Search results

Francisco B González Centeno is an officer for the International Criminal Court (ICC) from Buenos Aries, Argentina. He holds an MSc in Sociology from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Francisco has been a central pillar in protecting the human right of access to information by expanding access to justice in the Central African Republic. He has been involved with projects with UNECSO to protect cultural heritage sites from collateral damage in areas of conflict.   CJLPA : Welcome Francisco, and many thanks for interviewing with The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art . We wanted to begin by asking you what prompted you to delve into a career in international justice?   Francisco B González Centeno : My career in international justice did not start as a lawyer, as most people might assume, but as a political scientist and sociologist. In fact, law was not my favourite subject during my political science and international relations studies. However, I got interested in law as a social and political construct. I was eager to study the mechanisms on how the law shapes and impacts societies, and how it also reflects the agency of humans in terms of social and power relations. Law is the crystallisation of human relations and therefore has an impact in our daily interactions, which are regulated by it. During my sociology research at The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), I was particularly interested in how international criminal justice and transitional justice procedures impact reconciliation and how they address collective memory as a story-telling mechanism that could help build more peaceful contexts.   CJLPA : After completing your university degree in Argentina, you went on to do your masters in LSE. How did your time in LSE shape your career trajectory?   FGC : LSE offered me a unique and, most importantly, critical approach to the study of the social sciences. The LSE Department of Sociology has played a key role in establishing and developing the discipline and debate around global policies since 1904. I am proud and honoured to have been part of the Department and to have had the opportunity to receive the academic advice and guidance of top-quality thinkers, many of them leaders in the evolution of the social sciences in new intellectual areas and the study of the social problems and ethical dilemmas facing cosmopolitan but also fractured and complex societies.   LSE marked my career path because of the emphasis the university had on connecting academia and the sciences to the real world and adapting disciplines to different and diverse realms and global challenges. I have applied my Sociology expertise, honed at LSE, to the areas of justice, the rule of law and law enforcement in the United Nations (UN) system.   At the LSE, there is this triangle about changing the world, shaping the world, and academia. The School’s current campaign ‘#CuriousMindsAreShapingTheWorld’ reflects this spirit. I am very proud to be an active member of the LSE Alumni community and to keep contributing to the School from any front. CJLPA : In your early career, you worked as an Under-Secretary at the Chambers of the Chief Justice of Argentina, and as an external relations specialist for UNESCO in the fight against illicit trafficking in cultural goods, at the Culture Sector of the Organisation. Having worked closely with the Chief Justice of Argentina since 2008, could you please give us any insight into cases when the Supreme Court of Argentina had defended or protected the human rights of victims?   FGC : In 2005, the Supreme Court of Argentina declared the ‘Full Stop’ and ‘Due Obedience’ laws unconstitutional. These laws had previously halted the prosecution of military and police personnel for human rights violations during the last dictatorship (1976-1983). This was a crucial moment that paved the way for renewed prosecutions of those allegedly involved in human rights abuses. The decisions were emblematic of a larger shift in Argentine society towards prioritising accountability and justice. The 2005 nullification of the amnesty laws by the Supreme Court of Argentina was a turning point in the country’s transitional justice process. This decision played a fundamental role in addressing impunity for the grave human rights abuses committed during the last military dictatorship.   The primary grounds on which the amnesty laws were declared unconstitutional were as follows:   Incompatibility with International Treaties: Argentina is a signatory to various international human rights treaties, such as the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The amnesty laws were seen as incompatible with Argentina’s obligations under these treaties to investigate and punish gross human rights violations. Crimes Against Humanity: The Supreme Court recognised the acts committed during the dictatorship as crimes against humanity. Such crimes, due to their severity and impact on the international community, are not subject to amnesties, pardons, or statutes of limitations. Right to Justice: The Court argued that the amnesty laws denied victims their right to justice and truth. Every victim has the right to know the truth about violations and to an effective remedy, which the amnesty laws hindered. Judicial Independence: The laws were also criticised for infringing upon the principle of the independence of the judiciary. By preventing the judiciary from investigating and punishing certain crimes, the laws were essentially intervening in the natural functioning of the justice system. Each of the Supreme Court Justices back then brought their perspectives and interpretations to the bench. Their collective decision to overturn the amnesty laws reflected both a domestic shift in public sentiment and Argentina’s broader obligations under international law.   This Supreme Court decision was important in terms of the recognition of victims and Human Rights. Many families of the disappeared and other victims had been waiting for decades for justice. The nullification meant that their pain and suffering were acknowledged and that those responsible could be held accountable. By overturning the amnesty laws, Argentina officially recognised the magnitude and severity of the crimes committed during the dictatorship. This helped ensure that these atrocities were not forgotten or minimised in historical memory. The decision underscored the state’s obligation to prosecute and punish gross human rights violations, signifying a commitment to the rule of law and to human rights principles.   The decision was exemplary for the international community in terms of transitional justice. Argentina’s decision inspired and provided a legal precedent for other countries grappling with similar challenges. Countries facing transitional justice questions often look to examples from other nations, and Argentina’s nullification was seen as a bold move against impunity. The decision reignited the debate on the legitimacy and morality of amnesty laws, particularly when it concerns crimes against humanity. The nullification showed that, in some cases, the quest for national reconciliation should not come at the cost of justice. The nullification aligned Argentina with international human rights standards, particularly the notion that grave human rights abuses should not be subject to statutes of limitations or amnesties. This bolstered international human rights norms and conventions.   After the 2005 nullification, hundreds of cases were reopened or initiated after the nullification; by the late 2010s, over 800 individuals had been convicted of crimes related to the dictatorship, and approximately 1,000 more were facing charges, which marked a significant acceleration in the prosecution of dictatorship-era crimes.   In summary, the 2005 nullification of the amnesty laws by the Supreme Court of Argentina was not just a domestic triumph for justice and human rights but also had broader implications for the international community’s ongoing struggle against impunity and the quest for transitional justice. The decision served as a powerful testament to the resilience of victims’ families and human rights advocates in Argentina and worldwide. CJLPA : What are the biggest challenges you have faced when interacting with governing bodies in foreign jurisdictions in your early career? Working in such close proximity to the Chief Justice of Argentina, what skills did you develop that have benefited you in your current work with the ICC?   FGC : There were challenges but most importantly career opportunities. At the Chambers of the Chief Justice of Argentina, I was special assistant to The Honourable Chief Justice Ricardo Lorenzetti, from whom I acquired a wealth of experience and to whom I am extremely thankful for his mentoring as an excellent manager and supervisor. I worked especially on the institutional agenda of the Presidency of the Court, including and especially with external actors, such as different Judiciaries of the world (Supreme Courts and Constitutional Courts) and other key stakeholders, International Tribunals and UN Agencies and Entities. I helped organise and coordinated with different sections of the Court; several international summits; conferences and meetings; State and Official Visits of high level senior officials (including Heads of States and International Organisations) to the seat of the Court; official trips of the Chief Justice and the Justices to different countries; and provided assistance and coordination for the signing and the execution of numerous international partnership agreements between the Supreme Court of Argentina and leading partners.   This experience has been capital for me in terms of the external relations of justice, with functions that underlined the independence of the judiciary and the division of powers in a republic like Argentina. I believe it gave me the right tools to see and to show stakeholders the importance of justice and how justice can make a change and impact on people’s lives, everywhere.   CJLPA : In regard to your work with UNESCO, could you provide us with some insight on the importance of the legal protection of heritage and culture for the promotion of peace and security?   FGC :   The legal protection of heritage and culture is not just a matter of preservation; it is deeply intertwined with promoting peace and security, both within nations and internationally. UNESCO, with its mandate to foster global collaboration in the fields of education, science, and culture, underscores the crucial role of legally protecting heritage in peacebuilding efforts. Here’s how these are connected:   1. Protecting cultural identity: Cultural heritage represents the shared histories, traditions, and values of communities. Protecting it legally ensures that these identities are respected, reducing potential sources of conflict. Recognising and protecting diverse cultural heritages can stimulate intercultural dialogue, fostering understanding and mutual respect among different communities.   2. Preventing illicit trafficking: Illicit trafficking of cultural property can be a significant source of revenue for criminal and terrorist organisations. Legal protection mechanisms, like those in the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, help stem this flow. Preventing illicit trade reduces the incentive for illegal excavations and theft, indirectly safeguarding cultural heritage.   3. Protection in times of conflict: The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its protocols highlight the importance of preserving cultural heritage during wars and armed conflicts. Such protection ensures that the cultural and historical foundations of societies are not lost amidst conflict. After conflicts, the restoration and repatriation of cultural property, made possible through legal frameworks, can be a significant step in healing and rebuilding societal bonds.   4. Fostering resilience and recovery: Culturally significant sites or practices often play central roles in community life. Their legal protection ensures that communities maintain these pillars of resilience during times of change or strife. In the aftermath of conflicts or disasters, cultural heritage can serve as a focal point for community rebuilding and recovery, both materially and psychologically.   5. Strengthening international cooperation: International legal instruments, like those crafted by UNESCO, create a framework for nations to cooperate in protecting global cultural heritage, fostering diplomatic ties, and mutual understanding. Legal frameworks facilitate the return of cultural property to its country or community of origin, mending international relations that might have been strained due to disputes over cultural heritage.   6. Preserving memory for conflict prevention: Some cultural heritage sites serve as reminders of past conflicts, atrocities, or injustices. Their protection ensures that future generations learn from history, reducing the risk of repeating past mistakes. Protected heritage sites and practices can be focal points for educating the public about the consequences of conflict, promoting a culture of peace.   