The Associated Press has reviewed 12 years of United Nations aid missions and found that peacekeepers have repeatedly sexually abused children, in some cases as young as 12 years old. While allegations to this effect have been known for a while, new reports show the issue is significantly more prevalent than previously believed. AP found almost 2,000 cases of alleged sexual abuse by peacekeepers and other UN personnel around the world. And even though more than 300 cases involve children, it’s difficult to prosecute these crimes.

Legally, the UN can’t do anything, as it doesn’t have jurisdiction over individual peacekeepers. It’s up to each country to punish its own troops, and it seems no one has an interest in doing that. AP reached out to 23 countries whose nationals are accused of sexual abuse, and few answered. The names of the accused were also classified, making it impossible to find out whether there was any punishment. A review of UN reports also showed a number of inconsistencies.

In Haiti, 134 peacekeepers from Sri Lanka sexually abused at least nine children between 2004 and 2007 in exchange for food, juice, or small amounts of money. Some of them were forced to have sex with the men several times a day for years. Eventually, 114 of the peacekeepers were sent home, but not one of them was arrested. UN workers are protected by diplomatic immunity and besides, their home countries often don’t want to make their bad behavior public.

.@AP finds U.N. peacekeepers ran child sex ring in Haiti. https://t.co/vauMSkYKv4 pic.twitter.com/poLAvSTutC

— The Associated Press (@AP) April 12, 2017

Antonio Guterres, who took over as UN Secretary General in January, announced in March the organization’s new guidelines for dealing with sexual abuse. “Certainly no person serving with the United Nations in any capacity should be associated with such vile and vicious crimes,” he said. He noted that gender equality is fundamental to tackling sexual crimes and said that promoting equality for all UN workers can help fight abuse of women. But for many, these promises are just hollow words. Similar efforts have been rolled out before to no avail.

As it’s difficult to punish the men guilty of these crimes, many have wondered whether the UN is doing more harm than good. When Nepalese aid workers brought cholera to Haiti, around 10,000 people died. Haitian lawyer Mario Joseph tried to get compensation for the victims from the UN and is now trying to get child support for the women that were left pregnant by UN workers and are living in poverty. “Imagine if the U.N. was going to the United States and raping children and bringing cholera. Human rights aren’t just for rich white people,” he said.

.@AP Despite this the UN is unable to punish those peacekeepers – it must leave that to “the countries that contribute the troops”. Unbelievable

— Peter Yeung (@ptr_yeung) April 12, 2017

A Haitian woman said she was 16 when she was raped at gunpoint by a Brazilian peacekeeper three years ago. In 2011, four Uruguayan peacekeepers filmed their gang rape of a teenager–the only response Uruguayan officials gave at the time was that it was a prank and not rape. In 2012, three Pakistani peacekeepers raped a mentally disabled 13-year-old boy and later abducted him to prevent him from talking to UN investigators. The list of victims goes on and on.

As long as there is no accountability for the member states of the United Nations and no international consensus on how to deal with these issues, it’s tough to imagine a solution. But Guterres is correct in pointing out that education about gender equality is vital. Many of the alleged abusers came from countries that are notorious for gender inequality. The most recent abusers came from Bangladesh, Brazil, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Uruguay, and Sri Lanka, according to UN data.

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 UN Peacekeepers Allegedly Sexually Abused Children, Never Saw Consequences 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:

Sessions Threatens Sanctuary Cities

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said yesterday that the White House will follow through on the executive order to withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, meaning cities where local law enforcement officials limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Sessions made this announcement during the daily press briefing at the White House yesterday, which some saw as a sign that Trump wants to move on and divert attention from the failed health care bill. “They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets,” he said.

Democratic officials in states like California and New York forcefully spoke out against the AG’s comments, with California State Senator Kevin de Leon saying that he uses “unconstitutional threats and blackmail to prey on anxieties.” There are also worries that a crackdown on undocumented immigrants will make immigrants less likely to report crimes to police, for fear of retaliation. The total amount of money withheld could be more than $4.1 billion. In New York, a lot of that federal money is used to prevent terrorist attacks, so the order could make cities less secure.

#JeffSessions and @WhiteHouse continue #AlternativeFacts streak. Truth is sanctuary cities are less dangerous than nonsanctuary cities.

— Kevin de Leόn (@kdeleon) March 27, 2017

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: March 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, President Donald Trump criticized China for not doing enough to curtail North Korea’s nuclear program: “China has been taking out massive amounts of money & wealth from the U.S. in totally one-sided trade, but won’t help with North Korea. Nice!” Trump tweeted. China seemed to respond to Trump on Saturday by banning coal imports from North Korea through the rest of the year.

Now, the ball is in Trump’s court. How will he engage the insular, and increasingly insolent, country of North Korea? He had a muted response when it tested a ballistic missile earlier this month. Trump’s willingness to actually engage with North Korea will be tested in March, when a meeting is planned between Pyongyang officials and former U.S. officials in New York. If the White House issues visas for the North Korean officials–it has not explicitly said it will or will not–then that would send a signal that Trump is open to diplomatic engagement, something his predecessor, President Barack Obama, was unwilling to do.

Whether the New York meeting takes place or not, China’s decision to freeze imports of North Korean coal is a decisive action that could weaken its resolve. Aside from being a response to Trump, China’s move is also likely the result of increased frustration at North Korea’s endless stream of provocations. Just last week, the half-brother of North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, was assassinated in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. North Korean officials are suspected as having played a role in the attack.

China’s coal freeze could badly hurt North Korea’s already precarious economy. For one, coal is North Korea’s most lucrative export; it accounts for 34 to 40 percent of its exports, most of which ends up being shipped to China. In response to North Korea’s nuclear test last September, the United Nations Security Council imposed new sanctions that urged China to cap its coal imports from North Korea. But China, fearful that a collapsed North Korea could lead to an influx of refugees and a united Korean peninsula backed by the U.S., has circumvented the UN sanctions. That is, until its announcement on Saturday.

“Imports of coal produced in North Korea — including shipments already declared to the customs but yet to be released — will be suspended for the remainder of this year,” said a statement from China’s Ministry of Commerce. However, a Foreign Ministry official said Tuesday that the move is a bureaucratic procedure, and that China, within the first six weeks of the year, has already reached its annual quota for North Korean coal imports.

A clue to China’s unexpected stiff-arm of North Korean coal came last Friday, when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Germany. According to State Department spokesman Mark Toner, Tillerson suggested to Yi that China “use all available tools to moderate North Korea’s destabilizing behavior.”

Diplomatic efforts to reign in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, which have been stretched under Kim Jong-un, have largely failed. Until 2009, China hosted seven-nation talks, which included seats at the table for the U.S., Russia, China, and North Korea. Similar talks, like the one planned for March in New York, have taken place in Kuala Lumpur and Berlin.

But the reclusive country has not budged in ceding its nuclear ambition; it has ramped up its efforts. As the international community–including the U.S. and now, potentially, China–takes a firm stance against North Korea, the question becomes: how long can it continue to provoke without being severely punished?

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 China Bans Coal Imports from North Korea: What Does the Move Mean? appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the United Nations formally declared a famine in parts of South Sudan, saying that the civil war and the collapse of the economy have left 100,000 people facing starvation. As many as a million more are on the verge of it. Now the UN urges the international community to act fast, as the number of people at the brink of starvation will rise to an estimated 5.5 million in July, which is the peak lean season.

“Famine has become a tragic reality in parts of South Sudan and our worst fears have been realised. Many families have exhausted every means they have to survive,” said Serge Tissot, a representative for The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in South Sudan. He added that most of the affected families are farmers who had their land and agriculture disrupted by the armed conflicts. People have had to rely on what little food they can find.

