The Nexus Magazine Spring Edition 2016 by Nexus Magazine

14 2016 Spring

LAND OF BROKEN DREAMS WHAT DOES THE USA MEAN TO THE WORLD?

theme: Short stories on us foriegn policy / 12

Debate: What does a terrorist look like? / 38

Off-topic: model icc experience in poland /6

COLOPHON NEXUS MAGAZINE SPRING 2016 Date of Publication 10th May 2016

Nexus Nexus Student Association nexus@rug.nl

Nexus Magazine Committee 2015-2016 Nathalie Bienfait (Editor in Chief) Kata Magyar Kylie Mckenzie Morrell Eve Aycock Christian Skrivervik

Email us at: nexusmagazine.law@gmail.com FaceBook: The Nexus Magazine Twitter: @nexus_mag

)

Founder Nexus Magazine Gemma Torras Vives

Graphic Design Nathalie Bienfait / Christian Skivervik

Cover Photo Voice of America <blogs.voanews.com> How the Statue of Liberty Nearly Ended up in Egypt

Logo RE_Oslo

Authors Nathalie Bienfait / Janne Postuma / Natasha Harte / Gemma Hayes / Alvaro Trujillo Olaiz / Kata Magyar / Kylie Mckenzie Morrell / Asmo Esser / Christian Garrad / Renata Landolt / Christian Skivervik / Saba Tariq

The Nexus Magazine Editorial Team independently obtained and organized the content of this magazine, and is responsible for the publication of the Nexus Magazine. The opinions and ideas expressed by authors of articles in this magazine are solely the opinions and ideas of those authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions and ideas of this magazine or its editors or publishers.

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THEME sOME SHORT STORIES ABOUT USA 12 FOREIGN pOLICY HOW TO NOMINATE A 20 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE iS nordic socialism FEELING THE BERN? 24 wHY THE US IS ACTUALLY Great 28

NEXUS

silent death: drone use by america 32

38 what does a terrorist look like?

Schedule: upcoming events 5

Janne Postuma: Model ICC 6 NATASHA HARTE: THE RISKS OF BREXIT 8 ted talk: international identities 44

40 Christian garrad: WHAT A WONDERFUL LL.B 42 RENATA LANDOLT: Wait for that ll.m

ALUMNI

OFF TOPIC

DEBATE

DEAR READERS, For my last issue as Editor in Chief of the Nexus Magazine, I am very excited to present to you a jam-packed issue with the theme “The US and the World”. With the US presidential elections looming, the world’s eyes are on its political, economic and cultural leader as it contorts itself around the “Trumped up” lies of their politicians in the race for the biggest job on the planet. In relation to the election itself, part of the US’s famously complicated election procedure is explained by Alvaro as he walks us through the process to nominate a presidential candidate which is complicated enough! Keeping with the election theme, Kata explores the claim that presidential candidate Bernie Sanders can actually be called a Scandinavian socialist. There is, of course, more to US foreign relations than just this year’s dramatic election. The fact that the USA has neither ratified the ICESRC, nor accepts the jurisdiction of the ICJ are some things that may go generally unnoticed about our “benevolent” leader. Gemma explores these and many more problems in her piece entitled ‘Saviour of the World: Short Stories about US Foreign Policy’. In addition, Kylie has treated us to an article devoted to appreciation of the USA as our aforementioned world leaders in trade, politics, pop-

Best wishes, Nathalie, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

ular culture and economy. In addition, Asmo has allowed usto use his English essay on Drone use by the USA. As for off-topic articles, we have a piece from Janne who studies International Relations about her experience at the Model ICC which she attended in Poland and a blog post from Natasha about the perils of BREXIT. Our debate this time features an interesting discussion on “what does a terrorist look like?” We have, it seems, such a stereotypical view of a terrorist created for us by the media and powerful governments, but how does this match reality? Alumni articles from Christian and Renata who hark from Bankok and the Brussels having had both done masters degrees and are now working, both with reassuring praise of our LL.B! To round off, I have written a TED talk piece on a talk from writer Taiye Selasi on the problems that people from a very international background have when introducing themselves. It is an issue felt by many of us I’m sure, that we don’t feel especially grounded in any country in the world. Selasi presents an interesting solution that you can find out about on page 38.

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

UPCOMING NEXUS EVENTS may 11

Human Rights Defender Talk*

In-House Day and Active Members’ Dinner

General Assembly

Final Social Activityº

* Only for Active Members and conditional on receipt of a facebook invitation º Details to be confirmed nearer the time 5

MODEL ICC What in the world is the MICC?

TEXT: JANNE POSTUMA / IRIO 2

After spending a week in Krzyzowa Poland at the Model International Criminal Court (MICC) I would like to share some of my experiences with my fellow students. MICC, organized by the Kreisau-Initiativ, is a moot court which trials hypothetical cases, encouraging students to enhance their understanding of international criminal law and their public speaking skills. As an IRIO student at my first moot court ever, I was anxious about being overrun by law students with an extensive legal background. My rusty knowledge on international law was gained from a ‘dummy’ course in the first year of my study, my yellow Elementary International Law book and two preparatory sessions with Professor Merkouris. I was overwhelmed to meet people from all over the world, contrasting in age, norms and culture, who had already gained so much experience at a young age. Although it was sometimes challenging to

pass cultural barriers and cooperate in a field I was rather unfamiliar with, I felt on equal terms with everybody and I could deliver interesting input based on my political background. Most of all, it was very motivating and inspiring that everybody I met was open for conversation and interested in each other’s story, from intense discussions to funny anecdotes. The role of judge that I had was specifically challenging, because it really forced me to struggle with the ambiguity of law in a different way than in class. I was directly confronted with how much depends on the judges’ interpretation and how biased such an interpretation really is. Especially in international law, the limits to reasonable doubt, responsibility and proportionality are very much determined by the judges’ preferences. I must add here that the case material we got in advance was fairly limited and therefore much was open for interpretation. This was sometimes problematic, because we had a less information than what would have been available to us if this had been a real case. NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

MICC differentiates itself from other moot courts by its non-competitive character. Emphasis is not put on who performs best or which party wins the case, but rather on creating an open environment for discussion about international issues like the meaning of genocide or the relevance of international ruling. It is for this reason that students are not only assigned the roles of defense and prosecution, but also the roles of judge and journalist, which aim not to win a case, but critically assess the case in general. A second interesting aspect of the MICC is its location. The estate in Krzyzowa has an important historical meaning, as it is part of a memorial to the Kreisau-circle, a group of German intellectuals that, during the Second World War, drafted a plan for post-war governance and reconciliation, including ideas on an international order of justice. On the estate itself, the official reconciliation between Poland and Germany after the Second World War took place. This

history definitely added an extra dimension to my stay. In short, I would recommend anyone to participate in a moot-court. It is a great playground for debates on international criminal law and for gaining a more vivid understanding of cases you deal with as lawyer. I especially encourage law students to participate in MICC Krzyzowa. The Groningen delegation could use some support from actual lawyers instead of politicians in the making, and I experienced that the international law department has some enthusiastic teachers that can offer great support. It is an amazing opportunity for you to work together with people from all over the world and broaden your network. Above all, it is a lot of fun.

PHOTO: MODEL-ICC.ORG

If you would be interested in participating in the MICC next year, or maybe forming a RuG delegation, get in touch with the Nexus Magazine via nexusmagazine.law@gmail.com and we can put you in touch with the right people.

BLOG POST

What will BREXIT mean for us?

s a Brit living in continental Europe, the possibility of BREXIT is frightening. If (and I say if with a lot of hope) we leave the EU then I would become an illegal alien. I would have to consider naturalisation, or foregoing my British nationality, or (like in so many movies) force a ‘true’ European friend to marry me. As a law student and a good, upstanding citizen, the last option is highly unlikely, I swear. But anyway, moving on to being more serious regarding this terrifying prospect.

NATASHA HARTE / LLB 2

Obviously, the decision which will be made by the British electorate does not just affect us, it affects the entirety of the EU. A thought which often crosses my mind is, if we leave, what is to stop any of the other 27 remaining Member States from following suit? It is, after all, not just the UK which is full of euro-sceptics at the moment. The previous elections for the European Parliament demonstrated a surprising change in the mindsets of Europeans – a large number of far-right parties (like UKIP) received higher percentages of seats than usual. This new-found, or newly rediscovered right-wing support can also be seen at a national level: UKIP received their first set in the House of Commons but thankfully our fundamentally awful and unfair voting system NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