In essence, the legal protection of heritage and culture, as advocated and facilitated by UNESCO, serves as both a shield against potential sources of conflict and a tool for healing, understanding, and cooperation. By legally safeguarding the diverse tapestry of global cultures, nations build bridges of dialogue and understanding that are foundational for lasting peace and security.   CJLPA : Could you tell us about a project that you consulted on which is particularly meaningful or interesting to you?   FGC : My favourite project whilst working in UNESCO was the launch of the #Unite4Heritage campaign in South America.   The #Unite4Heritage campaign was launched by UNESCO in 2015 as a response to the unprecedented attacks on cultural heritage, particularly in the Middle East. Extremist groups were deliberately targeting cultural landmarks, artefacts, and monuments, either for ideological reasons or to fund their activities through the illicit trade of looted items. The campaign was certainly very relevant in terms of law enforcement for many reasons.   Regarding illicit trafficking of cultural property, cultural artefacts often end up in the black market and are sold to finance terrorist activities. Tackling this requires international law enforcement cooperation. Many cultural heritage sites are in conflict zones, making them vulnerable. Law enforcement and peacekeeping forces play an essential role in physically protecting these sites from deliberate destruction or collateral damage. The campaign underscored the need for strong legal frameworks at both the national and international levels to protect cultural heritage. Such frameworks guide law enforcement agencies in their efforts to prevent illicit activities related to cultural properties.   While the impetus for the campaign emerged primarily from events in the Middle East, its principles are globally relevant, including in South America, and this is what we focused on for its launch in the subregion.   South America is home to a diverse and rich cultural heritage, from ancient Incan and Mayan cities to colonial architecture and indigenous traditions. These are not just important for South Americans as they also hold value for all of humanity. The region has seen its share of threats to cultural heritage, including illegal excavations, looting of archaeological sites, environmental threats, and urbanisation pressures. The campaign #Unite4Heritage helped in raising awareness about these threats and mobilising action to counter them. South America, like other regions, is not immune to the illicit trafficking of cultural property. Strengthening legal and enforcement measures to combat this can benefit from the momentum and resources provided by global campaigns like #Unite4Heritage. South America is marked by its cultural diversity, with indigenous communities holding rich traditions and knowledge systems. Protecting and celebrating this diversity aligned with the principles of the #Unite4Heritage campaign. Engaging local communities in the protection of their cultural heritage was also crucial. The campaign’s principles helped in fostering a sense of ownership and pride among South American communities, ensuring that heritage protection became a grassroots effort.   The launch of the #Unite4Heritage campaign in South America was took place during the opening of the art intervention #PalmyraAtVillaOcampo, at the only UNESCO owned property in the world, Villa Ocampo, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Like the Bamiyan Buddhas before, the city of Palmyra in Syria had become a symbol for the vulnerability of cultural heritage, a memorial for cultural loss and a warning for us and future generations that cultural heritage should not be taken for granted and could be lost at any time. This led to Syria and especially Palmyra being chosen as representative examples to illustrate the campaign. The whole property in Buenos Aires was artistically explored by music and plastic artists who brought Palmyra into the property. The objective was to raise awareness, amongst government authorities, civil society, and especially young people, of the importance of heritage protection and cultural diversity and to stop extremist attacks on the cultural heritage of humanity. These concrete actions for Latin America aimed to promote the role of culture as a factor of tolerance and dialogue between peoples and to counter violent extremism in all its manifestations.   In essence, whilst the immediate concerns that led to the creation of the #Unite4Heritage campaign were centred in the Middle East, its objectives and principles had a universal relevance. South America, with its intricate tapestry of cultural histories and present-day challenges, stood to benefit immensely from the awareness, resources, and collaborations fostered by such a campaign, and it was an honour for me to work on the design of local initiatives framed into that campaign.   CJLPA : Your work in the Central African Republic is directed at providing access to justice through access to information. Could you please highlight, through your observations, the challenges that are faced by affected communities in accessing necessary means of justice and why it is important to provide information to the general public of the works of the Court?   (Figures 1-4 show a pop-up installation in Bangui, CAR, displaying images from the ICC’s courtroom in The Hague, more information at https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/outreach/activities/activity/pop-installation-bangui-attracts-passers . Figures 5-8 show billboards announcing the trial opening in the Mahamat Said Abdel Kani case visible in Bossangoa, Berbérati, Mbaïki and Bria, more information at https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/outreach/activities/activity/billboards-way-announce-start-trial .) FGC : The Central African Republic (CAR) has faced complex political, social, and humanitarian challenges for many years, including military coups, political instability, and prolonged armed conflicts. These complexities have unfortunately had a significant impact on access to justice for its population, making it a major challenge.   Many citizens, due to the lack of means to access information, might be unaware of their legal rights or the processes involved in seeking justice. This is why I regard my work at the International Criminal Court (ICC) as relevant. There is a need for greater public information and outreach tools which can help justice, especially international criminal justice, be more accessible. Access to information is a human right and a tool to access justice.   When we speak about affected communities in the ICC Cases in CAR, we include both victims’ communities and the suspects’ communities. Both have the right to have access to information and therefore justice; bearing in mind the important concepts and principles of a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, but never forgetting the relevance of the victims’ voices during the proceedings.   CJLPA : In what ways does the ICC work towards making justice more accessible and easier to understand in the affected communities in CAR?   FGC :   In the Central African Republic, public information and outreach focuses on access to justice through access to information, on meeting affected communities, on peace and reconciliation. The work of the Court is made public especially through screenings, urban intervention campaigns, and pop-up installations.   A number of outreach activities were conducted since 2019, when I joined the Court, including ones in relation to the arrest and first appearance of Mr Maxime Jeoffroy Eli Mokom Gawaka; the confirmation of charges against Mr Mahamat Saïd Abdel Kani; the issuance of the public redacted version of the warrant of arrest for Mr Mahamat Nouradine Adam; and progress in the trial of Alfred Yekatom and Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona.   The Court’s country office featured a live broadcast of the hearings on the confirmation of charges against Mr Saïd on TV Centrafrique, a radio station providing national coverage, and a live streaming activity took place in the 4ème Arrondissement of Bangui, an area of interest in terms of victim communities. Something similar is being done for the hearings of the confirmation of charges of Mr Maxime Jeoffroy Eli Mokom Gawaka, in an area of Bangui, the capital city of CAR, where both parts of the affected communities (victims’ and suspect’s communities) will be present to follow the retransmission of this judicial instance. The country office continues with its urban intervention campaign (involving the use of roadside billboards to announce key judicial phases and reinforcing justice-related principles), the series of pop-up installations in key symbolic locations in Bangui showing proceedings-related videos followed by a Q&A session, and #LeGrandDébatSurLaJustice (a radio-based justice dialogue to address concerns and questions about the ICC).   Public information and outreach activities are conducted in the hinterland, in areas of interest in terms of affected communities in the ICC Cases, such as Bria, the birthplace and place of arrest of the one of the accused persons, Mr Saïd; Birao, the place of arrest of Mr Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (‘Ali Kushayb’), a suspect in the Sudan situation; Mbaïki, one of the accused persons’ area of influence (Mr Yekatom); Boda; Carnot; Bouar; Yaloké; Bossangoa, the birthplace of two suspects (Mr Yekatom and Mr Mokom); and Berbérati.   CJLPA : Can you highlight the importance of publicly broadcasted court proceedings and access to information on what happens at the ICC Courtroom in The Hague?   FGC :   Access to information in CAR is also connected to other two key elements: reconciliation and deterrence.   For victims and affected communities, understanding how international criminal justice works and accessing its mechanisms, when possible, seeing perpetrators held accountable can be cathartic and can aid in healing and reconciliation. It is essential to note, however, that whilst the ICC can contribute to reconciliation, it cannot guarantee it. Reconciliation is a complex, long-term process that requires multifaceted approaches beyond just legal measures.   In terms of deterrence, public information about international criminal justice at work can deter individuals from committing international crimes. Knowledge on the ICC in general contributes to the establishment of a global norm against impunity. Over time, this normative shift can lead to systemic changes in attitudes towards grave crimes.   CJLPA : Could you please provide some insight on the ICC’s urban intervention campaign in the CAR?   FGC :   This is a twofold access to information and justice campaign. It consists of the installation and display of informative billboards in Bangui and in locations of interest in terms of affected communities, and the spontaneous set-up of pop-up installations with a big screen in the streets of Bangui that invite all passersby to follow trial summaries and to participate in quizzes about the Court. The latter is an open justice and a democratic public information and outreach tool, which is different from traditional outreach activities where key personalities or influencers are invited.   Billboards are placed in Bangui and in different cities in the hinterland in the Central African Republic, announcing key judicial instances in the ICC Cases, and also concepts and principles about international criminal justice, amongst them, the presumption of innocence and the importance of a fair trial, the relevance of the voice of victims, etc. This way, information is clearly visible for affected communities throughout the Central African Republic.   During the pop-up installations in the streets of Bangui, a big screen is mounted in different key neighbourhoods, attracting more than 200 people, who stop by to watch animations and videos portraying the work of the Court. One after the other, videos in Sango and French point to the latest developments in the ICC Cases in CAR: Yekatom and Ngaïssona, Saïd and Mokom. After the screening, the ICC team invites the audience to participate in a quiz about the Court. CJLPA : What advice would you like to give to anyone trying to get into a career in international justice? FGC : One certainly does not need to be a lawyer, but rather to have a vocation to understand the causes of things, which is the motto of my alma mater, the LSE. To understand how and why justice and law are important as social constructions and how they affect and impact social relations, including peacebuilding and reconciliation. This is the passion I find in justice and all its implications and connections, including the rule of law and law enforcement. I would also suggest developing a specific profile and specialising in a concrete area, but most importantly in something that can make one be proud of shaping the world towards a better one. This interview was conducted by Nour Kachi, Legal Researcher for 'CJLPA: The Human Agenda'. In addition to his role at CJLPA, Nour is currently working on qualifying as a lawyer in the US and UK.

