secure. Conversely, those campaigning against the EU decried the perceived growing overreach from Brussels (where EU institutions are located), which they contend threatens Britain’s very sovereignty.

The Remain camp was led by then Prime Minister David Cameron, who essentially staked his reputation and political career on voters deciding to remain in the European Union. Within the U.K., Cameron was supported by most of his own Conservative Party, the opposing Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish National Party. Globally his coalition was strengthened by notable world leaders including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and President Barack Obama. Most major businesses and prominent economists also supported staying in the union.

The opposition was headed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) then led by Nigel Farage. Supporting him were other members of Cameron’s own party including, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Those in favor of exiting the European Union were also endorsed by far-right parties across Europe including in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. To learn more about the recent rise of right-wing, nationalist groups in Europe check out this Law Street explainer.

To formally leave the European Union, the U.K. must invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which was signed in 2007. According to Article 50, the U.K. will have up to two years to negotiate with other EU members the conditions of its exit covering everything from trade to immigration. Experts, however, contend the negotiations could take much longer. No one is entirely certain of how the process will work out–the U.K. is the first country to leave the EU-and until the negotiations are complete, conditions will remain the same as they are currently. The video below looks at the consequences of Brexit:

The Fallout

Although no one knew for sure what exactly the impact would be if the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, many predicted it would be unfavorable. The speculation seemed to become a reality both economically and politically for the island nation.

While consumer spending has remained relatively flat, there are a number of other indicators that suggest not all is well. This starts with the British Pound, which quickly lost one-tenth of its value against the dollar and the FTSE 250, a domestic British index, which has also lost significant value. Additionally, hiring has gone down, while unemployment may be increasing. This quagmire is further complicated by business investment, which has also been shrinking. Even hope that a reduced Pound would lead to more travel seems quelled as inflation is rising faster than the increase in tourism.

Britain is not only struggling economically but politically as well. Following the Brexit vote, then Prime Minister David Cameron, who had wagered his career on remaining in the European Union, resigned. This move was followed by a wave of uncertainty as the main opposing party to Cameron, the Labour Party, dealt with a leadership challenge of its own and two of the major candidates for the Prime Minister position dropped out of contention.

While Theresa May ultimately assumed control of the Conservative Party, her new cabinet is a hodge-podge of those in favor of remaining in the EU and those for Brexit, including Boris Johnson who was one of the people who recently dropped out of contention for the role of Prime Minister. Although the Conservative party remains in flux, the Labour party has turned into a disaster with the leader refusing to step down despite a no-confidence vote, leading to an internal struggle.

Regional Impact

Aside from what occurred in England, is what happened and what might happen within the United Kingdom at large. Although England and Wales both voted to leave the European Union, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted with greater majorities to stay. While this may be less of a problem if these were different states within a country, they are actually all independent countries.

After all, it was only last year that the nation of Scotland voted narrowly to stay in the United Kingdom. It is unsurprising then that Scotland’s prime minister has now floated the idea of holding a second referendum for Scottish Independence following Brexit as a way to keep the country within the EU. Scotland is also likely to suffer more economically than Britain as it relies on oil sales for a large portion of its economic output, which were already hampered by low prices.

Along with a potential second Scottish referendum, some even want Ireland to hold a vote to unify following Brexit, however, that idea was quickly shot down by the leader of Northern Ireland and seems much less likely. Even the tiny British territory of Gibraltar will be affected. Situated on the southern tip of Spain, Gibraltar faces the threat of greater Spanish incursion with Britain leaving the EU. The following video looks at the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland and Scotland:

Impact on the United States

In the United States, the impact has been relatively subdued. While it remains to be determined how Brexit will affect the close relationship between the United States and Britain as well as the European Union at large, the economy was the first to feel the brunt of the decision. Following Brexit, U.S. stocks plunged for two straight days before rebounding and actually reaching record highs a few weeks later. Since then, the effects of Brexit in the United States have been portrayed as negligible with the Federal Reserve still planning on going ahead with at least one interest rate increase this year–something unlikely if the economy was believed to be in real financial danger. The accompanying video looks at some of the potential ramifications of Brexit for the US:

Conclusion

The United Kingdom never seemed to be fully committed to the European Union, and when the EU’s downsides started to outweigh its advantages in the eyes of British citizens, it was deemed time to leave. The impact of this decision has been swift with economic consequences spanning the world. But the true extent of the damage and even what leaving the EU will mean for the U.K. will still take years to sort out.

While much of the blame for this decision rests on British politicians, they are not solely at fault. The Brexit vote was the culmination of a much larger pattern across Europe and may even have parallels to the United States. In the U.K. politicians turned to advocating for nationalism and a refocusing of government policy inwards versus abroad. This was only further exacerbated by the mass migration crisis gripping the continent. This decision, however, was also the result of a union that is stuck in a proverbial purgatory, too united in some regards and not enough in others.

Lastly, the European Union may still face some challenges to the way in which it creates rules for member states–has the process become too top-down, with little bottom-up influence? Certainly in the case of the Brexit vote, citizens at the lowest level voted to topple the existing order and cast the futures of many parts of the world into question. While Britain’s exit may now be unavoidable, this is a good opportunity for pause both for the EU and the U.K., to consider how decisions are made and how to avoid future independence movements or bouts of fragmentation.

Resources

BBC News: The U.K.’s EU Referendum: All you need to know

European Futures: How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Britain’s Membership of the EU

The Telegraph: Theresa May Pledges to Save the Union as Nicole Sturgeon Promises Scottish Referendum Vote to EU Nationals

The New York Times: ‘Brexit’: Explaining Britain’s Vote on European Union Membership

Law Street Media: Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force?

The Economist: Straws in the Wind

NBC News: Brexit Fallout: Gibraltar Worries About Spain’s Next Move

The Financial Times: A tempest Tears Through British politics

The Week: What is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?

Bloomberg: Two More Fed Officials Play Down Brexit Impact on U.S. Growth

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breaking Down Brexit: What the U.K.’s Decision Means for Itself and the World appeared first on Law Street.

In Sunday’s episode of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver explained the concept of Brexit for the American people, and presented a message to his fellow Britons. This is what he said about the European Union:

It’s a complicated, bureaucratic, ambitious, overbearing, inspirational and consistently irritating institution–and Britain would be absolutely crazy to leave it. Especially because if it stays, it can reap all the benefits while still being a total dick about everything, and that is the British way.

Britain is voting on Thursday on whether to remain in the EU, in the so-called Brexit referendum. The matter has not been widely covered in the US, and as you may wonder–why should Americans care? The fact is that Britain leaving the EU could have a huge impact on the world economy, and considering the special relationship between Britain and the US, on America’s economy as well.

Oliver listed institutions such as the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund, and more among those who have said that leaving would have a negative impact on the British GDP. Then came a clip of the UK Justice Secretary saying he thinks people have had “enough of experts” who think they know best. “Fuck these eggheads with their studies and degrees, I get my economic forecast from clever Otis, the GDP predicting horse,” was Oliver’s ironic reply.

Among the most vocal supporters for Britain to leave the EU is the UK Independence Party, UKIP, which has the immigration issue at the top of its agenda. With refugee numbers at record highs, and increasing racism and nationalism in Europe, the situation has turned toxic. Last week pro-immigration politician Jo Cox was murdered by an assailant who seems to have had ties with white supremacist groups. He stated his name as “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain” in court.

