.png)
Albert Gunnison
Meet Our Social Affairs Reporters
He is passionate about global affairs and policy journalism, which he writes about through a human rights lens. At Lawyer Archives, Albert hopes to continue documenting the legal injustices faced by vulnerable populations over the world.
Grace Chan
Law can be used to create a cohesive community, yet it can also be used as a tool of oppression. She believes equal access to legal education and the legal profession is important to create a fair and just world for all.
Qi Guo / Olivia
Grace aspires to become a human rights lawyer, she hopes to learn more in-depth knowledge of international law and contribute to the global justice system in the future.
Reported by Albert Gunnison
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
The Chinese-Indian Border Dispute Goes Digital
As China and India grow closer to all-out conflict on their Himalayan border, decades-old protocol between the two militaries has eroded. Thousands of troops now stand ready to engage on each side of the “Line of Actual Control” in Ladakh, a disputed frontier on which both sides have attempted to build defenses in recent years. Following violent brawls in May and June that killed 20 Indian soldiers, each side accused the other of firing warning shots.
​
Now, a digital frontier in the struggle has emerged. India has banned 118 Chinese apps to slow Chinese soft power over the Indian market and retaliate against alleged data theft by Chinese authorities. The newly banned apps include massively popular PUBG Mobile, which has over 50 million Indian users, to join social media apps TikTok and WeChat, which India banned in June. The scale is enormous; before the ban, an estimated 200 million Indians accessed TikTok monthly.
​
Unlike in 2019, when TikTok successfully repealed an Indian government ban that sought to restrict inappropriate content on its platform, India’s current bans on Chinese apps will be difficult to undo. They now carry global precedent; the United States issued a conditional ban on TikTok in August, and Australia, Japan, Turkey, and the European Union are expected to pursue a range of investigations and lawsuits into the app in the coming months.
​
India’s reasons for their new digital policy are practical, to be sure. The Indian military cannot match that of China, and its rising COVID-19 case rate, which crossed five million on September 16th, means the government cannot afford a costly military conflict. By denying Chinese tech companies their access to the Indian market, India has effectively struck back against Chinese military developments in Ladakh, without any bloodshed, and with a string of other powerful countries likely following closely behind.
Published on 26/09/2020
Reported by Grace Chan
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Brexit: Deal or no Deal?
On 31th January, the United Kingdom (UK) officially exited the European Union (EU) after signing an EU Withdrawal Agreement. In the next eleven months, the UK would enter a transition period where trade deals with the EU will be negotiated further on. Currently, customs, immigration and market practices between the UK and the EU remain unchanged.
Although the UK has already signed an EU Withdrawal Agreement, which is binding under international law, the UK government has introduced the Internal Markets Bill on 9th September. The UK government asserts that different parts of the UK would be under different rules when they trade with the EU. Under the current EU Withdrawal Agreement, Northern Ireland will still be following certain rules under the EU customs code, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom. The Internal Market Bills was designed to unify trade rules with the EU across the UK and ensure that the UK internal market functions without barriers. Yet if the Bill is passed, it would breach international law.
There has been much opposition to the Bill. Conservatives and former Prime Minister Sir John Major have voiced concerns that the bill will damage the UK’s reputation for respecting the rule of law and add difficulties to future trade negotiations. The First Minister of Northern Ireland and the EU have also criticized the Bill as destroying trust between governments entering International Treaties. The Scottish and Welsh governments have denounced the bill, preferring to rely on mutually agreed policy frameworks to resolve internal market barriers.
With widespread opposition from its nations and the EU alike, the UK government should honor the EU Withdrawal Agreement instead of reneging on its promises. Trade difficulties should be resolved by continued deliberations between the nations. The EU should not be responsible for the complications within the UK as a result of Brexit.
Published on 24/09/2020
Reported by Qi Guo / Olivia
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
UK Intends to Break the Brexit Agreement
Recently, a bill that could potentially breach the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement has passed the first Commons hurdle in the UK Parliament. Johnson won the so-called second reading parliamentary vote on the bill 340 to 263. The Internal Market Bill is a piece of legislation intended to fill the vacuum created by the end of EU laws and standards. However, the controversial bit comes with the inclusion of power for the government to amend parts of the withdrawal agreement, notably over preventing a post-Brexit hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
According to the government, the Internal Market Bill is designed to “protect jobs and trade” within the UK after the transition period of leaving the EU. In terms of the power to change the agreement unilaterally, the UK said it would honour the deal and was simply offering clarifications to avoid any future legal difficulties. The breach of international law is already opposed by many Tory MPs, who created an amendment to the bill under scrutiny in the Parliament. Even if the amendment fails to pass, the bill is likely to get a bruising time in the House of Lords (the upper house of the Parliament able to amend the law when inconsistent with the government's manifesto promises).