Helena Wray is a professor of migration law at the University of Exeter. Her extensive experience in this area spans several publications, including two books (Article 8 ECHR, Family Reunification and the UK’s Supreme Court: Family Matters? in 2023 and Regulation of Marriage Migration into the UK: A Stranger in the Home in 2011), working as specialist advisor to the House of Lords Committee on Justice and Home Affairs during its inquiry into family migration, and providing expert evidence for landmark cases in the Supreme Court. This interview was conducted in November 2023, prior to the UK government’s announcement that it would be increasing the minimum income requirement for spouses and partners from £18,600 pa to £29,000 and then to £38,700. CJLPA:  Welcome, Helena Wray, from The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics and Art . We are pleased to have you here today to discuss the legal and political issues surrounding migration in the UK. Firstly, a little bit of a background: what problems arise in the regulation of immigration?   Helena Wray : I think the biggest single problem is that immigration is such a highly politicized area that politicians feel compelled to make sometimes unsustainable promises. And it then turns out that these are things that can’t be done, or can only be done at huge costs, or only can be done with massive trade-offs. So, you tend to get a legal regime that’s often quite confusing, very changeable, sometimes quite inhumane, with limited accountability. And there are lots of people who are disadvantaged by this — employers trying to get workers in, for example—but the people who suffer most from it are the migrants themselves and their families. So, refugees, people seeking asylum, people wanting to come to the UK to join their loved ones, all of those people can find it very, very difficult to challenge those laws. Because, in essence, the government claims that it has, or would argue that it has, a mandate to do pretty much what it likes. And the law gives it very wide powers. Of course, migrants, generally speaking, don’t have votes. And so, if you’ve got two constituencies to please, you’re going to please the one that you think will vote for you.   CJLPA : Of course. And following from that, do you believe that the UK is actually facing a migration crisis as portrayed by the Home Office? Or do you think that’s a politicized view of it?   HW : The term crisis is always a construction. Events happen, and people respond to them. And one of the ways that you can respond to them is by saying it is a crisis and it requires emergency measures. Do I think quite a lot of people want to come to the UK? The answer is yes. Clearly, there are people, many people want to come to the UK. Why do they want to come to the UK? Often for very good reasons: work, family, study, to join loved ones, to flee persecution, warfare, civil war, environmental degradation, all sorts of things. Now, that can be interpreted as a normal event, something that is inevitably going to be going to happen in the world that we live in. Or you can construct it as a crisis that not just to be managed, but to be prevented, justifying all sorts of other measures. So, I think, there are lots of people who want to come. Whether or not it’s a crisis is very much in the eye of the beholder. But what I think is clear is that attempts to prevent this tend to just make things worse and force the movement onto other places.   So, we have a small boats crisis—I would say that is a crisis in my view, because people are risking their lives in horrible conditions to try to cross to the UK, at great risk to themselves. So, it’s clearly a really awful state of affairs. But you have to look back and say well, those people were people who in the past would have perhaps tried to come in lorries, before the route via lorries was blocked so comprehensively, or in the Eurostar, before all the fences were put up at Calais, and then even better for them, they would have come in, perhaps on a flight because they didn’t need a visa. If you go back historically, back to the turn of the 20th century, there were no real immigration controls at all, only 120 years ago. So, I think the reality is that people will want to move including into and out of the UK—whether or not that is a crisis depends upon how you view it.   CJLPA : What are the main barriers faced by families wishing to migrate to or wishing to reunite through migration to the UK?   HW : Well, the UK has one of the strictest family migration regimes in the world. In fact, there’s an index called the MIPEX (Migrant Integration Policy Index) which it looks at a large number of countries , including countries outside Europe , and rates the accessibility of their family migration policies, and the UK is second from bottom. The only other country beneath it is Denmark, which has a notoriously strict family migration regime. So, the regime that people face is much stricter than it is in other countries, and it’s pretty strict in other countries. There are quite a lot of countries which have quite difficult regimes, but the UK is particularly difficult.   It’s difficult in a number of ways. It’s very difficult to come in as a family member, unless you are a spouse, or a partner, or a minor child — a child under 18 — and both your parents are in the UK. That’s a really important qualification, you can’t just come in to join one parent if you’ve got another parent somewhere else. Outside of that group: elderly relatives, dependent siblings, adult children — it’s extremely difficult to enter. The rules are very strict, almost impossibly strict. So, the criteria themselves, the groups or the categories of family member who can enter are very narrow. Then even for those people who fall within that one of those categories, the rules are very demanding, particularly for spouses and partners. They require you to earn a minimum income , which many people do not meet , and this has to be met in very particular way. So, you have to earn it for at least six months, and you have to have the evidence to show that in numerous ways.   And that’s just the beginning ; there are lots and lots of other conditions you have to meet. You have to show your accommodation, and you have to get lots of documents ready. So, it’s a very complex system in that respect. And in addition, it is extremely expensive. Visa fees cost thousands and thousands of pounds. You’re not talking small amounts at any stage, because just the initial application plus what’s called the ‘immigration health surcharge’, and then after all the additional costs, translation costs, perhaps getting a medical certificate, you’re talking about several thousand pounds just to make the application. And then that has to be renewed after two and a half years, and then renewed again, after a further two and a half years, some]times you have to keep renewing that for up to 10 years or even longer. So, all the time you’re having to find thousands of pounds to support your visa fees. The whole route is complex, it’s expensive, it’s difficult to access. It really is not a family friendly route.   CJLPA : It doesn’t sound like it. And, talking a little bit more about how only spouses or partners or minor children can relocate to reunite with family, how has a narrow or perhaps outdated view of what family actually means caused problems for families or family members migrating to the UK?   HW : The question is about those who tend to be called ‘adult dependent relatives’. That’s the category in the immigration laws, and that could be your elderly parents or grandparents, but it could also be, for example, a sibling who is in distress and who needs support, or even your adult child. If you are in the UK, and you have responsibility for — and you’re very anxious about — one of those relatives, that’s going to make your life here very difficult, very complicated. You may have to spend thousands of pounds flying out to see them, you may have to make decisions about what sort of work you can do, you will be constantly preoccupied with trying to ensure that they’re looked after properly, you may feel extremely guilty that you can’t care for your family member. You’re torn between your family life here and then maybe children that you need to look after, and your elderly parents in another country, who also need care. It causes immense amounts of distress and anxiety. Some people who have options actually decide to go and live somewhere else that has got a more friendly regime, particularly NHS workers who go to other countries because that country will allow them to bring in an elderly parent, for example.   From the point of view of the migrant who wants to come in — the family member who wants to come in — the level of dependency or some vulnerability needed before they’re even considered eligible for a visa is extremely high. So, you’re talking about sort of people who are almost sometimes too ill to travel before they can actually qualify. It’s not absolutely at that level, it is sometimes possible to get people in, but it is extremely difficult. And I’ve seen two lots of problems with it.   Number one: it really is discriminatory, because the people who’ve got family members abroad are generally people who are themselves of migrant descent . You wouldn’t have an elderly parent or, in most cases, a sibling or an adult child who lives abroad who can’t join you   unless you yourself are of migrant origin. So it discriminates, it creates a class of people who can’t have the same sort of family life that the rest of us can look forward to having.   The other problem is that it takes a really functional and instrumental attitude towards what family is. So, for example, one of the arguments will be: ‘well, you’re paying for care for this elderly person, or you can pay for care for this elderly person, in a home somewhere in another country. So why do you need to bring them in?’. Well, that’s not what family life is about. Family life is about caring for people who you want to have with you, about that type of love and affection and reciprocity, and these aren’t recognized at all. And I think another aspect of this — which perhaps is really not discussed enough , and of which I  think some people who work in migration are also a little bit guilty, because we want to make the most compelling moral case that we can — is that it’s not just about extreme vulnerability and extreme dependency, it’s about the quality  of family life. So, you could bring in a parent who is maybe in their 70s, or late 60s or whatever, and they won’t be economically active, but they will be a very vital part of their grandchild’s life, they will really enrich family life, they can offer advice, they can offer support, there are all sorts of ways in which family life is enriched by having other relatives live with you. And those sorts of considerations just do not enter into the way that the rules are set up.   CJLPA : That’s really, really interesting. And how does the accessibility or on affordability of good quality legal advice affect migration?   HW : It’s a major issue in this country. We have some absolutely brilliant immigration lawyers. And I know many, many immigration lawyers who work extremely hard for their clients and are extremely well informed. There are also some advisors — immigration is a regulated area, you cannot offer immigration legal advice unless you’re either a solicitor or a barrister, or you are approved by something called the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, which makes you take exams and checks your knowledge — but even so the quality of advice is quite variable sometimes. And people cannot always access the best advice. The rules are incredibly complex and, frankly, impenetrable. I know there was a simplification exercise going on that we might hope to get round to the family migration rules at some point. But at the moment, if I said to you, please go away and read appendix FM — which is the bit of the immigration rules that deals with most family applications — you would just be lost within a couple of minutes. They are extremely difficult to read, to follow, you have to read them in conjunction with other parts of the immigration rules, you have to look at the guidance, you have to cross check between different sections, you really need to know your stuff. You might, if you’re good and pretty capable, be able to do your own straightforward managed visa application — but if you want to bring in an elderly relative, or there is some complexity about your case, you really need legal advice.   And legal aid is not available in immigration cases. You can sometimes get what’s called exceptional case funding in human rights cases, but that is really complicated to get because you have to make a separate application first for which the lawyer is not paid. And then once that is granted, then you have to find a lawyer who will take your case. And the problem with that is that the number of lawyers doing legal aid has really plummeted, because it’s just not well paid enough, people can’t make a living doing it. And we’re not talking about making a really fantastic living and living in luxury, but making a basic salary that somebody who’s undergone years of higher education and training should be able to earn, nothing spectacular. So, there are real problems there in what’s called a desert in terms of legal advice, especially in certain areas of the country. Now, with technology and so on it is easier to instruct a lawyer in a different part of the country and have Zoom meetings, for example. So, it’s not that necessary to always have to have someone local. But it’s just generally that there isn’t enough good quality advice, unless you’ve got the money to really pay for it.   CJLPA : And that money is obviously on top of the visa application costs and the income requirements needed anyway. You did touch a little bit on income requirements and how they create problems. But can you talk a little bit more about that? And also about whether the income requirements actually fulfil the intended purpose set out by the home office?   HW : So, the minimum income requirement, or the ‘MIR’, as it’s called, is probably the most controversial bit of the immigration rules for spouses and partners. Just to give you a bit of history, it was introduced in 2012. Before that, there was a much more general test, which was called adequate maintenance. Basically, what that meant was that you had to show that if your partner came into this country, that together   you could keep yourselves at a level above income support level, benefits level. So, above a minimum standard, which is reasonable, because you don’t want families falling into destitution and poverty as a result of this. It was a basic check ensuring that families are self-sufficient.   In 2012, the government introduced the MIR, at a level of £18,600 a year. Now, at that time, that was actually very high; around half the people of working age could not meet it. So, that excluded large numbers of people. And it excluded large numbers of people in quite a discriminatory way: for example, typically women with caring responsibilities, people who live in poorer regions, where wages are lower, people who have other caring responsibilities, and also people who are studying, people who are undergoing training, people who are in low paid professions doing really vital but low paid work , like care work . They could all very easily earn below £18,600. So, it’s been extremely problematic for many years. And it’s been very controversial and there’s been a lot of criticism of it. And those criticisms do continue because they remain valid.   