But Brits who fear immigrants may come in and steal their jobs shouldn’t be too quick to vote “leave.” As Oliver said, even if Britain were to exit the EU, it would not mean it would have complete control over their borders. As long as the nation wants to keep trading with the rest of Europe, it would have to keep abiding by some of its rules.

To cap off his tirade, Oliver said he understands the British need for telling the EU to bugger off, but suggested they do so with a profanity-laced song instead. Fast-forward to around the 14 minute mark in the above video to watch.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver to Britain: The EU is an “Irritating Institution,” But Don’t Leave appeared first on Law Street.

The German parliament passed a resolution on Thursday to recognize the 1915 mass killings of Armenian people as “genocide,” sparking a backlash in Turkey. The motion was put forward by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition together with one opposition party and passed with support from all parties in parliament.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was upset by the resolution and said that this will deeply affect Turkey’s relationship with Germany. He also recalled the Turkish ambassador from Berlin and said that further action in response to the resolution will be discussed later. The three biggest political parties in Turkey have already condemned the German decision, and the Turkish foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, tweeted: “The way to close the dark pages of your own history is not by defaming the histories of other countries with irresponsible and baseless decisions.”

According to the 1948 Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, genocide is the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” According to historians, the Ottoman Empire deliberately crashed down on Armenian people and other Christian minorities, starting in April 1915. They estimate that as many as 1.5 million Armenians were killed in the genocide. While Turkey acknowledges that many people died, they claim that the deaths were the result of war and that the numbers are exaggerated.

Learn more: The Armenian Genocide: A Battle For Recognition

Denying that the genocide happened has long been a part of the national consciousness in Turkey, and is so sensitive that it is illegal to even talk about. Even though many large nations–such as France, Austria, Canada, and Russia, recognize the events as such–many still do not. And that is largely for political reasons–when countries have recognized the genocide, Turkey has been quick to withdraw its ambassadors or end military collaboration. This is why it’s a pretty sensitive time for Germany, as it seeks a friendly relationship with Turkey to seal a deal over the immigrant crisis facing the EU.

With the deal, Turkey will take back refugees that make it to Greece illegally. In return, Turkey will get additional aid from the EU, Turkish citizens will be able to travel through Europe more easily, and talks about Turkey joining the EU will be sped up. The goal is to stop the human trafficking that has led to so many deaths on the seas as refugees seek entry into Europe. However, human rights groups and organizations like Doctors Without Borders have criticized the deal, saying that sending people back simply forces refugees to suffer in Turkey while also reducing them to numbers.

Angela Merkel did not participate in the vote, but later said: “There is a lot that binds Germany to Turkey and even if we have a difference of opinion on an individual matter, the breadth of our links, our friendship, our strategic ties, is great.”

More than 40 U.S. states label the Armenian genocide as such, but the nation as a whole does not. Many see the lack of recognition as an attempt to maintain friendly relations with Turkey in order to maintain a strategic ally within the Middle East. President Obama has not referred to it as a genocide while in office, although he did prior to becoming president.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkey Angered by Germany’s Recognition of the Armenian Genocide appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s verbal battle between London’s new mayor, Sadiq Khan, and Republican candidate Donald Trump is not over. Trump has now replied in an interview with British ITV, and said that Khan’s comments that he is ignorant were “very rude” and that he “will remember them.” Trump pointed out that Khan doesn’t know him and has never met him, and that he doesn’t really care about him or what he thinks. He also suggested an IQ test battle (which Khan declined).

Khan’s comments about Trump being ignorant came after several outbursts from the Republican about Islam and a possible ban on Muslims entering the U.S. After Trump’s comments, British politicians debated a ban on Trump entering their country, after a petition that was signed by over half a million people. However, the discussion in Parliament was seen more as an opportunity to discuss opinions about Trump and will probably not lead to an actual prohibition on a visit from the American. It did, however, lead to a statement from British Prime Minister David Cameron saying Trump’s suggestion to ban Muslims was “divisive, stupid and wrong.”

Donald Trump tells @piersmorgan: I may not have a 'very good relationship' with David Cameron if I become presidenthttps://t.co/Rw3Wc1ojec

— ITV News (@itvnews) May 16, 2016

In this morning’s interview Trump said that he and Cameron are “not going to have a very good relationship” if he’s elected President. In regard to Cameron’s comments, he said that he is not divisive at all, but that “unlike our president now, I’m a unifier.” He also said that Britain leaving the European Union wouldn’t matter to him and would probably not hurt Britain’s economy at all–totally contrary to what President Obama said about the issue in April. Obama said that Britain would end up in the “back of the queue,” since when the U.S. is negotiating trade deals it is primarily focusing on doing so with the bigger block that is the EU.

Britain’s possible exit from the EU, generally called “Brexit,” will be decided in a referendum on June 23. The supporters of Brexit think that the EU is holding Britain back when it comes to trade and economics, and are critical of the many rules and membership fees that the EU is charging. Another point of disagreement is the free movement principle within the EU that allows people from other countries to come and work in Britain.

In the end, Trump called Britain a great ally, and said that the nation would definitely not be at the back of the queue with him, despite his quibbling with the British officials.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Responds to “Very Rude” Statements Made by Sadiq Khan and David Cameron appeared first on Law Street.

Like the United States, many European nations increasingly face an illegal immigration problem. As the sinking of a boat carrying migrants last week showed, this problem is also very deadly. But what is inspiring these migrants to risk everything and head for Europe? Read on to learn about the immigrants coming into Europe, the groups facilitating that process, and the issues with which Europe needs to contend in light of the influx of illegal immigration.

The Sinking and Legacy

On April 19, 2015, a boat on its way to Italy carrying illegal immigrants from places as far and wide as Eritrea and Bangladesh, capsized off the coast of Libya. The overcrowded boat overturned after ramming a Portuguese cargo ship, the King Jacob. A full count of the deceased is still unknown.

A Recurring Problem

While the recent wreck was a tragedy, it certainly was not the first and likely not the last boat filled with illegal migrants headed for Europe to sink. In fact, such incidents have happened frequently and speak to a much larger trend. In 2014 for example, as many as 218,000 migrants were estimated to have crossed the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe. This year, 35,000 have already been suspected of crossing from Northern Africa into Europe.

Those who have made the crossing must be considered the lucky ones. Attempted crossings lead to a substantial number of deaths at sea. Last year 3,500 people were believed to have perished during the attempted crossing. That number sits at around 1,600 this year, with the most recent sinking taken into account. Unfortunately these numbers are only likely to increase. Prior to this incident, since October 2013, there have been at least four other occurrences in which a boat carrying migrants had sunk while carrying at least 300 people.

Human Trafficking

These trips tend to be organized by human traffickers. The traffickers are predominantly Libyan bandits, militia, and tribesmen. There are two main routes these smugglers take to get their human cargo through Africa and into Europe. The eastern route stretches as far as Somalia, while the western one reaches Senegal. Regardless of the routes’ starting points, migrants are funneled to Libya where they are then launched from either Benghazi or Tripoli in overcrowded and rickety boats toward the coast of Italy.