Famine has been declared today in parts of #SouthSudan. 100k facing starvation, almost 5m urgently need aid https://t.co/0TxKfgqfar pic.twitter.com/jJcT0of89x

— UNICEF (@UNICEF) February 20, 2017

This is the first declared famine since 2011 in Somalia, when more than a quarter of a million people are believed to have succumbed to starvation between October 2010 and April 2012. Expectations were high that South Sudan, the world’s youngest country that gained independence from Sudan in 2011, was going to prosper because of ample oil in the area. But the new country is also home to over 60 different ethnic groups and the conflicts didn’t end with their independence.

#Famine hits parts of #SouthSudan: 100,000 ppl facing starvation. 5 mln ppl need food, #ag & nutrition assistance https://t.co/IQGSr0YI2K pic.twitter.com/e5HmsqlRrA

— FAO Newsroom (@FAOnews) February 20, 2017

Malnutrition is a public health emergency in South Sudan and armed fighting, displacement, and poor access to health services have aggravated the situation. According to UNICEF, more than a million children are already malnourished and many will die unless they get immediate help. And to make matters worse, the crisis could have been prevented: “This famine is man-made,” said Joyce Luma, Country Director at World Food Programme, WFP. She added:

WFP and the entire humanitarian community have been trying with all our might to avoid this catastrophe, mounting a humanitarian response of a scale that quite frankly would have seemed impossible three years ago. But we have also warned that there is only so much that humanitarian assistance can achieve in the absence of meaningful peace and security, both for relief workers and the crisis-affected people they serve.

Another contributing factor to the severity of the situation is serious inflation and a devaluation of the currency by 800 percent in the past year, resulting in food prices rising ten-fold. It has also been reported that President Salva Kiir’s government has been blocking humanitarian aid to certain areas.

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 UN Declares Man-Made Famine in South Sudan appeared first on Law Street.

Late Monday, Israel’s Parliament passed a law to retroactively legalize settlements on about 2,000 acres of Palestinian-owned land in the West Bank. Passed with a vote of 60-52, the bill is widely expected to be struck down by Israel’s Supreme Court; the attorney general also recently said he would refuse to enforce the law. The vote reflects the growing influence of the settler movement in Israeli politics, and a new political reality for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who previously opposed retroactive legalization of settlements.

Under the law, a few thousand housing units in 16 different settlements would be deemed legal. Palestinian landowners would be compensated for the land, but would not be able to reclaim it. Some settlements in Israel, because they are located on private Palestinian land, are considered illegal by the Israeli government, as well as the international community, which condemns all Israeli settlements. In fact, last month, the United Nations passed a highly contentious resolution that called settlements a “flagrant violation” of international law.

Reactions to the passing of the bill exemplify the increasingly polarized climate of Israeli politics, especially as it concerns the settler movement. “Today Israel decreed that developing settlement in Judea and Samaria is an Israeli interest,” said Bezalel Smotrich, a right-wing lawmaker, referring to the biblical names of the West Bank. “From here we move on to expanding Israeli sovereignty and continuing to build and develop settlements across the land.”

Much of the ethos behind the settler movement is tied to the Jewish claim to the land of Israel including, most notably, the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria). Israel captured the Palestinian territories–the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem–from Jordan and Egypt after it won the 1967 Six-Day War. For 50 years, settlements have remained a flashpoint in Israeli-Palestinian relations, and in Israel’s broader relationship with the international community.

But many Israelis oppose settlements, and support a two-state solution with the Palestinians. Parliament members on the left and the center (and even many on the right) condemn settlements, and see them as an impediment to peace. Yair Lapid, head of the Yesh Atid party, and a leading contender to succeed Netanyahu, called the law “unjust.” He added: “They are passing a law which endangers our soldiers, will undermine our international standing and undermine us as a country of law and order.”

As of a few months ago, Netanyahu opposed passage of the law. But things have changed very quickly. For one, President Donald Trump’s election victory signaled a less harsh U.S. stance on settlements than Netanyahu experienced with President Barack Obama. Trump also appointed David Friedman, a pro-settlement lawyer who has donated millions of dollars to the settler movement, as his ambassador to Israel.

Netanyahu’s ambivalence on Monday’s vote also reflects his precarious position with the settler movement, and in his broader political standing. Netanyahu is currently being investigated on corruption charges, and is under constant pressure from lawmakers to his right to support the settlers.

Last week, 40 settler families were evacuated by Israeli police from the settlement of Amona. The Supreme Court ruled the Amona outpost was illegal, as it was built on private Palestinian land. After the evacuation, Netanyahu swiftly approved the construction of a new settlement, something that has not been done in over 25 years.

Trump said approving new settlements “may not be helpful” to peace, a noticeably milder critique than those from past U.S. administrations. Trump is meeting with Netanyahu in Washington D.C. on February 15, and a clearer picture of the current U.S. stance on settlements should emerge soon after. Meanwhile, Netanyahu has other things to worry about: the same day the settlement bill passed, rockets were fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip into Israel.

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 Israel Passes Law to Retroactively Legalize Illegal West Bank Settlements appeared first on Law Street.

Senator vs. Senator: Cory Booker Slams Jeff Sessions

Popular New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker made history yesterday, when he became the first sitting U.S. senator to testify against the nomination of another sitting U.S. senator: Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sessions is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for AG. Yesterday, Booker said Sessions has “not demonstrated a commitment to a central requisite of the job: to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights, equal rights, and justice for all of our citizens.”

.@CoryBooker testifies against Jeff Sessions: “our country demands a more courageous empathy” pic.twitter.com/Tnr3t9OyPM

— Sen. Cory Booker (@SenBookerOffice) January 11, 2017

Booker’s move drew criticism from Republicans. Representative Chris Collins (R-NY) said that Booker just wanted some time in the spotlight. Others saw it as a sign that Booker may throw his hat into the ring for 2020.

can we just fast-forward to whenever I get to vote for Cory Booker for president?

— Daniel Kanter (@Danielkanter) January 11, 2017

Civil rights icon Representative John Lewis and NAACP President Cornell William Brooks also testified against Sessions. Brooks said that Sessions has shown “disrespect, and even disdain for the civil and human rights of racial and ethnic minorities, women, the disabled, and others who suffer from discrimination in this country.”

But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham responded to those claims, saying that the NAACP is biased and favors Democrats in its Civil Rights Federal Legislative Scorecards. In short: Sessions’ confirmation has turned into a bit of a melee.

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: January 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

After a discussion with Israeli officials on Thursday, President-elect Donald Trump broke decades of U.S. protocol, urging the current administration to veto a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. But in a UN Security Council (UNSC) vote on Friday afternoon, the U.S. abstained, flouting Trump’s suggestion, and acting in contrary to decades of vetoing similar resolutions. Fourteen of the 15 members of the UNSC voted for the resolution.

The resolution, introduced by Egypt and co-sponsored by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal, called the settlements a “flagrant violation under international law” that are “dangerously imperiling the viability” of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Since none of the five permanent UNSC members–which includes the U.S.–vetoed the resolution, it will be adopted.

Though the UN Charter’s Article 25 calls on member states to “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council,” a senior Israeli official said there was “zero chance” the country would follow the resolution and discontinue its settlement policy. The vote was initially set for Thursday, but Egypt withdrew its own resolution after Israel, fearing President Barack Obama would try to back the resolution or abstain, lobbied Trump to interject on the matter.

In a Facebook and Twitter message, Trump did just that, saying “peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations.” He added: “This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.”