I think the way in which the MIR now operates is slightly different, because obviously wages have gone up in the interim. So, if you have a full-time job—40 hours, 36 hours a week, something that equates with a full-time job, at the minimum wage—you will meet the MIR. But the problem is that many people work on variable hours contracts, zero hours contracts, casual employment, people are self-employed, and they don’t necessarily get the minimum wage from their self-employment. And in addition, you can’t just meet the MIR at the moment that you make the application, you have to have met it for a minimum of six months before. So, it’s comparatively low, it’s just complicated to meet.   The other thing is that it puts all the onus on the sponsor. Say your partner is outside the UK. You, the sponsor, at the moment of admission, the moment that you make the application for them to come in, must earn this amount. But what if your partner is a merchant banker, and you’re a student? You’re not necessarily going to have the money, but there’s no doubt that they’re going to make the money. There are some ways around this. You can sometimes meet it by very large amounts of capital — but we’re talking about pretty substantial amounts, over £60,000, if you haven’t got an income at all — and there are some exemptions for people who have disability related benefits and carers allowance and things like that. So there is some flexibility, but not much. It has proved extremely problematic for lots of people. And there have been many reports of people being separated, including children who’ve been separated from a parent. It was estimated in 2015 that are about 15,000 children who were affected in this way.   Does it meet its purposes? There’s no evidence to suggest that it does. The idea behind it was to avoid families claiming welfare benefits. Now, to begin with, when you come into this country, and you’re in what’s called your probationary period, which is at least five years, you are ineligible for public funds anyway. So, it’s not as if you’re going to go off and start claiming housing benefit. But also, it’s just not a realistic assessment of the position of the family after they’ve come in. Because the other party will be earning money, almost certainly, it’s not that difficult to find some sort of work. If you’ve got a sponsor who’s earning, say, £15,000, for a low-paid job, or a part-time job, they don’t meet the MIR. But what are the chances that their partner, when they want to come in, will be able to earn £3,600 a year in order to make them up to £18,600? It’s just not a realistic assessment of the family’s position.   It pushes people onto benefits. There have been quite a lot of reports of sponsors who have children with their partner abroad. And I think one of the things that the government didn’t take into account is that if people want a family, they will have a family. They’re not going to wait for the government to approve them and let them in, so you get the situation where people have had babies and children — they’ve often had to give birth on their own, because the partner can’t come in — and then they are a single parent. And of course, it’s much more difficult for single parents to work. So, then they end up actually claiming benefits. And the government’s own assessment — and this is what’s really interesting — the government did an impact assessment of the fiscal benefits, and it made this claim that there were going to be lots of fiscal benefits, which would save the country loads of money. But when you looked into it, it wasn’t going to save any money at all. And they did it by forms of double counting of various things — it was quite manipulative. In fact, claims for welfare would increase after the MIR came into force, because of the numbers of parents who were left on their own. So, there is no evidence to show that it has it has reduced welfare reliance. And although the evidence is a little bit speculative and anecdotal, -I can’t say that it’s been done, there is no systematic data on this - it seems it’s likely to increase it.   CJLPA : That’s really interesting, that it actually may have done the exact opposite of what the Home Office wanted to do. How do the costs with the of the visa application itself create burdens? Do you think it’s ethical or right for the Home Office to actually profit from visa applications?   HW : Well, the visa fees have just been put up by further 20%, in October. So, they’re now just astronomical, really, really, really high. A further point on the MIR : the £18,600 is for a spouse, but if you want to bring in a child who’s not a British citizen, it is higher than that. So, if you married somebody from abroad, and they had two children whom they wanted to bring them with them — your stepchildren — and they were even able to come in under the immigration rules , perhaps because the other parent had died , even so you’d have to earn more than £18,600 to sponsor them. So, it is all extremely difficult. And the reason I say that is, I’m starting to think about families living in the UK, where they have to make renewal fees. And those fees for say, a spouse and two children are not just paid at the beginning, but then paid again after two and a half years, and people just can’t afford it, or they have to make really difficult choices. Do I save up for the visa fee? Or do I turn on the heating, or do I feed my child? All sorts of very, very difficult choices.   So what you get, actually — and this is increasingly being reported — is that families, people who are here regularly with a visa, with leave to remain become irregular, lose their leave to remain, become counted as amongst the illegal migrants — not a term I want to use, but how they are often described in media — because they can’t afford the visa fee. Or you get people having to make the invidious choice: I’ve got two children, do I pay the fee for one or for the other, which one gets the visa, which one gets a path for citizenship, and which one becomes undocumented? So, the visa fees are extremely problematic.   Do I think it’s ethical? No. The idea behind these very high visa fees is that is that they pay for the overall costs of the immigration system. But these people are not responsible for the overall cost of the immigration system. If you’re living in or you’re applying to come to the UK perfectly legally, you’re doing everything right, or you’re trying to renew your visa — and again, you want to make sure that you don’t become irregular — why should you have to pay for the removal from the UK of somebody who hasn’t, who has overstayed their visa? It’s a service, if this country has decided that we need these very strict immigration controls, it shouldn’t be the users of the service, who have no choice but to use the service,   if they want to come in , who pay.   CJLPA : How do inconsistencies emerge within the UK migration system, and how does that discriminate against or disadvantage some families?   HW : So, the UK does have obligations — under   international law — to recognise people who are refugees under the Refugee Convention, but it is trying to distance itself from those obligations. One of the ways it’s doing this is by creating these bespoke routes for certain favoured groups. I do think, of course, that we should be helping Ukrainians and their families to reach safety. And, we have a responsibility — they are our neighbours — but we also have responsibility to many other people. What about Afghans? What about people from Syria, or Iraq? And now, of course, we’ve got the terrible situation in Gaza, as well. All of those are people who want to reach safety. And in many cases, particularly in Afghanistan, where the UK has been very involved in their threats, as a result of its foreign policy, you can argue that we have a strong moral responsibility towards those people.   What you tend to find is that the government will use what they call the ‘safe and legal routes’ in order to justify trying to deter people from coming in other ways to seek safety. But when you look at what those safe and legal routes are, they really don’t exist beyond the Ukraine scheme, and also beyond another scheme that was for Hong Kong nationals again as a historic link. Again, it’s not that I’m against that scheme, but I think we should be looking at what more widely are our responsibilities. There is a problem that some people seem to be more deserving than others, and it feels very discriminatory.   CJLPA : On a similar line, do you think that the requirements for competency in the English language for migrants joining their spouses or partners create additional burdens, and perhaps discriminate as well?   HW : First of all, obviously, if you’re going to live in the UK being able to speak English is going to be very important. So, it’s not that people shouldn’t be learning English if they’re going to live here. The problem with the pre-entry test — it’s quite clever the way it’s done because it’s very low level, it’s A1 speaking and listening — but it’s the ability to learn English before you come here . It really, really differs depending upon where you are, who you are, your level of education, and so on. So, it might not be that difficult, if you’re living in a large city such as Beijing, or São Paulo, to go and find a language school and to take a test and get some language skills. But if you’re living in a rural village 500 miles from anywhere with perhaps very intermittent Internet, and lots of other problems — such as if you’re not literate — even speaking, getting access to the tuition is going to be difficult, and travelling to take the test is going to be difficult, and you are expected to take the test.   It’s a test that many people fulfil very easily, but I don’t think it’s recognised that it is more difficult for some people. The government say, ‘you can’t come in, because you haven’t met the English test’—but then, how are you going to learn English? If you can’t learn it, you can’t learn it. Whereas if migrants were allowed in, they could enrol in — I know, there is a shortage of local classes — but, there’s a possibility of learning English at a local college in the UK. And you perhaps you can have some sort of expectation that people will go along with that and make an effort.   The other thing that I find quite disturbing is that there are exemptions, but those exemptions are quite elitist in character. So, one exemption is that if you have a degree taught in English — fair enough, obviously, if you’ve got a degree taught in English, you presumably meet the test. But if you’ve got another qualification in English below degree level, you’re also going to be above A1 speaking and listening. For example, if you’ve got an equivalent of a baccalaureate or an A Level in English, that’s going to show that you have some ability. The other thing that I think is more disturbing is that there are exemptions for what they call majority English-speaking countries, and those are countries for whom English is the national language. So, as you’d expect, US, Australia, New Zealand, and so on, but no African countries. Now, many African countries have English as the main language of communication, as one official language, because there are many, often local languages. And it’s unlikely that there will be many people who don’t speak any English at all. There is this risk, because not everybody who lives in Ghana or Nigeria will have learnt spoken English at primary school, been to primary school and learned English. But let’s take the example of Canada, which is exempt. If you go to French speaking Canada — to Quebec — everything is in French. You can naturalise in Canada without speaking English, because you can choose French as your language, you can go to University in Montreal or Quebec City and never have a course in English. I have myself taught master’s students from Canada, and I’ve had to send them off to the language centre because their English is just not good enough. So, it is quite suspicious to me that Canada is okay but Ghana or Nigeria isn’t.   CJLPA : Definitely. That’s really interesting, I didn’t know that. Talking a bit more about children, do you think that children’s interests are prioritised in immigration cases as much as they should be? And what issues and dangers particularly surround children in the context of migration?   HW : There are a lot of problems with children. There’s an obligation in international law under the Convention on the Rights of the Child to treat children’s interests as a primary consideration in any decision that concerns them, and that duty has been more or less implemented into British law through Section 55 of the Border Citizenship and Immigration Act, after the UK withdrew its reservation on immigration and nationality matters. So, the UK Government does have an obligation to treat children’s interests as a primary consideration in immigration decisions that concern them. And incidentally, that seems to be part of the European Court of Human Rights, Article 8, family life jurisprudence as well.   Now, saying that a child’s interests are a primary consideration doesn’t make them the paramount consideration. There is a distinction. So other factors can outweigh them. It’s still a relative standard. There have been a number of Supreme Court cases on this. Essentially, what the court has said on that — really quite strongly — is yes, they are a primary consideration, but they can be outweighed by an accumulation of other factors. But no single  factor is more important than children’s best interests. And the Supreme Court has also said that nationality , the interests of a child in growing up in their country of nationality , is part of their best interests. So, when you have a British child, it is in their best interest to grow up in the UK and to be part of British society.   So, there is — in theory — quite a strong obligation. And I would say that has had some impact. There are some more provisions, both in statute and in the immigration rules, that say, for example, that where a child is a British citizen or has lived in the UK for seven years, a parent should not normally be removed if it’s not reasonable for the child to follow them. So that does help some families and it is now easier for some families to stay together. But although that is a right that exists in law, I think it can be quite difficult to make that work for you — there are these provisions, but then the guidance may take quite a narrow view. And you would need a lawyer, or somebody really experienced in those sorts of arguments to say, look, the way you’re interpreting this, these obligations are just not strong enough, it doesn’t comply with the government’s legal obligations. It still can be considered reasonable to expect a British child to leave their home and go to live with in another country. What does that mean? What is reasonable? How much disruption are they expected to have? I would say that there is more protection now for British citizen children, in terms of not having a parent refused admission, or being forced to go abroad and splitting up the family in that way, provided they have the resources and the resilience and so on to argue that and put the case in the proper way. But where you have children who are not British citizens, and who are living in the UK, it’s a much less favourable picture. And we do have lots of children living in very uncertain immigration conditions. There are, I think, possibly around 100,000 children who have been born into the UK but don’t have British citizenship, because you no longer get British citizenship just by virtue of being born in the UK, you have to have a parent who’s got settled immigration status or citizenship.   