PHOTO: WWW.OSMII.COM

stopped them from receiving the many more which the electorate felt they deserved. If one really wants to get riled up about the possibility of BREXIT, all you’ve got to do is take a look at the facebook comments under any article which discusses the EU. I understand that there is a great deal of mistrust of the EU, but I believe that this is down to a lack of education about the subject. When I first moved here to study International and European law, I knew that the EU gave farmers subsidies, and that was about it. We simply aren’t taught about the EU, and this, I think, is a reason as to why so many people are so against it. In addition to a lack of education, there are the media outlets who recognise this and embrace it: “FOREIGNERS STEALING ALL OUR JOBS”, “EVERY SINGLE FOREIGNER IS ON BENEFITS”, “DESTROYING THE NHS” are just some of the headlines that can be seen in relation to the EU. It is extremely easy to blame our problems on foreigners or minorities – I mean, Hitler did a 9

great job at that didn’t he? However, instead of taking the easy way, we need to look at the deep rooted problems which exist within our own political system before tearing apart another which is doing us a lot of good. The UK isn’t exactly a its strongest right now, for a multitude of reasons: - Everyone hates David Cameron (even though the majority of people voted for the Conservative party) because he is rich, had a weird sexual encounter with a dead pig, and loves off-shore bank accounts; - Everyone hates Jeremy Hunt because he is pulling apart the NHS; Everyone hates Jeremy Corbyn because he doesn’t sing the national anthem; - Everyone hates George Osborne because he hates the poor and the sick; - Everyone hates the whole government and Parliament because they have, regardless of their party, been doing a pretty awful job for the last few years. Also, they act like 5 year olds during PMQ’s which is really bizarre. However, these reasons for hating British politics and the political system back home are not a reason to vote yes to BREXIT, and my fear is that people will do just that: punish the UK Parliament for the mistakes which have been made by voting yes to leaving the EU. An extremely interesting view point on the whole BREXIT palava is that it, luckily, isn’t all our fault! It isn’t all the fault of the Brits forgetting that we are no longer a colonial super power that owns half the world and isn’t just a little island off the coast of Europe! Hurray! The argument here is that it is also (sort of) the fault of the EU because they treated us like we are super special. SURPRISE – we aren’t actually any more special than the other Member States of the EU, and by thinking that we are it has actually caused some resentment. Why should we no longer be part of the ‘ever closer Union’? Why should certain laws not apply to us? Yes, our common law legal system is an anomaly within the EU, but we knew what we were signing up for in 1973. We joined the party late, and, now that we aren’t getting our way, we want to bow out without grace. It’s like a toddler having a tantrum, and it’s embarrassing. Surely in our ‘stiff upper lip’ British style we should just accept the downfalls, realise that we were wrong and take a seat? Removing ourselves from the table doesn’t seem to have any plusses, and so I really, truly, desperately hope that we don’t leave the EU.

WHAT’S YOUR AMERICAN DREAM THE USA AND THE WORLD NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD? Short stories on USA Foreign Policy

THE USA ELECTIONS How to Nominate a Presidential Condidate

NORDIC SOCIALSIM IN THE USA Would the Sanders Model Really Work?

MAKE AMICA GREAT AGAIN Trump Says So, But Do We Really Need to Worry?

SILENT DEATH: DRONES What are they, what do they do, and who is affected? 11

The Saviour of the World? Some Short Stories about USa foreign policy

TEXT: GEMMA HAYES / EXCHANGE

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

#1 The Pullout Method: the US and the ICJ

he International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial body associated with the UN. The ICJ is governed by the Statute of the International Court of Justice and aims to settle international disputes referred to it. Only states may be parties to cases before the ICJ and only states may refer disputes to the Court for settlement. The Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (VCCR) provides the ICJ with jurisdiction over cases where one state party seeks to sue another state party for a violation. In 1984 the ICJ was about to begin considering the case Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States) - the “Nicaragua case” as it is known by many law students. Nicaragua sought to have the US held accountable for funding rebels to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. However three days before Nicaragua was due to commence the action the US submitted to the ICJ a document which sought to exclude itself from the jurisdiction of the ICJ for a period of two years on any matters relating to Central America. The ICJ ignored this document holding that it had jurisdiction over the case and eventually decided in Nicaragua’s favour requiring the US to pay reparations for its intervention in the Central American country. Then in 1998, the first of three cases against the US, Paraguay brought the US before the ICJ seeking to prevent the execution of a Paraguayan national in Virginia. The ICJ called on the US to prevent the execution, however this was ignored and the man was executed. A remarkably similar case was taken by Germany a year later in 1999. Two brothers had been found guilty of murder in Arizona and placed on death row, the first brother was executed and Germany sought to prevent the execution of the second brother. The

ICJ sought to stay the execution while the case was before it, however the US Supreme Court declined to implement the injunction and the second brother was executed. The case continued and the ICJ found for Germany, holding the US liable on a number of grounds. Then in 2003 came the final nail in the coffin, when, responding to the above cases Mexico requested that the US review a number of cases of its incarcerated nationals. Mexico sought judicial review of the cases through the ICJ, however the US argued that the cases would be better dealt with in the already existing executive clemency process. The ICJ found that judicial review of the cases was required and referred the cases to the US Supreme Court for review. A number of weeks before the first case was due to come before the Supreme Court, then President George W Bush issued a memorandum which found that the Mexican cases should be reviewed in the states in which they had been convicted and not in the Supreme Court. Soon after this, the US officially decided to pull out of the VCCR (Optional Protocol). Such a decision to withdraw from the VCCR means that the US no longer accepts the jurisdiction of the ICJ and cannot sue another state nor can it be sued by another state. The US has attempted to justify its decision to withdraw from the ICJ as one to protect its own sovereignty; it is up to the national US courts to make decisions for the country, and international courts should not interfere with this. Such a view was a direct response to the ICJ decisions in the Paraguay and Germany cases when the US Supreme Court refused to grant injunctive relief by staying executions and, in the Mexico case, when the ICJ made specific requests of the Court to review the cases. To the rest of the international community the decision by the US to pull out of the court seems to be an immature move of a long standing international bully; if the US cannot win then it doesn’t see the point in playing.

#2 The Veto Power

he United Nations (UN), founded in October 1945, has long been the stage upon which the US has played some of its biggest roles within the international community. Perhaps this can be most clearly demonstrated in examining the USâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

the use of the veto could be seen by the international community as a failure to act in potentially catastrophic situations. The theory goes that the permanent five only threaten to use the veto during the closed negotiation session of the UNSC, meaning that a determination or resolution is never proposed in the first place and thus no veto can be evoked.

The primary responsibility of the UNSC is the maintenance of international peace and security. The UNSC consists of five permanent members (US, UK, Russia, China and France), and 10 rotating non permanent members. Each of the permanent members has a veto which, if cast, will prevent the UNSC from taking any further action into a matter. In the early years of the UNSC the veto power was dominated by Russia (USSR), and it took 24 years for the US to first rely on the power. In 1970 the US, along with the UK, objected to intervention in Southern Rhodesia, and since then has become a regular user of the Article 27 power, relying on it 79 times (at the time of writing), 40 of those situations concerning the Middle East.

Another example of the politicising of the UNSC is the development of the reverse veto employed in Iraq. During 2002 the UNSC had passed upwards of 15 resolutions concerning US backed intervention into Iraq. In authorising intervention into a country the UNSC must determine in a resolution the exact scope of the intervention; what the purpose of the intervention is, what geographical area is the mission to occupy, and for how long is the mission to go on for. Most authorisations are given for a period of one year; however in this situation the US lead intervention had an indefinite authorisation. The reason for this unlimited time of intervention has to do with the veto. If there is a time limit on the intervention then any member may veto the renewal of the intervention. Whereas if the time period is indefinite any member can veto the withdrawal and, in the case of Iraq, the political appetite in the US was strongly in favour of intervention in the country, resulting in US occupation in the country for 12 years.

The decision to use a veto has political rather than legal motivations. The permanent members use their veto to perpetuate their own political ideology or to protect diplomatic relations with their allies. Criticism is often levelled at the US for their consistent veto of any UN intervention in the Palestine situation because of their close relationship with Israel. However in recent times the veto appears to be relied upon less frequently than previously, while one argument may be that there are fewer international incidents which require intervention; another may be that the permanent members of the UNSC react similarly to any incidents that do occur. Although such positivity may be premature it appears, contrary to the above, that the actual reason for the declining use of the veto is because the permanent five are aware that

More recently the situation in Syria and whether or not to intervene has been a topic for discussion in the UNSC. Both Russia and China, with a lot of interest in the region, have vetoed a determination that Syria constituted a breach or threat to international peace and security (draft resolution S/2014/348). This block in the UNSC places the responsible body at a disparity from the rest of the international community who appear to feel that intervention in the region is required in order to prevent the situation escalating. In early 2013

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

US AND THE WORLD SHORT STORIES ON US FORIEGN POLICY

Obama stated that if chemical weapons were used in the Syrian conflict it would be cause for US intervention –no doubt to protect its own interests in the region, Israel. President Assad responded to this statement and promised not to use such weapon. However in August 2013 chemical weapons were used in the Al-Ghouta attacks. It is unclear exactly who used the weapons, and the attacks took place in a rebel-controlled part of the country so the question remains whether Assad went back on his promise to the international community and used weapons, or whether it was the rebels themselves who were looking to force the hand of international intervention. In response to these attacks US Secretary of State

John Kerry suggested that US intervention was imminent if Syria did not dispose of their chemical weapons. Sergey Lavrov the Russian Foreign Minister followed up on Kerry’s point and suggested that Syria did just that and dispose of their weapons and Syria did just that; avoiding US intervention. Unofficially the US is probably happy not to have to intervene in the Middle East in anyway, but officially this “out” for Syria, provided by Kerry is seen as a blunder. Despite this politicking, the UNSC still is unable to reach a decision on the situation in Syria and no UN sanctions have been imposed on the country to date.