Unfortunately, traffickers’ tactics have recently began to change, making them even more nefarious and hard to prevent. Many traffickers have begun abandoning their ships en route to Europe–literally leaving the ships without steering of any kind. The smugglers obtain a large cargo ship, then during the trip advise their migrant-manned crews to call for help while they abandon the ship. The reason why the smugglers do this is two fold: First they are paid up front so it does not matter to them whether these migrants actually make it to Europe or not; secondly, by abandoning the boat they reduce their own chances of being arrested and can then smuggle more people and further profit. This practice has extended the smuggling season from spring and summer to all year round, but has made the crossing even more dangerous.

The industry has become especially appealing for traffickers in the last few years as traditional sources of income have disappeared as a result of government upheaval. Additionally, those doing the actual trafficking in many cases are would-be migrants themselves, which makes stopping the practice extremely difficult. The video below briefly explains the harrowing journey from Libya to Europe and all its difficulties.

Why do migrants cross the Mediterranean?

With all these dangers in mind, why do migrants risk crossing the Mediterranean? The answer varies for each individual, yet some reoccurring themes present themselves. Many of these themes are similar to the reasons why people attempt to migrate to the United States. First, many of the migrants are escaping danger back home. This ranges from country to country as well–for example, there has been an increase in migrants from Syria due to the civil war in that country.

Along with danger, another major impetus is economic. Most of the migrants attempting the journey are young men looking for opportunities. The goals of these men naturally vary, but often the promise of success and the ability to send earnings back to their families is a common desire.

While migration to Europe has become popular, it was not always the top destination for migrants. In the past, migrants had also attempted to go to places such as Israel and Saudi Arabia; however, with Israel increasing security and with Saudi Arabia engaged in a military conflict in Yemen, these routes have dried up. Whichever route the migrants take, they risk abuse ranging from robbery to rape and murder. In response to these dangers and the increasing deterioration of Libya, some migrants have tried crossing through Morocco instead, a much more difficult route.

Impact on Europe

When migrants successfully make the journey to Europe, the onus shifts from their handlers to European authorities. Since many migrants arrive in Europe without identification of any kind, it can make it much more difficult to send them back. This, in effect, makes migrants asylum seekers who are then held in refugee camps. Once in these camps, migrants may continue onward in Europe where travel restrictions have been reduced as part of the open-border aspect of the European Union.

Migrants are sometimes also allowed to move throughout Europe due simply to the cost of supporting them. Italy, the destination for many migrants, was spending as much as $12 million dollars a month on its search and rescue efforts in the Mediterranean. Another popular hub, Greece, spent $63 million in 2013 fighting illegal immigration. The problem both these countries, and other southern-European countries, face is that while they are part of the EU, the costs of their efforts have been almost entirely their own burdens to bear. These costs can be especially painful, considering the same countries that serve as these initial destinations for migrants are the ones also currently dealing with recessions. The video below highlights the issues each country in the EU deals with in regards to immigration.

The reason why countries such as Italy and Greece are footing the majority of these bills is due to their immigration laws. According to something referred to as the Dublin Regulation, a migrant must be processed as an asylum seeker upon entering a country. Once the person has been processed in that country, they become the responsibility of that particular nation. The following video shows the strategic routes immigrants take into Europe and reiterates how asylum status is achieved.

The design of this system naturally leads to problems, chief among which are accusations by richer northern-European countries that their southern neighbors are letting migrants pass north in an effort to reduce costs for themselves. In response to these allegations and as a result of bearing what it perceives to be an unfair burden, Italy cancelled its search and rescue mission last year. In its place the EU created the Triton Mission, a program similar to Italy’s, which focuses on rescuing migrants. Moreover, as part of a proposed ten-point plan in response to the most recent ship sinking, the mission is slated to increase in size. Another aspect of that plan is a program that is supposed to be implemented to return refugees to their countries. Nonetheless, even if the EU goes forward with its goal to expand the Triton mission, it will still be smaller than the one Italy disbanded last year.

Conclusion

Despite being described by several sources as modern day slavery, the practice of illegally ferrying immigrants from Africa and elsewhere to Europe is unlikely to stop or even slow down any time soon. This is the result of many things that are not likely to change in the immediate future, such as relatively high standards of living in the EU, crisis in the Middle East and Africa, EU laws regarding migrants, and the lucrative trafficking operations. But if Europe wants to fix its broken immigration system and prevent future tragedies on the scale of last week’s ship sinking it must do more than simply increase patrols.

Resources

ABC News: Libya Migrant Boat Sinking

Wall Street Journal: Rich Smuggling Trade Fuels Deadly Migration Across Mediterranean

BBC News: Mediterranean Migrants: Hundreds Feared Dead After Boat Capsizes

Atlantic: Human Traffickers Are Abandoning Ships Full of Migrants

CNN: Eating Toothpaste, Avoiding Gangs: Why Migrants Head to the Mediterranean

Human Events: Illegal Immigration is Europe Losing Control of Its Borders

Economist: Europe’s Huddled Masses

EUbusiness: Commission Proposes Ten-Point Migrant Crisis Plan

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Illegal Immigration in Europe: Latest Shipwreck Sheds Light on Trend appeared first on Law Street.

The United States and Iran, along with a number of other world powers, reached a tentative deal on April 2, 2015, that would prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. The deal required a tremendous amount of time and work to come together. With all these moving parts it’s not surprising that there have been varied reactions around the world. Regardless, if finalized, the deal will have wide-reaching ramifications both regionally and across the globe. Read on to learn about the current agreement, its impact, and what could happen if it falls through.

The Deal

So what exactly is this “deal” to which Iran, the U.S., and the other nations agreed?

Iran’s Requirements

To begin, Iran will reduce its number of centrifuges and lessen its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. Excesses of both will be handed over to the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for safe storage. Iran will also stop enriching uranium at its Fordow facility and will not build any new enrichment facilities. Only one plant, Natanz, will continue to enrich uranium, although in lesser amounts. Additionally, Iran will halt research on uranium enrichment concerning spent fuel rods and will either postpone or reduce research on general uranium enrichment and on advanced types of centrifuges. Iran, by following through with these commitments, will abide by its requirements as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In addition, Iran will open itself completely to IAEA inspections. The overarching goal is to change the timeline of Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon from a few months to at least a year.

U.S. and E.U. Requirements

On the other side of the deal are the U.S. and the E.U. These parties will begin lifting sanctions on Iran once it has been verified that it is complying with the agreed conditions concerning the nuclear framework agreement. These sanctions include a number of limitations that have hurt the Iranian economy. Specifically, the E.U. sanctions include trade restrictions on uranium-related equipment, asset freezes, a ban on transactions with Iranian financial institutions, and a ban on Iranian energy products. The U.S. has been levying sanctions on Iran since 1979; these include most of those imposed by the E.U. as well as sanctions on basically all types of trade with Iran, other than aid-related equipment.

The sanctions lifted will only be those levied in relation to Iran’s nuclear weapons program; other sanctions that are a result of human rights violations for example, will remain in place. Additionally, if Iran violates the terms of the agreement, the original sanctions can go back into effect. The following video explains in detail what the Iranians agreed to and what the U.S. and other world powers are offering in return.

Roadblocks to the Deal

While a framework is in place and the Obama Administration hailed it as progress, there are still several potential challenges that could derail the agreement before it is finalized in June. Each side appears to have to contend with at least one formidable roadblock to the deal’s success.