The passing of the bill could be extremely damaging to the United Kingdom's international reputation and potentially deterring other countries from entering into agreements with the UK in the future. Now, the EU has made a clear warning as to reducing chances for a trade deal and also considers legal actions towards the breach of the withdrawal agreement.
Published on 23/09/2020
Reported by Albert Gunnison
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Afghanistan and the Taliban’s Peace Talks
The Taliban and the Afghan government met in Doha, Qatar on September 12th for the first in a round of U.S.-brokered meetings to discuss the future of governance in Afghanistan. The Doha conference follows a U.S.-Taliban agreement in February, in which the American military announced its impending withdrawal and the Taliban agreed to halt terrorist activities in the region.
​
In bringing both sides to the table, the U.S. hopes to secure a joint governance strategy and a ceasefire before it fully ends its involvement in the 19-year-long war, which began shortly after the World Trade Center bombings of September 11th, 2001. It is impossible to deny the war-weariness felt by Afghan government officials and Taliban leaders alike; the war has killed an estimated 157,000 people since the invasion, 43,000 of which were civilians.
As the peace talks unfold, the shape of Afghan society, and particularly the livelihood of Afghan women and girls, hangs in the balance.
Working Afghan women who first secured jobs this century risk being fiercely marginalized should the Taliban regain the societal power they once held. Under previous norms, girls were – and in some areas, still are – broadly banned from attending school, pursuing careers, and enjoying life outside of arranged marriages.
​
Critical questions like these will shape the Doha conference, as the UN Security Council’s Afghanistan mission and the Afghan government will attempt to put renewed pressure on the Taliban to compromise before the Americans fully exit. If last year’s U.S.-Taliban negotiations are any indication, the conference could last well over a year, given the complexity of issues at hand.
​
Despite international pressure to deliver a quick compromise, the newest round of intra-Afghan negotiations will take months, if not years, to implement a sustainable compromise on the government’s structure and basic rights-protecting systems.
Published on 22/09/2020
Reported by Grace Chan
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
The Race for a Coronavirus Vaccine
Since the emergence of COVID-19, researchers have raced to develop a safe and effective vaccine. As of current, the World Health Organization has tracked 170 candidate vaccines in development. Once the vaccines have been approved after passing through clinical trials, they can be used in mass immunization programs so the public can develop immunity to the coronavirus. Although the process sounds straightforward, a few of its challenges need to be addressed.
To start with, rigorous clinical trials require time. Normally, vaccine development is a lengthy process of 5 stages, with an increasing number of participants joining as the trial progresses. Successful trials can take a decade. The testing stages have been shortened to months for coronavirus vaccines. Yet, these raise concerns over the integrity of clinical trials. Politicians like Donald Trump have made promises for vaccines to be available before November as part of their campaign. This may put unnecessary pressure on researchers to rush through testing but sacrifice the quality of the vaccine.
Even if a vaccine is successfully developed, immunizing the public poses another difficulty. Anti-vaccination movements, based on beliefs that vaccines are harmful, may lead to less people being vaccinated. Another concern is vaccine nationalism. Due to rising geopolitical tensions such as the US-China Trade War, countries may not be willing to share their technology with other nations. Moreover, richer countries may have the advantage of buying out the vaccine supply while poor nations need to deal with the brunt of the pandemic.
To win the fight against the coronavirus, we must recognize that vaccines are only part of the solution. While patiently awaiting a successful vaccine, arranging the logistics of distribution, popularizing immunization programs and keeping up good hygiene practices should be a priority for governments and international organizations.
Published on 21/09/2020
Reported by Qi Guo / Olivia
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
California Wildfire Forebodes Environmental Deterioration Due to Climate Change
Recently, the wildfire in the west coast of the United States has drawn attention worldwide. In California, since the beginning of the year, wildfires have burnt a total of 4.5 million acres -larger than the State of Connecticut. Since August 15, when California’s fire activity elevated, the fires span beyond California into Oregon and Washington, with at least 28 deaths and a dozen missing.
In Oregon, more than half a million residents are forced to evacuate. The smoke produced by the wildfire continues to blanket the west coast as well. Satellite images show smoke covering much of the Pacific coastline, with major cities seeing very high Air Quality Index numbers, indicating unhealthy air. Skies on the west coast also turned orange due to the smoke.
It is said that California's wildfire year could be the worst in decades, and the reason behind it is climate change. Since the 1970s, California wildfires have increased 8 times in size and the annual area burned by fires has increased by nearly 500%. Due to human-caused climate change, temperature extremes are climbing higher and the vegetation is drier, which affects fire behaviour.