PHOTO: romania-insider.com

US AND THE WORLD SHORT STORIES ON US FORIEGN POLICY

#3 Hand in Hand: US influence in the World Bank Adorned proudly on its website, the World Bank has two goals that it proposes the world achieves by 2030. In the next 15 years it seeks (1) to end extreme poverty by decreasing the percentage of people living on less than $1.90 a day to no more than 3% and (2) to promote shared prosperity by fostering the income growth of the bottom 40% for every country. It goes on to explain that it is not a bank in the ordinary sense, but rather a “unique partnership” which provides financial and technical assistance to countries in a bid to reduce poverty and support development. However the next line suggests that it is very much a bank, providing loans, lines of credit and grants (albeit with low interest) to countries in order to support investment in education, health, public administration, infrastructure, financial and private sector development, agriculture, and environmental and natural resource management. The World Bank was established in 1944 and has its headquarters in Washington DC, however its connections with the US run far deeper than where its headquarters are located. The US played a leading role in the establishment of the bank in the aftermath of WWII and continues today to be the largest shareholder of the World Bank. Troublingly the US is the only shareholder in the Bank to maintain a veto over any changes in the bank’s structure. In addition, the US has nominated all

of the bank’s presidents to date, all of whom have been American citizens, with only two of the 12 being born outside of the US; the current president Jim Yong Kim being born in South Korea but raised in the US. However the links between the World Bank and US government go even deeper than this. The US secretary of the treasury is responsible for managing US interests in the Bank, with assistance from the Under Secretary of State from Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs. There is also an executive director for the US who is nominated by the US President and confirmed by the US Senate. It is the role of the executive director to represent the US on the World Bank board of Directors and has oversight on the bank’s governance. As stated clearly on the World Bank’s own website the US plays a unique role in influencing and shaping development priorities of the bank. However such a power should be considered within a broader context, if the US is the only shareholder to retain a veto and plays the main role in deciding the priorities of the bank, then all of the positive change which the World Bank aims to create is surely conditional on which countries have political favour in the US. The US was the largest contributor to the World Bank between 2008 and 2013, this, coupled with the veto gives the US a great deal of power to decide where the World Bank chooses to invest. For instance, the US acknowledges that

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

is key investment areas are in accountability, transparency and development impact. The US, through the World Bank, seeks investment in promoting governance and fighting corruption, which they say is one of the greatest obstacles to economic and social development. They also seek to confront borderless threats, such as combating disease and promoting clean energy. These goals are very much replicated in the trusts which the World Bank supports, including the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, Climate Investment Funds and the Kosovo Debt Management Support Program. The fact that the US plays such a large role in choosing which countries or programs the World Bank should invest in is not the only criticism facing the Bank. The idea that the World Bank provides countries with loans for investment into education, health or other human development services is not necessarily a positive. In providing loans for such investment the World Bank requires the countries to invest the money in certain ways or to implement broader policies, perhaps changing their tax system or

labour laws to facilitate the loan. Furthermore, these loans may have conditions attached to them which critics like Naomi Klein suggest support the interests, financial power and political doctrines of the most influential countries within the bank, in this case the US. The Bank may proclaim to back investment in countries in order to aid its development, however this credibility was compromise when the Bank imposed school fees for Ghanaian students, demanded that the water system in Tanzania be privatised, implemented the concept of labour flexibility in Sri Lanka, and eliminated food subsides in Iraq. These are decisions which ultimately impede the development that the World Bank tries so hard to convince us it supports. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that loans and investment from the World Bank work to break down trade barriers with developing countries while ensuring that these trade barriers of its shareholder countries remain.

PHOTO: romania-insider.com

#4 World Saviour, Domestic Tyrant: The US and the ICESCR

here are notionally four generations of rights, the first being Civil and Political Rights, the second being Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the third being group rights and the forth being rights which exist for the good of human kind. For this discussion it is important to understand the difference between the first and second generations of rights. The first generation of rights, Civil and Political Rights are those which are protected quite heavily in the constitutions and other legal orders of Western States. Such rights are those which governments protect in theory through lack of intervention, such as the right to free speech or the right to assembly, states protect these rights by allowing protests or by not preventing a person from speaking. The second generation of rights are Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which involve high levels of state involvement in order to provide and guarantee all citizens education or housing, ect. Such rights are favoured by Eastern governments such as China and Russia who consider such rights as aligning with their communist basis. When the world came together to negotiate human rights treaties, it was inevitable that there would be a split between the Eastern and Western World. China and Russia were pushing for more economic and social rights to be included in the treaty, such as the right to housing or education, while the US and other countries wanted the focus to be on civil and political rights. This lead to the development of two treaties separate treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These

two treaties, alongside the Universal Declaration on Human Rights are considered to be the International Bill of Human Rights. The US signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the 5th of October 1977, but it took until 1992 before the Covenant was ratified and entered into force in the US. The ICCPR provides for a wide range of protections for civil and political rights, including the right to life, freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, right to religion, right to privacy, freedom from torture, as well as a number of equality provisions. The US has also signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICESCR) however it has to date yet to ratify it. The ICESCR guarantees rights such as favourable working conditions and labour rights, right to education, right to housing, right to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health, as well as a right to an adequate standard of living and guarantees of equality between men and women in all aspects of their lives. However, the US is notoriously suspicious of even recognising Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, let alone ratifying a treaty guaranteeing such rights. President Carer signed the ICESCR in 1979 however due to political reasons he did not refer the treaty for the necessary review by the Senate, who constitutionally must give its advice and consent before the US can ratify any international treaty. The following Reagan and both Bush presidencies rejected the idea that the ICESCR contained rights, but rather was composed of desirable social goals rather than the basis for a treaty. The Clinton administration was open to ratifying the Covenant however did not consider it politically strategic to present the ICESCR to an opposing Congress. A NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

US AND THE WORLD: SHORT STORIES ON US FORIEGN POLICY

similar fate is faced by Obama who currently cannot appoint a new member to the Supreme Court let alone pass a contentious international treaty through a republican-controlled Congress. Looking at the US today, taking all economic, social and cultural elements into account, perhaps it could be argued that the best thing for the US would be to ratify the ICESCR. The US is the biggest democracy in the world in which the gap between the rich and the poor increases daily, the US simply would not be in a financial position to be able to guarantee every citizen with a right to an adequate standard of living, or to a house. There are 8 million people in the US who are unemployed (March 2016), 2 million people homeless and around 40 million people without medical insurance. With these statistics, how can the US afford to house, educate and guarantee a standard of living for so many people, particularly when you consider the uphill battle that “ObamaCare” has become in attempting to provide people with access to health care. Perhaps the reason why the US has not ratified the ICESCR is endemic in the fact that the country has notoriously weak social security protections, believing that such supports go against the “American Dream” of working hard to achieve ones goal rather than having it handed to them. Such an idea is furthered when you consider that the Reagan and Bush administrations did not even consider such rights to be rights at all, but rather ‘liberal’ notions of what society should aspire to.

Notably the US consistently does not ratify international (human rights) treaties, it is one of three countries who fail to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, along with Somalia and South Sudan (who became a country in 2011). It has also failed to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women which has even been ratified by Arab states - with a reservation providing adherence unless it conflicts with Sharia Law. Nor has it signed the Convention against Enforced Disappearance, the Mine Ban Treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, or the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The reason cited by the US as to why it does not sign and ratify international human rights conventions is due to fears that the treaties will interfere with US sovereignty. This argument would certain hold true if the US wasn’t so rampant in encroaching on the sovereignty of other States in the name of human rights. The reality it would appear is that the US is more concerned about spreading its own special form of human rights across the world that it has neglected to provide its own citizens with the international standard of human rights protection. The US failure to ratify the ICCPR is just another symptom of a State failing to guarantee rights and protections to its citizens which the rest of the world takes for granted.

THE US ELECTIONS: a handy guide to nomination US AND THE WORLD HOW TO NOMINATE A CANDIDATE PHOTO HIGHWAYMAIL.CO.ZA

Nominating a Presidential Candidate

Primaries and Caucuses

The United States’ presidential primaries have officially been underway since the first of February 2016, yet the build up to them began long before, with the candidates’ official announcements to run and the series of debates that were held for both parties months earlier. Since then, there’s been talk about delegates, superdelegates, primaries and caucuses and all sorts of terminology that the rest of the world is not entirely acquainted with. Whilst most graphics will display the primaries through images simplified with the candidate names and their number of pledged delegates next to them, the process itself is more complicated than that.

This process is the nomination procedure for each party to select their candidate for the national presidential election in November this year. They do this by hosting mini elections in each state to choose their candidate. The term ‘primary’ is itself a bit misleading, as not all states have primaries. The other contest format is known as caucuses. Primaries are easier to grasp, as its method is most similar to traditional polling systems used worldwide in elections. The nature of a primary consists of a private vote, that can be cast at any point during polling hours of a primary day, i.e. an individual goes to the poll and votes through a booth in anonymity.

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

Caucuses differ. They are both public in nature and dependent greatly upon engagement as well as being set at specific hours of a day. A caucuses is led by people who form groups built on who they support, and engage in a debate, wherein after reflection, individuals are free to ‘move’ group, the group you end up in at the end is considered to be your vote. This process can last several hours, and any individuals who leave caucuses early would not have their votes counted. Thus unlike the primary which tends to be waiting in line at any time of the day, the caucuses is a very public vote that is specific to a time in the day and sees a lot of engagement with other voters. There are further differences between primaries and caucuses as there are multiple types of each. The open primary is hosted in eleven states and allows a registered voter to vote in any party primary regardless of their own party affiliation. Contrastingly, a closed primary means that voters would have had to register with a political party beforehand in order to cast their vote. The registration time varies between states and can have serious implications. For example, New York, a closed primary, requires voters to register with their party 6 months before voting, i.e. requiring all potential voters to have decided half a year before they are required to vote to be certain of the party they wish to align with. Many critics see this as blatant and serious disenfranchisement from the population and left more than 3 million voters unable to participate in the New York primary last month. This open / closed approach is shared between primaries and caucuses. Additionally, there are even semi-open and semiclosed contests. Semi-open contests will see a registered voter not need to publicly declare which political party’s primary they will vote in before entering the voting booth. When voters identify themselves to the election officials, they must, however, request a party’s specific ballot, this being the difference from an open contest, where they would not have a party specific ballot. Semi-closed contests allow unaffiliated voters to participate as well but depending on the state, independents either make their choice of party primary privately,

TEXT: ALVARO TRUJILLO OLAIZ / EXCHANGE

inside the voting booth or publicly, by registering with any party on their election day.