Both Obama and Trump upended decades of protocol. Obama’s administration did so by abstaining on a vote the U.S. usually vetoes (as Obama did in 2011), and Trump for meddling in U.S. foreign policy matters before taking office. Obama has had a fraught relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu throughout his tenure, and the abstention could be seen as a parting shot to Israel’s leader.

Netanyahu is hopeful Trump will steer the U.S. into a cozier relationship with Israel, as he has signaled his support of the West Bank settlements, which the international community largely condemns, and appointed a pro-settlement bankruptcy lawyer, David Friedman, as the next ambassador to Israel.

In a speech after Friday’s vote, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said the settlements “seriously [undermine] Israel’s security,” but reiterated that the U.S. will continue to stand by its side. After the vote, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, condemned the vote and tweeted, “I have no doubt that the new US administration will usher in a new era.”

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 With U.S. Abstention, UN Passes Resolution Condemning Israeli Settlements 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.

There may be fewer casualties as a result of the pause in fighting in Syria this week, but there are also starving men, women, and children who continue to suffer because of Bashar al-Assad, the president of the combusting nation. In a briefing with reporters in Geneva on Thursday, the U.N. mediator for Syria said the Assad government has failed to authorize letters that aid convoys need to pass through checkpoints. As a result, the vital aid millions of Syrians hoped to receive during the week-long ceasefire has yet to arrive.

“It’s particularly regrettable because we are losing time,” Staffan de Mistura, the mediator, said. Beginning Monday, the ceasefire has largely held. Jointly implemented by the United States and Russia, the intention is to test whether fighting can remain paused for a week.

If it can, the United States, which opposes Assad’s government, and Russia, Assad’s ally, will begin cooperating in the fight against an enemy shared by all sides, including the rebel groups fighting Assad’s regime: the Islamic State. The ceasefire agreement does not include ISIS or other terrorist groups, such as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, formerly known as the Nusra Front.

But the cessation of hostilities agreement was also intended to crack open a window through which U.N. trucks could pass through, bringing aid to the most devastated pockets in Syria–including areas near Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. That part of the ceasefire has been a failure, and it’s unclear if a joint U.S.-Russia campaign hinges on the humanitarian relief portion of the deal. Assad is in charge of authorizing the letters that aid groups need to proceed.

“Can well-fed, grown men please stop putting political, bureaucratic, and procedural roadblocks for brave humanitarian workers that are willing and able to go to serve women, children, wounded civilians in besieged areas?” said Jan Egeland, the U.N. special adviser on humanitarian affairs.

And while combat has halted in much of the country, casualties were still recorded since the arrangement went into effect. On Thursday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported airstrikes in ISIS-held territory in an eastern province. At least seven civilians were killed, and 30 more were injured. Of the four buildings that were hit with the strikes, one was a school, the group said.

A day earlier, Russia said it killed 250 ISIS fighters near the desert city of Palmyra.

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 In Breach of Ceasefire, Syrian Government Has Yet to Authorize Aid Convoys appeared first on Law Street.

Responding to “immense security challenges,” the Kenyan government announced in an official statement on Friday that it will no longer be able to host the over half a million people living in the country’s two refugee camps and dispersed throughout its cities.

“The Government of Kenya has been forced by circumstances to reconsider the whole issue of hosting refugees and the process of repatriation… hosting of refugees has come to an end,” Kenya’s National Police Service issued in a Twitter post on Friday.

As of March 2015, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), Kenya’s two official camps–Dadaab in the east and Kakuma in the northwest–housed 584, 989 refugees. Fleeing civil war, political persecution, and drought in places like Somalia (where 72 percent of refugees hail from), South Sudan (16 percent) and Ethiopia (5 percent), some of the refugees have created a home for themselves in Kenya’s camps, especially the oldest and largest one in Dadaab, near the country’s arid eastern border with Somalia. Over a quarter million people have established lives in Dadaab, most of whom were displaced by war in Somalia when they were children and have since made a home in the “tent city.”

The Kenyan government has been pushing to close the camps for a few years. Last April, the government voiced intentions of shutting down the Dadaab camp, citing security concerns. And though the UNHCR, which runs the camp, agreed to assist Somalian refugees (which comprise the vast majority of Dadaab’s displaced peoples) who volunteered to return home, the organization opposed forced repatriation.

The sprawl of the displaced: One of Dadaab’s five camps. Over a quarter of a million refugees, namely Somalians, call this home. [Image courtesy of United Nations Photo]

Last spring’s announcement followed an attack at Garissa University, where a group of gunmen loyal to al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda linked, Somali-based terrorist group, shot and killed 147 students. Kenya has been mired in a conflict with the Islamic terrorist group for nearly a decade. Al-Shabaab has been committing acts of terror on Kenyan soil for years, killing soldiers and civilians alike, and it is the primary security threat the government referred to in its decision to close the refugee camps.

Following the Garissa attacks, the government alleged al-Shabaab had infiltrated Dadaab and used it to plot and launch attacks. In March, Kenyan newspaper The Star reported an al-Shabaab gun smuggler was caught at Dadaab, with not much more concrete evidence to support the government’s claims.

But the latest announcement seemingly came out of nowhere, following no mass casualty event or obvious security concern.

“I think it’s legitimate to believe that Kenya is issuing the threat as a means to leverage more resources from international donors,” said Mark Yarnell, Senior Advocate at Refugees International in an interview with Law Street Media.

Refugees from the nations that surround it seek a life free from war, drought and political persecution in Kenya. [Image courtesy of greenravine via Flickr]

Pointing out that Kenya’s security concerns certainly are real and legitimate, Yarnell, who has spent time in the field in East and Central Africa, predicted the latest threat by the Kenyan government is meant to extract more resources from the international community to deal with its conflict with al-Shabaab, more as a leverage tool than a step toward abolishing camps and rounding up refugees “at the barrel of a gun.”

“[The camps] are quite entrenched in the country, with their own market systems and infrastructure,” he said, likening the demolition of the two camps to essentially wiping out two cities. “You have people who were born in the camp and kids of people who were born in the camp and all they know is Dadaab or Kakuma.”

He pointed to a recent communiqué from the African Union on the Dadaab camp as the validation the Kenyan government needs to show the rest of the world it is in solidarity with a larger institution to do something in regards to the camps and maintaining Kenya’s security. In the communiqué, the AU Peace and Security Council acknowledged the “legitimate security concerns” facing Kenya, the threat of Dadaab to the security of Kenya, and the need to accelerate the process of repatriating Somali refugees who volunteer to do so.

It also called on international partners, “particularly the United Nations” to “extend necessary financial, logistical and technical support” to the Somalian government, and “to increase funding to Somalia, Kenya, UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies.”

If the Kenyan government follows through with its latest proclamation, hundreds of thousands of refugees will suffer, wandering, with nowhere to settle but the homes they were forced to abandon. Some left those homes decades ago.

That’s not to say Kenya’s refugee camps are perfect, permanent homes. Flooding, disease and malnutrition have wrecked havoc on Dadaab in the past, and according to UNHCR, there were eleven epidemics reported in 2012 alone.

Despite the imperfect conditions of Dadaab and Kakuma, UNHCR expressed “profound concern” over the latest announcement from the Kenyan government in an official statement released on Monday:

In today’s global context of some 60 million people forcibly displaced, it is more important than ever that international asylum obligations prevail and are properly supported. In light of this, and because of the potentially devastating consequences for hundreds of thousands of people that premature ending of refugee hosting would have, UNHCR is calling on the Government of Kenya to reconsider its decision and to avoid taking any action that might be at odds with its international obligations towards people needing sanctuary from danger and persecution. 