The extreme wet and dry cycle allowed vegetation to grow back after the 2017 fires, and then dry out enough to burn again rather than act as a natural fire break. The underlying heating is also making these conflagrations bigger and more explosive. On top of that, the massive fire is hard to put out unless widespread precipitation falls on the west coast.
Alongside the wildfire in Australia earlier this year, these wildfires are clear indicators for climate change, especially global warming. As individuals, we should start embracing a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. And for governments, actions must be made for the dire need to halt environmental deterioration.
Published on 20/09/2020
Reported by Albert Gunnison
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Yemen, COVID-19, and the Point of No Return
Yemen has undergone two of the world’s leading crises long before COVID-19 descended upon the Gulf nation in April. The first is a five-year-long civil war between the government of President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi and the Houthi rebel movement, which has killed 100,000 Yemenis as of October 2019, including over 12,000 civilians. The second is a cholera epidemic, the likes of which the world has never seen. Yemen’s 2.18 million cases and 3,750 deaths – as of January – represent triple the cases of the next largest ever outbreak. These events alone have led the UN to confirm Yemen as “the world’s single worst humanitarian crisis” in February 2019.
Now, the added threat of COVID-19 looks to decimate Yemen’s still-functioning government services and push it to the brink of failed-nation status. Each self-proclaimed government offers conflicting numbers on the extent of the virus, neither of which can be deemed accurate since less than 3,000 tests were conducted through May. UN experts assume widespread community transmission and estimate that up to 230,000 lives may be lost before the disease is through.
​
Domestic and international health experts lack the resources to address the virus. Within Yemen, a science vacuum has emerged. Many Yemeni scientists have fled the country amidst the military conflict, stalling nationwide medical research that might have addressed the novel coronavirus, while the Houthi government refuses to recognize the need for a health sector overhaul.
Even notwithstanding threats to its millions of malnourished children and internally displaced persons, Yemen is on track to become a failed state in the coming months. Its population requires immediate international support for its three world-leading crises at a time when each nation’s health experts are fixed on combating coronavirus outbreaks in their own communities.
Published on 19/09/2020
Reported by Grace Chan
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Facebook, Twitter, and the US Presidential Election
Last week, Facebook and Twitter announced that they have successfully dismantled a misinformation network around Peace Data, which was part of a Russia influence operation during the 2016 US Presidential Election. This was in response to criticisms that the social media giants allowed election interference by foreign powers on their platforms.
​
In 2019, a report by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller revealed that Russian agencies have created accounts in a bid to sway the results of US elections. The report notes that the accounts bought political advertising, organised political activities, and released information mocking candidates. The continuous manipulation of political information may lead to changes in voter behaviour and election outcomes.
​
Twitter and Facebook have recently taken measures to curb unwanted political influence on their sites. Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook will not accept new political advertisements in the final week of the US Presidential Election. While Twitter has a policy of not accepting advertisements promoting political content or political figures, it has also been more active in labelling posts with false claims in the run-up to the election.
Although new policies are overdue and welcome, they are hardly sufficient.
Critics have pointed out loopholes in policies – this means that political misinformation can still spread in the form of posts on personal accounts, as in the case of Peace Data. Furthermore, mere warning labels do not stop the circulation of false information. This can be particularly harmful if the posts pertain to voting procedures or election results.
​
To protect the integrity of the elections, social media sites should take more drastic action, such as deleting posts with false information and suspending accounts violating these regulations. They should also consider working with state agencies against organised misinformation campaigns. Democracy cannot be allowed to crumble due to the inaction of the few.
Published on 17/09/2020
Reported by Qi Guo / Olivia
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Extinction Rebellion: Representation of the Need for Environmental Protection
The global environmental movement Extinction Rebellion is recently at the centre of attention in many countries. It identifies itself as a movement using non-violent direct action to persuade governments to act justly on the climate emergency. They have three main demands:
​
1. Tell the truth: governments must declare a climate and ecological emergency.
2. Second, act now: governments must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2025.
3. Go beyond politics: governments must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly, made up of randomly selected people representing a cross-section of society on climate and ecological justice.
To get attention from the governments, Extinction Rebellion has practised some very extreme moves. Activists glued themselves to trains and the entrance of the London Stock Exchange. German protesters chained themselves outside Angela Merkel's Chancellery in Berlin. Major roads in cities like London and New York were brought to a standstill due to massive protests.
On top of these are more extreme measures. Last October, protesters sprayed fake blood over the Treasury building in central London. In early September, protesters blockaded printworks used by Rupert Murdoch’s News UK, publisher of The Times and The Sun. Such actions were accused by Prime Minister Boris Johnson as an 'attack to free press'.