Delegates and Superdelegates The primary and caucuses results matter because they determine the number of delegates to each candidate, as in these results, the votes of the people do not directly determinthe chosen candidate but rather, they select delegates whom in turn vote for the party nominee. Most states follow a proportional delegate system, whereby the more votes a particular candidate would get, then more delegates from that precinct will be considered to be picked up, i.e. 25% of the vote will be given 25% of the delegates. These specifications depend on the state and parties’ own rules, as for example, the Ohio’s Republican Primary rule states that all the states’ delegates will be given to whichever candidate has the most votes. So, the results had Kasich poll at 46% and Trump at 35%, but because of the State rules, Kasich picked up all 66 delegates from Ohio. The total delegates themselves are distributed across states based on that states’ population size, so as to have a system where a larger population is able to have more delegates represent them. The actual delegates themselves are typically state representatives and officials, such as mayors. In addition to normal delegates, there are also, what are known as superdelegates, which both parties have, however, the roles they play are very different.

For the Democratic party, superdelegates are all the highest officials in the party, such as every Democratic member of the House, Senate and Congress, as well as Governor and other distinguish party leaders, typically former Presidents. What makes them particularly special and controversial is how they are able to vote for whichever candidate they wish, regardless of how the state they come from votes. In the totality of the nomination procedure, superdelegates comprise close to 15% of the total delegate count, which is an extremely effective way for the party’s own officials to ensure who gets the nomination. This leaves a single vote from a superdelegate equated at around 10,000 ordinary votes. Their power and influence are defended by the party rules as they state the purpose of the superdelegates is not meant to represent the country or the states’ best interest, but rather the party itself. There is much criticism about this superdelegate influence in the US as it is seen as being the party officials’ way to tip the scales against any candidate who might want to upend their current system, such as Bernie Sanders, whose revolutionary ideas are dealt with in detail in the article by Kata Magyar in this issue. The Republican party has fewer superdelegates, their total count comes to about 7% of their total number of delegates. Their superdelegates are made up of the three members of each state’s national party. The big difference, however, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for any candidate, but rather must vote for the candidate that their state voted for. This year has looked interesting for the GOP, as the Republican results thus far have left it open for the possibility of a contested convention, wherein, if no nominee reaches the threshold of 50% of the delegate count +1, then all the previously pledged delegates are left free to choose any candidate during the party convention, including any individuals who had not run during the primary process as a potential candidate.

process and come up with a presidential candidate. Popular yet misleading information about the primaries The superdelegate count is being reported by almost every news outlet and put to the lead of Secretary Clinton in the Democratic nominee count, but here is why you should not consider their vote yet. Firstly, they have not voted yet. Superdelegates vote in the Democratic Party convention, counting superdelegate votes would be the equivalent of counting the voting from the current polls across the other states, the vote has yet to occur, and so displaying it as an official is terribly misleading. Secondly, superdelegates are known to switch their positions based on the popular vote. In 2008, Hilary Clinton had the vast majority of superdelegates pledged to her at the start of the primary and caucuses season, as she has had this year, however, once Obama had picked up the majority of delegates across the voting states, superdelegates changed their vote and by the end of the race, the vast majority of superdelegates had aligned their vote with that of their own voting state. This tendency is the precedent of behaviour from superdelegates, and so should be taken into consideration before displaying their figure as final. When understanding these two facts about superdelegates, it would seem that any news outlet counting the superdelegate vote is purporting either malicious or bad journalism from their part, or , is plainly speaking, lying.

When does it all end? The entire primary and caucus season will be finalised at different dates for the parties. The Republican Party will finalise their nomination, by the very latest as of the 21st of July, at the end of their GOP convention, which is set to begin on the 18th of July. As for the Democratic Party, their national convention is set to begin on the 25th of July and end on the 28th of the same month.

Once all primaries and caucuses are finished, both parties hold party conventions during July wherein all the pledged delegates and superdelegates cast their support to finalise the party nomination NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

Are you an EDITOR-IN-CHIEF?

Apply before 20th May to find out if you have what it takes

nexusmagazine.law@gmail.com The Nexus Magazine @nexus_mag 23

THE NORDIC MODEL? Is Scandi Socialism the Answer to the USA’s Woes? Bernie Sanders, the 74-year-old politician from Brooklyn, is a Democratic candidate for President of the United States. In 2006, he was elected to the U.S. Senate after 16 years as Vermont’s sole congressman in the House of Representatives. His name became soon a sensation, even a de facto slogan was born for his campaign, ‘FeelTheBern’, which can now be found everywhere: social media, in print, t-shirts, even on Snapchat filters.

The senator’s so-called ‘progressive economic agenda’ concerns issues like reduction of income and wealth inequality; providing tuition and debt free higher education; creating a more transparent immigration and criminal justice system; combating climate change; and the fight for women’s rights. He brought the term ‘democratic socialism’ into American politics, and associates his ideas with the socioeconomic system in practice in the Scandinavian countries, known widely as the ‘Nordic model’. Owing to his promising, yet quite high-sounding politics, Sanders managed to

attract considerable support mainly from workers and young people. The Vermont senator is purportedly convinced about the northern countries’ socialist nature, as he stated, ‘When I talk about democratic socialist, I’m not looking at Venezuela. I’m not looking at Cuba. I’m looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden…’ On the top of that, during an interview the senator kept on praising the Scandinavian countries by saying,’In those countries, by and large, government works for ordinary people in the middle class, rather than, as is the case right

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

US AND THE WORLD THE NORDIC MODEL PHOTO YOUTUBE.COM TEXT KATA MAGYAR / LLB 1

now in our country, for the billionaire class.’ What are the main features of the Nordic model? Can these countries be viewed as examples of democratic socialist countries? Would this Northern invention be compatible with the social and political climate of The United States or is Sanders pursuing a fraudulent phantasmagoria? These are the questions the following article revolves around.

The traditional approach towards the Nordic model The term ‘Nordic or Scandinavian model’ or even the concept of ‘welfare models‘ refers to genuine economic and social policies attributed to the Scandinavian countries, namely Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. Even though these concepts have almost the same meaning, distinction must be made when using ‘Nordic’ or ‘Scandinavian’, since the latter is applicable in case of dealing with the mountainous peninsula of Norway and Sweden, while ‘Nordic’ stands for Denmark, Finland and Iceland as well. In spite of the slight differences, the concepts are used inter25

changeably, owing to which three main characteristics are attached by Nordic scholars to all the five countries: stateness, universalism and equality. First of all, the Nordic model is based on the close and considerably positive relationship between the state and the people. In these countries, the ruling class did not behave in an oppressive way, thus the state became an effective means through which it was possible to reform the society. In public services and public employment the state plays a prominent role, however local municipalities are responsible for social services and the smooth interaction between the decision makers and the citizens is provided by them. Under universalism, the universal extension of human rights is meant to the whole nation. In this system not only destitute members of the society are secured, but also the middle class. Social security programmes were initiated from the beginning of the modernization of the Scandinavian countries and have always been regarded as essential requirements for nation building. Most probably ‘equality’ is the first word

#FeelTh one might attach to Scandinavian countries, owing to the modest differences in gender roles, social classes and income. Municipalities take a great part in childcare responsibilities, thus allowing women to strike a balance between family life and work. In comparison with the rest of feudal Europe, in these countries, the peasantry traditionally had held a stable position, while landlords’ influence on their vassals had always been considerably weaker.

The connection between the Nordic model and democratic socialism In order to understand why Sanders regards the Scandinavian countries as examples of democratic socialist countries, it is advisable to take a closer look upon the definition of democratic socialism, offered by the senator in 2006: ‘I think democratic socialism means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship all of our people have healthcare; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly. That’s all it means.’ Even though his definition could serve as a simplified summary of the model’s essential aspects, most experts on the topic dare to disagree with Sanders. The Swedish scholar, Nima Sanandaji, explains the affluence and cultural norms upon which Scandinavia’s social democratic policies rest, are not the product of socialism. According to his book ‘Scandinavian Unexceptionalism’, prosperity developed during periods characterized by factors like free-market policies, and limited state involvement in the economy. Conse-

quently, the answer to Scandinavia’s unique achievements does not lie in socialism, rather in culture. The main attributes, such as social trust and cohesion; a considerable emphasis on work and responsibility; and commitment to the rule of law took deep root in the region’s overwhelmingly Protestant countries. In addition, Sanandaji also points to the fact that these countries managed to create the favourable living conditions their citizens now enjoy before leftist ideas took hold; from 1870 to 1936 Sweden was the fastest growing economy in the world. However, after 1975, when the Swedish state began to expand gradually, it lost its 4th place as one of the most prosperous economies in the world, and fell to the 13th by the mid 1990s. Subsequently, Sweden started to reverse its economic model by implementing reforms that would have made rather Sander’s Republican contenders proud: state-owned companies were sold, financial markets were deregulated, while public monopolies were replaced with competition.

Theoretical application of the Nordic policies in the USA The question then arises as to whether the United States would benefit from these policies being introduced? With regards to politics, establishing Nordic values in the American political system might result in a more transparent political culture, and could potentially contribute to the creation of stronger multi-party consensus. Scandinavian politics is consensus-driven, thus it allows political disputes to emerge that are essential for broadly accepted social agreement within societies. Exercising Scandinavian-style politics, however, would require a political climate with less influence of considerable corporate interest than the current one in the US. How about issues concerning the economy or social services? Sad as it may sound, building a Scandina-

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

heBern vian-style state takes more than some constructive ideas. The present conditions are results of centuries negotiations and debates centuries, and have always been influenced by historical and geographical characteristics, such as the closeness to Germany and Russia. One can only imagine how an average American would react to Nordic tax rates; according to the list of The Economic Times, in 2015 Swedish tax rate reached 56,6%; the employer contribution to social security tax was 31,42% and the capital gains are taxed at flat 30%. Flat taxes are of key importance in these countries, thus this way citizens contribute at similar rates. In return, Swedish citizens receive free education and subsidised healthcare support and public transport services. Sweden was followed by Denmark, also well-known for education without tuition fees, with a tax rate of 55,56%, while Finland with its 49,2% tax rate finished at the 14th place. The USA operates on a completely different basis, since it maintains progressive tax codes, meaning that a larger percentage is taken from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. One could also argue that American individualism is incompatible with the Scandinavian mentality. On one hand, it is true that nowadays the Nordic countries are less homogenous than they used be, and Nordic people are rather driven by self-interest than altruism when it comes to paying high taxes in exchange for services of excellent quality. However, they still possess the degree of trust required for citizens to share an abundant portion of their income with strangers, which in a state like the U.S. would most likely prove challenging, given the fact that more than 300 million people live there.