Under the leadership of President Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya would be breaking international law if it went forward with these plans, for which there are various legal statutes assuring the protection of refugees by the host nation. The primary right afforded to refugees worldwide is a promise of non-refoulement, or return to a place where their life and freedoms would be threatened.

“It would be such an egregious violation of basic refugee rights and their own constitution,” Yarnell 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 Kenyan Government Signals Shutdown of Refugee Camps appeared first on Law Street.

A large international study conducted by the British think tank and policy institute Chatham House has determined that taxing meat wouldn’t cause as much of an uproar as previously believed. The motivations of such a tax would be that it would promote healthier eating, as well as serve as an attempt to combat climate change.

Chatham House’s study surveyed 12 different nations and also conducted focus groups in the U.S., U.K., Brazil, and China. They were attempting to determine how people would react to government policies like higher taxes on meat, as well as cutting subsidies to livestock farmers and introducing more vegetarian meals in public institutions like schools. While they discovered there would be a backlash to these policies in many scenarios–people love their meat–it will most likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for the policies was strong.

This is an important finding, as steps to reduce global consumption of meat may need to be taken soon. The production of livestock is responsible for 15 percent of global emissions–more than the world’s cars, trains, planes, and ships combined. It’s going to get worse, too, as global meat consumption is expected to rise roughly 76 percent over the next 35 years. When countries become richer, they’re more likely to consume more meat. And countries that already consume a lot of meat aren’t really doing so safely. Developed countries eat on average, twice as much meat than what’s considered healthy. Americans are also big offenders–we on average eat roughly three times as much meat as what’s considered healthy. But because of that love of meat, it has traditionally been viewed as a bad move politically to create meat taxes or make it more expensive in any way.

But Chatham House’s research stands in contrast to that hypothesis. Chatham House lead author Laura Wellesley said:

The idea that interventions like this are too politically sensitive and too difficult to implement is unjustified. Our focus groups show people expect governments to lead action on issues that are for the global good. Our research indicates any backlash to unpopular policies would likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for action was strong.

When discussing the possibility of a meat tax, a consistent comparison that’s being made is the evolution of taxation on cigarettes. Once commonplace higher taxes on cigarettes as well as public service campaigns helped decrease the amount of smokers.

While it’s doubtful that we’ll all be taxed on our meat anytime soon, it may be something that’s brought up at the UN Climate Change conference in Paris next week. So, if you’re big meat fan, this may be something to keep an eye on.

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 Next Turkey Day, Will We Have a Meat Tax? appeared first on Law Street.

Despite growing political pressure, both Israel and Hamas avoided the United Nations’ annual report on Children and Armed Conflict. The report lists countries with a record of children’s rights violations.

The U.N. Secretary-General’s office for Children and Armed Conflict reviews ongoing conflicts to determine whether children’s rights violations occurred. In addition to a summary of active conflicts, the report also includes two annexes, or the so-called “list of shame.” The U.N. calls upon all listed parties to end and take measures to prevent future crimes against children in order to be taken off the list. The report focuses on violations of six specific children’s rights, including the recruitment of children as soldiers, the killing and maiming of children, sexual violence against children, attacks on schools and hospitals, abduction of children, and the denial of humanitarian access.

Although Hamas and Israel are not listed in the annexes of the most recent report, it does designate four pages to discussing the 2014 Gaza conflict. A total of 561 children in Israel and Palestine were killed, 557 of which were Palestinian. U.N. estimates also indicate that at least 1,000 of the 2,955 Palestinian children who were injured will be permanently disabled. Additionally, at least 262 schools and 274 kindergartens in Gaza were affected last summer due to Israeli airstrikes. The death toll in the Gaza conflict even surpassed the number of minors confirmed killed in Syria last year. Palestine had the third highest number of child deaths among all conflicts in 2014, and the highest number of damaged or destroyed schools.

Although the number of recorded abuses against children rose significantly, the Secretary-General decided to let Israel and Hamas off the hook. The list remains unchanged from the previous year despite what Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls “grave violations suffered by children as a result of Israeli military operations in 2014.”

Unnamed U.N. officials told the Associated Press that initial recommendations for the list, which circulated internally within the United Nations, included both Hamas and Israel. But due to disagreements among people on the ground, neither group was included in the final version of the report.

Placing Israel on the annual report could have a meaningful effect on the country. Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen have all signed action plans to prevent future violations. According to the Office of Children and Armed Conflict, these actions plans “outline concrete, time bound steps that lead to compliance with international law.” As of this year, 23 parties have signed action plans–11 governments and 12 non-state groups–nine of which have fully complied with their action plans and are no longer on the list.

Human Rights Watch has been one of the strongest proponents of including Israel and Hamas in the report’s annexes. Prior to the report’s release, Philippe Bolopion, the organization’s Crisis Advocacy Director, sent a letter to Ki-Moon urging him to include Israel, Hamas, and several other armed groups engaged in conflicts. Bolopion reinforced that point last month saying,

Applying consistent standards would add some long-time abusive parties to the list, including Israel and Hamas, for their wartime conduct harming children… Failure to include countries and groups that are known offenders will harm a report that’s been a powerful tool to protect children in war.

Since its creation in 2005, the Office for Children and Armed Conflict has monitored both Israel and Palestine. While previous reports document violations by these groups, they have both consistently avoided the report’s annexes. In his letter, Bolopion emphasizes, “other parties to armed conflict have been listed in your annexes in the past for less serious violations.”

The U.N. missed an important opportunity when it excluded both groups from the list. In the event of future conflicts, there are few measures in place to protect the lives and rights of children who are caught in the middle of the conflict. While the violence between Israel and Hamas might seem impossible to end, further international scrutiny may be help ensure that children’s most basic human rights are preserved in the future.

Alissa Gutierrez

Alissa is a member of the Catholic University Class of 2018 and was Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Alissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.N. Leaves Israel Off ‘List of Shame’ appeared first on Law Street.

Mental illness is something that the American justice system has been dealing with for decades; particularly how to handle suspects suffering from it, how to determine who is mentally ill, and what are the best practices for apprehending, sentencing, and holding those people.

Mental illnesses are defined medically as “disorders that affect your mood, thinking, and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders, and addictive behaviors.” There’s no easy way to define a mental illness, and certain diseases don’t affect everyone in the same ways. That ambiguity is where many problems stem from–how should police deal with those who have mental illnesses?

Accusations of Police Brutality Against the Mentally Ill

The United Nations

The United States had to stand before the United Nations in Geneva last week to defend its human rights record. While this is a routine endeavor, it is still something that reflects badly upon the country and its leaders. There were a lot of topics to cover, but the most prevalent was police brutality. A staggering 120 countries were there to offer recommendations, making it one of the best-attended hearings in the history of the UN, and each country was given 65 seconds to speak. Countries from every corner of the globe stressed that police brutality and discrimination has to end. One of the main things that the discussions centered upon was the way that police officers treat mentally ill suspects.

Human Rights Watch Report

That wasn’t the end of the criticism over the way that the United States treats people with mental illnesses in the justice system. Also last week, Human Rights Watch produced a report that chronicled the daily lives of mentally ill inmates in America’s prisons, showing that the issues in the justice system extend far beyond police brutality. The report, coming in at a staggering 127 pages, is packed with stories of neglect, abuse, improper medical care, corporal punishment, and unnecessary solitary confinement.

Some of the stories reported were particularly troubling. There is one incident about a man with schizophrenia who lunged for a police officer. As punishment, they strapped him to a chair, put a mask over his face, and sprayed pepper spray directly into his face under the mask. There are stories of many inmates who were found dead or unconscious laying in pools of their own urine, vomit, blood, and feces.