That can be very uncertain itself. For example, we’ve had the Windrush scandal and uncertainties around what people’s status is. So, you can get these families where they don’t really know what their status is. And it can be extremely difficult to prove it. They might have a right to register the child as a British citizen, but that’s a very expensive application, it costs more than £1000. And again, you have to be aware that that opportunity is there. And then, you’re going to get families where perhaps the parents came with a child at a very young age, and they’re living perhaps without leave here. That’s not the child’s fault. That’s not a decision the child made. But it means that child is growing up in very precarious, very marginalised circumstances, with no recourse to public funds. It means that the family can’t get supported in the way that other families might get supported. And they do live a really precarious and difficult life. So, I’d say that there is a lot more we could do to protect children’s interests in, in immigration, and also in nationality law as well.   CJLPA : How do the UK’s migration policies interact with human rights, particularly of course the right to family and private life, but even the right to life itself?   HW : Obviously, as you probably know, under the Human Rights Act, convention rights have been brought into British law, and they are binding on decision makers, and on courts and tribunals. So, if you take the right to life, first of all, you would think that it’s really strong, right? It’s the most basic right of all, to stay alive. The problem is that it sort of doesn’t really operate. The threshold for showing your right to life is going to be threatened by for example, being sent to another country is really very high. And in fact, in those circumstances, you’re much more likely to rely on Article 3, which is right to protection from the prohibition on degrading and inhuman treatment and torture.   Article 3 has been very, very important in immigration because where people, for whatever reason, can’t fall within the Refugee Convention — and that has its own criteria that that do exclude quite a few people —but  under Article 3, where there’s a reasonable likelihood that you will suffer inhuman or degrading treatment or torture, if you’re sent back to your country, then you cannot be sent back home. And you have to get some form of humanitarian protection or other type of leave. And that has operated to protect quite a lot of people, for example, fleeing civil wars, and so on. So that has been very important.   Human rights have also been important occasionally in looking after the interests of people who are already here. So, there was an important case around Article 3, when the government tried to remove any form of subsistence from asylum seekers, and they were all becoming destitute, and sort of just living on the street. And that was found to be a breach of Article 3, because they’re asylum seekers, they can’t then go anywhere to go until their claim is decided.   When it comes to Article 8, that’s the right to protection for family life. And that is a key one for families. The problem is that Article 8 is a qualified right. So, on the one hand, you have the right to protection of your family life. On the other hand, if it is proportionate, if there is a public interest or it is for the public good that you should be removed or refused admission, then that can outweigh your family life claim. So, the extent to which Article 8 can inhibit governments or put restraints on what governments can do has been really widely litigated, both in the European Court of Human Rights and also in the domestic courts in the Supreme Court. And I think where we are now is that the public interest in immigration control is very, very strong. You can argue about whether that is a correct interpretation of Article 8. And there are some quite complicated legal arguments around that, which I won’t get into here. But the fact is, that is what the courts are saying, so that’s what the position is. And so,   if you don’t have an immigration status, so either you’re here and you don’t have a status, or you want to come into the country , it’s only going to be really in exceptional cases that Article 8 is going to help you. It does have an impact, but its impact is quite at the margins, it is not going to really change or revolutionise immigration policies, it just enables a few difficult cases to succeed.   As part of all the battles that went on in the courts over a period of about 10-15 years, the government legislated. So, obviously, if primary legislation overrides the Human Rights Act — in terms of, implied repeal — to that extent, even if they’re not complying with their obligations, it would probably prevail, at least here in the domestic courts. But the fact is, probably what they’ve said in the statute, as well in the immigration rules, is pretty close to what the Strasbourg Court would say, because the Strasbourg Court has been really quite cautious in developing Article 8. And so, there’s often not a lot you can do.   CJLPA : That’s interesting and quite frustrating. You would think that human rights would play more of a role and help more people.   HW : I think people were hoping that it would. I think, obviously, the government’s got its own point of view, and the government, particularly at the moment, is very keen to minimise immigration and so it’s going to do the bare minimum.   Article 8 doesn’t say anything about immigration. So, you’re having to interpret Article 8 in a new context. And we’ve got the living instrument doctrine. We’ve also got the fact that you’re asking states to do something — when Article 8 concerns family reunification, that is regarded as a positive obligation on states, and the courts are going to be quite cautious about that. Essentially the Strasbourg Court, does rely very heavily on state consensus, and there isn’t a consensus on this issue. It’s not that the states are not all moving together towards trying to be nicer towards family migrants on the whole so they feel they have to leave a margin of appreciation to domestic authorities, and that they’re acting in a supervisory capacity. So, there are some cases that succeed at Strasbourg. And those cases have given an indication of the sorts of cases that might succeed. So, you do have some degree of, of clarity now that there are certain types of cases, almost always involving children. It is very difficult to bring an Article 8 case without there being a child, and this best interest of the child is now quite a powerful tool for that reason. But they are really only a very few cases.   CJLPA : When you were talking about the best interests on society, how does migration policy affect wider society in the UK in all aspects, so public services, or the economy, for example?   HW : It’s difficult to know the data on this, because obviously it’s a counterfactual. We don’t know what the world would look like if policies were different. But we’ve seen post-Brexit, the impact of Brexit, where it’s quite clear that Brexit has created a lot of shortages in the economy, and that this has had a damaging effect. So, I think, generally speaking, the upsides of migration have not been fully appreciated, and people will begin to appreciate that a bit more now. I think there’s been a lot of anti-migration talk, and not enough appreciation for how much our public services and other industries — catering, care, across the board, really, because migrants range from being very skilled, to doing more practical work, food processing, and so on — how much all of these sectors have been affected by labour shortages. So, not allowing migrants in does have a negative economic impact.   Now, that’s not to say that that’s the only issue. Obviously, economics isn’t all of it. I think that there is a tendency to blame lots of things on migrants, such as ‘I can’t get an appointment at my GP’ or ‘schools are overcrowded’ or whatever, where that is really a problem with investment in public services, and how we run our public services. Housing, for example — why are we not building more houses? It isn’t that the immigrants are taking them all, it’s that we have a real problem with building houses in this country. So, I think that the upsides of migration have been really underestimated.   Obviously, in my field in family migration, it’s really, really clear the damage that’s done to families. And I think one of the things that’s not been that much appreciated is how widespread a phenomenon this is. 50 or 60 years ago, it was primarily the ethnic minorities who had relatively recently arrived in the UK, who were wanting to — for the most part — bring in spouses and children and so on. And they were very badly treated, and the policies then were very harsh and very discriminatory. But they were a bit of a side issue politically, because the vast majority of the population weren’t implicated in them, they weren’t really affected. But we now live in a very different world and those are populations that have been here now for 50-60 years and are very, very much part of British society and that is not going to change, and yet they still have connections with their ancestral home. And in addition, we’re all very much more global — we move a lot more, we go abroad a lot more, we go on holiday, and you can meet somebody on holiday, you can meet somebody if you’re studying for a term at another university. If somebody comes here on a visit or a tour or, whatever, they might meet someone and want to settle and get together with them.   So, I think the restrictions in family immigration affect quite a wide range of the population now, and it’s much more of a mainstream concern. And it really does damage families and divided families, it causes a lot of heartache, it causes a lot of pain, it causes a lot of practical difficulties. It’s really important. Nothing comes without costs. There’s not some magical world in which only good things are going to happen and none of the bad things, but I think that we have had a very unbalanced view of what migration can do, and its benefits. And we’ve focused so much on the negatives, that we’ve lost sight of the fact that a society that isn’t open, isn’t culturally open, isn’t outward looking, isn’t welcoming — that that’s not a very nice society to live in.   CJLPA : One final question that I thought would be interesting: what barriers to entry may those seeking asylum in the UK face? And what burdens do they have when applying for asylum, for example in proving that they face certain dangers?   HW : So obviously, the first challenge for asylum seekers is to get here. And that, as we all know — with a small boat, everything else — that’s extremely difficult. And the reason, there’s lots of reasons for it, but one reason is that the obligations, both in human rights law and in asylum law, really only kick in when the person is within the jurisdiction, which for nearly all purposes means within the territory. There are some marginal cases outside of that, but generally it is within the jurisdiction. Whereas in asylum law, to send someone back from the borders of your own country, into a place where they may face persecution — so if they’re not at the borders of your own country, if they haven’t managed to turn up at the airport or whatever — then you don’t have any obligation towards them.   There are all these obstacles. And it’s been going on for years with carriers’ liability, fining airlines and lorries and all sorts of people, if they bring someone in, the visa requirements, the juxtaposed controls, whereby you have to show your passport in France before you get on the ferry, or the Eurostar, all of those are aimed at stopping people coming.   If you do get here, and you make a claim for asylum, you’re in a very inefficient process, with loads of delays, ways in which the government will try to make your life difficult, it will try to find reasons to say that you haven’t complied, that didn’t set up the right meeting, but you might not have got the notice, for example. You’re not allowed to work. So you are reliant on very small amounts of benefits, and you don’t really have any choice and accommodation, you can end up living in areas, where that can create tension, because obviously, if you put a load of young men into an underprivileged area, and then don’t allow them to work, they will be seen as hanging around and looking a bit threatening. It’s not their fault, but it can create tension.   So, it’s a very hostile environment in terms of how they’re having to live. And then they have an initial screening interview, and then they have to make a substantive asylum claim, and then maybe get some legal advice beforehand. And in the asylum interview, they have to show that they face persecution, if they’re not to be sent home. And the burden is on them, the government sees itself as having no obligation to assist them, even though it may have access to information. And it’s a really draining, frightening, scary process. You’re allowed an interpreter, but they may be of variable quality, and if you don’t perform well, that can be fatal to your claim. So, it’s very stressful, very difficult.   Very high proportions of some nationalities are accepted. If you come from Syria, Afghanistan, places like that, the chances are very high that your claim will be accepted, because you can’t send people back to those countries that are in such a bad way. So, I think we could make the barriers easier to some nationalities, that’s definitely true. And then you have to appeal. If you get an adverse decision after appeal, you have to find a lawyer. It’s just very, very hard for people who are in a foreign country miles from home, often very worried about their families, worried about what they’ve left behind, very uncertain, living in limbo, for a very long period; it’s a very dysfunctional system. They may be detained, which is unpleasant, or they may be living in very poor accommodation.   If they do receive refugee status, then they have a measure of security, although they’ve then got to navigate the world without much support. It can be quite difficult to bring in family members, if you’ve got family that were already in the country of origin, when you left, there is a more straightforward, cheaper process. But other than that, it can be very difficult to bring people in. So, the whole system is extremely difficult. I would say from the decision maker’s point of view, you’re having to establish the veracity of something that is probably incapable of being proved entirely. It can be quite difficult to know for sure whether something’s true. The standard of proof is supposed to be quite low. In asylum cases, it’s meant to be on the below the balance of probabilities, it’s meant to be reasonable likelihood, which is well below 50/50. But most people would say that the standard is not really applied in practice. Some people have to meet it at the higher level.   CJLPA : Thank you very much. This interview was conducted by Eleanor Taylor, a geography graduate from the University of Manchester, currently studying the SQE to pursue a career as a commercial solicitor.