In the U.S., Congress still isn’t quite on board. For the U.S. to lift sanctions, President Obama needs Congress to approve the deal; however, due to consistent fighting with Congress, the president has been reluctant to leave it in their hands. Nevertheless, thanks to an agreement on April 14, 2015, Congress will now get to vote on a finalized deal if it is reached by June 30, 2015. While this may appear as yet another defeat for the president and pose a dark outlook for the nuclear agreement, the compromise reached with Congress ensures they will have a say.

Another potential roadblock is Israel. While the country does not have any direct say in whether the deal happens or not, it is not without influence.  As Netanyahu’s recent visit to the U.S. shows, he has Congress’ ear, and could prove an effective lobbyist.

On the Iranian side, dissent has emerged from the arguably most powerful voice in the entire country, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the country. In a recent speech he called for sanctions to be lifted immediately upon finalization of the deal, meaning Iran would not have to proove its sincerity first. Khamenei is an unquestioned power in Iran, so this could be a big problem. The video below reiterates the obstacles to finalizing an Iranian nuclear deal.

Impact of the Agreement

The impact of a successful Iran-U.S. deal would be monumental on national, regional, and global levels.

National Importance

Perhaps no party will reap the benefits of this deal as much as Iran itself. With a deal in place, Iran’s economic struggles as a result of the sanctions will be softened. Iran has the opportunity to improve its economy dramatically. When the sanctions are lifted, Iran can enjoy a $100 billion windfall in oil profits that have been frozen as part of the sanctions. Additionally, Iran can follow through on a number of oil pipeline projects it had in place, but was unable to complete due to the sanctions. Lastly, with U.S. cooperation, Iran will be able to more efficiently develop its large oil and natural gas reserves with American technology.

Regional Importance

While Iran stands to gain the most, there will also be changes for the region as a whole. In agreeing to this deal, Iran did not agree to limit its actions in the ongoing conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, and its proxy war in Yemen, which is especially important as it is part of the larger feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been in competition with Iran, its ideological and religious counter, for leadership of the Middle East for years. The two have engaged indirectly in a number of conflicts for the hearts and minds of the region. While the nuclear deal likely eliminates a potential nuclear arms race between the conflicting sides, it does nothing to prevent Iran from continuing to vie for control of the region.

Israel shares a similar fear of Iran’s growing influence. Iran is a chief supporter of Hezbollah, a group based in Lebanon that strongly opposes Israel. Additionally, Israel, while not declared, is a well-known nuclear power. These nuclear weapons provide Israel with the ultimate deterrent against larger countries like Iran. Israel therefore fears the Iran nuclear deal because it believes the deal will further empower Iran.

Global Importance

Lastly is the impact of the deal within the global community, beginning with the United States. Many experts expect a huge increase in the world oil supply once the sanctions are lifted. American corporations will benefit not only from cheaper prices, but also from access to developing Iranian energy supplies.

The deal could also help countries such as India, which also benefits from cheap energy as well as increased access to development projects in Iran. China is yet another country that can use another source of cheap oil, but by agreeing to a deal with the U.S., Iran may have taken itself out of the orbit of a sympathetic China. Along a similar vein, Russia, whose economy lives and dies with energy prices, does not need another competitor to bring the price of oil down even further, which is likely to happen.  The video below explains further what the implications of the Iran nuclear deal are.

Thus the Iran deal means something different to all parties at every level of foreign affairs, but the consensus is that it is important to all sides.

 Conclusion

On paper the Iran nuclear deal is a win for most parties. The problem is the deal is not on paper yet, as only a framework has been reached. While even getting this far can seem like a monumental step when history is factored in, that same history has the potential to undo everything achieved so far. Whether or not all sides end up getting on board with this deal remains to be seen.

Resources

Business Insider: Here’s the Text of the Iran Nuclear Framework

Al Jazeera: Why Saudi Arabia and Israel Oppose the Iran Nuclear Deal

Reuters: Kerry Says He Stands by Presentation of Iran Nuclear Deal

The New York Times: Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal

BBC News: Iran Nuclear Crisis: What Are the Sanctions?

Cato Institute: Remaining Obstacles to the Iran Nuclear Deal

Daily Star: Region to Feel the Effects of Iran Nuclear Deal

The New York Times: Israeli Response to Iran Nuclear Deal Could Have Broader Implications

Quora: What Could Be an Impact on a Global Level of Iran’s Nuclear Deal?

BBC News: Iran-U.S. Relations

Atlantic: What Are the Alternatives to Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Castle Made of Sand? The Iranian Nuclear Deal Moves Forward appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday the European Union’s antitrust chief hit Google with a double whammy. The EU formally accusing the multinational company of abusing its web dominance to the detriment of its competitors, as well as announcing it would begin officially investigating whether Google’s Android smartphone software forces phone makers to favor the company’s own services and applications.

In a press release issued by the EU, Google was accused of diverting web traffic in the European Economic Area from its rivals to favor its own products and services, particularly when it came to shopping websites. The statement warns that this kind of business practice hinders its competitors‘ “ability to compete, to the detriment of consumers, as well as stifling innovation.”

Anti-trust laws are meant as an economic safeguard to promote fair competition which benefits all consumers, while also preventing any one business from getting too big and becoming a monopoly. If the EU finds Google in violation of the anti-trust laws, the internet search giant will be forced to completely change the way it does business overseas and could also face a fine up to $6 billion.

According to the New York Times, the European Commision will also be launching an alternate investigation into Google’s “monopolistic” mobile business practices. The EU is trying to see if phone makers who want to use Google’s Android operating software–including Google owned applications like Youtube–are in fact contractually obligated to give those applications prominent features on their mobile devices.

Margrethe Vestager, the European Union competition commissioner, was quoted in the New York Times saying:

Smartphones, tablets and similar devices play an increasing role in many people’s daily lives, and I want to make sure the markets in this area can flourish without anticompetitive constraints imposed by any company.

Google responded to the investigation in a blog post Wednesday writing:

While Google may be the most-used search engine, people can now find and access information in numerous different ways — and allegations of harm, for consumers and competitors, have proved to be wide off the mark.

In 2013, the United States’ Federal Trade Commission investigated Google for similar complaints but closed its investigation, deciding not to take any action against the company even though the investigation found similar issues of search bias.

This time around the EU will have to prove that Google deliberately buries better search results, expanding beyond just e-commerce, in favor of its own company sourced content, although defining what qualifies as “better” could be tough. Subjectively speaking, Google’s actions may not actually be anti-competitive, but rather a better optimization for what consumers actually want.

Google now has 10 weeks to officially respond to the EU’s complaint, where they could settle the matter. If not, a lengthy court battle is an almost guarantee.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EU Goes After Google with Anti-Trust Charges appeared first on Law Street.

The most recent elections in Greece are over and the relatively new Syriza party has been declared victorious. This historic election means that there will be changes in Greece–those changes, however, could be very drastic not only for the country itself but for the entirety of the European Union. The Syriza party could be a great force for change in Greece, or undo some of the economic progress that has been made in recent years.

Greece. Image courtesy of [Kevin Anderson via Flickr]. 

What was the situation in Greece leading up to the elections?

Greece has been in less-than-stellar shape since the global recession began in 2008. The country is severely in debt, has a high unemployment rate, and low wages. The government was also much-maligned; in December the Greek Parliament rejected former Prime Minister Antonis Samaras’ preferred candidate for President. When that happens an immediate election must take place, and that rush to the ballot box brought a number of parties to the forefront, including the Syriza party.

What is Syriza?