One of the most harrowing stories is what happened to 50-year-old Darren Rainey, who, according to the report, had a “diagnosis of schizophrenia, [and] was housed in the inpatient mental health unit at Florida’s Dade Correctional Institution while serving two years on a cocaine charge.” His mental health caused him, at times, to smear feces on himself. The correctional officers would then have to transport him to the showers and help him clean up. The report alleges that the officers took Rainey to a broken shower that could be turned to scalding. He could not control the water nor leave the shower as the police closed the door. He stayed in the scalding shower for nearly two hours. When the police finally opened the door, they found him unresponsive and without a pulse. When they moved him, it was discovered that “he had burns over 90 percent of his body, and his skin was hot/warm to the touch and slipped off when touched.” There has not yet been a medical report on his death and the police investigation is ongoing.

The Treatment Advocacy Center estimates that there are about 360,000 prisoners in 5,100 American jails and prisons with serious mental illnesses–particularly schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severe depression. That statistic has caused many people to wonder what exactly are the “rules” that the police have to follow when dealing with the mentally ill?

Should the mentally ill even be incarcerated?

There have been many discussions about exactly what rights a person with a mental illness has when he is arrested. Of course, there should be differences depending on the type and severity of the mental illness. But as a general rule, most protocols haven’t been broken up that way–instead, there are blanket policies for everyone, and they often deal more with procedures that need to be followed after the arrest. There are many allegations that the police act too harshly when dealing with suspects who have mental illnesses.

Some states have taken their own unique approaches. California, for example, has thoroughly questioned whether or not the Americans with Disabilities Act protects mentally ill suspects from being arrested and brought into the traditional justice system. That notion stems from a situation where a mentally ill woman, Theresa Sheehan, was shot five times after she waved a knife at police officers–police officers who knew she was mentally ill, as she had a history of mental breaks and was in a halfway house. The case was recently investigated by the United States Supreme Court.

In light of that case, Ron Honberg, Director of Policy and Legal Affairs at the National Alliance for Mental Illness (NAMI), said that law enforcement officers “have become first responders to people in psychiatric crisis,” but that “oftentimes, their traditional academy training doesn’t really teach police how to respond to such crisis.”

The Supreme Court found that the police were “immune” in the Sheehan case, stating:

A federal district court sided with the police, ruling that it would be unreasonable to ask officers trying to detain a violent, mentally disabled person to comply with the ADA before protecting themselves and others. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a jury should decide whether it was reasonable for the officers to use less confrontational tactics.

Testing and Treatment

So what are the policies once someone who may have a mental illness is actually arrested? If the police arrest someone whom they suspect is mentally ill, they are supposed to have them checked out by a mental health professional, which will typically result in a 24-to-72-hour stay in a mental health facility.

Family members of the mentally ill person can also ask for a police transport to the hospital if that was not an option during the arrest. This is sometimes called a “5150 hold.”

Certain states have stipulations against arrests of the mentally ill. A New York State guide for lawyers explains:

Under Criminal Procedure Law section 730, a judge who has reason to believe that a criminal defendant may be ‘incapacitated’ must order that the defendant undergo a psychiatric examination. ‘Incapacitated’ in this context means that because of mental disease or defect, the defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against him or assist in his own defense. A ‘730 exam,’ as such exams are referred to, can be requested by a defense attorney or an assistant district attorney, or may be ordered upon the judge’s own initiative.

Other states have similar stipulations. Denver has seen 11 deaths in 2015 after police have been called to the site of a mental breakdown–including one where a veteran was wielding scissors. The state is looking at its training and laws, but also considering on-site questions and tests.

The Supreme Court of Michigan recently ruled in a case against police that they used force against a mentally ill inmate:

That the evidence provided by plaintiff, indicating that the police were inadequately trained in dealing with the mentally ill and using impact projectiles, is sufficient to survive summary judgment. Plaintiff’s expert, retired Captain Van Blaircom, who is former chief of police for the City of Bellevue, Washington, testified that the Defendant officers should have known that the manner in which they approached the decedent would escalate the confrontation. According to Van Blaircom, the officer’s treatment of the situation, combined with their statements that a mentally ill person should be treated as any other person, regardless of the situation, indicates that the police department’s training dealing with the mentally ill falls well below the reasonable standard of contemporary care.

Conclusion

Overall, there seems to be some movement toward reform for police brutality against the mentally ill, but there is still a lot of ground to be covered, and covered quickly before anyone else dies. Procedures need to be enacted to ensure that officers deal fairly and effectively with suspects who are dealing with a mental illness. It is only through developing those policies that we can ensure all Americans are treated humanely.

Resources

ABC News: High Court: Police Immune Over Arrest of Mentally Ill Woman

Human Rights Watch: Callous and Cruel

Guardian: Police Shooting of Mentally Ill Woman Reaches US Supreme Court

Mayo Clinic: Mental Illness

Public Agency Training Council: Dealing With the Mentally Ill and Emotionally Disturbed in the Use of Force Context

Urban Institute: The Processing and Treatment of Mentally Ill Persons in the Criminal Justice System

Urban Justice Center’s Mental Health Project: How to Help

Aljazeera America: US Cited for Police Violence, Racism in Scathing UN Review on Human Rights

Coloradoan: Supreme Court to Rule on Arrests of Mentally Ill

Mother Jones: There Are Ten Times More Mentally Ill People Behind Bars Than in State Hospitals

National Alliance on Mental Illness: A Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System

National Institute of Corrections: Mental Illness in Corrections

Schizophrenia: How to Help a Mentally Ill Family Member Who Has Been Arrested

Treatment Advocacy Center: More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States

LA Times: L.A. Police Accused of Excessive Force in Arrest of Mentally Ill Man

Mental Illness Policy Org: Criminalization of Individuals with Severe Psychiatric Disorders

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Brutality and the Mentally Ill in America appeared first on Law Street.

“Women share this planet 50-50, and they are under-represented; their potential astonishingly untapped.”

So said Emma Watson, United Nations Women Goodwill Ambassador, at a press conference in Davos, Switzerland on Thursday. The young diplomat most recognized for her role in the Harry Potter franchise was speaking partly in regard to HeForShe’s new initiative, and partly to give thanks for the immense support HeForShe has received since her speech in September.

“I think it would be fair to say that my colleagues and I have been stunned by the response,” Watson said. “The HeForShe conference was watched over 11 million times, sparking 1.2 billion social media conversations, culminating in the HeForShe hashtag becoming so popular that Twitter painted it on the walls of its headquarters.”

Adding to that, Watson shared that men from “almost every country in the world” had signed on to help in HeForShe’s effort.

These are staggering numbers and encouraging statistics, but Watson went on to articulate that now is the time to act on our words of commitment. Being the masterful orator that she is, after thanking the masses who have responded to the campaign thus far, she used that gratitude to call us to action once more.

The initiative UN Women was there to launch is called IMPACT 10x10x10, which the UN describes as an effort to “engage governments, corporations and universities as instruments of change positioned within some of the communities that most need to address deficiencies in women’s empowerment and gender equality.”  Watson added that beyond “concrete commitments” to women gaining equal ground, she wanted “to hear from the human beings” within the organizations targeted:

I spoke about some of my story in September – what are your stories? Girls, who have been your mentors? Parents, did you make sure you treated your children equally?…Husbands, have you been supporting your female partner privately so that she can fulfill her dreams too?…Writers, have you challenged the language and imagery used to portray women in the media? CEOs, have you implemented the women’s empowerment principles in your own company?