The actions by Extinction Rebellion have led to massive critics. Considered as 'environmental fanatics', the coercive measures adopted in the movement were accused of threatening the way of life and caused major fiscal losses. Even though those who disrupted the normal functioning of the city must be punished, it is also necessary for the government to give a clear response and pay more attention to environmental protection. The dire need to save the planet must be emphasised and put into action.
Published on 16/09/2020
Reported by Albert Gunnison
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Serbia and Kosovo Exchange Diverse Concessions in U.S. Deal
Serbia and Kosovo signed a U.S.-brokered deal on September 4th to partly normalize economic relations, open embassies in Jerusalem, and pause their struggle over Kosovo’s European Union membership bid for a year.
The deal will establish the third and fourth Jerusalem-based embassies in Israel after the U.S. and Guatemala founded their own in 2018, and will open lucrative rail and infrastructure opportunities for Serbian and Kosovar workers. Additional measures include religious protections for Kosovo-based Orthodox Serbs and an implied ban on Huawei telecommunications material.
​
The two nations’ foreign policy goals divide more than they overlap. Kosovo seeks recognition from Israel – which it has now secured – and more open economic ties with its European neighbors. Serbia opposes an independent Kosovo, which it argues is truly part of Serbia, and pursues closer trade relations with the U.S., even while it deepens ties with Russia and China.
​
The deal also makes future EU membership considerably more difficult. As an EU spokesperson pointed out on September 7th, “There is no EU member state with an embassy in Jerusalem,” and Brussels’ long-held position is to negotiate their Jerusalem policy alongside the Palestinians. In this move, Serbia and Kosovo also risk their allyship with Turkey, whose foreign ministry has since expressed outrage with their decision to effectively sideline Palestinian negotiators.
​
In this light, the deal is less of a historic commitment than the Americans would like to believe. It complicates Serbian and Kosovar commitments to the EU and Turkey while failing to genuinely move the needle on inter-Balkan reconciliation.
Published on 15/09/2020
Reported by Grace Chan
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Aftershocks of the Beirut Blast
On 4 August, a warehouse in the Port of Beirut containing 2750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate exploded. The blast caused 7000 injuries, widespread property damage, and was felt in other European countries hundreds of miles away.
​
The cause of the explosion is still under investigation. Preliminary enquiries revealed that the ammonium nitrate was confiscated cargo from a ship involved in an import dispute. Custom officials warned about storing large amounts of explosives as early as 2013, but they were repeatedly ignored by the judicial officials in charge of the case. Poor safety measures were also named as a factor.
​
The explosion has worsened the humanitarian and political crises in Lebanon. Beirut’s hospitals were already overwhelmed by the coronavirus pandemic in May, and the economic downturn has left 75% of the population in need of aid. After the explosion, the influx of survivors looking for medical care in undamaged hospitals is stretching the medical system to its limits, and according to the United Nations, 300,000 civilians were left without food or shelter.
​
At the same time, mass protests have erupted across Lebanon demanding the resignation of the ruling elite. As of current, Prime Minister Hassan Diab and his cabinet have resigned, yet the president Michel Aoun remains in power. The Lebanese government has long been accused of elitism and corruption, squandering public funds to protect sectarian interests while failing to provide necessities such as a reliable supply of electricity.
The explosion is a great tragedy, but it is merely symptomatic of Lebanon’s unaddressed political problems. While providing aid and reconstructing the city should be a priority, the international community should also take this opportunity to push for an independent and democratic government for the sustainable prosperity of Lebanon.
Published on 14/09/2020
Reported by Qi Guo / Olivia
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Global Economy in the COVID-19 Pandemic
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the global economy has seen a significant drop. According to World Bank forecasts, the global economy will shrink by 5.2% this year, which would be the deepest recession since World War II. For the biggest economic entities, the losses are even more severe, and their measures for economic recovery are also at the centre of attention.
In the U.S., COVID cases continue to rise. Following the lockdown, the GDP for the second-quarter plunged by 31.7%. To combat the economic recession, The U.S. economy added around 8 million jobs in the past three months. Even as hiring slows, U.S. unemployment dropped from 10.2% to 8.4%. The overall economic recovery is predicted to be 'K-shaped', where retail and Wall Street banks benefit while shops and restaurants and other service profession workers lag, which inevitably deepens economic inequality.
Similarly, the UK falls into recession as GDP dropped 20.4% in Q2. The UK government started to conduct measures to boost economic recovery. For the service industry, especially restaurants, the 'Eat Out to Help Out' scheme enabled a 50% discount on food from Monday to Wednesday in August. Meanwhile, a credible back-to-office plan is urged to persuade more workers to work in the office. Students are also obliged to return to reopened schools for workers to return to work.