Syriza, which means “Coalition of the Radical Left,” is a fairly recently created political party in Greece. It became an official party in July 2013. Since then it remained small until this election when it won by a landslide. Syriza is led by the new president of Greece, Alexis Tsipras.

What is the Syriza Party ideology?

The Syriza Party defines itself as a party of the democratic and radical left whose ideology took root in popular struggles for Greek independence, democracy, labor, and anti-fascist movements in Greece. Even though the party consists of a collection of many different ideological currents and left cultures, the group has built its identity on a synthesis of the values of the labor movement with those of the ecological, feminist, and other new social movements.

Syriza is also well known as an anti-establishment party, and ran on a platform that promised to fight an entity known in Greece as the “Troika,” which consists of the of the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank. Syriza wants to force these groups to forgive some Greek debt and allow the country to enact a program of stimulus spending, among other reforms.

The 2015 Election

How did Syriza fare in the 2015 elections?

The Syriza party did extremely well in the election. According to the Greek Interior Ministry, Syriza won 36.3 percent of the vote, enough to obtain 149 of the 300 seats in the Greek Parliament.  

What does Syriza’s win mean? 

The Greek Parliament requires 151 members in order for a party to become a majority, and by extension form and run the government. While Syriza won the most seats, it did not get quite enough to make a majority on its own. This requires it to form an alliance with a party or number of parties in order to make a coalition government. While Syriza is a leftist party, its choice of an ally may seem strange. It reached out and allied itself with the Independent Greek Party, which is a group on the right. The two parties have nothing in common except that they both have a mutual opposition to austerity and the way that Greece has been treated by the rest of Europe. However, their unity means that the Syriza/Independent Greek Party coalition is in control, and elevates Syriza’s leader, Tsipras, to the position of President.

How did other parties fare in the election?

After Syriza, the New Democracy Party won 27.9 percent of the vote, or 76 seats. This party ran on the vision of a new socio-economic development model for the country.

Another party that made gains was the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn Party; it acquired 6.3 percent of the vote. The To Potami party, which ran on the idea of putting the common man into government and not professional politicians, acquired a similar six percent of the vote. Both Golden Dawn and To Potami acquired 16 seats each.

The KKE Party, which is a communist party that follows the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, acquired only 5.5 percent, enough for 15 seats. The Pasok Party, which ran on a platform of freedom, democracy, and a better future, ended up with 4.7 percent percent of the vote tying it with the Independent Greeks Party, which believes in the political system of parliamentary democracy, as well as religious freedom. Each of these parties won 13 seats.

Austerity

The main issue that has united the Syriza and Independent Greek parties is austerity. Austerity in its simplest form involves policies to reduce government spending and/or higher taxes in order to try to reduce government budget deficits. According to the Atlantic, what this means in Greece’s case is a series of spending cuts and tax hikes designed to reduce the country’s enormous bailout debt, which currently equals 175 percent of its GDP.

The austerity measures, which were put into place in 2012, were beginning to work, according to outgoing Prime Minister Samaras, and he has the facts to back him up. Since 2009, Greece’s primary deficit has gone from a whopping 10.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), to a primary surplus of 2.7 percent of GDP. In addition, the banking sector is much stronger and more resilient than it has been since the beginning of the economic crisis.

Despite all of the economic good news, the changes have not improved life soon enough for the Greek people who have found themselves in dire straits. Four million Greeks have been reduced to poverty and they can’t do much about it because unemployment has soared to 28 percent. To make matters worse, wages have dropped 12 percent in the same time frame. The new government promises to change that by gaining debt forgiveness, even if it means going head to head with the rest of the European Union, some members of which have already said that they will not be backing down. They hope that other nations who have parties with similar ideologies will be able to gain control of their respective governments and force the EU to concede to their demands.

What does this election mean for Greece’s debt?

The election means that Greece is going to look at other methods to pay its debts, get them forgiven, or if left with no other option, default on them. The party is hoping to bully the Troika into submission, but that will be difficult since it will have a hard time asking other nations for help. The video below explains the challenge that Greece will have to deal with.

 How has the rest of Europe responded?

The main response to the elections in Greece came from Europe, and so far these responses have been cold at best. This is particularly true of the entities that make up the Troika. With Syriza’s platform so centralized on removing the austerity measures and the Troika refusing to back down, both sides are gearing up for a fight.

European Union Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker already warned that any reduction of Greece’s debt commitments is not even on the Commission’s mind. His thoughts are being echoed by Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the Eurogroup, who stated that “There is very little support for a write-off in Europe.” This means that Greece will have an uphill battle to get anything done in terms of debt reduction. The results of this clash will be watched by other nations that are close to being in the same boat as Greece, such as Italy and Spain.

This leaves Greece with a few options. The country could default on its bills and as a result leave the EU–an option that neither side wants to see happen as it is an extremely unpopular idea in Greece and not a popular one in the EU either. The other option is for the Troika to cave into Syriza’s demands. However this wraps up, observers fear that parties with the same ideology as Syriza’s will gain power in other nations and force the same demands, which could spell big problems for the European Union down the road.

Conclusion

Syriza, an anti-bailout, anti-austerity party in Greece, has won the latest election only to find itself in a struggle with the European Union powerhouses. If Syriza fails, Greece could be forced from the European Union; if it succeeds, the EU will be forced to alter terms with other nations that are in debt to the banks, as well. No matter what, Syriza’s election spells big changes for Greece.

Resources

Primary

Syriza: Who We Are

Additional

Independent: Greece Elections: Syriza and EU on Collision Course After Election Win for Left Wing Party

Atlantic: Europe’s Austerity Moment is Ending 

Reuters: Greek PM Tsipras Names Anti-Austerity Cabinet, Port Sale Halted

Guardian: Syriza’s Election Victory in Greece–How Europe Reacted 

Fortune: Why the Greek Elections Might Be the Beginning of the End for the Euro 

Bloomberg: Euro Area’s Pro-Default Parties May Trigger New Crisis

Time: 5 Facts About the Greek Election

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to the Atlantic. 

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Syriza Party: A Fresh Start for Greece? appeared first on Law Street.

Previous fun facts about French life have let us in on a little secret: French people are picky. Each French city’s mayor or maire possesses the authority to establish policies that maintain public order. In Paris, rules vary according to arrondissement, or district.

So, the French are detail oriented. They like their rules and that’s okay.

However, their latest regulation—on copyright—is so strict that it’s funny. La Tour Eiffel, the Eiffel Tower’s official website states that although snapping some photos of the famous landmark is alright in the daylight, pictures are off limits when the sun goes down. My deepest condolences to anyone who ever dreamed of having a nighttime Parisian wedding photo shoot. The website explains, “its various illuminations are subject to author’s rights as well as brand rights. Usage of these images is subject to prior request from the “Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel.”

The structure of the Eiffel Tower itself is in the public domain. What isn’t in the public domain is the show put on at night during which different color lights are projected onto the landmark. That, instead, belongs to an artist who takes liberties and utilizes style to determine which lights, colors, speed the illuminations take place. Therefore, a reproduction of the work would require permission—and perhaps compensation—of said artist.

Essentially, it’s a time issue. The Eiffel Tower was built long before pretty lights were shone on it. This EU Information Society Directive includes a clause asserting that buildings in public spaces are to be in the public domain. However, France is one of the countries that refrained from adopting the directive into its law.  Italy and Belgium also refused the directive and retained their stricter policies. Belgium experiences the same issues with its Atomium, delineating on its website that “the image of the Atomium is protected and can only be used under certain conditions…Prices depend on whether it is to be used for a cultural, educational or commercial purpose.”