Boarding a crowded Delhi Metro train, I was crammed up with four college boys who seemed quite amused by my Tibetan face. As if the grins exchanged among them weren’t enough, one boy let out a catcall ‘Ching chong ping pong’. I face this every day and usually don’t have the time or energy to react to such racist verbal attacks. Since there were a couple of stations ahead, I inched closer to the teenager, shook hands with him. While still holding his hand I said, ‘Yenna da, yenna wennu?’ (‘Hey man, what do you want?’). They knew it was one of the four South Indian languages but couldn’t even guess which. Then I taunted him in Hindi: ‘Aap koTamil nahin ati hai kya?’ (‘So, you don’t speak Tamil?’). By then, the entire crowd on the train was staring at us, listening to every bit of the exchange.   To this new-found audience, projecting my voice I gave an impassioned lecture on Indian nationalism, quoting the right-wing Indian Prime Minister about the beauty of India’s unity and diversity among its 1.25 billion population. By now, the entire coach vowed silently never to take on a ‘chinky’ in public.   Until the mobile revolution, when wires connected the world, we encased ourselves in STD/ISD booths to make phone calls. International trunk calls were expensive, but a certain call package made phone calls to Tibet affordable. Since half of Dharamshala Tibetans came from Tibet in recent years they all called Tibet regularly. This was the only direct link between exile and home.   Once, on the Tibetan new-year, Losar, I watched a long line of young men and women outside a phone booth in McLeod Ganj. One by one the refugees enter the cubicle, speak to their loved ones in Tibet, cry, and come out emotionally wrecked, then pay and leave. I called the booth the Cry Box. I realized that the maximum number of Tibetans in Dharamshala cry during Losar.   That evening, as I walked down the hillside taking the shortcut through the pine woods and oaks, I reflected that they were fortunate to have someone to cry to, a house to call home. Being exile-born myself and having been deposited in a boarding school as a semi-orphan from early childhood, I find it painful even to write here that I grew up distanced from my family. That night I wrote:   Losar is when we the juveniles and bastards call home across the Himalayas and cry into the wire.[1]   Through the profound loneliness of being far away from parents and our imagined homeland, I often thought that we were children of our circumstances, and that history was our father and the culture that nourished us was our mother.   As refugees, we have been physically uprooted from our homeland, but as transplants we are unable to settle down in the foreign land. Over and above that even the future looks bleak today. As born-refugees we have nowhere to call home. My parents’ generation look to the past with nostalgia for the memories of the homeland they left behind, but as exile-borns, for us, more than the borrowed memory, our history, the dream of liberating our country, fires our imagination. We look to the future with hope. Freedom is my first inspiration in life.   My parents were teenagers when they followed His Holiness the Dalai Lama into exile in 1959, escaping persecution by Mao’s army. Initially, most Tibetan refugees worked as road construction labourers in the early rehabilitation period. My mother tells me I was born in a tent in a roadside coolie camp in Lahaul valley in the early 1970s.   I must have been a restless toddler. Mother says she used to tie a rope around my waist and peg it on the roadside while they broke stones and laid the road. After my father’s death in our camp in Manali, north India, we moved to Kollegal in the South Indian state of Karnataka and pioneered the Tibetan settlement most distant from the Himalayas. I was two-and-a-half-years-old.   I first heard about Tibet from my grandmother. She was a storehouse of stories. Her tales about Tibet built up an imagination of a country we had never seen. Our refugee camp was set up on the outskirts of Sathyamangalam jungle, the thickest jungle in all of South India, where the notorious outlaw Veerappan used to hunt elephants and logged sandalwood trees. We had been rehabilitated truly in the middle of nowhere.   There, in the heat and dense jungles of Karnataka, my grandmother told us stories of snow-mountains and yaks, of apples, peaches, and apricots. Momo la had songs for everything: songs for games, skipping, farm work in our maize fields, and the long walks to the local vegetable market. She told us stories of Aku Tompa’s wit and wisdom. And this is how we became Tibetan, even after being born in India and never seeing the real Tibet.   Every once in a while, the afternoon somnolence in our village was broken by a shrill sound from the Indian woman who came into our camp to sell the popular South Indian rice-cake snack, idlis. Bored with our bland and over-cooked Tibetan food, we kids rushed towards her. We loved the soft idlis dipped in spicy masala soup called sambar with a dash of coconut chutney, all served on a banana leaf. Sometimes the ice-cream man came by on his bicycle with a bullhorn blaring its pom-pom greeting.   On other occasions it was the bucket exchange man shouting in Tibetan in a long wavering tone ‘Ha…yang…dung…pey…’. Having never gone outside our refugee colony, I had often wondered, and even asked my mother, where these Indians came from, not realizing we were the ones who came from outside, all the way from the high Himalayas.   But it was not until in school that I first understood that we did not belong to the country we were born into and that we had lost the independence of our country and were now living outside Tibet at India’s sympathy. This shattered my little boy’s pride. This initial hurt transformed into anxiety as I imagined our people being blindfolded, knelt down with their hands tied behind them, then shot in the back of their heads. This, their children were made to watch. As the body slumped into the pit, the kids cried.   And then the guilt that we lived in freedom while our brethren suffered tyranny, which was replaced by the great resolve to struggle for the freedom and dignity of our people even though it required a herculean effort. This resolve inspired me to take a lifelong pledge. I was eleven years old. Today, I honour this pledge with a symbolic red bandana that I wear on my forehead and have vowed never to take off until Tibet is free, and to work for Tibetan freedom every single day.   After schooling, my first foray outside the Tibetan community was Madras, the capital of the Tamilian world in South India. I was shocked, not only by the people, place, and language, but also by the palate. My tummy, raised on Tibetan gastronomy, was being tested by fiery masala foods. My childhood snack, idlis, resurfaced, but this time as the staple main course. In the first week, the tangy masala meals were fun. However, by the third week my Tibetan digestive system started to give up. The light rice meals soon made us hungry again, the masala burned our guts.   Often, in the middle of the night, I sat up on my bed, pressing a wet pillow to my belly while trying to study. My guts burned and I regurgitated a sour juice up my gullet. Combined with the anxiety of tackling Shakespeare, Tagore, and Subramanium Bharathi, I stayed late on my bed in the half-lit room and cried deep into the night.   Now, South Indian cuisine is one of my favourites and even after twenty-five years I can still show off a smattering of Tamil. Where adaptation meets a dead end, creativity takes the lead forward; perhaps exile is the most fertile ground for growth.   Two years ago, I went on a speaking tour of the UK. Tibetans living in the towns and cities that I visited hosted us. After much speaking, travelling, and interviews, when we gathered for dinner with long-lost friends, the food was inevitably rice, dal, and curry, typically Indian. I realized Tibetans have gone to the West, but culturally they have never left India.   Today, almost seventy thousand Tibetans have emigrated to the West. They have not only become citizens of the world, but also preserved their identity. However, the third-generation youths are a concern; like most emigrant children, they have inherited the blood and the stories, but mostly not the language.   When my classmate buddy, Tenzin Choegyal, dropped out of regular college, friends thought he was straying because of his fad: music. He used to listen to Hindustani music when none of us had developed a taste for it. He used to go ‘aaaa aaaa’, drawing clouds in the air with his hands as he tried to sing intricate ragas. Many years later I saw him leading singing tours in Australia, packed in an old sputtering brown minivan. He travelled for months, singing and telling stories of Tibet in various villages and towns. He sings long arias of traditional Tibetan pastoral tunes which are immediately arresting and soulful. There is a deep sense of longing and loneliness in his melodies. Recently he has been nominated for a Grammy, his first global recognition.   During a phone conversation a few years ago, a Tibetan from Tibet told my friend in Sweden—with a great sense of pride—that Chinese in Tibet still did not dare to walk alone in Tibetan neighbourhoods as they fear being knifed or mugged. My friend asked him how that was possible, as the Chinese were now the majority in Tibet. The native observed that the Chinese had not yet overcome their archetypal fear of Tibetans and Mongolians as barbarians, and that Chinese exoticization of Tibetan culture has further reinforced this civilizational stereotype.   As a poet and former political prisoner, my friend Phuntsok Wangchuk had always been the first to speak up against Chinese propaganda in Tibet, for which he had been tortured and jailed for six years. But the anti-Japanese propaganda films he had enjoyed in Tibet seemed to have worked on him. As a result, when he first arrived in Dharamshala, he couldn’t believe his eyes watching the almost exaggerated politeness, and the courtesy regime of the Japanese youngsters who bowed thrice before serving the Tibetan political prisoners with food and clothing.   Tsewang Dhondup arrived in Dharamshala with his wounded arm slung around his neck. He said, ‘I hid in the mountains for months and escaped Tibet to bear witness to the atrocities I have seen with my own eyes and suffered myself’. Tsewang was shot twice in the Uprising protest that spread across the Tibetan Plateau in the months leading up to Beijing Olympic Games in 2008.   This Uprising gave birth to two movements: the Lhakar Movement celebrates and instils cultural resistance while a series of unabated Self-immolations demanded ‘freedom for Tibet and the return of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Tibet’. So far, there have been 157 known cases of Tibetans burning themselves inside Tibet alone, making their ultimate sacrifice of life for freedom.   A while back, a friend’s stay with her family in Tibet was cut short and she was told never to return. She told me that the entire country of Tibet has been under lockdown; even the few passports issued have been revoked. Every individual has been registered as a number and pinned down to each small unit of dwelling and their movement mandatorily kept under surveillance. Tibet is now a police state. To mine lithium, copper, gold and rare-earths, China’s activity in Tibet is pushing Tibetan nomads and farmers off their ancestral land, coercing them to rehabilitate to alien and artificial villages, much like how White American colonists transplanted Native Americans into fenced plots called ‘Reservations’.   Once, on a long train journey through central India, I sat down on the carriage’s entrance footboard with a stranger. Like me, my co-passenger, Ramchand, didn’t have a reserved seat. Over a cup of chai, he looked at my face and enquired if I was Chinese. Hiding my immediate irritation, I put my best foot forward and declared: ‘Hum Dalai Lama admi hain’ (‘I am a Dalai Lama follower’). That didn’t ring a bell with him. Now, I found myself in a crisis as his assumption still hadn’t changed.   Banking on my ultimate resort I said: ‘I belong to the Mount Kailash country’. He blinked. For his ignorance, I wanted to take revenge. So, I asked Ram.   Me: Lord Shiva lives on Mount Kailash? Ram: Yes. Me: Mount Kailash is in Tibet? Ram: Yes. Yes. Me: Mount Kailash has been Shiva’s abode for thousands of years? Ram: Yes. Yes. Yes. Me: That makes Lord Shiva a Tibetan? Ram: Hmmm…   I later related this story to a much-entertained audience at Awadh Conclave, the literary festival in Lucknow. And since in the story Ram has lost Shiva to Tibet, I wanted to compensate for the audience. So, I said since His Holiness the Dalai Lama has been living in India for sixty years as a refugee, and also because he has globally championed India’s ancient wisdom and calls himself a son of India, I declared that the Dalai Lama is Indian.   Inspired by Indian freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh and Subhas Chandra Bose, many years ago I went to Tibet to fight China. Alone. After graduating from Loyola College, Madras, I went to Ladakh, the nearest approach to Tibet to track a path to sneak into Tibet. I taught English in a Tibetan refugee school near Leh and later made my route across the Tibet border, on foot. I was twenty-two.   My plans worked only in crossing the Indian border. Once inside I got lost in the cold desert for days, nearly died, and later was arrested by Chinese military police. They interrogated me, beat me up, denied me food and sleep, and threw me in jail.   During those long interrogation sessions, they threatened me with execution by a bullet in the back of the head. The legendary stories of Chinese public executions the elder generation of Tibetans had told us kept flashing through my head. I marked my days on the prison wall with a nail until I lost count. This was the best training I have received in my life.   Today, when I get arrested for protesting against a visiting Chinese president, and when the Indian police try to intimidate me, I tell them to calm down and say that I am steeled by Chinese interrogation and that we might skip the time-pass and focus on working together.   We call ourselves refugees to keep alive our dream to return to our homeland while India calls us foreigners—perhaps a potential leverage against China—though the Constitution of India recognizes us as citizens.   In seventy years, Mao Zedong’s China became an economic superpower but, in the process, killed its own Buddha. Tibet has lost one sixth of its population and almost all its monasteries, but the People’s Republic couldn’t change us in seventy years. Today, Tibet’s Buddhism may be quietly changing China itself.   The struggle for Tibet’s independence is not just a national movement for me, but also a very personal struggle. I have created for myself a personal record; my protest actions sent me to jail sixteen times while speaking tours took me to visit twenty foreign countries. I have always felt rejuvenated and spiritually liberated after each jail episode. I found freedom in jail; I have learned to live with strangers charged with murder, rape, and robbery by sharing food, room, and toilet. I have learned to live with a handkerchief as my towel, finger for toothbrush, shoes as pillow and the shirt to cover myself when I sleep on the floor.   I live an old-world lifestyle; that of a wandering poet. I travel for months touring towns and cities, telling stories and reading poetry. I sell my books, and that pays for my food and travel. Although my income is small, my expenses are even smaller. I live a simple and minimalized, need-based life. I live in two sets of clothes. My friends think I have only one, but in fact I have two. I wear them in turns.   Home is not a house but the purpose that takes us places, and sometimes away from our own home. Reasons to live can make strangers a family, and no country foreign. When we come out of our comfort zone, we learn to make ourselves feel at home anywhere. Stuck at home, with old habits and malice, a house can sometimes turn into a prison. Once, a prince from the land of the Ganges left his family and kingdom in search of higher truths and never returned. He found a key to happiness which, even to this day, is practised as the path to freedom. To many this is home. Tenzin Tsundue Tenzin Tsundue is a Tibetan writer and activist, born and raised in India. His writing has inspired movies and plays, some of which have been anthologized and are being taught in universities in India and abroad. He is one of the most prominent voices and activists for the Independence of Tibet. [1] From the poem ‘How I Lost My Losar’, first published in Tsengol: poems and stories of resistance  (2012).