However, China outperformed most G20 members in Q2. Following the 6.8% shrank in Q1, the economy grew 3.2% in Q2. China’s recovery was boosted by government investment and the reopening of some trading partners helped to support exports. Service industries picked up as the government relaxed its lockdown measures. In this pandemic, countries should not put the cart before the horse -COVID protective measures still need to be prioritised along with building a solid foundation for economic recovery.
Published on 13/09/2020
Reported by Albert Gunnison
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
A Working-Class Revolution Brews in Belarus
In the month since Belarusian President Aleksander Lukashenko claimed victory in a highly disputed election, anti-government protests have reached 200,000 strong, and even his remaining supporters show signs of abandoning him.
Thousands of automobile and tractor manufacturers, whose backing Mr. Lukashenko has counted on during his 26-year reign, have now joined the nationwide marches, disturbed by Mr. Lukashenko’s use of tear gas, rubber and live bullets, and widespread torture to punish dissidents. Until now, the movement has resembled the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement in record-breaking size, its social media savvy, and its spontaneity.
​
Belarus’ command-and-control economy has long been deemed viable because of Mr. Lukashenko’s support among farmers, machinery producers, and oil refinery workers. These workers underpin the nation’s economy and are nearly all publicly employed.
​
The central government controls 80% of all industry and is responsible for over 50% of the GDP, having created state-owned businesses which raised the standard of living in Belarus above its ex-Soviet neighbors in the late 1990s. Moreover, Mr. Lukashenko has secured consistent, preferential access to Russian oil and energy markets and has established Belarus as a bridge between Russia and other European countries.
​
Today, however, a stagnant economy has made the workers who fueled Belarus’ post-Soviet rise more susceptible to widespread anti-government sentiment. Average monthly wages lie at a dismal $400 – a decline from $458 in April. Economic forecasts predict a 2% contraction rate given the impact of the novel coronavirus, and Mr. Lukashenko refuses to implement meaningful public health measures to counter the virus.
​
If Mr. Lukashenko’s presidency is to endure, he will need to convince working-class people that their mediocre economic standing is worth his authoritarianism. Should he falter in that goal, the brewing working-class movement will look to overthrow his government for good.
Published on 12/09/2020
Reported by Grace Chan
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Central Bank Digital Currencies and a Cashless Society
Earlier this year, the Sweden Riksbank started assessing the use of e-krona, a digital version of the national currency, in everyday activities. It joins a growing list of countries interested in developing their own central bank digital currency (CBDC). The United Kingdom, China, Japan have all expressed interest in the development of CBDCs as legal tender.
​
Some have noted similarities between CBDCs and cryptocurrencies as virtual currencies -however, they are quite distinct in their issuance and usage. CBDCs are national currencies in digital form issued by a central bank, while cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are issued by private companies in exchange for solving algorithms, and their value fluctuates according to the demands of the community.
​
There are several reasons to explain central banks’ interest in CBDCs. The proliferation of third-party payment tools has led to a decline in cash usage. The popularity of cashless payments soared during the COVID-19 pandemic when online payments were encouraged. More than 50% of all businesses in the United Kingdom are now cashless.
A digital currency issued by the central bank can offer consumers a safe medium to conduct transactions, without the risk of financial instability in commercial banks because currencies are backed up by reserves. Furthermore, CBDCs can prevent illicit activities. Easier cataloguing and monitoring of transactions can lead to earlier detection of unusual money flows, such as fraud or money-laundering operations.
​
While the development of CBDCs are another step towards a cashless society, certain concerns will need to be addressed. For example, technical issues about safety and privacy of personal transactions, and the accessibility of payment tools. So while a cashless society is possible, time is needed for businesses and the public to adapt to a new normal.
Published on 10/09/2020
Reported by Qi Guo / Olivia
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
With the arrival of September, many schools have opened for the new term. As students enter, COVID-19 cases have seen a significant increase. In the U.S., more than 1,500 American colleges and universities surveyed have at least 26,000 cases and 64 deaths since the pandemic began.
Before the massive outbreak, many universities in the U.S. planned to conduct online classes. In July, the U.S. government announced that it would repatriate international students in the country if their colleges provide entirely online instruction in the fall. This was done to force colleges and universities to offer in-person classes but was later revoked.
Due to the outbreak, most universities that provide in-person teaching had to move online. For example, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said on Monday that it would shut down in-person instruction for undergraduates and move entirely online. The University of Notre Dame delayed in-person classes as students tested positive by the dozens, then the hundreds.
In Europe, cases of COVID-19 have also started to rise. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that Europe might be entering a 'tricky moment' as the schools reopen. Even though classrooms have not played a major role in spreading coronavirus, there is growing evidence of the youth infecting others at social gatherings. However, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has appealed to parents to send their children to schools or face fines instead.