It is worth considering after all? Despite the bitter possible outcomes, Sanders’ ideas

might actually have some potential. Anu Partanen is a Finnish author, based in New York and is a supporter of the senator’s ideas due to her personal experiences. First of all, in return for the above-mentioned high taxes, she is given nearly a full year of paid parental leave for each child; one of the world’s best public education systems for her children; free college; nearly free top quality health care and a full year of partially paid disability leave. Furthermore, Nordic countries are praised when it comes to facilitating profitable business industries, since basic services, such as education and health care, are covered for regardless the company’s financial situation. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based research think tank, gave Denmark a score of 76.3 for its economic freedom in its 2015 Index of Economic Freedom, thus it was ranked as 11th. Sweden and Norway also made it into the top 30, with scores of 72.7 and 71.8. Flourishing companies like Skype, Spotify, IKEA, Nokia and H&M are all convincing proof of the success of the economic freedom. Needless to say, living in Nordic countries is not utopian, therefore the USA does not necessarily need to follow their footsteps. However, these countries seem to handle rather well the troublesome issues that are present nowadays all around the world: increasing income inequality, neglect of the middle class, keeping families together in the globalized 21st century. Maybe Sanders should not emphasize the backwardness of the U.S. in these fields, but rather just point out the advantages of the Nordic approach, and promote changes within reasonable boundaries, while preserving the values America is built upon.

US AND THE WORLD MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN PHOTO RAYMONDPRONK.WORDPRESS.COM

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN? What is So Great about America? In today’s world the US is under attack like never before. Iwslamic extremists declare that the US is evil and sadistic. The Europeans complain about American capitalism and American culture. South America criticizes the US for neo-colonialism and oppression. Despite all this there are still hundreds of thousands of people who are eager to emigrate there in pursuit of the American Dream; people looking for freedom and a better future. To this day people flock to the US, and other countries look up to, and respect, the US. But why, given the US’s previously stated bad reputation, is this? Perhaps some of the answers lie the good things about the US.

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

KYLIE MCKENZIE MORRELL / LLB 1

A Benevolent Superpower Compared to many other world powers, the US has a very kind and gentle foreign policy. Critics of the US will bring up the American support for the Latin or Middle Eastern despot rulers, or the way the Japanese were treated during WW2, it is true the US is not always right, and these situations prove this. The critics do not mention the good things though: twice in the last century the US used its power to save the world, first from Nazi threat and then from Soviet totalitarianism. After destroying Germany and Japan in WW2, the US proceeded to rebuild both countries and turn them into allies. Additionally, the US was incredibly magnanimous to the former USSR after its collapse at the end of the cold war. For the most, part the US is an abstaining power - ie. they show no real interest in conquering and subjugating the

rest of the world. On occasion, the United States intervenes to overthrow a tyrannical regime or to halt massive human rights abuses in another country, but it never stays to rule that country.

Economy The US is the largest economy in the world in terms of nominal GDP (Gross Domestic Product) with US $17.41 trillion economy that makes up roughly 22.44% of the world gross domestic product. The United States is an economic superpower that is incredibly highly advanced in terms of technology and infrastructure as well as having abundant natural resources. In terms of GPD per capita the US is again leading the way with $54,678 compared to Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s $12,893. This impressive economic power is what gives the US its edge in world politics.

The American Dream James Truslow Adamsin defined the American dream as, “life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.” The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the Declaration of Independence which proclaims that “all men are created equal” with the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The US is the only country that has created a population of “self-made tycoons.” Only in the US could Pierre Omidyar, whose parents are Iranian and who grew up in Paris, have started a company like eBay. Only in US could Vinod Khosla, the son of an Indian army officer, become a leading venture capitalist, the shaper of the technology industry, and a billionaire to boot. Admittedly tycoons are not typical, but no country has created a better ladder for success than US for people to ascend from modest circumstances to success. The ideas behind the American Dream have infiltrated society around the world and is still something that almost everyone now strives for in one way or another. America provides a high standard of living for the average US citizen. It is possible to compare this standard of living to many of those in other westernised countries but we must also consider the vast population of the US and the diversity within it. Compared to many less developed countries the standards of living in the US even for the “poor” are very high. In the US, a construction worker can regularly buy a coffee for $4, maids have nice cars and plumbers take their families on vacation.

The Education System The USA education system is special because it has no central Ministry of Education, this is the defining feature of US higher education. It is the reason why the US has some of the best universities in the world, and, with roughly one million international students along with twenty million

American students enrolling in 2016, they are clearly as popular as they are good. The US does have a Department of Education, but it is the smallest federal department. It does not run the school and universities; it doesn’t issue degrees or diplomas and it doesn’t write syllabuses. Therefore, each college or university gets to decide for itself how to best teach its students. This gives the US its biggest strength in higher education - diversity. The US has over 4,000 accredited colleges and universities, with so many learning options that all students can find a university that teaches in a way that suits them.

Technological developments and Pop Culture American + culture. Many people in the world believe these two words do not really belong together. However turn on the radio, check the TV listings, look what’s playing at the local cinema, pull out a computer game or just go online and search for a nice chat room – do any of these things and within a short time you will run into American cultural influence. It is often in the United States that new forms of communication have either been invented or perfected. TV broadcasting is a good example of this. In the 1950s American TV networks created several types of new programs including game shows, soap operas, mystery shows, westerns and, of course, situation comedies that were later exported internationally. Later, cable TV expanded the variety and quality of American shows creating such international best sellers and it also set the foundation for the first international news network, CNN (Cable News Network). Perhaps the easiest example to recognize is the phenomenal rise in the use of personal computers and the World Wide Web over the last decades. Both were pioneered in the US and eventually spread worldwide, carrying American cultural influences with them. The invention of the internet changed life all over the world, and triggered the revolution that we are still living. In 1995 less than 1% of the population was using the internet; now around

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

40% of the world’s population use the internet on a daily basis. Since 1999 the number of internet users has increased tenfold. In 2005 the first billion users was hit and in 2010 the second, 2014 marked the third billion and we are well on our way to the fourth billion. The invention of the internet has touched people’s lives all over the world and revolutionised the way in which we communicate. Not only that, but the in invention of the internet caused a cascade effect of inventions such as Google, Amazon, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter and so many more. It is also possible to say that social media was born in the US and, whether you love it or hate it, it has changed the way the world works.

One way this pop cultural influence has been particularly strong is in movies. Just the word “Hollywood” itself conjures up visions of movie stars and Oscar nights and Western gunslingers getting ready for the shootout. Motion pictures may not have been invented in the US, but modern movies were perfected there. For example, in 2012 65 % of all movies shown in the European Union were American, in comparison, only 3% of the movies shown in the USA were from Europe.

American music has also played a big role in exporting US pop culture, it is no exaggeration to say that American popular music conquered the world in the 20th century. The list is impressive – ragtime, blues, jazz, big band “Swing”, country western, rhythm & blues, rock & roll, hip-hop & rap. All these forms of music have swept across the globe, most recently through international internet downloads.

IN CONCLUSION Maybe Trump don’t need to ‘Make America Great Again’… maybe it’s been great all along? 1. en.wikipedia.org 2. www.valuewalk.com 3. www.npr.org 4. http://www.visitwinstonsalem.com/ 31

SILENT DEATH An Analysis on the Impact and Lawfulness of Armed UAV Attacks Conducted by the United States It happened unexpectedly and with deadly precision. On the 20th of May Ahmad Al-Jazeer’s small cottage, located in the high mountains of Afghanistan got struck by a Hellfire missile deployed by a ‚Predator’-drone. Ahmad, an illiterate shepherd, who denies any connections to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, not only lost his entire livelihood but also his entire family on this sunny day in May, 2011. Unfortunately Ahmad’s story is not the only one of it’s kind. The United States administration under President Barrack Obama has massively expanded it’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program in the past years, leading to an immense increase in attacks conducted by the US Armed Forces. Although the goal of these attacks is to eliminate enemy targets, civilians such as Ahmad, are often caught in the crossfire. Furthermore, it is still somewhat vague how these attacks are to be assessed under international law as this new technology has only surfaced in the recent years. Moreover, it is still unclear how effective drone attacks are in the global war on terror. The objective of the following analysis is to determine the negative impacts of drone attacks in the concerned areas by

focusing on the psychological and physical harm caused by these missions, the effectiveness of these measures in deterring international terrorism as well as statutes provided by international law. UAV’s are a powerful weapon in inflicting both physical damage and psychological trauma against enemy combatants. A senior United States official stated, drone attacks are only authorized if „we have a high degree of confidence that innocent civilians will not be injured or killed“. However, in the past many cases of civilian casualties have been reported. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that since 2004 up to 1,379 civilians may have been killed by US drone strikes, including up to 275 children. The reason for the loss of civilian lives lies in the lack of reliable intelligence, as in many cases there are no reliable sources on the ground which could give detailed information to intelligence services. Further, drone pilots often have to rely on low- resolution video material, which means that the mere mistaking of a shovel for an AK-47 can lead to fatal results. In contrary to official statements made by the government, US NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

PHOTO BUSINESS.TRANSWORLD.NET TEXT ASMO ESSER LLB /1

strikes are often conducted without proper evidence which leads to a high â&#x20AC;&#x161;collateral damageâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;. However, not only the physical damage suffered by the civilian population should be taken into account. Psychological trauma has to be taken just as much into consideration as physical harm when assessing this topic. Although it is often argued by the supporters of drone warfare that UAVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s only target insurgents and do not inflict large scale damage on the local population, studies have proven the opposite. The New York University in collaboration with the University of Stanford found in their recent report, that a large part of the local population in the affected areas suffer from psychological trauma due to the constant fear of unexpected attacks. Symptoms include severe anxiety and insomnia, to only name a few. Many local inhabitants also try to avoid larger gatherings as they often occur at wedding ceremonies or funerals, as these have been exceptionally often the target of drone missions. Unfortunately the consequences to the civilians caused by the deployment of armed UAVs has been so far widely neglected. However, when assessing the impacts, this should be taken into account.

