Feed on

Post written by Rebecca Arbolino, J.D. expected 2017.

When Pope Francis addressed the seventieth session of the United Nations General Assembly, he spoke primarily about sustainable development and economic exclusion.  In the beginning of the substantive portion of his address, Francis argued for “a true ‘right of the environment.’” Throughout the address, Francis stressed the right to a habitable environment as a fundamental human right: he explained, for example, that “any harm done to the environment, therefore, is harm done to humanity.”

Pope Francis is not the first to argue for the necessity to preserve the environment in order to ensure human rights.  One of the organizations working to advance international climate initiatives, The Human Rights & Climate Change Working Group, purports that “climate change is a human rights issue.”  According to The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “it is now well understood that climate change can and does adversely affect the enjoyment of a broad range of human rights.” In Resolution 18/22 entitled The Effects of Climate Change on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council explained that

climate change poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to people and communities around the world and has adverse implications for the full enjoyment of human rights.

The General Assembly addressed many issues during the session, but the need to counter climate change was the star of the show.  Although tempers flared under the guise of political niceties, leaders who were otherwise in conflict agreed upon the importance of sustainable development initiatives.  During the general debate, for example, both Vladmir Putin and Barack Obama emphasized sustainable development.

More interesting than the coincidence of leaders with a history of diametrical opposition is their agreement upon the means necessary to achieve sustainable development.  According to Obama, we must “harness the potential of clean energy” to address “the ravages of an ever-warming climate.”  Putin also stressed the need for

fundamental and new technologies…which would not damage the environment, but would be in harmony with it.

In accordance with Pope Francis’s call for sustainable development and the end of economic exclusion, the General Assembly unanimously adopted “a sweeping 15-year global plan of action to end poverty, reduce inequalities, and protect the environment.”  The Sustainable Development Goals of Resolution A/70/L.1 include creating

“a world where human habitats are safe, resilient and sustainable and where there is universal access to affordable, reliable and sustainable energy” by 2030.

Pope Francis focused on the need to address climate change, but he reminded us that multilateral agreements are only half of the battle: “solemn commitments…are not enough, even though they are a necessary step toward solutions.”  Despite the unanimity in pledging to combat climate change, a pledge is nothing without the subsequent, corresponding actions.  As Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said before the Sustainable Development Goals passed, “the true test of commitment…will be implementation.”

It remains to be seen whether the Sustainable Development Goals are more than a unanimous but empty pledge.  When the Goals come into effect in 2016, we will start to see whether our world leaders can answer Pope Francis’s call to take

concrete steps and immediate measures for preserving and improving the natural environment.

Dying for Drugs

Post written by Caymary O’Garro, J.D. expected 2016.

In 1997 Iran adopted one of the world’s harshest anti-narcotics laws. At first, it appeared that Iran was being praised by the International community for taking such a strong stance to eliminate and deter drug use. But that has since changed. Iran has been in violation of  international law when it imposed the death penalty for a wide array of drug offenses, including the “trafficking of more than 5kg of narcotics derived from opium or more than 30g of heroin, morphine, cocaine or their chemical derivative” as stated by Amnesty International. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 6(2)) demands that the death penalty be “only imposed for the most serious of crimes” in force at the time of the commission of the crime, and yet an elementary school teacher named Mahmoud Barati was recently sentenced to execution by hanging for allegedly selling drugs.

According to an Iranian Human Rights Organization, Barati was implicated by a drug dealer who believed that Barati had informed on him and so he incriminated Barati, his mother, and sister. Police officials convinced Barati that if he admitted to this crime his family could go free and he would be able to explain to the court that the charges against him were false. The judiciary never considered his statements nor did they consider the letter written by the original drug owner who recanted his accusations against Barati right before his execution was carried out. Barati’s case has also come under scrutiny by the international community because of the unanswered questions about how the Iranian government obtained his “confession.” It is suspected the Barati was subjected to torture and other ill treatment, which would also be a violation of the ICCPR (Article 7). If there was any question as to whether drug offenses fell under the category of “most serious crimes,” the UN Human Rights Committee charged with monitoring government compliance to the ICCPR has said no.

Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR, everyone is entitled to life and a fair trial. A fair trial cannot be had when a country may be using such methods to violate the basic human rights of its citizens. It is understandable that Iran faces a huge drug problem because it is located among major drug smuggling routes. The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime in the past (2011) has agreed to increase its cooperation with Iran over the fight against drugs, but such killings undertaken by Iran are atrocious. As of September of this year Amnesty International has noted that there have been over 700 executions in Iran, most of them resulting from drug convictions. Amnesty International also observed that the deputy of Iran’s Centre for Strategic Research has admitted that the death penalty has not reduced the drug trafficking levels in Iran. The important question then becomes, why does Iran ignore the international community’s call to end the death penalty for drug offense?

Post written by Samantha Miller, J.D. expected 2017

Four Courts, Dublin, IrelandIn late May, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sentenced Ross Ulbricht to life imprisonment for his involvement in running the Silk Road website, which allowed people to anonymously buy and sell drugs, counterfeit money, and other illicit items. Ulbricht allegedly had help operating the website from others including Gary Davis, an Irish citizen. The United States has sought his extradition from Ireland.  Davis, however, suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome and depression. An Irish court is now considering whether Davis, given his disabilities, would face prison conditions, if extradited to the US, that would lead to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Article 3 of the ECHR states that “No one shall be subjected … to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (emphasis added). If Davis can show that his imprisonment in the US would violate Article 3 of the ECHR, then his extradition would be barred, and he would not have to stand trial in the US. In Aswat v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held in 2013 that Aswat’s extradition would amount to the inhuman and degrading treatment that is prohibited by Article 3. If extradited, Aswat was likely to be imprisoned at U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility at Florence, Colorado, a supermax prison. The ECtHR reasoned that given Aswat’s severe paranoid schizophrenia, the harsh prison conditions at the supermax prison would constitute inhuman and degrading treatment. Therefore, the Court barred Aswat’s extradition to the US. (Subsequently, however, the US gave assurances about the prison conditions in which Aswat would be held, the ECtHR found that these assurance to be sufficient enough to allow extradition, and the UK extradited him.)

Davis’s case is distinguishable from Aswat’s case. Unlike Aswat, Davis is free on bond, he has not been institutionalized in a mental health hospital, and little evidence has been offered to show the severity of Davis’s mental illness. Furthermore, Davis’s attorney stated that Davis was likely to be held in a medium security prison in the US rather than in a supermax.  Davis’s counsel still claims that that the conditions in the prison could cause a significant decline in Davis’s mental health. The hearing is scheduled to resume in October. However, given the state of the case now, if the Irish court were to hold that Davis’s extradition violates Article 3, then the court would be lowering the standards for inhuman and degrading treatment, because Davis’s mental condition and the prison condition that Davis would face in the US does not appear to be as severe as the ones that Aswat would have faced if he had been extradited to the US.

So the question that one must ask, is whether having a mental illness makes imprisonment within a medium security prison contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, barring extradition to one of the oldest and greatest democracies with a generally good human rights record?


POST WRITTEN BY: Hannah Hollingsworth, J.D. expected 2017

Michelle Obama

In April, 2014, over 200 girls were kidnapped at school in Chibock, Nigeria by the terrorist group Boko Haram. Boko Haram is a Muslim extremist group who oppose western education. The outrage at the lack of attention by the Nigerian and international leaders to the missing girls led to the social media #BringBackOurGirls movement. Everyone from Michelle Obama to Jessica Biel posted a selfie holding a piece of paper with #BringBackOurGirls.

Over a year later, the attack is widely known and talked about but what change did the hashtag bring? Boko Haram, according to an Amnesty International report, has abducted over 2,000 women and girls. The Chibok schoolgirls are not the first or last to be taken by the terrorist group. However, the social media movement helped bring attention to the major violations of human rights and international law going on in Nigeria at the hands of Boko Haram. The girls are still missing, over 500 days later. Some of the girls are married off, others taught to fight, others killed, raped, and sold.

