Alma Bocaj

The European Court of Justice decided today on a case about the right of the EU Member States to deny social security benefits to EU citizens coming from other EU countries if they didn't fulfill the economical threshold, i.e proof of sufficient financial means in order to reside in the respective country. By reading the decision I was under the impression that the European Union is moving backwards in its pathway towards a real European unification. Notwithstanding the fact that the Union has made significant steps in hiking its endeavors for materializing a Europe without borders, which to some extent has been attained, yet the European integration is not a completed process. It is an undeniable reality that since the EU Directive regarding the full free movement for EU Citizens coming from Romania and Bulgaria was enacted and entered into force in January 2014, many European countries such as Germany and the UK had to be confronted with a considerable spillover.

For obvious reasons by enjoying free movement within the EU an EU citizen has automatically access to the public health, social security etc. of the country where he or she resides. This was the case of a Romanian citizen that was decided upon by the European Court of Justice today. The Court of Justice basically restored once more the principle of subsidiarity, established in Article 5 (3) of the Treaty on EU, which gives the EU Member States a significant discretion in the decision-making within their territory as long as this does not diverge with the Union’s prerogatives.

Art. 5 (3):

“Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.”

The right to claim social security from the residing country is without doubt a right which has been covered and regulated by the European Union but the Member States are about to withhold the right to arbitrarily decide and refuse the inclusion of certain citizens in the social security scheme on a case by case basis. The European Court of Justice in the case of Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v. Jobcenter Leipzig reinforced this right of the member states by giving them the chance to exclude “inactive EU citizens who go to another Member State solely in order to obtain social assistance”. The word “inactive” in this case means that Ms. Dano according to the Job Center in Leipzig has repeatedly refused to work. And the Court in this case relied on the European directive which gives the right to Member States not to grant social security benefits to citizens for the period of the first three months. If this period extends 3 months but is less than 5 years whereby the citizen does not show proof of sufficient financial resources he or she can not claim the right to benefit from the social security system of the residing country and might even be asked to leave the country.

The legal framework seems pretty clear now, the European Court of Justice gave another green light to EU countries to encapsulate their social security systems. If one person does not satisfy the requirements of the specific job centers this means he cannot rely on European law either, as the national law has gained supremacy The European integration is going uphills isn't it? Indeed the European citizens can move freely in the EU but what about other rights, such as residing and being treated as an equal citizen of the hosting country. This was allegedly the original idea behind the European Union, a Union without restrictions where everyone that at least lives within its borders can exercise its given rights, wasn't it?

Hi there,

as I am used to have a dessert after each meal (kind of addiction), yesterday I decided to make some chocolate banana vegan muffins that came out very tasty and I thought to share my recipe with you  :-)

Instructions:

Dry ingredients:

1. 100 g. whole wheat flour

2. 125 g. wheat flour

3. 150 g. brown sugar

4.  10 g. baking powder

5.  20 g. cocoa powder

6.  10 g. cinnamon

Wet ingredients:

1.  1-2 mashed bananas

2.  57 gr. canola oil

3.   1/4 liter water

4.   1/4 liter soy or almond milk (I usually use soy milk)

Preparation:

1. Preheat oven to 180C.

2. In a bowl mix together whole wheat flour,  wheat flour, baking powder, sugar, cocoa powder, cinnamon.

3. Add the other ingredients (mashed banana, rapeseed oil, water and soy or almond milk) to the mix.

4. Put the compound in the muffin silicone form. You can use muffins wrappers instead depending on what you wish.

5. Bake for about 20-30 minutes at 180C. Before taking out the form check with a toothpick if they are ready. If the toothpick is clean, take them out and let cool for 5 minutes. Then remove the muffins from the form.

Enjoy!  ;-)

Even though one is aware of many things going on around the world, still it is difficult to perceive the fact that slavery exists in some parts of the world. The reasons for such an archaic and inhuman system are usually connected to poverty, at least this is what we hear from people involved in this injustice.