The argument that Drones protect the lives of own Soldiers, is often put forward by Drone supporters. This may be regarded as true, if the focus is put merely on the physical harm, which the pilots are protected from. Yet, studies in the recent years have come to the conclusion that drone pilots have a much higher risk of developing a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), than their brothers in arms. The psychological risk which comes from operating drones is exemplified by Brandon Bryant, a former drone operator. Bryant sought public attention after leaving the United States Air Force and being diagnosed with PTSD, in order to raise awareness for this matter. Although drones allegedly contribute to an emotional detachment of the target and the operator, often the exact opposite occurs. At times drone pilots would remotely track their targets for extended periods of time, causing the operators to get to know their enemies day to day life as well as their families. In his statements, Bryant describes the overwhelming feeling of remorse when having to eliminate men, whose families he learned to know in the course of the mission. The Posttraumatic stress disorder suffered by drone pilots is still widely unknown and barely researched. However, since almost 1200 persons operate

armed drones in the US military today, there should be awareness regarding the symptoms and possible consequences of PTSD also for this group of the military staff. A further question arising from the use of armed drones, concerns the actual effectiveness of these strikes in deterring international terrorism. In the past, the United States administration has decorated itself with the eliminiating of top terrorists through drone strikes, using this to legitimize the use of armed UAV’s. However, it remains highly controversial, whether the conducted strikes contribute to the public safety of the US citizens and the deterrence of international terrorism. Many experts claim that the elimination of key figures does not lead to a weakening of terrorist groups, as they are mostly resilient to the loss of key leaders. Especially terrorist organizations that do not depend on a well-structured system of logistics, but rather follow a guerrilla tactic, are very hard to harm through simple air strikes and would require the deployment of ground forces. Studies have also shown that there is no coherence between the number of drone strikes conducted and the amount of subsequent terrorist attacks. In the light of these facts, it is difficult to assess a positive impact of Drone strikes and their contribution to a containment of terrorist actions, as the killing of high profile leaders seems to be a mere drop in the sea when viewing the whole picture. In addition to the general ineffectiveness in regards to the deterrence of global terrorism, armed UAV attacks often might even achieve the opposite, fueling the hatred against the United States in the concerned regions. Although US government officials are keen to emphasize how rare civilian casualties de facto are, it is neglected what impact the death of only one innocent person can have on the political beliefs in his social environment. The death of civilians is often used by the insurgent groups to gain political support within the local population and to justify the use of force against the United States. The propaganda machineries of these terrorist organizations have been very successful in the

past to mobilize supporters within the local population as well as overseas, by portraying drone strikes as a cowardly act conducted by an overly powerful enemy. Additionally, there are numerous terroristic acts recorded, which were conducted in an act of revenge by individuals, who have lost family members in an UAV strike. This means, as a matter of fact, that drone strikes actually might encourage individuals who are affected by Drone strikes, to join insurgent groups and therefore help to facilitate international terrorism. It is crucial to bear this in mind when evaluating the effectiveness of these measures taken by the United States of America. Besides the fact that civilian casualties contribute to the propaganda spread by the insurgent groups, the notion that drone missions violate international law is also brought up by both terroristic organizations as well as experienced experts in this field. The US encounters the arguments by 13 declaring targeted killings as an act of self-defense under article 51 of the UN-Charter Furthermore, the United States Constitution allows for lethal actions against individuals on foreign soil to ‚repel sudden attacks‘. One has to acknowledge that the use of UAV’s in armed conflicts is also not prohibited under international law, its employment even being admissible with a mandate from the United Nations Security Council or by permission of the country whose territory is affected. However, the USA currently do not have a mandate issued by the UNSC and have reportedly violated other countries sovereignty (e.g. Pakistan) by conducting drone missions without their explicit consent. Further legal issues arise from the US claim of self-defense, a principle of international law, which can be used within strict legal boundaries. In order to justify the use of force with self defense there has to be an imminent threat, which has to be encountered following the principles of proportionality, necessity and immediacy. These strict regulations give rise to a number of legal issues arising from the use of armed UAV’s. Some of the most pressing questions are for instance whether an ‚armed attack‘ as defined by international law, can even be conducted by a

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

terrorist organization, whether there is the right to use military force against non- state actors, and if one can act in anticipatory self-defense. As it can be seen the US Government seems to be acting in a legal grey area, without a solid basis in international law to justify it’s missions. The next point one has to assess is that of the legality of drone strikes within international humanitarian law, also referred to as the law of armed conflicts. In order for a targeted attack to belawful under international humanitarian law, there has to be an international or non-international armed conflict between two or more identified parties. Additionally, the target has to be clearly associated with one of the conflict parties and has to be engaged in hostilities whilst being targeted in the actual ‚theater of war‘, all of this simultaneously being in conformity with international principles such as distinction or proportionality. The United States government contests that the worldwide war on terror is a new phenomenon, stating that the classical thresholds for engaging into an armed conflict, such as for instance the limitation to a certain conflict zone, do not apply. Following this line of argumentation, would imply that an armed conflict can take place at any given time in any given location with the possibility that the opposing party is not even aware of being engaged into it. In this case international law would have to be revised completely, as this argumentation is not consistent with it in its current form. Yet so far a revision of the law has not occurred, which leads to the conclusion that current missions are not in conformity with international humanitarian law.

armed conflict in which a derogation of certain fundamental rights is possible, general human rights still would have to be respected in order to ensure the legality of targeted killings21. As stated above, however, it is still heavily disputed whether the USA are in an armed conflict or not. If there is no armed conflict as defined by international law, the killing of individuals may only be justified in cases such as emergencies threatening the security or independence of the state as a whole. Other situations, where the killing of an individual may be permitted, are cases of individual self-defense or cases in which the lives of other individuals are at stake. It is evident that in many cases the US derogates from standards prescribed by international law, making the use of armed drones incompatible with international human rights.

The death of numerous innocent civilians such as Ahmad Al-Jazeer in May 2011, is not the only ‚damage‘ the US drone program has caused. A country, which once stood as a symbol for the protection of human rights all over the world is now a mere shadow of itself. The physical and psychological harm caused by the armed UAV program, either in rural Pakistan or in an airconditioned controlling room in Nevada are devastating. The number of lives it has destroyed is unbearable. The fact that the missions conducted are generally ineffective in the war on terror and even fuel terrorist movements only adds up to the grim imagery. The United States, a country that set out to implement the rule of law in even the most remote areas of the world, have tried to do so by engaging into illegal actions themselves. By violating international law on several occasions the United States has forfeited it’s credibility as a The final legal considerations concern internamoral adviser in the international community and tional human rights law. According to the US gov- caused distrust within it’s own population as well ernment, the main goal of the United States foras in other parts in the world. As the Japanese eign policy „has been the promotion of respect for activist Joichi Ito once aptly pointed out: „If we human rights, as embodied in the Universal Dec- destroy human rights and rule of law in response laration of Human Rights“. This means that the to terrorism, they have won.“ Unites States of America have obliged to respect We should not let them win. human rights within and outside of their territory. Even if one were to accept the arguments brought forward by the United States declaring a state of

Disclaimer

This article was written for an assignment which is not yet handed in, therefore is still subject to review. In addition, this article has not been changed in any way by the editors of this magazine which may have affected the grade for the final paper.