What is the international community doing to resolve the issue? The ICC has been investigating Nigeria since 2013 for failure to deal properly with the crimes committed within their boarders, but has yet to bring anyone to justice for the atrocities that Boko Haram have committed in Nigeria. The Security Council added Boko Haram to their Al-Qaida sanctions list. This makes it more difficult for supplies to be sold to the group without repercussions on suppliers. While Boko Haram is weakened, they are still active and still have our girls. These war criminals need to be stopped with more action than is currently being taken.

While President Johnathan Goodluck was in office, he did little to address this issue. Now that a new president has been elected the international community needs to step up and take action. Under the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, the international community has a duty to take more effective action to resolve these war crimes and human rights violations. I do not necessarily advocate violating Nigerian state sovereignty, but the state has not publically denied help and therefore may consent. Issues such as these quickly cross international borders and become international issues. When terror strikes a nation so forcefully, as Boko Haram, people flee their nation to find more stable living conditions. The issues in Nigeria have directly affected the surrounding countries, Chad, Cameroon, and Niger, with displaced peoples and fear that Boko Haram may cross the Nigerian boarder to attack their schools. Kidnapping women and children civilians violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949, Article 8(2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and several other multilateral human rights treaties. The war crimes and human rights violations need to be stopped, not just acknowledged.

What is the next step? Do you think that the international community has a duty to stop the human rights violations going on in Nigeria? If not, when is the issue big enough to demand international help?

Related documents:

Taser-x26Steve White, Head of the Police Federation of England and Wales, announced today on BBC Radio 4 that he wants to put a TASER in every front-line officer’s pocket.  White is not alone in pursuing the standardization of the TASER in Europe; Italy’s commissioni Giustizia e Affari costituzionali della Camera dei Deputati (commission for Justice and Constitutional Affairs of the Chamber of Deputies) has also recently moved to enact a similar measure into lawTASER International’s website claims that 625,000 of its devices, used by nearly 17,000 agencies in over 100 countries, saving a life from what would otherwise be a lethal use of force by law enforcement every 30 minutes.

While White’s proposal is by no means a cure-all — TASERs can be ineffective in close quarters and Amnesty International has cautioned that they are not as ‘non-lethal’ as the stun gun industry might claim — they can be an effective method for saving lives when police receive training in correctly prioritizing their use.  In 2010, for instance, a grand jury in San Mateo, California concluded that TASER devices can be a use of force alternative to the lethal force of a firearm. In doing so, the grand jury noted the Sheriff’s Department modified its policy to require a higher threshold for the deployment and activation of TASER devices by its deputies by placing their priority lower on the ladder than “specialty impact munitions” (e.g. rubber bullets or 12-gauge bean bags), but higher on the ladder than the use of lethal force.

Interpol has received similar guidance.  In a report shared with the intergovernmental police organization, the Canadian Police Research Centre (CPRC) noted several medical tests and conclusions conducted in the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia.  The study noted that “Definitive research or evidence does not exist that implicates a causal relationship between the use of CEDs and death,” citing “excited delirium” as a more common cause of death from TASERs than cardiac arrest.  Additionally, a Nevada study cited by the Centre noted that the TASER is ”well below the level established as ‘safe’ by the federal [U.S.] government and International European standards in approving such devices as electrified cattle fence, and the risk of cardiac complications is low.”

In an interview with the Huffington Post in December of 2014, Rick Smith, the CEO of TASER International, suggested that TASER devices could have saved lives in recent police activity that resulted in the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York:

[Ferguson] would have been the perfect situation for a Taser. Now, I can’t go back and say that [Officer Wilson] would have used it. I wasn’t there. But, big, unarmed, aggressive people, that’s the number one use case for Taser devices. We want to get a Taser on every cop’s belt so that they have every option to use before they have to go to a gun.

Should there be an international mandate to require the use of TASER and other non-lethal devices prior to the use of lethal force by police? Are TASERs an effective method for controlling out-of-control arrestees and suspects, as TASER International and some international law enforcement bodies have suggested?  Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Related Readings:

Tasers for all front-line officers’ – Police Federation, BBC News (Jan. 31, 2015).

Decreto stadi, primo sì per la pistola elettrica alla polizia, palermomania.it (Sept. 30, 2014) (title – roughly translated:  ”Decree for stages, yes for first electric gun to police”)

Times Police Have Used TASER CEWs in the Field, TASER International (last visited January 31, 2015).