One must ask: when copyright law restricts something so large, so famous, and so iconic, how can it truly be enforced?

Wikipedia pages are being careful about it. Atomium pages include censored images or photographs of Atomium models. Poor Instagram will probably never see the legal light show. Illegal, however, can be found by a simple search of #eiffeltower. Google Images is chock-full o’ examples.

Ultimately, the regulation probably isn’t causing any tourists severe angst. That doesn’t, however, detract from the fact that it is copyrighted and nighttime Eiffel Tower pictures constitute infringement. We may take for granted our ability to legally Instagram post Lady Liberty at 3:00am with abandon.

The post Your Nighttime Eiffel Tower Pictures Are Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

Western countries agree that they do not condone the aggressive actions taken by Russia in Ukraine. Their response? Sanction Russia. Rather than resort to military action, countries now use sanctions as the foreign policy tool of choice. The United States and European Union are united in the belief that the best way to encourage Russia to behave in the international arena is to increase pressure on the country by way of this penalty. So what exactly are sanctions, how do they work, and will they be effective in the case of Russia?

What has been happening in Ukraine?

The conflict began at the end of 2013 when former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych rejected an association agreement with the European Union (EU) and instead accepted a deal with Russia. Thousands of protesters took to the streets to voice their disapproval of the deal and perceived government corruption. In response to the protests, Ukrainian forces took aggressive action. Tensions escalated and eventually in February 2014, protesters overtook the capital and sent the president scrambling for Russian protection. Russia quickly moved to secure its interests by invading and annexing the Ukrainian province of Crimea. Russia still has troops stationed along the border in Eastern Ukraine and is accused of sending weapons to aid pro-Russian forces. The issue is complicated by the fact that many people in Ukraine, especially in Crimea, are ethnically Russian and would like to become a part of that country. Watch the video below for further explanation of the conflict:

Western countries declared Russia’s actions to be a clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law. The White House called Russian intervention in Ukraine “illegal and illegitimate.” The United States sees the actions as a violation of the United Nations Charter regarding the prohibition of force and of Russia’s 1997 military basing agreement with Ukraine. Russian leader Vladimir Putin, however, continues to disregard the demands of the United States and European Union. With the collapse of a recent ceasefire, the future of the conflict remains unclear.

Western countries hope sanctions will deter Russia from future aggression in Eastern Ukraine and force the country to abide by its international obligations.

What are sanctions?

Sanctions are a foreign policy instrument applied to a country to pressure it into changing its actions. Sanctions institute deliberate government withdrawal or threat of withdrawal from trade or financial relations. Typically sanctions are used to force a country to cooperate with international law, or to contain a threat to the peace of other countries. Ideally sanctions send a strong message of condemnation and entice countries to comply with international rules in order to avoid further harm. Sanctions can be issued by individual countries or by an entire group, such as the European Union, United Nations, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There are several different types of sanctions:

• Diplomatic sanctions sever diplomatic ties, such as by removing embassies from the offending country.
• Economic sanctions can include a number of trade and financial punishments, including a ban of trade, imposing tariffs or embargoes, freezing assets, banning cash transfers, and restricting travel.
• Military sanctions include military intervention, targeted strikes, or supplying arms and aid to military.

A long-term study by the Peterson Institute found that economic sanctions are partially successful only one-third of the time. The study showed sanctions are most successful when they are used to reach a limited, modest goal. Using sanctions to influence a more ambitious policy change drops the rate of success to just 30 percent. For example, the Cuban embargo, in place since the 1960s, is largely seen as a failure; however, the more recent blockades and financial sanctions in Iran were extremely successful in forcing the Iranians to negotiate with the United States. The success in Iran may have emboldened the United States to now apply economic sanctions to Russia for its role in the Ukraine conflict.

What kind of sanctions have been used?

So far, sanctions have been limited to specific targets to impose a cost aimed at those responsible for the situation in Ukraine and Crimea. The economic sanctions have been described by Forbes as a “new breed of financial warfare,” which the treasury has been honing as a way to lock terrorists out of the global financial system.

Specific Targets

On March 6, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13660 to authorize sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. More sanctions followed. Currently the list of those sanctioned by the U.S. government includes 23 government officials and 18 companies. The individuals are members of the Russian elite and have significant control over the Russian economy, including its banks, railroads, and media. The E.U. and other European countries also released lists of those sanctioned, which includes many of those targeted by the United States. Watch President Obama’s declaration of sanctions below:

Consequences

The sanctions of the United States and European Union currently only impose asset freezes and travel bans. Essentially those targeted are blacklisted. For those listed in the U.S. sanctions, all assets held in the United States are frozen. Furthermore, Americans are prevented from doing business with the listed individuals or entities and are prevented from making any funds available to them. The individuals listed will also be denied visas to enter the United States. The United States will cut off exports of American products to those companies and prevent exports of high-tech items that would contribute to Russia’s military capabilities.

Potential Problems

One of the problems with sanctions is that many feel they unfairly harm a country’s innocent civilians for a government’s actions. The idea is that sanctions may harm the people, but these people will then pressure their government to change its actions. In the meantime, the effects are felt most by ordinary citizens rather than the intended government officials. The current targeted sanctions , however, were enacted to apply pressure only on the elite rather than on the entire economy. Until more major banks are targeted, ordinary citizens may not feel the impact.

Have they had the intended effect in Russia?

It is difficult to judge the exact impact that the limited sanctions have had. Outwardly Putin still seems unfazed, yet in recent weeks he has tempered Russian aggression. The Russian economy was struggling before the sanctions, so these penalties have only furthered the decline. The Russian central bank predicts growth will slow to just 0.4 percent this year. A report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) says that Western sanctions have had a “chilling effect” on investment. The IMF claims that the future strength of the Russian economy lies in greater global integration, which is currently hindered by the sanctions.

Effect on the Elite

Vladimir Yakunin, Putin’s close friend and head of Russian Railways who is on the saction list told the Financial Times, “I did not intend to travel to the U.S.  I have no assets.  So it does not bother me at all.”

These sanctions have much broader implications, however, even if they do not directly affect Yakunin. All financial institutions are discouraged from interacting with him in any way. The U.S. financial system is extremely pervasive, and the U.S. dollar is the world’s numéraire. Every financial institution needs a relationship with a U.S. bank to do business. Since Bank Rossiya appeared on the U.S. sanction list, it can no longer do business with any bank that deals in dollars either. Major credit card companies Visa and Mastercard even severed their business with the bank.

Effect on Public Confidence

Thus far the major impact of the sanctions has been psychological, impacting consumer and business confidence. No one knows who will show up on the sanction list next, so others are hesitant to do business. The entire Russian economy is effectively isolated. The sanctions lead to capital flight, inflation, and limit future investment in the country. Goldman Sachs reports that $45 to $50 billion was taken out of Russia in the first three months of 2014 as compared with only $63 billion in all of 2013.

Effect on the Future

Experts say the sanctions are likely to push Russia toward increased self-reliance. The economy ministry is already pushing to use state funds to aid lagging economic growth. Major effects of the sanctions have already been seen through cancelled IPOs and two cancelled government bond auctions. Standard & Poor’s recently downgraded Russia’s credit to one level above junk status.