In this pandemic, not only are government and institutional measures important, but individuals also need to be prepared. It is necessary to not only raise awareness on the importance of protective measures like social distancing and wearing masks but to also make them mandatory in high-risk locations to protect the further outbreak of the coronavirus.
Published on 09/09/2020
New term comes with a new wave of COVID-19
Reported by Albert Gunnison
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Ethiopia has completed the landmark stage of their Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam – the largest dam in Africa – at the head of the Blue Nile. Its reservoir will now begin diverting 25 billion cubic meters of Nile River water from its downstream neighbors to power a hydroelectric grid twice as powerful as the country’s current electric output. At full strength – in four to six years – the project promises to provide 65 million Ethiopians with electricity and make Ethiopia a net power exporter.
​
For all its upside, the dam poses a serious public health crisis for Egypt. It undermines Egyptian farmers amidst a perilous decline in the country’s agricultural sector, whereby crop seasons have become steadily hotter and dryer, and rice, millet, barley, and wheat yields have fallen dramatically. The government has failed to disincentivize water-intensive rice farming or create sustainable irrigation canals, but still relies heavily on farming to feed its people.
Moreover, the dam will intensify water scarcity among Egypt’s booming population, which crossed 100 million in February. That figure will rise to 128 million by 2030, the same year that Nile water demand looks to exceed supply.
Failed diplomatic talks have given way to increasingly hostile rhetoric. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi calls the situation an “existential” threat to Egypt’s security, and domestic pundits have recommended the dam be destroyed.
In June, Egyptian hackers invaded Ethiopia’s government websites, displaying the message: “If the river’s level drops, let all the Pharaoh’s soldiers hurry and return only after the liberation of the Nile, restricting its flow.” Without a formal commitment to resource sharing, the two nations teeter on the brink of conflict – and Ethiopia has all the leverage.
Ethiopia Tests Egypt’s Reliance on the Nile
Published on 08/09/2020
Reported by Grace Chan
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
On 2nd August, SpaceX announced that two astronauts had successfully returned to earth onboard their Crew Dragon Endeavour Spacecraft. In doing this, SpaceX became the first private company to launch humans into the orbit, leading to more possibilities for space travel.
​
In recent years, space exploration has shifted from state-sponsored programmes to privately funded ventures. Space programmes in the last century, such as the Apollo moon missions, were a by-product of the “space race” during the Cold War, backed by two opposing governments. To date, states continue to sponsor space exploration programmes to demonstrate national strength against other states. For example, China and the UAE have embarked on a joint Mars mission to investigate the habitability of the planet, following the USA’s launch of Perseverance.
​
Aside from states, private companies are also investing in space research for the potential profits of space tourism and the market for cheap space technology. Virgin Galactic trialled high-altitude flights on supersonic aircraft, in which passengers can experience zero-gravity and admire the view of the Earth from up above. Similarly, Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origins hopes to send passengers to the boundaries of space by 2021. Although a ticket costs USD$250,000, flights have already been fully booked. With many more space enterprises intending to list publicly, this is a clear indication of the industry’s potential.
​
When commercial incentives and competition drives space research rather than the cost-plus developments relied on by national space programmes, cheaper space technology is produced. In the future, lower costs may lead to the popularization of space travel envisioned in sci-fi novels, and the outsourcing of spacecraft development by governments. The outlook for the space industry is indeed a promising one.
The Future of the Space Industry
Published on 07/09/2020
Reported by Qi Guo / Olivia
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
The popular social media platform TikTok has gone through a lot as U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the company to sell its U.S. branch. Bytedance -the company that owns TikTok- is an innocent harmed in this US-China 'war'.
From the U.S. perspective, selling the branch to buyers would be better off than having the app banned. A recent poll found that 40% surveyed across the country backed the order forcing the sale of TikTok's U.S. operations. To many, the politicization of TikTok is obvious. Last year, a viral video on the app calling on viewers to “spread awareness” of what is happening in Xinjiang while doing make-up was taken down. Later the company said the video was removed due to 'human moderation error'. But in this TikTok sale, the company's American CEO said it has "never provided user data to the Chinese government, nor would we do so if asked."
From China's perspective, the forced sale of TikTok is more of an 'attack' from the U.S. to suppress high-tech development in China. Such measures are to crack down globally competitive Chinese companies in the name of "national security". In the combat of Trump's executive order to sell, China revised a list of technologies that are banned or restricted for export last Friday, requiring a licensing procedure for exports on AI algorithms like TikTok's, which would complicate the forced and politically charged divestment.
From the national perspective, each side has its reasonable ground. However, in this political game, many vibrantly growing companies are harmed. Should the U.S. order restrictions on companies without any solid proof? Or should China revise legislation just to have a say in the sale? Companies should not be treated as pawns in the political war. Instead, diverse developments should be embraced in the rapid globalization.