Police Taser use more than doubles – Home Office, BBC News (Sept. 10, 2013).

Tasers – potentially lethal and easy to abuse, Amnesty International (Dec. 16, 2008).

TASERS: Standardizing to Save Lives and Reduce Injuries, San Mateo, Calif. Grand Jury Findings (2011).

Dave Young, Specialty Impact Munitions: design purpose and effect, correctionsone.com (Feb. 19, 2008).

Drazen Manojlovic et al., Technical Report TR-01-2006: Review of Conducted Energy Devices, Canadian Police Research Centre (Aug. 22, 2005) (publishing the findings, made for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, on Interpol’s website).

Natalie Pace, Could Tasers and Cameras Have Saved the Life of Michael Brown? Huffington Post (Dec. 5, 2014).

POST WRITTEN BY: Walder Thame (J.D. ’16), Pace Law School

Sierra Leone was embroiled in an 11 year Civil War from 1991-2002 that began as rebel forces attempted to overthrow the government. The consequences were far-reaching and severe: There were deaths in the thousands, amputations, systematic rape, and destruction of homes as well as the forced relocation of thousands to neighboring countries. It was truly one of the most devastating events in modern history. War Don Don, one of the most riveting pieces of work I have seen, documented the trial and conviction of Issa Sesay, following the disarmament of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebel group.

The movie depicted a thought provoking dynamic of the Special Court of Sierra Leone as it adjudicated crimes at the international level. For me, one of the most compelling parts of the film is the role of politics. As I watched, I started to think of the justice system in America, particularly the idea that the courts should be free of influence from other political branches and the notion that the accused should be afforded a fair trial. I don’t necessarily agree with the way justice was carried out in the trial of Sesay, who was the acting commander of the RUF, credited with ordering disarmament and restoring peace in the country.

My contentions rest primarily on the Special Court’s handling of the testimony proffered by prosecution witnesses and the manner in which the Special Court was organized. Some of the witnesses received monetary compensation and even relocation to first world countries for their testimony. I think the defense should have been allowed to inquire deeper into the possibility of bias, and the Court should have accorded weight to each witness’s testimony, based on that possibility. During the trial, defense counsel attempted to uncover bias but the Court stopped it. This I believe was an error since it can be assumed that those who were compensated for their testimony had everything to gain. Sierra Leone is one of the poorest countries in the world. Suffering is immense, food is scarce and prospects for the future are dim. Therefore, it is quite plausible that witnesses who testified had hidden agendas and as such an extensive defense inquiry should have been allowed.

Additionally, I believe that the organization of the Special Court was not ideal. I don’t think the hybrid model was the best way to decide this case. Not only was there destruction of lives and property, there was destruction of the human spirit as some of the survivors lost faith in the compassion of mankind. Based on the heinous nature of the crimes committed, I would expect the Special Court to be comprised solely of international judges. That was not the case however. Instead, as shown in War Don Don, the Court consisted of a mix of domestic and international judges and staff. Consequently, judges presiding over the proceedings had more likely than not first-hand experience or knew someone who was devastated by the alleged atrocities. Thus, I don’t think the defendant was given a fair trial because impartiality was severely compromised. After all, under the black robes and authoritative voices are regular people susceptible to the emotions stemming from great tragedy.

This is not to say that the Special Court lacked integrity or that the defendant was innocent. However, having a panel of international judges would have assured impartiality and increased the integrity of the Court’s decision. Additionally, I believe that the trial was not one marked by accuracy but rather a politically driven engine that desperately needed to hold someone accountable, anyone, even at the expense of not uncovering the whole truth.