Russia has responded by imposing like-for-like sanctions and threatens greater future sanctions. Russia banned nine prominent American politicians from the country, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NC), Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). McCain responded in a March 20 tweet:

I guess this means my spring break in Siberia is off, Gazprom stock is lost & secret bank account in Moscow is frozen http://t.co/TgwZneD4HY

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) March 20, 2014

Do sanctions hurt the U.S. economy?

The typical argument against economic sanctions is that they can harm the U.S. economy, especially for the companies that do business with the targeted country. The U.S. economy will not be significantly affected simply due to the fact that the United States and Russia do not do much business with one another. Trade between the United States and Russia amounted to $40 billion last year — only one percent of total U.S. trade. By comparison, EU trade with Russia is 11 times that of the United States. Even tougher sanctions, like those applied to Iran, would only have a limited effect on the American economy due to limited ties between the nations. Watch the video below for the debate over who will be harmed by the sanctions:

Concerns are growing, however, that Western jobs are at risk if sanctions increase. For example, Boeing uses Russian titanium, General Electric leases aircraft to Russian airlines, and Exxon, Coke, and Pepsi all do significant business in Russia. If Russia sanctions in return, these companies could see a loss in profits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers are preparing an ad regarding the harmful potential impacts of the sanctions. The groups are particularly concerned if the United States were to impose unilateral sanctions that would single-out American business and put them at a disadvantage. However, recent data shows that the United States exported more goods and services to Russia in May, after the sanctions, than for any other month in 2014 so far.

What’s next?

The idea is to gradually increase the pressure on Russia through sanctions. Many expect more sweeping measures to come in the near future, as both the United States and European Union indicated a stronger response will come soon. President Obama recently agreed on a phone call with British Prime Minister David Cameron that if Russia does not take steps to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine, the United States and European Union would roll out further sanctions. It is likely that targeted bans on key sectors of the Russian economy, such as gas and banking, are next. The options are nearly limitless. The United States could revoke Russia’s favorable tariff rates, which would increase taxes Russian firms have to pay to sell goods in the United States. Other alternatives include quotas, a trade embargo on certain goods, or further limiting Russian access to U.S. financial markets. Secretary of State John Kerry discusses what could be next below:

Unilateral sanctions are rarely effective, and the limited business ties between the United States and Russia means the European Union and United States must impose coordinated sanctions; however, Russia is the largest energy supplier in Europe and among the top three oil-producing countries in the world. Russia supplies roughly one third of the oil and gas in the European Union. This dependency complicates sanction efforts. Europe is hesitant to sanction because it could prohibit E.U countries from purchasing Russian oil, which would then lead to higher prices and potential shortages. Experts agree that ultimately any effective sanctions on Russia in the future must be coordinated and far-reaching.

Resources

Primary

Treasury Department: Treasury Sanctions Russian Officials

Treasury Department: Announcement of Additional Treasury Sanctions

Additional

Washington Post: The West Can’t Afford to Make Empty Threats on Russia Sanctions

Wall Street Journal: Western Sanctions Likely to Push Russia Toward Increased Self-Reliance

Guardian: Ukraine Crisis: Any EU Sanctions Are Unlikely to Make Impression

BBC: Ukraine Crisis Timeline

Politico: The New Russia Sanctions: Stalled Tax Talks

Forbes: Here’s How Obama’s Russia Sanctions Will Destroy Vladimir Putin

CNBC: Russia Sanctions: Who’s Losing Out So Far

BBC: The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Russia

Investopedia: Sanctions Between Countries Pack a Bigger Punch

USA Today: Business Groups Oppose Any New Sanctions on Russia

New Republic: These Sanctions Against Russia Will Hurt

Forbes: U.S. Exports to Russia Rise Despite Tensions

The New York Times: Western Businesses in Russia, Watchful and Wary

The New York Times: Obama Steps Up Russia Sanctions in Ukraine Crisis

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Are Sanctions the Answer? appeared first on Law Street.

On September 18, 2014 Scotland will vote on a referendum as to whether the country will become independent of the United Kingdom. This will not be the first time Scotland has sought sovereignty from the United Kingdom in recent history. In 1979, a referendum for a Scottish devolution was put to a vote, but no change occurred because it failed to receive a majority ‘Yes’ of over 40 percent from the electorate. So, the question left is what is the difference now? Here is everything you need to know about the Scottish Referendum, players involved, and the impacts of the vote.

Who are the organizations involved?

‘Yes Scotland’ is the organization representing the individuals and parties in support of an independent Scotland. Led by Chief Executive Blair Jenkins, the organization is backed by the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, and the Scottish Green Party. As of June 2014, ‘Yes Scotland’ has raised £4.5 million in donations. EuroMillions winners Chris and Colin Weir are their biggest donors, having given £3.5 million since the campaign was launched in May 2012.

They are met in opposition by the ‘Better Together’ campaign, headed by British Labour Party politician Alistair Darling. The Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats, and the Labour Party are supporting the campaign. In addition to writing a 1,600-word essay explaining her anti-independence views, author of the beloved “Harry Potter” series J.K. Rowling donated over £1 million to the Better Together campaign. To date, Rowling has contributed the biggest sum to ‘Better Together’ from a single donor, followed by business man Ian Taylor.

Who is able to vote?

According to the draft of the referendum, the following people would be allowed to vote in the referendum:

• British citizens who are residents in Scotland.
• Citizens of the 53 other Commonwealth countries who are resident in Scotland.
• Citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who are resident in Scotland.
• Members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland.
• Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK, overseas in the British Armed Forces, or with Her Majesty’s Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.
• Citizens that are 16 years old and older.

The Scottish National Party has extended voting rights to registered 16 and 17 year olds for the referendum in an effort to gather more support for independence.

Could an Independent Scotland join the European Union?

If Scotland is to become sovereign, then the Scottish Government will have to negotiate with European Union members to ensure membership. Negotiations would occur while Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom and, therefore, part of the European Union. Scotland will have to be approved by all other member states of the European Union. Article 48 of the Treaty of the European Union allows for a treaty amendment in this kind of situation.

What would a ‘Yes’ vote mean for the rest of the United Kingdom?

An independent Scotland intends to retain the close ties currently with the United Kingdom. The Queen will remain the head of state, and the currency would still be the pound. However, MPs will no longer be sent to Westminster since independence would end the parliamentary union currently in place.

Although recent polls have support for Welsh independence hovering around 10 percent, leader of Plaid Cymru (equivalent to the Scottish National Party), Leanne Wood, believes the Scottish referendum may be a turning point. It is not unimaginable that if independence is achieved and proves to be successful, then the people of Wales may follow suit.

Before the referendum occurs, the United Kingdom is receiving funding from Scotland to pay for the armed forces and embassies. If a ‘yes’ vote is reached Scotland would no longer pay into those services as they would use that money for a Scottish equivalent. Money will be saved in defense since Scotland would no longer be supplying funds for the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons.

Sport Minister Shona Robison states that if Scotland is to be its own nation by the 2016 Olympic games, it will be able to compete in Brazil.

Arguments for a ‘Yes’ Vote

An issue on the forefront of both campaign agendas is agriculture. Scottish territory is covered in 80 percent agricultural land, but the mountainous terrain, harsh climate, and poor soils limit land use. The Common Agricultural Policy pays all countries that are members of the European Union to help subsidize farmers. Agreed upon at recent negotiations, nations with productivity less than 90 percent of the European Union average collect additional money for their funding. The United Kingdom divided the money between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Irelands, which the Scottish government did not find fair. They believe that Scotland is the reason the United Kingdom received the funding and therefore, deserves a bigger portion of the cut.