TikTok - The Victim Of The U.S. - China Battle
Published on 06/09/2020
Reported by Albert Gunnison
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
A nascent court battle in California threatens to upend the business models of rideshare giants Uber and Lyft by forcing them to reclassify their drivers as employees, potentially compromising the earning of these companies.
​
Under California’s Assembly Bill 5, which took effect on January 1, all such workers could earn twice the minimum wage, become eligible for overtime work, and be covered against workplace harassment if they perform work within the “usual course of business” and if their hiring company controls their work.
After the court ruled on August 10th in favor of the state, both companies appealed the decision and announced plans to permanently cut operations in California should their appeal be unsuccessful. An appeals court reversed this decision on August 20th, pausing the legal battle for the foreseeable future.
​
The court’s recent stay demonstrates that both Uber and Lyft have significant leverage. Uber argues that since most of their workers are part-time, they should not be subject to reclassification, despite the reality that Uber’s full-time workers contribute significantly more to ride hails.
Yet, any future reversal will spell doom for Uber, Lyft, and food delivery services like DoorDash, which rely on part-time contract status for their workers to survive financially. The three companies plan to spend approximately $90 million in a statewide campaign for the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act” November ballot initiative, which would take precedent over prior judicial decisions.
​
Should the initiative fail at the ballot box, Uber faces dire consequences. With ridership down 75% this year, the rideshare economy has already endured significant losses. While the company had hoped to capitalize on their initial public offering from last year, their revenues and the fate of the rideshare economy, have never looked more dismal.
Are Rideshare Drivers Legally Entitled to Full-Time Benefits?
Published on 05/09/2020
Remote Hearings: is Zoom the Future Courtroom?
Reported by Grace Chan
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Due to the pandemic, most courts have begun to conduct remote hearings for civil cases. Remote hearings are conducted through video-conferencing facilities, where court users participate in hearings through web-browsers.
There are precedents for using technology in court hearings. In many jurisdictions, witnesses can give evidence via video links. In England and Wales, electronic hearing bundles can be submitted alongside hardcopy bundles, with the consent of both parties. However, the jump to an entirely remote hearing is unprecedented. While some are optimistic that this will accelerate the evolution of the courtroom, many issues need to be addressed: -
-
Procedural fairness: In online hearings, ascertaining the identity of parties at the other end, especially juries and witnesses, can be problematic. Clever video-editing and deep-fakes may create an illusion of presence. Even if the identities can be confirmed, it does not mean that they are free from external influence beyond the camera.
​
2. Practicality: Technological difficulties may impede the trial. Moreover, ensuring all parties have the time and the appropriate environment to participate in a remote hearing is also a challenge. These constraints may lead to an inefficient trial.
​
3. Court etiquette and respect: A reason why hearings are conducted in courtrooms with established procedures is to reflect the seriousness of the offence. When hearings can be accessed anywhere remotely, it is difficult to recreate the atmosphere of solemnity, or show adequate respect for the occasion. In May, a man in Singapore was sentenced to the death penalty over Zoom, leading to activists criticizing the move as dehumanizing and insensitive.
To conclude, remote hearings require appropriate technological support and confidence from the public before it can be mainstream. While it is a viable alternative for civil cases during this pandemic, it is highly unlikely to be mainstream anytime soon.
Published on 03/09/2020
Alicia and Kamala -Wins for Diversity and Inclusion
Reported by Qi Guo / Olivia
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Recently, Amazon added the first Black women, Alicia Boler Davis, to its elite S-team (short for Senior team). Boler Davis, who oversees much of Amazon’s warehouse network as vice president of Global Customer Fulfilment, joined the company in 2019 after serving as head of global manufacturing at General Motors.
The S-team -with a total of 26 people- is a group of leaders who set the company’s priorities, alongside CEO Jeff Bezos. Boler Davis is the fourth female executive to be added to the S-team and the first Black member. Her addition is a key step to diversifying the workforce at Amazon.
In 2019, Men made up 57% of Amazon’s workforce, but 73% of managers. Amazon started taking steps to combat this gender imbalance by recruiting Colleen Aubrey and Christine Beauchamp to the S-team last year. Amazon has also adopted a rule requiring it to consider women and people of colour for its board of directors.
Kamala Harris, the running mate of Joe Biden in the 2020 US Presidential Election is also a female of minority ethics. She was elected Attorney General of California and later became the second African-American woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate. With Kamala’s selection as running mate for the upcoming election, there is now more hope than ever for the voices of minority groups to be heard.
While both Boler Davis and Harris are definitely a win for diversity, this is not enough. There needs to be the creation and promotion of more opportunities for females and minorities in workplaces -especially in positions of power as this might be the only way for them to showcase their abilities which were held back due to social stereotypes and prejudice.