POST WRITTEN BY: Sanjeevi Seshadri, 4th Year Candidate, Bachelor of Laws (Hons.) at National Law University, Delhi; and Kanwar Vivswan, 4th Year Candidate, Bachelor of Laws (Hons.) at National Law University, Delhi

Pace International Law Review is honored to feature State Dinners & Summons: Mr. Modi’s trip to New York from our guest bloggers Sanjeevi Seshadri and Kanwar Vivswan. Both Sanjeevi Seshadri and Kanwar Vivswan are from New Dehli, India and are 4th year candidates for Bachelor of Laws at National Law University in Delhi. Sanjeevi Seshadri hopes to pursue a career in litigation and is very interested in international investment law, international criminal law and the law of treaties. Kanwar Vivswan wishes to pursue a career at the UN and is interested in public international law, international environmental law and international law for protection of intellectual property. Theirpost, “State Dinners & Summons: Mr. Modi’s trip to New York,” looks at how summons was issued in September 25, 2014 by A New York Federal District Court pursuant to a complain by the American Justice Center, which sought compensatory and punitive damages for crimes against humanity, cruel and unusual punishment and other allegations perpetrated by Narendra Modi, the current Prime Minster of India. The post analyzes how the complainant has failed to establish that civil universal jurisdiction has the same scope as criminal jurisdiction in enforcing these international norms:

In 2005, the United States of America denied Mr. Modi a visa while he was the Chief Minister of Gujarat. Today, Mr. Modi is the Prime Minister of India and is a state guest of the United States, yet, he still faces challenges in the land of the free. A New York federal District Court issued a summons to Mr. Modi on September 25, 2014. The summons was issued pursuant to a complaint by the American Justice Centre [AJC], an American NGO, that sought compensatory and punitive damages for “crimes against humanity; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; extrajudicial killing; wrongful deaths; negligence; public nuisance; battery; and intentional infliction of emotional distress” allegedly perpetrated by Mr. Modi.

The complainant states that under international law, Mr. Modi can be prosecuted for the said crimes in the U.S. under the principle of universal jurisdiction, whereby a state may exercise jurisdiction over serious crimes (such as genocide, torture and war crimes) even if there exists no connection, based on territory or nationality.

In this post, it will be argued that the complainant has failed to establish in the lawsuit whether civil universal jurisdiction (under which damages are being claimed in this case) has the same scope as criminal jurisdiction in enforcing these international law norms. In this regard, we argue that the summons against Mr. Modi is not sustainable under international law. . .

Take a moment to enjoy reading the full article State Dinners & Summons: Mr. Modi’s trip to New York. If you would like to contact the authors of this post, Sanjeevi Seshadri can be reached at seshadri.sanjeevi@gmail.com, and Kanwar Vivswan can be reached at Kvsingh92@gmail.com.

Image Source: Rediff News


David Bergman was recently convicted on contempt charges by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). Bergman was sentenced to a symbolic “simple imprisonment” and a fine of $56. The charges were out of comments he made in three different blog posts about cases that were before the ICT.  Specifically, the court looked at one blog post that questioned the number of dead in the 1971 war.  The court stated that the questioning of this number Some observers have estimated that the number could be anywhere between 300,000 to 3 million. The court found that Bergman’s questioning of the number of people killed to have no legitimate public interest. It further noted that, his questioning “disgraces and demeans the nation’s wishes and  holy emotion and that it was based on malicious intent designed to scandalize the court.” Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Commission of Jurists obviously disagree. They do not take a position on how many people were killed but do state that the topic is something that all international criminal tribunals have to deal with and was completely legitimate for Bergman to question. The three groups have also raised concerns about the language of the opinion that gives the court broad discretion to keep prosecuting journalist for criticizing the ICT.

The ICT is meant to serve as a war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh. Its purpose is “to bring to account those responsible for grave violation of international law during the country 1971 war of independence.”  The ICT has used contempt of court proceedings against some of its critics. There have been concerns over the procedural aspects of the court including concerns about sours of law and rules of procedure. The conviction of Bergman is just another concern that has arisen. Many observers including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and International Commission of Jurists are concerned that the conviction narrows the ability for outsiders to comment on the proceedings at the ICT. Richard Bennet, a director at Amnesty International, stated “Rather than respecting the right to freedom of expression, the ICT has used contempt of court proceedings against some of its critics, and those who are convicted have no right of appeal.” The decision is also in direct conflict with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Bangladesh is a party to. The ICCPR states that all “branches of governmental authority, including the judiciary, must respect and protect freedom of expression. Any restrictions on free speech must be necessary and strictly proportionate to protect national security, public order, public health, morals, or the rights of others”.  It is really not clear here that Bergman’s blog posts affected national security, public order, public health, morals, or the rights of others has specifically stated by the ICCPR.