Today on a TV show I learned about the so-called "Kalamari tradition". This is a phenomenon occurring in the Tharu community in Nepal, where families sell their daughters usually starting at the age of 5, to wealthy families. These young girls are then forced to work for these families whereas their fathers get the money from their work on a monthly basis. Basically what these girls do their entire time there is working, working, working, they dont get the chance to ever see the doors of a school or have access to a sufficient health care, this is a thing that they could only dream of.
A kalamari girl, aged 17 was reporting that her family sent her away when she was only 6 years old, 11 years after working and living for unknown people she turned back to her family and against all odds she was trying to come closer to her family members and especially her mom. Looks pretty much so as she had already apologized her family for doing such a macabre action. She asked her brother, who was the last person she saw before leaving her family for good at the age of 6, why they sold her. His answer was, the family didnt have anything to offer to her, they couldnt even buy clothes for her whereas most of her friends had nice clothes on.
The many questions that crossed my mind in these moments where all why questions. On the one side I tried to put myself in the position of her family (didnt think of widening the circle and show comprehension for all other families that do such a thing) and even thought for a moment that they didnt have many other alternatives left. But no, this isnt the right approach when considering these cases, how can we preach in our modern days with our modern technologies for human rights as being one of our most sacred principles when speaking about a healthy society and even so accept the fact that outside of our houses exist societies that still are remote from adequate living standards in many ways? Is it even possible to believe that global values such as social justice and world peace can be attained with such unheard inequalities?

I definitely respect the work of many people trying their best to ameliorate the situation of people in vulnerable societies and struggling for an alignment of living conditions with developed countries, but fact is that governments, especially those with declared democratic values, need to get more involved in actions against violations of human rights and address egregious violations such as slavery on a systematic basis. Child labor should be stopped and children rights ought to be respected at all costs, since we cant speak of healthy societies without children with a healthy childhood.

The latest updates from the crisis in Ukraine have unfolded new dimensions in international law. There is no dispute over the fact that the autonomous peninsula of Crimea has strong ties to Russia, not only because of its geographical proximity but even because of the predominant Russian-speaking population. Moreover Russia controls a military base in Sevastopol which for the time being is considered to destabilize the region.
In addition to that, former President Yanukovych approved in year 2010 the extension of the leasing contract for the Russian Black Sea Fleet over the facilities of the peninsula for another 25 years starting in 2017 against a reduction of the Russian gas prices. Thus Russia has been carefully moving towards the enforcement of its geostrategic interests in Ukraine.

In the last days Russia has shown its leverage by undertaking a military intervention in Crimea without any prior authorization from either the interim Ukrainian government or the Security Council. In this respect Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter states that:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Obviously Russia is breaching international law rules by making a unilateral intervention in Crimea without any prior authorization from Ukraine, thus interfering with its territorial and political integrity. The International Court of Justice has made clear the principle of non-intervention in the case of Nicaragua v. United States of America by stating that: "The principle of non-intervention involves the right of every sovereign State to conduct its affairs without outside interference".

The arguments of Russia in defending its actions are the protection of Russian citizens in Crimea (protection of nationals abroad is a right of states under international law). Up to now there wasn't any evidence that Russian nationals in Crimea have been subjected to any violence through Ukrainian authorities nor that their lives were put in danger. Russia has not only sent its troops and armoured vehicles but also Russian ships have been seen to move in Crimea, so basically there seem to exist some significant evidence of thinking of a deliberate takeover of the peninsula from Russia.

Art 51. of the UN Charter foresees the right of self-defence for a member country if it is under an armed attack from another country. Ukraine might rely on Art. 51 and call for self-defence, but in doing that, it needs to prove that an armed attack against it has taken place. Is it the case here? Is Ukraine under an armed attack from Russia?  The qualification of an armed attack has been delivered by the ICJ in the Nicaragua Case: "...this is to be understood as meaning not merely action by regular armed forces across an international border, but also the sending by a State of armed bands on to the territory of another State..."

On the other hand under the light of customary international law Ukraine might have resorted to the right of "preemptive self-defence" which could be invoked in case of an existent imminent threat as opposed to the right of self-defence contemplated in Art.51 of the UN Charter, which appears to be more rigid in terms of its use. Nevertheless when employing preemptive self-defence the following elements need to be fulfilled: "necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation."  The United Nations have put limits to this right through Art 51. by requiring that self-defence should only be employed when there is an existent armed attack.