Published on 02/09/2020
Beijing Targets Truth-Tellers in Hong Kong
Reported by Albert Gunnison
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Hong Kong’s new national security law (NSL) will reshape basic civil rights law and institute new academic censorship in the port city. It accelerates Beijing’s efforts to remake higher education in its image by criminalizing anti-establishment academics.
​
The NSL allows law enforcement greater discretion to police “secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign, and external forces.” Its strength lies in its ambiguity and empowers pro-Beijing security forces to arrest peaceful demonstrators for merely voicing their opposition to Chinese territorial control in Hong Kong.
​
These efforts mark Chinese President Xi Jinping’s maneuver to stifle freedom of expression in its world-renowned education system, where he believes it is the most dangerous. Among academics the effect is twofold. First, research fellows must police their findings for potentially anti-China finding; second, university lecturers will have to self-censor for fear that their students may report their anti-establishment rhetoric.
​
The NSL continues Xi’s project to punish those who have inspired protests during his reign. The NGO Hong Kong Watch documented China’s deliberate project to punish academics like Benny Lai and Chan Kin-man, who led the 79-day Occupy protests in 2014 against electoral reform in the city. They also found that, between 2015 and 2018, mainland government officials penalized prodemocracy academics, replaced them with establishment sympathizers, and outlawed dissenting speech on campuses. Protestors filled the streets once again in June 2019 after Hong Kong proposed an extradition agreement with mainland China.
Yet, these protests are unlikely to reappear in such strength; under the NSL, law enforcement is empowered to crack down on dissenters and ensure that protestors be punished under the provisions of its new legislation. At its heart, the NSL is a naked attempt by Beijing to punish its enemies and to remake Hong Kong’s civil and educational spheres in its image.
Published on 01/09/2020
Weathering the Storms of Climate Change Litigation
Reported by Grace Chan
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
In 2015, courts on two sides of the Atlantic heard some very unusual cases. In Juliana v United States and Urgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands, the applicants argued that by not meeting their emission targets under the Paris Agreement, the United States and the Netherlands have violated the human rights of their citizens.
Today, climate change litigation is one of the methods adopted by activists to challenge government and corporate actions on environment and sustainability. As of July 2019, 1328, lawsuits related to climate change have been filed in more than 30 countries!
However, the reception towards climate change litigation has been mixed:
On one hand, praise has been given for holding public bodies accountable for failing to fulfil their obligations regarding sustainable policies. Furthermore, the publicity from lawsuits highlights the gravity of the situation.
On the other hand, critics of climate change litigation remain sceptical of its effectiveness. Trials are risky, lengthy, and costly processes, with results not always favourable to the plaintiffs. This is mainly because the contribution of different actors to climate change remains unclear, and so does the responsibility they should bear. Moreover, climate change litigation often concerns policy and whether courts can accept them remains contentious.
As climate change litigation develops, it is reasonable to expect new legal principles in areas such as human rights, administrative law, and tort law. More creative arguments and policy changes can be expected from this field in the future.
Published on 31/08/2020
Second Wave of COVID Outbreak in South Korea
Reported by Qi Guo / Olivia
Edited by Aditi Suresh and Sringa Satheesh
Recently, the second wave of COVID-19 broke out in South Korea. Seoul's coronavirus positivity rate jumped from 0.56% in the first week of August to 2.39% in the second week after a large-scale rally by members of Sarang-Jeil Church. On August 15, despite government warnings, approximately 20,000 protestors took to the streets in downtown Seoul, denouncing the liberal Moon Jae-in government. To combat this outbreak, the South Korean government tightened its social distancing guidelines, ordered the shutdown of high-risk facilities, and limited the number of participants for indoor and outdoor gatherings.
Back in February, the Shincheonji religious group organised a rally in the city of Daegu, resulting in thousands of participants being infected. This had led to the first wave of COVID in South Korea.
Three responses by the government were vital to its containment back then:
1. Fast testing : Korean officials opened 600 testing centres and pioneered the use of drive-through testing stations to reduce face-to-face contact indoors.
2. Expansive Tracing : interviewed recent patients to learn where, when, and to whom they might have passed along the disease, backed by infectious-disease-prevention legislation.
3. Zero-Tolerance Isolation : by separating the patients from those who were healthy.
While a ban on massive church gathering and tracing systems can both potentially hurt the fundamental rights of the citizens, but it is necessary to prioritise disease control to further protect them from COVID. These measures may infringe rights but are not excessive. For example, social gatherings are still allowed so long as it does not exceed the safe quota. The only reason why religious groups are criticised is for their insufficient COVID-protection; but not their freedom of religion and assembly. If the safety guidelines set down are all followed, the pandemic could be contained more easily.
Published on 30/08/2020