These are powerful questions with undoubtedly powerful responses. How have we answered Watson’s call from September? Did we simply retweet with “#HeForShe,” or have we taken steps against the inequality we all see on a daily basis? It is not enough to simply say you support the cause. You must, in your daily actions and conversations, consciously implement your support.

Watson went on to share that many have verbally committed to HeForShe’s campaign, but have been unsure about how to proceed. “Men say they’ve signed the petition, what now? The truth is the ‘what now’ is down to you.”

Each of us has a different life and different ways in which we can impact the fight for gender equality. Any way you help, as Watson points out, “is valid” and helpful. Take a moment to think about what happens in your life on a day-to-day basis. How have you seen women degraded or discriminated against? How has the language you use been affected by a patriarchal society? Decide what you can do to change the answers to these questions. The answer is never “nothing.” That’s how you can initiate HeForShe in your life.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post HeForShe: Emma Watson Does It Again appeared first on Law Street.

There were a lot of big news stories this year, from the Olympics in early 2014 to the ongoing Sony hack. Read on to learn about the top 15 news stories of 2014.

1. The Winter Olympics: $how Me the $ochi

Image courtesy of Atos via Flickr

The 2014 Olympics were hosted in Sochi, Russia, this winter, and the entire event was marked by controversy after controversy. The Russians were chosen to host the Olympics because of an impressive, expensive bid to the International Olympic Committee (IOC). However, the chaos of the 2014 Games left many wondering whether or not cash should be the deciding factor in the selection process.

2. Malaysian Airplane Crash: Who’s Liable?

Image courtesy of abdallahh via Flickr

In March, the world watched as a Malaysian Airlines flight disappeared, and many families were left devastated. It was a horrifying tragedy, but many were wondering who was to blame for the catastrophe, or more appropriately, who was liable? Given that much is still unknown about the crash, the legal questions are far from being answered.

3. Punishing Donald Sterling Is About to Get a Lot Harder

Image courtesy of Michael via Flickr

Clippers owner Donald Sterling came under fire after an audio recording of him making racist statements came to light. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver levied a notable punishment against Donald Sterling. However, given the unprecedented level of punishment, there were significant legal concerns.

4. An Open Letter to Shailene Woodley: What Every Not-a-Feminist Needs to Hear 

Image courtesy of Red Carpet Report on Mingle Media Tv

One of the most talked about stars of 2014 was Shailene Woodley–she starred in films such as Divergent and The Fault in Our Stars. However, she also made headlines for a less flattering reason–for saying that she wasn’t a feminist. Unfortunately, she had the definition of feminism wrong.

Answer Emma Watson’s Call for Gender Equality

Image courtesy of EyesonFire89 via Flickr

However, another movie starlet, Emma Watson of Harry Potter fame, gave an amazing speech this year about the importance of feminism and equality. Unlike Woodley, her definition of feminism was spot-on, and she made a great appeal.

5. SCOTUS Steps Up Amid Execution Controversy

Image courtesy of [Ken Piorkowski via Flickr]

6. Trigger Warnings Creep Off the Web and Into the Classroom

Image courtesy of OpenClips via Pixabay

Trigger warnings are a common sight on websites, in order to alert readers to content they may find troubling. However, trigger warnings started to make their way off the internet and possibly onto college syllabi. That change has led to concerns that trigger warnings may end up creating optional content in college courses.

7. The Dark Side of the World Cup: Corruption, Bribery, and Civil Unrest

Image courtesy of Amil Delic via Flickr

This summer, the world watched as the 2014 World Cup took place in Brazil. But, much like the 2014 Olympic Games, the World Cup had problems with corruption, lack of organization, and bribing scandals. Not only was the World Cup an interesting look into the the politics of Brazil, but it says a lot about what may happen at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

Oh, and that guy who bit another player: The People vs. Luis Suarez

Image courtesy of [George via Flickr]

8. The Senate Torture Report: Government Infighting Over Release

Image courtesy of Justin Norman via Flickr

The Senate torture report was finally released a few weeks ago, but there was a lot of infighting prior to the release. Major players included the U.S. Senate, particularly the Senate Intelligence Committee, the CIA, and the White House.

9. We Should All be Upset About What’s Going on in Ferguson: Here’s Why

Image courtesy of Elvert Barnes via Flickr

In early August, a young man named Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, by Officer Darren Wilson. The following weeks led to protests over a few different topics, including police militarization, racial profiling, and First Amendment issues.

10. Ebola and America’s Fears

Image courtesy of CDC Global via Flickr

This year, Ebola has killed thousands in Western Africa, particularly in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. Globalization and international travel led to a case making it to the United States, sparking fear around the nation.

11. Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration

Image courtesy of Official US Navy Page via Flickr

The U.S. has been waging war against ISIS since it emerged in Syria and Iraq. Early this fall, the U.S. and some Middle Eastern allies bombed ISIS. Like any international action, the U.S. needed to be able to legally justify their actions, but that may be easier said than done.

12. The Washington Redskins: What’s Next in the Name Debate?

Image courtesy of Keith Allison via Flickr

The Washington D.C. NFL team is called the “Redskins,” a name that has received ire for its offensive origin. Journalists have begun to refer to the team by almost any other name, and this summer the US Patent office cancelled the team’s trademark. Whether or not the name will ever be changed remains to be seen.

13. The CIA: How to Get Away With Torture

Image courtesy of takomabibelot via Flickr

That Senate Intelligence torture report was finally released, and it was a disturbing revelation into the practices of the CIA. However, despite the fact that torture is illegal internationally, it’s doubtful that the U.S. will ever see any legal ramifications.

14. Australian Hostage Situation Ends: A Community Stands Together

Image courtesy of Corey Leopold via Flickr

Earlier this month, there was a horrifying hostage situation in Sydney, Australia. But the aftermath was heartening, as Australians banded together to show the world that the actions of one mad man does not justify discrimination on a wide scale.

Australians School the World on How To Not Be Racist

Image courtesy of Chris Beckett via Flickr

Here’s a further look into the amazing Australian compassion after the Sydney hostage situation. The hashtag #IllRideWithYou was created, in order to provide support for the Australian Muslim community. Citizens of Sydney offered company to Australian Muslims who needed to travel on public transportation without fear of discrimination.

15. Disturbing New Developments in the Continuing Sony Hacking Scandal

Image courtesy of The City Project via Flickr

One of the biggest stories of the end of 2014 was the Sony Hacking scandal, when a hacking group called the Guardians of Peace (GOP) made its way into Sony’s computer system. The story escalated quickly, as the hacking group demanded that a movie called The Interview not be released, or drastic action would be taken.

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 ICYMI: Top 15 Top News Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Recently the United Nations made a series of declarations regarding the validity of climate change, its causes, and necessary measures to mitigate it. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a very large “synthesis report,” a product of analyzing tens of thousands of scientific papers. The report covers all aspects, addressing atmosphere and emissions, oceans and sea level, air temperature, water cycle, and many other components of environmental systems. It goes over the changes to each over the last 150 years or so, and produces conclusions as to what induced those changes. Being that the report ultimately concludes that many of these concerns are products of human activity, it goes beyond being a summary of information and warnings, and provides many recommendations as to what needs to change and what measures ought to be taken to answer these warnings. These thoughts are more succinctly presented in the shorter summary for policymakers.