DEBATE: WHAT DOES A TERRORIST LOOK LIKE?

hat does a terrorist look like? Surely this is an easy question to answer. Just type “terrorist” into google and stereotypical images of an islamic extremist with a checkered scarf over their face and a gun will almost certainly float across your screen. In addition, you may think of a network of indoctrination and training programmes run by formidable and well-organised groups from North Africa designed to entice young Europeans to join the movement. Furthermore, we may be forgiven for assuming, because of the seemingly increasing coverage of the topic in the media - especially since the 2001 Twin Tower attacks on the United States - that the amount of terrorism is increasing. There, I’m afraid, you would be wrong. In fact, since the 1970s, total deaths from global terrorism have, in fact, gone down. This phenomenon is not easily explained, especially given our aforementioned natural assumption that such acts are increasing. One explanation, however may lie in the way we

define both terrorism and terrorists. As explained before, we are liable to have a rather caricatured image in our heads when thinking of the word “terrorist”, however how and when did that image get there? And what, if anything, came before it? The U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” This definition is one used the world over by terrorism experts, and says nothing about an islamic man in a black and white scarf with a gun and a suicide belt. So, how on earth did we get to this image? And why is it that terrorism as we know it today seems to be declining? One reason I would like to put forward is the idea

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

PHOTO: WWW.THEDAILYJOURNALIST.COM TEXT: NATHALIE BEINFAIT

that the media and governments have artificially created this image with a view to scapegoating their own military failings onto so-called terrorist groups. This idea is almost similar to the scapegoating of jews and disabled people for the failings of Germany in the Nazi state - by allowing the population of western countries become preoccupied with the “threat of terrorism”, governments are conveniently out of the picture when they manage to forget that part of the reason these groups exist in the first place was because of their own failure to see the bigger picture in terms of their military strategy. As it is, I am not able to fully explore this issue here, however for more reading visit www. terrorism-research.com. Furthermore, another definitional solution may be found to the phenomenon that cases of terrorism seem to be declining. The definition given above states that, any violent act which is premeditated, done for political motives and perpetrated against a civilian population is a terrorist act. According to

some academics, this could mean that, for example, the infamous school shootings in the USA could be defined as terrorist acts. This is an interesting point, and could mean that, in the 1970s or ‘80s, there was in fact exactly the same amount of this sort of violent act, but it was just defined differently. To conclude this introduction, I was not able to cover all of the issues of this extensive topic, however these issues are interesting when considering the question “what is a terrorist”, and may give some answers to questions that I posed at the beginning. My aim with this piece was to try to convey the idea that the image of what we know as a terrorist is not set in stone; as it stands, although academics and policymakers have struggled for years on this very issue, the word “terrorism”, has a rather broad definition, which certainly cannot be limited to the suicide belt-wearing, gun-wielding, scarf-wrapped, North African male muslim that we seem to be so fixated upon.

DEBATE: WHAT DOES A TERRORIST LOOK LIKE? A Norwegian Perspective

hat does a terrorist look like?

He is a man who has blond hair and blue eyes. He is a man who has an average look where I am from. He is a man who grew up close to where I grew up. He is a man who went to the same high school as I did. This man seemed normal. He is a man who killed 77 and injured 110. He is a man who bombed a government building. He is a man who massacred a youth summer camp. He is a man who blasted my friendâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s living room window. This man killed my cousinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best friend.

TEXT: CHRISTIAN SKIVERVIK / LLM

He is a man who has an absurd worldview. He is a man who wants to restore the crusades against Islam. He is a man who opposes tolerance and diversity. He is a man who butchered children for supporting openness. This man is an extremist. He is a man whose actions we will never forget. He is a man who proved that the unthinkable could happen here. He is a man who did not inspire more hate and violence. He is a man who the entire nation opposed by showing more solidarity and love. This man failed his mission. What does a terrorist look like? He is a man who has blond hair and blue eyes.

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

A Muslim Perspective

s a Muslim, I have found myself to always be on edge when topics such as ‘9/11’, or more recently ‘Charlie Hebdo’ and the ‘Brussels attacks’ are brought up. This feeling of unease, or the dire need to apologize for the terrorists acts of a body, which shares my belief, is a factor that comes hand-in-hand with firstly, my faith, and secondly, media attention towards the former. Prior to addressing these factors, I would like to briefly touch upon the moment I was asked to write about this topic. I remember being taken aback for an instant, since I have had to answer questions in the past about what I thought of various terrorist attacks, as if I had a say in it or perhaps, as if I could justify any of it. However, I was pleasantly surprised to have been asked of my views, and not religious ones, about the matter. I would understand why when imagining a terrorist, a stereotypical image would pop up in one’s head. Needless to say, the media is not actively trying to condemn these images. Personally, when I think of a terrorist, to be completely honest, what I imagine is not too far from what any other person would think of. However, in my mind these images are gory, and are crippled by scenes that I have seen not only on television, but have also witnessed in terms of grief and mental as well as physical suffering. It is often forgotten, or rather overlooked, that the main victims of terrorism are Muslims themselves. I do not say this to be gain sympathy, that is the last thing that I would ask for. What I do ask is for the leading media to have a more educated basis before stating ‘not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims’ as if they had cleverly solved an impossible dilemma all by themselves...

TEXT: SABA TARIQ / LLB 2

ALUMNI:

LIFE AFTER

GRONINGEN TEXT & PHOTOS: CHRISTIAN GARRARD

CHRISTIAN GARRARD / ALUMNI

We’ve all been there, making a commitment to a friend to write an article and then forgetting about it, which is why I find myself at my desk at 2am on a Monday morning as I promised to write a piece ‘over the weekend’. I’m afraid that in that sense at least, my LLB in Groningen, and the two subsequent LLM degrees did not teach me the sort of time-management and prioritisation skills that we might have hoped. Several part-time jobs and my integration into the Dutch student life meant that I graduated from the LLB in 2013, four years after starting. Yet Groningen wasn’t done with me and I enrolled in the LLM in European Union law straight away, a last minute decision that was made when I found out that you can enrol in different degrees in multiple universities and still only pay the tuition fee once. Never being one to miss a bargain, I thought that if I can get twee halen, één betalen (buy one, get one free) on my master degrees as well my food shopping then I would be quids in, and all the happier (and better educated) for it. So I found myself living in Groningen studying EU law and commuting to Amsterdam to study the Competition Law LLM at UvA. However, for the same aforementioned reasons and a second Erasmus exchange, doing two LLM degrees in two cities has taken me somewhat longer than planned. Although commuting to Amsterdam every day is far from ideal, I would definitely recommend studying for two master degrees simultaneously, there is usually an overlap which means that it’s not as much work as you might think and it might just give you the edge over other job candidates in future. Almost by accident, I ended up doing a second Erasmus in Trinity College Dublin as I was moving to Ireland anyway

and I learned that now you can qualify for Erasmus funding at every level of your education, so off to Trinity I went! Perhaps a euro based pattern is becoming clear now, but it was not until 2015 that I really got the penchant for finance that I now I have when I learned more about Socially Responsible Investing. That led me to doing a traineeship at an Amsterdam based financial research firm called Sustainalytics. I learned an incredible amount about financial markets and socially responsible, or ethical financing when I was there as well as learning an important lesson that no careers advisor had ever mentioned to me: Just as important as the area you’re working in is the nature of the task you do every day. At Sustainalytics I was an Environmental, Social and Governance factor analyst which meant I spent all of each working day doing solitary research and analysis. However interesting it is to carry out analysis of why a particular firm faces long-term risks as a result of its exposure to climate change or because it disregards the social impact of its activities, personally it did not make up for the lack of interaction with others. This contrasts enormously with the work I currently do at the European Commission.

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

As most LLB students in Groningen probably are, I’ve always been a unashamed Europhile so have been keen to do the Blue Book Traineeship ever since I knew what it was. No doubt many LLB students will want to apply for the Blue Book to be a Stagiaire at the European Commission so my advice is to make sure you do an internship of at least two months before applying as that is the minimum required to gain points for preselection. Once you’ve been preselected, you have seven days to prove everything you’ve written in your application such as stated language abilities (this is the point where you realise you shouldn’t have said that you speak C1 Slovenian). Assuming that you have all the proof you need, once you’re in the Blue Book you need to start lobbying. Although you might get an offer without lobbying, if you have a particular area in mind you should definitely be contacting the head of unit with a short letter of motivation and your CV (in pdf!) You might even then get several interviews giving you the opportunity to choose which traineeship offer to take and thereby making sure that you have the most interesting and rewarding traineeship at the European Commission. If you haven’t already decided you’d like to try the Blue Book Traineeship then start thinking about it, and start thinking about what work you could do here at the Commission that could provide you with the right kick start to your career. The ‘Stage’ as it’s also known looks great on your CV, especially if you work in an area that you’d like to stay in. I was lucky enough to be offered a position at DG Competition working on State Aid Strategy and

1. Trinity - Ireland approves sex-sex marriage 2. Dog Comp - Old habits die hard 3. Switzerland 4. Nexus Team-building 5. EU Parliament with other trainees

Policy which is less about case handling and more about coordination and policy. So far it’s been a great experience for me, particularly becase – like many LLB students – I never really wanted to be a lawyer as such so working in the area of legal policy, strategy and monitoring is exactly the sort of experience I wanted. Another great advantage to the Blue Book is the network you’ll develop, given its prestige it attracts people of a very high calibre meaning that you spend your time with very well educated people who’ve often already gained work experience in various other interesting fields such as other international organisations or top law and consulting firms. I’ve no doubt that the LLB helped me immensely in my career thus far, although upon graduating I did not really feel necessarily like I knew the law and felt somewhat unprepared. This changed a lot through doing the LLM degrees but even then it can be quite a jump to applying that knowledge in practice. Not to worry however, in studying for the LLB in Groningen, you’re in good hands and a quick look over previous editions of this magazine and the ‘life after Groningen’ sections shows that most of you are at the beginning of global and illustrious careers!

If you want to get in contact with me about anything above – or just to have a beer – my email address is christiangarrard@gmail.com - Christian Garrard

ALUMNI:

LIFE AFTER

GRONINGEN TEXT & PHOTOS: RENATA LANDOLT

RENATA LANDOLT / ALUMNI

Hello fellow Nexus members! After graduating from U. Groningen I immediately went for a LL.M. in International Business law at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Amsterdam was great, I had an amazing year there and the course was very intensive but highly rewarding. About half way through my masters I had decided that I wanted to move from the Netherlands after graduation, and as I had always wanted to improve my German, I moved to Zürich where I had family and friends. Before moving however, I went on a summer tour of Eastern Europe, and to Marrakech for as long as my budget allowed me to.