Ali Ghaderi is a young refugee from Iran. He arrived in the UK five years ago through a family reunification scheme which was available at the time. Ali is proud of being a refugee; as a result, he invests effort into supporting other refugees and asylum-seekers who may have similar experiences to himself. Following his arrival in the UK, Ali took part in countless campaigns for the rights of refugees, often speaking on behalf of his community, and has worked with a number of organisations in the field of refugee and asylum-seekers rights and advocacy. This inspired Ali to found his own organisation, Babylon Migrants Project (Babylon), in October 2022, to support young refugees like himself. The organisation runs arts-based workshops for young refugees and asylum-seekers across London and the UK, with the slogan, ‘Community through Creativity’. In the year since it was founded, Babylon has gone from strength to strength, running twenty independent workshops, and over sixty workshops for external organisations such as the British Red Cross, Safe Passage, and Springboard Youth Academy. Through this, Babylon has reached 600 young people. However, despite the project’s success, and Ali’s personal success as director and founder of his own organisation, Ali’s position in the UK is uncertain. Due to the increasingly hostile nature of the UK’s immigration policy Ali feels insecure, and is concerned for those who participate in his organisation. Nevertheless, Ali does not give up hope. Babylon Migrants Project Ali describes his reasons for opening Babylon as deeply personal, stating: when I arrived in the UK as a teenager, life was hard. I had no friends, and being in a new country with a new language and culture can be very sad and painful. I do not want other young people who arrive in this country to feel the same way I did. I want them to feel welcome and accepted and be a big brother to them. Unsurprisingly, young refugees and asylum-seekers are some of the most vulnerable populations in the UK and are five times more likely to have mental health needs than the British population.[1][2] Following the ethos of ‘Community through Creativity’, Babylon addresses this issue by offering creative workshops, which provide young members from the migrant, refugee, and asylum-seeking communities with a safe and welcoming space to socialise and forge connections. Creative outlets and activities are essential for the development of young refugees and asylum-seekers arriving in the UK, who face a huge amount of hardship, such as insecurity around their asylum claim, learning English, and integrating a new culture and society in the UK. The mental health benefits afforded by the opportunity to participate in creative activities are manifold, including: providing young refugees and asylum seekers with a safe space in which to heal and potentially discover and give voice to a new sense of self;[3] reducing feelings of stress by offering an outlet for communicating and negotiating the difficulties of their new lives, thus reducing risks of further mental health issues, distress, and trauma;[4] and enabling young refugees and asylum seekers to create supportive peer networks and community ties, since creative interventions typically happen in group settings and inherently entail elements of sociality and social synchronicity, reducing loneliness and social isolation.[5][6] The provision of creative spaces for expression and exploration are recommended to policymakers, due to their proven benefits of enabling participants to express experiences and emotions, create social connections, promote agency and empowerment, and improve mental health.[7][8][9] Creative activities also carry some specific benefits for refugee and asylum-seeking young people. For example, it is a highly effective medium to improve English speaking skills and build confidence in communication. This further develops the participants’ ability to team build social connections outside of Babylon and to exercise their agency in a way that can support their transitions through integration in the UK and adulthood.[10] Babylon offers creative workshops every two weeks to around fifteen young refugee and asylum-seeking young people. To ensure that the workshops are accessible to young people with limited funds, all of the workshops are free, including a communal meal at the end of the session, and Babylon reimburses participants for the cost of their travel to the sessions. One of the ways in which we aid our participants’ social development and support their mental health is by enabling participants to express their feelings and voices through the medium of fun. As Ali states, ‘silliness is something very important to me’. Many of the young people we work with at Babylon are in their late teens, experiencing a transition into adulthood that is made more complex and challenging due to their experiences. As a result, it is crucial to provide opportunities for participants to have fun and to be present in the moment. The positive impact of the workshops on the participants is palpable; the atmosphere is always overwhelmingly positive, the sense of community is prominent, and laughs and smiles colour the space. There is a sense of comfort that only an organisation which truly understands the meaning of community can achieve. One participant stated: I am really glad that I have joined the Babylon Project because, before I joined, I was really struggling with my anxiety and depression. I also felt lonely and was not able to express myself and share my thoughts with others. When I joined Babylon, all of this changed because they helped me overcome the difficulties and struggle of being lonely—stress, I would say! I believe Babylon is a very creative project because they run different types of activities that help you develop and network. Since I joined Babylon, I would say that I have improved a lot, especially my communication skills and confidence. Alongside its primary goal of supporting young refugees and asylum-seekers, Babylon also seeks to challenge negative stereotypes about refugees and asylum seekers by building bridges between participants and the British public. Whilst it is important to help people understand that refugees are not scary or threatening, it is also vital that refugees are not simply portrayed as helpless victims, with no agency. Both in scholarship and in practice, refugee and asylum-seeking young people tend to be portrayed as inherently vulnerable, traumatised, and helpless.[11] It is undeniable that, when working with refugee and asylum-seeking groups, it is crucial to take a trauma-informed approach. Many of the participants are simultaneously dealing with the traumas of their past whilst struggling to navigate their present and future, often having to battle the UK asylum system alongside this. However, it is important to remember that these young people are not defined by the struggles they face. They are refugees and asylum-seekers, of course, but they are also young people; as young people, they will be experiencing the joys and challenges that come with most transitions from adolescence into early adulthood. They will also be actively making choices for their present and future, including their career path, navigating relationships, and planning for their future. An excessive focus on the vulnerability of refugee and asylum-seeking young people often limits the acknowledgement of the multiplicity of identities that they inhabit. Whilst Ali had many positive experiences with organisations and NGOs in the UK, some left him with a sense of discomfort. He states: I started to join organisations and charities, and that boosted my energy and my mental health. I did not get good treatment from some organisations. I felt like they just wanted my story as a refugee, for their own profit, and did not really think about me as a human first. It made me feel uncomfortable. I do not want any of my participants to feel the same way. At Babylon, we work towards creating a safe space for our participants in which they can not only be comfortable, but also feel valued as multifaceted individuals. We celebrate our participants’ complexity and uniqueness, focusing on their strengths, passions, rather than on their pasts, or the challenges they face. If any of our participants wish to disclose information about their past or speak about challenges they are facing, we hold a safe space for them to do so. However, we never ask our participants to share their personal stories. As Ali often reminds people: ‘Yes, I am a refugee. But I am a human being first’. The Rwanda policy Describing the sessions run by Babylon paints a beautiful picture of community, laughter and integration for young refugees and asylum-seekers. Unfortunately, this does not reflect their lived reality. For years, the UK’s immigration system has been becoming increasingly aggressive; the government discourse focuses on preventing traffickers from exploiting vulnerable people who are seeking safety and on taking back control over migration flows in the UK. In April 2022, Boris Johnson announced the ‘UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership’ (the Rwanda policy), with the ultimate goal of ‘fixing’ the UK’s immigration system.[12][13] According to the UK Home Office, the plan was designed to disincentive asylum-seekers from embarking on dangerous journeys to England, particularly in small boats crossing the English Channel.[14] The plan was to offshore the asylum process to Rwanda by sending asylum- seekers to Rwanda to have their claims processed. Should their claim be found valid, they would receive refugee status in Rwanda. If not, they could be sent home, or to a third-country if they have the right of residence in that country. Under the deal, the UK pledged a £120 million investment into Rwanda’s economic development and promised that the majority of people being sent over would be single men who would be able to contribute to the Rwandan economy.[15] This plan was flawed from the start. In 2017, Israel cut a similar deal with Rwanda and deported around 4000 refugees there, predominantly from Sudan and Eritrea.[16] However, most of them found that they were unable to properly settle in Rwanda, reporting that they had no future in a country that was still rebuilding itself, spending their days with ‘nothing to do’.[17] Most of the refugees left Rwanda promptly, and Israel stopped the scheme.[18] Many asylum-seekers choose to travel to the UK because of linguistic, cultural, and family ties, and therefore would have no interest in settling in Rwanda. This clear evidence of the lack of functionality of the Rwanda scheme has been ignored by the UK government thus far. Despite the UK government’s supposed goal of protecting the economy and preventing traffickers from exploiting vulnerable people, the plan is ‘inhumane, expensive, and counterproductive’, potentially creating a more lucrative business for traffickers, who would have a new market in assisting people to escape Rwanda.[19] The problem with the scheme lies not only within the difficulty of its implementation, but also because it is an affront to the human rights of refugees. This ‘responsibility-shifting’ approach violates the principle of non-refoulement, one of the foundational premises of international refugee protection.[20] Further to this, UNHCR criticised the plan because Rwanda’s asylum system does not meet the sufficient guarantees necessary to ensure the safety of the asylum-seekers arriving there, including the denial of asylum-seekers’ right to choose where they settle.[21] Ali has been extremely active in fighting this policy. In January 2023, Ali drove his message directly to Westminster on an open-top bus, alongside Together with Refugees. Following this, Ali, alongside Together with Refugees, spoke with 15 MPs, to discuss the cruelness and inhumaneness of the scheme.[22] Ali comments that solidarity from MPs was really important, and that he felt listened to and supported during his day in Parliament. As of November 2023, the Supreme Court in the UK has ruled the Rwanda policy unlawful, and thus unimplementable in its current form. This has not, however, dissuaded Rishi Sunak, who has stated that the government would continue to work towards sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda, and is prepared to change UK laws to achieve this goal if necessary.[23] The Illegal Migration Act A year later however, another grotesque affront to the UK’s immigration system was proposed. In March 2023, Suella Braverman introduced the Illegal Migration Act (the Act), which passed through Parliament at lightning speed. The Act essentially eliminates access to the asylum-seeking system for anyone who arrives in the UK ‘irregularly’ (ie, without using formal resettlement routes.[24][25] The Act came into force on 20 July 2023. This new law makes it impossible to arrive in the UK before claiming and receiving asylum, regardless of individual circumstances, putting asylum-seekers at heightened risk of detention and destitution. The Act seriously threatens asylum-seeking children in particular for the following reasons: firstly, they will also lose their ability to claim asylum and settle in the UK. Whilst they will be safeguarded while they are minors, the moment they turn 18 they will face expulsion and have no recourse to public help;[26] and secondly, the Act makes Age Assessment mandatory through ‘scientific’ methods such as radiation. Any person who refuses to comply will be treated as an adult, thus facing immediate detention and removal.