Should it be within the ICT, a war crime tribunal, jurisdiction to convict a journalist for his blog posts?

What should the international community do to prevent future journalist from being persecuted?

Source: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/12/05/bangladesh-conviction-journalist-chills-speech

image: http://www.bdchronicle.com/detail/news/32/4627


The Cambodia government needs to take action and close all facilities arbitrarily holding “undesirables.” According to Human Rights Watch, the abusive nature of these centers was highlighted on November 26, 2014 when a man, Phea, who was arbitrarily detained and denied medical treatment, died at the Prey Speu center. On November 2, 2014, authorities brought Phea to the Prey Speu’s Po Senchey Vocational Training Center. According to Human Rights Watch: “Phea had been picked up during ‘sweeps’ by security forces in Phnom Penh to clear homeless people and others considered ‘undesirable’ off the streets prior to Cambodia’s traditional Water Festival being held on November 5-7. When the police took Phea off the streets he was seriously ill and was covered with infected wounds all over his body. However, the center staff made no efforts to provide him with any medical treatment and refused to take him elsewhere for treatment. He died on November 26, 2014 and the police made no investigations into his death.

According to the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides that medical care and treatment shall be provided to detainees whenever necessary and free of charge. Whenever a person dies in detention, “an inquiry into the cause of death … shall be held by a judicial or other authority.” In addition, “[t]he findings of such inquiry … shall be made available upon request.”

The Cambodian government needs to take action to protect these vulnerable people. These centers need to be closed immediately because they are not providing individuals with medical treatment. Additionally, why has the Cambodian government not investigated the death of Phea? What do you think needs to be done? If the government does not close these centers what can be done to enforce the United Nations Body of Principles?

Naly Pilorge, the director of Licadho stated: “Keeping Cambodia’s detention centers open is an endless invitation to the authorities to violate the human rights of people deemed ‘undesirable.’ The systematic abuse of Cambodia’s most vulnerable people occurs at these centers and the government should close them immediately.” Do you agree? Why or why not?

Additionally, Licadho, Human Rights Watch, and other human rights organizations have documented torture and systematic cruel and inhumane treatment, as well as rapes, killings, and other abuses at the Prey Speu center since it became operational in 2004. So why has the Cambodian government failed to take action? How else can these organizations get the government to take action?


Source: Human Rights Watch

Image: WN.com

Tags: Cambodia, Cambodia Government, Human Rights Watch, Licadho, Naly Pilorge, Phea, United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Undesirables, Prey Speu’s Po Senchey Vocational Training Center


As if being a refugee wasn’t difficult enough, millions of Syrians now have the mystery of where there next meal comes from hanging over their head.  Earlier this week, the World Food Programme was forced to put on hold food vouchers for the Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt.  While a lack of food vouchers can never come at a good time, this is especially difficult as a fierce and cold winter approaches.

If the World Food Programme does not receive the necessary funding, it will affect both the refugees and the hosting nations.  While the hosting nations are crucial to the refugees, the loss in funding has lead to many pointing fingers, namely at donors, wealthier countries and the United Nations itself. The WFP pleads to the donors to stay true to their commitments and critics look to other countries to provide additional support both financially and as providing safe havens.

In hopes of providing support, the UN has asked the public to donate at least $1 to cover the $64 million needed by December to support the Syrian Refugees.  While appealing to the souls of the generous may provide some support, there still remains the question, why haven’t other countries opened their borders to these refugees? This question is posed mainly at the European Union member states, who have yet to host any refugees.  Many feel the refugees have set up base in “ill-equipped” countries.

At this point we must ask, what duty, legal or moral, do better equipped countries have to those in need?  This is a broad question that applies to many situations, but it also furthers the inquiry if support is to be provided, how much and what kind is appropriate?  Should there be protocol for this situations? Or do we have to rely on international and non-profit organizations to set the standards?

Sources: ABC, The Post, Maps.


Older Posts »