Once in Zürich, I continued applying for jobs (which at this point was reaching 6 months of searching) and enrolled in an intensive German course. The course was going great and I was making new friends and learning more about my fathers’ home country. The only problem was my savings were drying up, and I could not find a decent law related job, and being a proud LL.M. graduate I really did not want my parents to be bank rolling me. So just before Christmas I decided to cut my losses and move back to Bangkok where I would still be able to financially support myself and where I hoped I could find

a job. Also, after almost one hundred job application rejections I really needed some love and support from my parents, which they generously smothered me with upon arrival. Once in BKK I signed up on job searching platforms and decided to try walking into target firms. So I wrote a cover letter (one personalised per firm), printed my CV and walked straight into their office asking to speak directly to their recruitment officer; this walk in method was surprisingly prosperous. If I wasn’t offered an interview with the firm I was given valuable

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

1. Thailand - Songkran 2016 2. Morrocco - Mergouza Dessert 3. Czech Republic - Czechy Krumlov 4. Switzerland - October Fest, Zurich 5. Slovakia

advice from the recruitment officers, which as a graduate navigating the real world of job-hunting it was very valuable information. So after searching and 4 rounds of intensive interviews I finally landed a job at Baker & McKenzie Bangkok, as a legal professional in their Corporate and Commercial Practice Group. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve only just begun so perhaps in the next edition I can provide more insight into work at Baker. The main recommendation I would give to the LL.B. students is that with an LL.M. so early on I had made myself highly qualified, but lacking work experience. Internships may count as work experience and help with employment for a fresh bachelors graduate, but not so with a masters. Which I completely agree with. Complete your bachelors, get a job and work for at least 2 years. Then you will also know what area of law you would be interested in specialising in, and if youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re lucky, your law firm might even sponsor your masters. As for job interviews, just be yourself, show your personality, your method of

thinking and genuine interest to be part of the firm. If you are lying to them you will just end up in a job that gives you no satisfaction. Either way, it was tough after graduation, and I was really lucky I had to support of my friends (you know who you are) and my family. Real life is really different from Uni-life, so enjoy cheap 1 Euro shots at Snow Valley while you can. All the best of luck everyone! Your former CoEA.

Please feel to get in touch with me at: s.r.landolt@gmail.com is you have any questions. - Renata Landolt

TED

Talks

International Identity Crisis To what extent do our passports define us?

t’s a question that we, as members of the international community in a student-oriented city are faced with every day: where are you from? I know that I myself, whenever I meet someone new, shake my new acquaintance’s hand, look into their eyes, and say “I’m Nathalie, and I’m from England.” One’s nationality seems so inseparable from oneself that it is easy to lose sight of why this is. Writer Taiye Selasi in her talk at TED Global 2014 addressed this problem from an interesting perspective. Her background is more complicated that even that of anyone I have met so far in Groningen: she was born in England and grew up in the US; her mother was also born in England and raised in Ghana; her father was born in the British colony of Gold Coast, raised in Ghana and has now lived for 30 years in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Thus, people introducing her when she goes and speaks around the world sometimes refer to her as “multinational” a description she struggled with, joking that “Nike is multinational; I am a person”. Selasi goes on to explain that in fact the idea of a state has been created by humans only in the last 400 years, and the idea of ‘coming’ from a created concept is rather strange. She says “I’d learned to speak of

TEXT: NATHALIE BIENFAIT; PHOTO: BLOG.TED.ORG

countries as if they were eternal, singular, naturally occurring things” which, although is clearly not true, must be accepted as the majority view of statehood. With this view of nation states as separate and distinct entities comes the idea that every person who holds the passport of that country thinks, speaks and acts in a certain way. Going back to the way I introduce myself, notice that I don’t say “I’m English” nor do I mention that I also have Dutch as well as French nationality. But why do I (not) do so? As mentioned before, countries seem to represent a set of characteristics to which every person purporting to come from there must conform. Thus, because most of my cultural background, upbringing and schooling has been very much British, I try and make it easier for others to understand who I am by simplifying my nationality in order to explain a part of my identity. This struggle of reconciling where you feel as though you are affiliated with what it says on documents like your passports that Selasi confronts in this talk. As I say to those who ask why I came to the Netherlands to study, ‘there is a reason why I’m here’ (mostly referring to the UK’s poor education and political system and prevailing anti-EU sentiment), that is NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

because I don’t feel fully English either. The fact is, as Selasi insinuates, there are many many different experiences that go into making a person and grounding all of these in separate countries, or even one country is too limiting for those of us who have had formative experiences in more than one state. “All experience is local… all identity is experience.” she says. I know that I now feel far more Dutch than before I moved here because I’ve had some of the most important experiences of my life here. However, even without the nationality, there are some of my friends who feel the same, simply because they have had such formulating experiences here. Selasi compounds this point by saying “you can take away my passport, but you can’t take away my experiences.” An additional point that I have noticed is that I tend to change my introductory sentence depending on to whom I am speaking and in what language I am speaking, so the initial statement of “I’m Nathalie and I’m from England” may turn into “I’m Nathalie and I’m from England but I also am Dutch, but didn’t speak the language as a child therefore it’s bad.” The latter I think you’ll agree is regrettably far less snappy… However this is a serious point that leads to the problem of the ‘caricature nationality’ - a set of ideas that we all attach to people holding the nationality of certain countries. These caricaturing nationalities are very prevalent: like the British are all fat and loud and pale with awful food and a dry sense of humour, while all French people are stuck up and fiercely proud of their language and bread, and all Germans are incredibly organised, also with good bread. Nevertheless, there are several problems with these stereotypes: one is that they are of course very limiting, and mean that people, as mentioned before, constantly try and make their own individual personalities fit with that of their passport. In the same train of thought, these caricatures can go the other way to almost ‘exclude’ some people from describing themselves as coming from a certain country. Third, fourth, fifth generation immigrants who have had all of their formative experience in a country are still told by ever-present xenophobes to “go back to their own country.” A second problem is that they are not true: I know a great many of sophisticated, softly spoken, English foodies; a large swath of perfectly humble French 45

people, who although do care about their bread, are by no means snobbish about it; and I know a good few very disorganised Germans. More seriously, a third, and more important problem is that these stereotypes change depending on who thinks them. Each person has their own definition of what each nationality stands for: American people think British people are actually quite posh - that simply having a British accent makes you sound either clever or - as insinuated by every Disney movie ever - evil. This stereotype clearly doesn’t match that harking from southern Spanish islands of the perpetually drunk, sunburnt British… and so why is this? And this gets to the crux of the problem: the stereotypes and cultural identity that is conjured up in someone’s mind when you tell them that you come from a certain country are entirely formulated by that person’s own experiences. These experiences will be different to the person sitting next to them, as well as be probably different from the reality that you have experienced. Selasi is very clear that she thinks the solution lies in not falling into the trap of “privileging the fiction: the singular state, over reality: human experience.” thus, allow our sometimes multinational identity not to be confined by the different states of which it is made up and instead be grateful for the fact that this globalised world is becoming smaller and smaller through technology and affordable travel. The inevitable conclusion to this discussion is that it doesn’t matter what country you come from and what assumption people make from the passport(s) that you hold. You should be confident in who you are and allow your own personality to make an impression on people you meet rather than live up to the expectations that those around you place on you. If in doubt, take Selasi’s advice and allow others and yourself to ask each other “where are you a local” instead of “where are you from”. The latter invites the question all too familiar to immigrants “where are you really from” and the former allows conversationalists to see the similarities in their experiences and draw them closer together and gain a far more realistic insight into each other’s personality and experiences.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bernie Sanders - https://berniesanders.com/about/ - http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel - https://www.hertie-school.org/fileadmin/images/Downloads/working_papers/41.pdf - http://time.com/4213999/bernie-sanders-feel-the-bern-hashtag-origin/ - https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-scandinavia-not-socialist-utopia/ lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/ - http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/02/18/bernie-sanders-scandinavian-utopia-is-an-illusion/#6ead80a3aa96 - http://nypost.com/2015/10/19/sorry-bernie-scandinavia-is-no-socialist-paradise-after-all/

Make America Great Again - http://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/10-great-things-what-to-love-about-the-united-states/ - http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/1877.html - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/american-exceptionalism_n_4170683.html - https://www.quora.com/What-makes-America-a-successful-country - https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/04/20/ldquowhat-makes-united-states-specialrdquo - http://www.whatmakesusgreat.com/about/ - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/02/whats-great-about-america - http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372 - http://www.iie.org/Services/Project-Atlas/United-States/International-Students-In-US - http://www.internationalstudentguidetotheusa.com/articles/three-great-strengths-of-us-higher-education.htm - http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/ - http://access-internationalvg2.cappelendamm.no/c951212/artikkel/vis.html?tid=385685 - http://one-europe.info/eurographics/european-movies-vs-american-movies

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |

Drones William C Banks, Drone Wars: Transforming Conflict, Law, and Policy (Cambridge University Press 2014) Erik Rudanski, Drone Strike: Effectiveness, Consequences and Unmanned Aerial Systems Background (Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 2014) Brian Glyn Williams, Predators: The CIA’s Drone War on Al Qaeda (University of Nebraska Press. 2013) Mélanie De Groof, Death from the Sky: International Legal and Practical Issues on the Use of Armed Drones. in Aleš Završnik (ed), Drones and Unmanned Aerial Systems: Legal and Social Implications for Security and Surveillance (Springer International Publishing 2016) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/ >accessed 03.05.2016 https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/09/25/drones-causing-mass-trauma-among- civilians-major-study-finds/ >accessed 03.05.2016 Disclaimer This article was written for an assignment which is not yet handed in, therefore is still subject to review. In addition, this article has not been changed in any way by the editors of this magazine which may have affected the grade for the final paper.

Finally, we would like to thank all writers and readers for making the completion of this magazine possible. We make this magazine for you, therefore we rely on your feedback, collaboration, input and comments in order to keep producing magazines that you want to read. so, please be in touch! - The Nexus magazine editorial team

NEXUS SPRING 2016 |