Supporters of independence argue that Scotland would qualify for higher subsidies if it were separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. They cite Ireland as an example of a country receiving more of the funds while having a smaller agricultural sector. Also, if Scotland were an independent member of the European Union they would have a more influential voice at negotiations.

Scotland also looks towards Ireland in reference to defense spending. The Royal United Service Institute predicts that Scotland would be able to create a defense force similar in strength and size to those in Ireland, Norway, and Denmark. The estimated cost is £1.8 billion per year, compared to the £3.3 billion Scottish taxpayers paid to the United Kingdom during the 2010 – 2011 fiscal year.

Advocates for independence declare that Scotland’s economy is not thriving as much as it could because it has followed the same policies as the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish government states that, “If Scotland had matched the levels of growth of other independent nations […] GDP per head in Scotland would now be 3.8 percent higher, equivalent to an addition to £900 per head.”

In 2013, there were only 59 Scottish Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons with a total of 650 MPs and 785 Lords. Voters in Scotland only elected four percent of the United Kingdom Parliament; the politicians who are in control over defense, welfare, and economic decisions.

Members of the House of Lords are nominated by a committee instead of being elected by the people. The Scottish National Party believes that MPs should be elected and not appointed; therefore, they do not nominate members. Parliament member Angus MacNeil said, “A ‘yes’ vote for independence means that people in Scotland can get rid of the expensive and unrepresentative Westminster tier – which means better and cheaper government.”

The core of the Yes Campaign and those who support it is that the people who live and work in Scotland should have the right to make the choices for their own country.

Arguments for a ‘No’ Vote

Members of the opposition are concerned what independence would do to research and development sector. Currently, “Scotland receives a total of £130 million from UK based charities, £100 million from UK central government and £47 million of funding allocated to UK universities by UK industry, commerce and public corporations.” Through the UK Research Councils, Scotland also received £234 million to go towards funding research in pioneering new technologies. It is speculated that a split from the United Kingdom would end funding that universities in Scotland are currently receiving. This would greatly damage its universities and the advances in technologies found at them.

The impact on education is a tremendous area of concern. Currently, Scottish and European Union students do not pay tuition fees at universities in Scotland, while United Kingdom students have to pay fees. United Kingdom students would become reclassified as European Union students if independence occurs, meaning they would not have to pay fees anymore. Although beneficial for the remaining United Kingdom, free tuition would be a huge attraction and possibly limit space for Scottish domiciled students.

Conclusion

It is clear that both those in support and opposition of the referendum are acting in what they believe to be in the best interest of Scotland, and in some instances the United Kingdom. On September 18, if a majority vote of ‘yes’ is reached, it would propel Scotland into a uncharted territory and new era.

Resources

Primary

Yes Scotland: Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation Paper

Additional

New Statesman: Can Plaid Cymru Learn From the SNP and Put Welsh Independence on the Agenda?

Yes Scotland: Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation Paper

BBC: Scottish Independence: Students Could be ‘Squeezed Out’ of Home Universities

BBC: Scottish Independence: Who Are The Big and Small Money Referendum Donors?

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Scottish Sovereignty: All the Facts on the Referendum appeared first on Law Street.

Ukraine is a country in turmoil. There’s no other way around it. Protests have flared up in the nation’s capitol, and other cities in the northwest region of Ukraine. The movement is being called Euromaiden, and these protests are fiery, violent, and for at least five protesters at this point, deadly. The images coming out are powerful, moving, and frankly, horrifying. This one below is of a protester in Kiev with the fire that has been set by his compatriots to prevent government forces from breaching the barricade line. This is what’s happening in Ukraine right now.

So what’s going on? What we know is that the catalyst for the protests appears to be a decision made by Ukrainian President Viktor F. Yanukovych. For years, the Ukranian government has been attempting to move closer to the European Union. The proposed political and economic association pact would allow Ukrainian citizens to travel through the other EU nations without visas, leading to significantly more opportunities. The EU would gain an ally, and Ukraine would have to institute new laws as mandated by the EU. It truly seemed like a win-win by both sides.

But in November, Yanukovych backed out of the agreement. This was just the tip of the iceberg, because since then, things have gotten dramatically worse in Ukraine. The government has begun to pass laws that are being described by the protesters as draconian and dictatorial in nature. Protests have been outlawed, and protesters are being tracked. The government is using satellites to pinpoint the phone of everyone who visits the square in Kiev where dissenters are the thickest. Those numbers are being recorded, monitored, and being sent messages from the government condemning the actions of the phones’ owners. Other laws include but are no means limited to: participation in “mass disruptions” will incur 10-15 years imprisonment; it’s illegal to drive a car in a column more than 5 cars long; it’s illegal to set up a sound system without permission; setting up a tent is punishable by 15 days in prison; and the government can disable the internet at will.

This is not just a shallow protest based on the EU situation, but rather a grand debate about the future of Ukraine and the cultural ties that split the country in two. The Washington Post’s Max Fisher made an incredibly interesting infographic map that illustrates this perfectly.

This map shows the divide in Ukraine. The country is literally split in two. The northwest area is predominantly Ukrainian-speaking, has close ties to Europe, tends to have mostly Roman Catholics, and did not vote for Yanukovych. They are instead being led by a few main opposition leaders, Vladmir Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Oleg Tyagnybok. The southeast area is mostly Russian-speaking, is economically and culturally linked to Russia.

And that right there is the crux of this issue. Ukraine is a nation that’s facing an identity crisis. It’s pretty clear that Yanukovych caved on the EU deal because of the pressure from the Russians–Yanukovych has admitted that himself. After all, Russia has cut off gas exports and other important economic ties when Ukraine’s actions have moved outside of their interests.

This is a big international political issue for a lot of reasons. Obviously, Ukraine is not the only country to face severe protests, civil strife, and dictatorial policies this year and it would be disingenuous not to recognize that. But the reason that this situation, in particular, has caught my attention is because it is symbolic of a larger conflict. The Cold War is over but there’s still a fundamental struggle between Russia and Western Europe. There’s still a systemic distrust.

I majored in international affairs, specifically, security. That means that I have taken way too many classes on war, genocide, and civil conflict. And while, I can by no means call myself any sort of expert, I do have a background in the topic. The thing is, every theorist will tell you differently, but we don’t know why outbreaks like these happen. Theorists will weigh grievance vs. greed, identity issues, systemic issues, and external issues, such as the interplay between Europe and Russia. And the international affairs student in me wants to digest all of that, and give you a reason why this is happening. But I can’t. And that’s not just because this entire situation has yet to play out. It’s because I want to respect the protesters who are risking their lives in the name of something in which they believe so strongly. What happens in Ukraine has the potential to fundamentally transform Eastern Europe, and by extension, global politics. Again.

Editor’s Update:

Ukraine’s president accepted the resignation of his Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, and cabinet of ministers, today, in concession to the opposition leaders and demonstrators who are currently protesting his rule. Additionally, parliament voted to scrap the laws previously mentioned above that have provoked the violent escalation in the country’s political crisis.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Mstyslav Chernov via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No End in Sight for Ukraine appeared first on Law Street.