Among the conclusions therein, the most prevalent is probably the projections for changes in global temperature. If we continue on this course, by the end of the century the temperature could rise from 3.7-4.8 degrees Celsius from what it was before the Industrial Revolution. Since variation in global temperature of one or two degrees can result in radical and violent weather patterns, these numbers could presumably result in catastrophic changes to the climate and Earth. Deniers propose that these projections, and the evidence of rising temperatures in the past several centuries, might not necessarily be the result of human activity but rather an indication of general shifts in the Earth’s climatological patterns. For example, starting in the 1300s AD, many parts of the world–particularly in the Northern Hemisphere–experienced a Little Ice Age. Definite conclusions as to the causes of this phenomenon are still incomplete, but proposals range from general rises and falls within the Earth’s patterns to changes in solar or oceanic behavior.

During the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped by about 1.5 degrees Celsius. The most notable consequence that resulted was major damage to agriculture and resulting famines. What kinds of consequences could there be for a temperature change of double that in the opposite direction as the IPCC proposes? The lesson that the Little Ice Age teaches us is that regardless of whether climate change is a result of human activity or not, it is clearly real and has dire consequences for human civilization if we are not prepared for it.

Supposing that it is in part due to human activity, the discussion on rising temperatures inevitably leads back to emissions and energy. The point of no return is a 2 degree Celsius increase, according to the report. After this point, damage to the climate and Earth could be irreversible. Governments and industries ought to set emissions standards so as to keep the rise in temperature from passing this marker; however, in order to do so we have less than forty years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent, and even further by the end of the century. These are very imposing numbers, and many fear that the existing financial structures cannot accommodate these objectives and the necessary changes to be made. On the other hand some feel that we should be more motivated to pursue these goals, not just because of the impending disasters but because energy-efficient systems are financially advisable.

There are many arguments that the economic infrastructure for renewable energy is already in place, and pursuing those courses is not only environmentally friendly but financially advisable because it would pay for itself in a short amount of time. This report should provide the impetus for making a more wholehearted attempt at transitioning to a substantial degree to these other options.

Carbon emissions go hand in hand with rising temperatures. Courtesy of Kim Seng via Flickr.

It is generally accepted that the Dust Bowl was largely a result of environmentally unfriendly agricultural practices. Did we require over half a century to reach this consensus? This framework can be applied elsewhere, as we consider unnatural elements of “natural disasters.” Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy have often been named in this debate. A heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 claimed 70,000 lives. As the report suggests, time to act is running out. These concerns are not ones to be dealt with solely by governments and world leaders; the threats of climate change pervade the globe and affect all people. We can all improve the decisions we make and the ways we live our lives, and advocate more vocally for positive change.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The UN Validates Climate Change in New Report, Now It’s Up to Us appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday in a dramatic escalation of the many-sided conflict in Syria, the United States, along with a coalition of Middle Eastern states, showered ISIS strongholds with airstrikes and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Lawmakers, public officials, and pundits have traded arguments over whether the United States has any interest in intervening, whether ISIS poses any threat to United States, and whether the United States has any justification in getting involved in Syria’s three and half year long civil war. In support of the strikes that started on Tuesday, President Obama has invoked several international and domestic legal justifications. Like any justifications for war, however, they aren’t completely solid.

On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power answered the international justification question in a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, saying that the United States has the right to carry out self-defense on behalf of Iraq.

Generally, a country can only use force in the territory of another sovereign country if it is authorized to do so by the U.N. Syria is a sovereign country, and Power’s letter to Secretary General Ban only informs him of the attacks, it doesn’t ask for his permission. However, force can be used against a sovereign country without permission if it’s for the sake of self-defense. The United States is arguing that, although Syria is a sovereign state, it isn’t doing anything to stop or weaken ISIS within its own borders, justifying the United States’ defense-based intervention.

President Obama also has to cover his bases for legal justification domestically. To that end, he told Congress on September 9th that he doesn’t need Congressional permission and that he has the authority to take action. This justification can be found in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). That resolution gave the President authority to:

Use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.

The law is vague and has a wide enough breadth that it has been successfully used by the United States for continued military actions across the world.

The organizations targeted in the wording of the AUMF have generally been Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. While ISIS has its origins in Al-Qaeda and claimed to still be affiliated, Al-Qaeda officially cut ties with ISIS in February, prompting controversy over whether the president actually has the legal authority to target them without Congressional approval. But this week’s strikes didn’t target ISIS alone. The Pentagon announced that the attacks also targeted the Khorasan, a little-known terrorist group that does have connections with Al-Qaeda via Jabhat al-Nusra, another Al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria.

Additionally, an incredibly interesting facet of this conflict is that, despite the fact that Obama has previously said that he wanted to eventually repeal the AUMF, he is using it to justify strikes against ISIS. The Obama Administration’s choice of justifications has prompted questions over the president’s apparent change of heart about practicing restraint in counterterrorism. Historically, however, the expanded offensive isn’t so strange, as Obama has bombed half a dozen other countries in the Middle East and North Africa during his presidency.

Remember that just over a year ago, the United States was having the same debate about getting involved in Syria, except that Obama was then insisting that it was necessary to bomb Syrian President Assad, after his regime killed upwards of 1,400 people in a sarin gas attack. That plan was ditched at the last second when Russia made a deal with Syria to dispose of the country’s chemical weapons. But historically speaking, what Obama’s administration did on Tuesday really isn’t a departure from his foreign policy strategies.

Some Obama critics say that if Obama had gone through with those threats against Assad last year, the United States may not be in this mess with ISIS today. A common theory about how ISIS grew to be so powerful is that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad strategically watched idly by as it clashed other rebel groups, who were trying to oust him and create a democratic government, and took over large swaths of land. He even bombed the rebels as they gained ground against ISIS. He did this, some say, in order to have a legitimate claim to having a terrorist threat in Syria and lure in Western powers to help him, and not the rebels. As it turns out, Assad didn’t need to convince the West to join his side. They are, however, giving him a courteous “heads-up” about bombing his enemies.

While his administration has done its homework and technically managed to justify these new attacks on ISIS, Obama’s words and actions surrounding them don’t scream consistency, either. His backing out of the plan last year to strike Assad in Syria suggests that he may have only been talking about strikes to save face. It suggests that only when words like “Islamist” and “terrorist” are being thrown around is it necessary to take action. And using the AUMF to take those actions suggests that it’s acceptable for the president to change his position on that justification whenever it’s convenient.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday September 21, a recently appointed UN ambassador gave a speech on gender equality that received a standing ovation. That ambassador was Emma Watson, the 24-year-old woman most know for playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films. Her topic was feminism and a campaign the UN is launching called “HeForShe,” which Watson will spearhead. You can watch the entire speech below.

Since Sunday, Watson’s speech has gone viral, garnering support both for her cause and for feminism itself. I was especially pleased to see one of my own Facebook friends share the video with the caption: “Worth the watch, for both men and women! Gave me a whole new perspective on the word ‘feminist’.”

Good! That was the point. Watson shares not only the true definition of feminism, but says that thinking of feminists as “man haters” needs to stop. She said that becoming a feminist should be “uncomplicated” and did not narrow her audience to just women. It was a brilliant speech, and completely deserved the standing ovation.

As is to be expected, what with the internet being the internet, she has also received negative feedback. Some users of 4Chan have created a website threatening to reveal sexually explicit pictures of Watson, claiming that they will somehow demean or demolish her feminist views. Rush Limbaugh (who I think should be taken off air immediately) said in his September 23 broadcast: “I know exactly what she’s talking about here, and it’s youth speaking, it’s youthful idealism speaking.  I mean, the truth is every man knows that women run things…That’s been the problem with feminism all along.  Feminism has sought to change basic human nature, and you can’t do that no matter what you do.”

Wow. Thanks for the vote of confidence, Rush!