But once again the question is whether there is an armed attack in Ukraine and in case Ukraine reacts to the Russian intervention, what should it bear in mind before employing any use of force against Russian troops?

These energy balls are very nutritious and delicious too. Preparation takes max. 30 minutes or even less.

For approx. 20-25 pieces you might need:

1. 550 g. dried dates
2. 2 Tbs. tahini
3. 1 cup nuts (I usually use walnuts or pecan nuts)

First you have to pit the dates. Afterwards you mix all the ingredients in the mixer so that you can obtain a thick paste. From the paste start making small balls with either a spoon or with your hands and roll them in coconut flakes. Thats about it. They taste better if you put them in the fridge before serving.

Bon appetit!

Today in the news I stumbled upon the reality of the Yarmouk Camp based in Syria. What gave me the push for writing a short post about this camp were the pictures of needy young and old people crying out for help.

According to the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Work Agency) Yarmouk is one of the largest palestinian refugee camps in Syria established in 1957, lying 8 km away from Damaskus city with more than 148.500 refugees registered. Even though when hearing the words "refugee camps" one has the tendency to think of people living in very meager conditions, oddly enough the living community in this camp has been characterized by better living standards with professional workers ranging from doctors to engineers and facilities such as schools and hospitals. I must say that I was very impressed myself, in a good sense, when I read about these facts, without considering the fact that they were still refugees, but this is once more another political question which hasnt found the proper resonance up to now.

Since the Syrian Civil War has started the refugee camp has turned to be a battle field between the syrian rebels, their palestinian allies and the syrian army, with people losing their homes and their living foundations."I'm so tired, so tired" were the words of an old lady approaching a BBC correspondent. Exactly in these moments where you become aware of how good your life is when seeing other people starving or even dying and you think wow, I am so lucky and privileged, exactly at this time where you have a sort of wake-up call and consider your "everyday problems" to be so meaningless in front of the real struggle for life, and yeah hoping and trying to give a voice to these cryings and sufferings so that everyone can reflect even for one moment and maybe take some real action so that even a slight help to these people can make a visible change in the future.

The international community, particularly the western countries seem to be unanimous over the fact that more needs to be done for relieving the lives of these people in some way. I felt very touched from the words of the Unrwa's (United Nations Relief and Work Agency) commissioner-general talking to the people: "We wont forget you, the world wont forget you", because this is what the world needs to do right now.

The necessity to act is bigger than ever, refugees constitute an extreme vulnerable group who directly suffer and are subjected to some of the worst side effects of wars and destabilization. And of course everyone is fully aware of the fact that healthy societies contribute to a better global development.

Sources:

Syria crisis: A Palestinian plea from Yarmouk refugee camp. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26333533

UNRWA. http://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/syria/camp-profiles?field=16

In my master thesis I discuss the question of civil international liability of multinational corporations for human rights violations. More specifically it deals with the case of some Nigerian citizens filing a lawsuit in 2002 in the United States against a big oil company such as Shell Dutch Petroleum operating in Nigeria too for aiding and abetting the Nigerian military in massive killings and torture of the citizens of the Ogoni River for several years. The legal basis for the complaint relies upon the american Alien Tort Claim Act (ATCA), which seems to have been dormant in the last decades and is now being called upon for answering the question whether under this statute not only individuals but even legal persons such as multinational corporations may be held liable for severe human rights violations.

On the 17th April 2013 the decision of the Supreme Court, which from the perspective of human rights protection was a disappointing one, didn't answer the laid question. Instead in its reasoning it held that the Alien Tort Claims Act shouldn't be extended to crimes committed outside the US based on the principle of presumption against extraterritoriality, thus narrowing the scope of the statute. Another prerequisite mentioned in the decision to overcome the overstated principle was the "sufficient force" element, which might be taken into consideration when a plaintiff shows evidence of having ties to the United States.

Considering that this enforcement mechanism of human rights such as ATCA as one of a kind, because the European counterparts haven't presented any such legal recourse yet, one tends to believe that the fate of the people asking for legal remedies for human rights violations lays in the hands of the Supreme Court judges, whereby the term justice which obviously is deducted from the notion of the state of law doesn't seem to find an echo. So what might be the solutions for this gap...