Other anonymous critics on sites like Reddit, tumblr, and Imgur agree with Watson’s views on feminism but take issue with the name “HeForShe,” arguing that the preposition “for” implies that men will do all the work and women will sit idly by as males react to her call for action. Still others complain that Watson’s celebrity is giving her an unfair advantage on issues like gender equality; that someone less famous or less attractive should have been able to stand up there and give the speech to the same effect.

Each of these arguments stems, I think, from a place of fear. People don’t like change, and with Watson’s speech taking on the momentum it already has, gender equality has made an enormous leap forward. This is threatening to those who are so entrenched in their male-dominated world that they wouldn’t see it change for anything. To those people I say: too damn bad! Society has changed a thousand times over, and it certainly isn’t done.

Let’s address each of these critiques briefly, so I can point out where they have veered off from logic.

Just a few weeks ago, users of 4chan hacked the phones of female celebrities and leaked their nude photographs online. These same people are at it again, thinking that showing feminist, female celebrities as sexual creatures will somehow undermine their feminist message. The short answer is: it won’t. Just because a woman enjoys sex or flaunts her sexuality does not mean she can’t be a feminist. In fact, if a woman is so comfortable in her own skin that nude photos being leaked doesn’t even phase her, that’s a feminist I would hope people idolize.

As for Rush Limbaugh, he is a prime example of a man who sees his male-dominance being threatened and lashes out in any way possible. His claim that “Feminism has sought to change basic human nature” is bullshit. Human nature may be to blame for many of our baser instincts, like seeking out a mate or wanting to procreate, but one gender dominating the other actually comes — most often — from various religions. Ancient, pagan religions favor women above men, and religions like Christianity favor men. Over the years, society took those religious doctrines and accepted them as fact. Oh and losing the “man-hating” connotation that comes from the word “feminism” being “youthful idealism”? Wrong again, Rush. Feminism isn’t just for 24 year olds, and some of gender equality’s most prevalent spokespeople are decades older than Watson.

Next up, the problem with the name “HeForShe,” If you listen to Watson’s entire speech, you’ll hear her call on men AND women multiple times. She wants women to stop being afraid of calling themselves feminists, and for men to accept the title just as willingly. The name, to me, means that, since men are currently the dominant gender, men need to be a driving force behind changing that. It does not mean that women will sit idly by, it means that both genders will work together to achieve equality. As they should.

Finally, Watson’s celebrity makes me thankful she was the one to make that speech. In a perfect world, any man or woman could have made that speech and gotten the same response, but this is not a perfect world. I have said before that celebrities using their fame to support important causes should be admired, not shamed. Waton’s expansive fan base of both men and women made her the perfect person to make that speech, because those fans that truly respect her will hear it, believe it, and share it.

So, as a fan of Emma Watson and of gender equality, I intend to answer her call to action and continue supporting feminism. After you hear it, what will you do?

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Answer Emma Watson’s Call for Gender Equality appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time in decades, the United Nations has declared four of the world’s humanitarian crises a “Level 3 Emergency,” the highest possible rating the organization can assign. The four on the list are Syria, South Sudan, Central African Republic, and Iraq; Iraq was just added to the list on August 14th. From the Islamic State beheading journalists, to the thousands dying from the Ebola virus in Western Africa, from the thousands of civilians fleeing towns in Iraq, to the million malnourished and displaced in South Sudan, as a world, we are collectively in crisis.

According to Nickolay Mladenov, special representative of the United Nations Secretary General, the “Level 3”  emergency designation facilitates “mobilization of additional resources in goods, funds and assets to ensure a more effective response to the humanitarian needs of populations affected by forced displacement.”

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee, a team of UN and other NGO humanitarians, is responsible for determining the level of crisis. Level 3 is given to countries experiencing civil unrest that causes the displacement or removal of thousands of people. Unlike natural disasters, conflicts put humanitarian workers in the crossfire, making relief efforts that much more difficult.

Iraq became a particular concern after the situation on Sinjar Mountain escalated and thousands of Yazidi families–a particular religious community in Iraq–were trapped on the mountain without water, nourishment or any form of sanitation as ISIS fighters surrounded them. Despite numerous Department of Defense airdrops over a week long period in August, 1.5 million Iraqis are in need of humanitarian help, according to USAID.

USAID estimates that 10.8 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in Syria; 2.5 million in the Central African Republic, with 900,000 more displaced; and 1.1 million displaced in South Sudan. USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah said:

This is the first time in our agency’s history that we have been called on to manage four large-scale humanitarian responses at once— in addition to reaching other vulnerable populations worldwide and preparing communities ahead of natural disasters.

UNICEF, WFP, UNFPA, UNHCR, CARE USA, World Vision USA, Save the Children, Oxfam America and many other NGOs are currently operating in these four countries. Their contributions have saved thousands from death, and millions of individuals have been helped to get back on their feet. The U.S. government alone has sent more than $2.8 billion in assistance to these four countries; but the battle is nowhere close to being done.

To the 5,000 people who are suffering from the Ebola virus, I feel for you. To my sisters in India, who have no choice but to give contaminated water to their children, I feel for you. To the 5.5 million children affected by the crisis in Syria, I feel for you. To the families in Gaza whose houses have been destroyed, I feel for you. I know my empathy won’t bring your loved ones back, give you a new home, or calm the fear that you have to live with everyday. But I hope my words can reach and inspire my colleagues here in America. I hope my words will make people realize how mundane their issues are compared to those I’ve outlined above. I hope my words can bring us together collectively, so we can finally realize that it isn’t “us and them,” but simply “us.” We are Iraq. We are Syria. We are South Sudan. We are Central African Republic. If they are experiencing a crisis, we are experiencing a crisis. With countries like Gaza, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of Congo on the horizon of reaching a level 3 designation, humanitarian aid is needed now more than ever. We are collectively in crisis, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Mic Drop

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Collectively In Crisis: The Sad State of World Affairs appeared first on Law Street.

The U.N News Centre announced new members of the UN Security Council. Among the new members,  Chad, Lithuania, Nigeria, and Chile, to accept non-permanent seats, was suppose to be Saudi Arabia. The operative word is “was”, as Saudi Arabia turned down the seat, instead adopting a double standard.Released on October 17, the U.N. News Centre announced the new member, along with videos of the event. In an informal interview after the announcement, the Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia Mr. Abdallah Yahya A. Al-Mouallimi congratulated the other elected countries, and spoke about Saudi Arabia’s concerns and interests with its new position. More specifically, Saudi Arabia reiterated its support of the rebel forces in Syria, and also stressed the paramount importance of finding a solution to the Israel- Palestine conflict. He broadcasted, “we take this election very seriously as a responsibility, to be able to contribute to through this very important forum, to peace and security of the world.Our election today is reflection of a longstanding support of moderation and in support of resolving disputes in peaceful means”.

These same troubles, however, caused Saudi Arabia to shift its position. The following day, the country refused the seat. The Saudi Foreign Ministry stated that the United Nation’s inaction toward Syria’s government handle of rebel forces demonstrated the deep-rooted errors with the council, “allowing the ruling regime in Syria to kill its people and burn them with chemical weapons in front of the entire world and without any deterrent or punishment is clear proof and evidence of the UN Security Council’s inability to perform its duties and shoulder its responsibilities.”

Given this position, Saudi Arabia was granted a platform to fix the problems it believed existed in the UN Security Council. Ironically, Saudi Arabia’s critique of UN Security’s inaction did not deter them from following suit. By rejecting the position, Saudi Arabia, too assumes inaction.

[un.org] [aljazeera]

—

Featured image courtesy of [United Nations Photo via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post Inaction is an Action: Saudi Arabia Declines UN Security Council Seat appeared first on Law Street.