[27] It is still unclear exactly how this policy will work in practice, as the UK does not have arrangements with third countries in place to facilitate deportation, but it is likely that many vulnerable young people will face homelessness, trafficking, and destitution as a result. Life in the UK After being vocal about this issue on his twitter, Ali was attacked with anti-immigration sentiments. The comments ranged from people accusing Ali of wanting ‘illegal immigrants’ to ‘invade’ the UK, to personal attacks telling him he deserves to be deported. Ali states that bearing the brunt of anti-immigration sentiments in the UK made him feel ‘heart-broken’. Aside from the racist comments he received, Ali also faces the challenge of still not feeling settled in the UK, despite being here for five years. As a result of his complicated journey to the UK he faces many physical and mental health struggles which he is unable to get proper support for. His financial situation is also strained and he faces the stress of trying to secure a steady flow of income, after juggling the need to learn English and build his network and CV before he was able to find himself a suitable job. Ali also fears losing his accommodation, particularly in the face of a cost of living crisis coupled with the reluctance of property owners to rent to refugees. Having been close to homelessness several times in the last few years, Ali has not yet found a place he truly feels at home. The current anti-immigration policies that the UK government is pushing make Ali feel all the more insecure about his own safety and the safety of the Babylon participants. He states: I felt welcomed when I arrived in London, especially by the British public, but that is not the case any more. I do not have a feeling of security. The government is releasing news and laws about refugees and asylum-seekers so often; I am scared that one day that it will affect me as well. We do our best, and we do as much as we can, but we cannot support everyone. Most of the Babylon staff team are volunteers, so I cannot expect too much. I’m so proud of my amazing team, but I wish I would be able to pay them, because I know they would be able to give so much more. It is still unclear what the future holds for our participants. Although the Act is not being implemented currently (due to the lack of agreements with third countries for removal) this does not mean that the government will not find a way to implement it anyway. At Babylon, we are worried that the Home Office will simply cancel asylum claims and leave people undocumented on the streets of Britain, potentially making many of our participants unsafe. We are concerned that we will slowly be dealing with an increasing number of undocumented, homeless, young people, who have no access to public recourse, and are therefore at a heightened risk of trafficking, grooming and abuse. If this were to happen, it is still unclear to us how we will move forward. Will it be useful for us to be delivering creative workshops for young people living on the streets? However, despite all the hardships, Ali keeps a positive attitude. He firmly believes that public attitude and discourse can be changed. Ali consistently advocates for challenging those who have negative attitudes towards refugees. He believes that ‘instead of ignoring those people, and calling them racist or whatever, we should try and make them our allies’. Ali finds motivation in the challenge, stating that, ‘although people’s negative views hurt me, they also give me motivation to fight better and with more knowledge. I think if we want to win this fight, we need more allies, we need to bring people together, both those who support us and those who see us as enemies’. Challenging the stereotypes Refugees have made a huge social, economic, and social contribution to the UK for the last 460 years.[28] Some notable examples include Sir Mo Farah, Freddie Mercury, and even Albert Einstein.[29] Refugees contribute to the fabric of UK society in a way that is extremely worthwhile, through their unique gifts, talents, courage, and resilience.[30] Ali’s goal is to focus on the positive contributions migrants and refugees make in the UK, and Babylon is part of his strategy to do so. Over the next few months, Babylon will launch several programs aiming to fight negative stereotypes of refugees and asylum seekers. We are currently working on two plays, one professional and the other participatory, to show-case the many creative talents of our participants, as well as challenge the negative narratives that they face. We will also be creating a series of workshops around the asylum-system and the lived reality of young refugees and asylum-seekers, to be delivered to schools across the UK. Through this program, we hope to encourage and foster a sense of compassion and solidarity in the minds of young students in the UK, so they may better understand the lived experiences of refugees, and perhaps even become allies to the refugee cause. Ali calls for a renewed sense of solidarity towards refugees and asylum-seekers. He feels that the government’s current stance on immigration is not only inhumane, but is also a huge loss to the UK. Migrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers are a huge part of the rich social fabric of the UK. They bring with them culture, food, skills, and ideas that the UK can only benefit from. Ali hopes that this can be recognised, and that more safe, legal routes can be created, so that people who need to escape their homes to build a new one do not only settle in the UK, but also continue to contribute to making it a multicultural, open, prosperous, and welcoming place. Ali’s journey towards a secure life in the UK has been, and continues to be, a struggle. Living in a country which does not seem to want to include you in its fabric would be a struggle for even the most brazen of us. However, despite all the personal, social, and political challenges that he faces, Ali continues to fight, and to remain hopeful. The tides of change may be coming. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the Rwanda policy is unlawful, indicating that there are still countless people in Britain who value the safety and the right to protection of refugees and asylum-seekers arriving in the UK. Although the battle is not yet won, we hope that this ruling will start to pave the way back towards a more compassionate asylum system. Ali dreams of a Britain where all people are accepted, their contributions are acknowledged, and safe routes for those in need are created. One where British people, migrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees all live alongside each other, contributing to the country’s cultural heritage and celebrated as a truly United Kingdom for all. If, despite all he faces, Ali can remain positive, then is it not our responsibility to make sure we too keep fighting for the rights, security, and (ultimately) the happiness of young people like himself? Lerato Islam and Ali Ghaderi Lerato Islam is Programmes and Strategy Lead at Babylon Migrants Project. She is an Applied Theatre Practitioner, specializing in providing psychosocial and linguistic support through Drama, who principally works with cohorts of teenage refugee and asylum seekers. Ali Ghaderi is the Founder and Director of Babylon Migrants Project, an organisation run by and for refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants, engaged in creative workshops such as theatre, film making, art, storytelling and community. He is also an actor, activist, and facilitator. [1] The Childhood Trust, ‘A Place Called Home—Refugee Children in London’ ( Youtube, 17 April 2023) < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcZujXeU2iE > accessed 11 December 2023. [2] Refugee Council, ‘Identity Crisis: How the age dispute process puts refugee children at risk’ ( Refugee Council, September 2022) < https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/resources/identity-crisis/#:~:text=Identity%20Crisis%3B%20how%20the%20age,be%20children%2C%20following%20our%20intervention > accessed 11 December 2023. [3] Zahra Akthar and Andrew Lovell, ‘Art therapy with refugee children: A qualitative study explored through the lens of art therapists and their experiences’ (2018) 24(3) International Journal of Art Therapy 139, 139-148. [4] A Dubs, K Hay, and C Jones, ‘Mental health and child refugees’ (2022) 34(6) International Review of Psychiatry 596, 596-603. [5] ibid. [6] Kathryn Marsh, ‘Creating bridges: music, play and well-being in the lives of refugee and immigrant children and young people’ (2016) 19(1) Music Education Research 60, 60-73. [7] The Baring Foundation, ‘Creatively Minded and Refugees’ ( The Baring Foundation, 20 June 2023) < https://baringfoundation.org.uk/resource/creatively-minded-and-refugees/ > accessed 11 December 2023. [8] Elizabeth Yarrow, ‘A Refugee and then...Participatory Assessment of the Reception and Early Integration of Unaccompanied Refugee Children in the UK’ ( The UN Refugee Agency, June 2019) <  https://www.unhcr.org/uk/sites/uk/files/legacy-pdf/5d271c6a4.pdf > accessed 11 December 2023. [9] Akthar and Lovell (n 3). [10] Geraldene Codina and Judith Szenasi ‘Educational provision for newly arrived unaccompanied sanctuary seekers aged 15–16’ (2022) International Journal of Inclusive Education 1, 1–18. [11] Donna Gaywood, Tony Bertram, and Chris Pascal ‘Involving refugee children in research: emerging ethical and positioning issues’ (2020) 28(1) European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 149, 149-162. [12] William Booth, ‘Britain to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda to cut illegal sea crossings’ The Washington Post (Washington DC, 14 April 2022) < https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/14/boris-johnson-asylum-rwanda-illegal-migrants/ > accessed 11 December 2023. [13] Ikaba Koyi, ‘Analysis: Rwanda-UK asylum deal may cause regional refugee crisis’ Al Jazeera (14 June 2022) < https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/6/14/analysis-rwanda-uk-asylum-deal-may-cause-regional-refuge-crisis > accessed 11 December 2023. [14] BBC News, ‘What was the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?’ ( BBC News , 11 December 2023) < https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866 > accessed 11 December 2023. [15] Zuhal Demirvci, ‘UK establishing its own ‘Guantanamo’ by sending asylum seekers to Rwanda’ ( Anadolu Ajansi , 15 April 2022) < https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/uk-establishing-its-own-guantanamo-by-sending-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/2564551#:~:text=UK's%20policy%20to%20send%20asylum,for%20being%20'irresponsible%20and%20inhumane'&text=The%20UK%20is%20receiving%20harsh,smuggling%20across%20the%20English%20Channel > accessed 11 December 2023. [16] Christiano d’Orsi, ‘Outsourcing asylum seekers: the case of Rwanda and the UK’. The Conversation (14 April 2022) < https://theconversation.com/outsourcing-asylum-seekers-the-case-of-rwanda-and-the-uk-180973 > accessed 11 December 2023. [17] Cristina Krippahl, ‘Rwanda vows to resettle UK asylum-seekers despite criticism’ ( InfoMigrants , 15 June 2022) < https://www.infomigrants.net/ar/post/41209/rwanda-vows-to-resettle-uk-asylumseekers-despite-criticism > accessed 11 December 2023. [18] D’Orsi (n 16) [19] Tim Farron, ‘UK’s Rwanda asylum plans are shallow, expensive, and counterproductive’ ( Politics.co.uk , 13 June 2022) < https://www.politics.co.uk/mp-comment/2022/06/13/uks-rwanda-asylum-plans-are-shallow-expensive-and-counterproductive/ > accessed 11 December 2023. [20] Sonia Morano-Foadi and Micaela Malena, ‘Rethinking access to asylum: Border-shifting, burdenshifting, and externalisation of international protection in the light of the UK-Rwanda arrangement’ in Kahina Le Louvier and Karen Latricia Hough (eds), UK Borderscapes: Sites of Enforcement and Resistance  (Routledge 2024) 66–80. [21] Michael Collyer and Uttara Shahani, ‘Offshoring Refugees: Colonial Echoes of the UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership’ (2023) 12(8) Social Sciences, MDPI 1, 1-17. [22] Together with Refugees, ‘Refugee activist Ali Ghaderi on his day at Parliament’ ( Together with Refugees , 2023) https://togetherwithrefugees.org.uk/refugee-activist-ali-ghaderi-on-his-day-at-parliament/  accessed 11 December 2023. [23] Dominic Casciani and Sean Seddon, ‘Supreme Court rules Rwanda asylum policy unlawful’ ( BBC News , 15 November 2023) < https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67423745 > accessed 11 December 2023. [24] Home Office, ‘Illegal Migration Bill: overarching factsheet’ ( Gov.uk , 20 July 2023) < https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/illegal-migration-bill-overarching-factsheet#key-facts > accessed 11 December 2023. [25] UN News,   ‘UK Bill ‘significantly erodes’ human rights and refugee protections, UN agencies warn’ ( UN News , 18 July 2023) < https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/07/1138812#:~:text=The%20Bill%20denies%20access%20to,trafficking%20or%20modern%2Dday%20slavery > accessed 11 December 2023. [26] Patrick Butler, ‘UK’s migration bill could put thousands of children ‘into arms of criminals’’ Guardian (London, 24 March 2023) < https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/24/uk-migration-bill-could-thousands-children-arms-criminals > accessed 11 December 2023. [27 Home Office (n 24) [28] D’Orsi (n 16) [29] Siva Thangarajah, ‘Famous UK refugees from footballers to pop stars’ ( imix , 4 June 2021) < https://imix.org.uk/uk-famous-refugees-celebrity-history/ > accessed 11 December 2023. [30] Summer Goodkind, ‘Lily Cole: Government’s Rwanda asylum plan ‘like something in a dystopian film’’ Independent (London, 20 April 2022) < https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/juliet-stevenson-lily-cole-rwanda-mps-government-b2061548.html > accessed 11 December 2023.

I. Introduction 2014 was the beginning of a turbulent but crucial journey for the Ukrainian identity to gain a foothold. In February of that year, parallel to the unfolding of the Euromaidan,[1] five Ukrainian museums lent invaluable historical treasures known as the ‘Crimean Gold’—a collection of over 500 objects—[2]to the Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam (‘AP Museum’) as part of a touring exhibition titled ‘Crimea: The Golden Island in the Black Sea’.[3] The uniqueness of this exhibition attracted more than 100,000 visitors.[4] However, soon after the collection was put on display in March 2014, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Federation.[5] While 19 objects were returned to the National Museum of the History of Ukraine in Kyiv,[6] the remaining objects became the subject of a dispute between the State of Ukraine, four museums in the annexed Crimea (the ‘Crimean Museums’), and the AP Museum. The question for the AP Museum was whom the collection should be returned to—was it the State of Ukraine, to whose Museum Fund these artifacts belong, or the Crimean Museums, which lent them?[7] The answer to this question would determine whether the Crimean Gold is part of Ukrainian heritage. And with the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation on 24 February 2022, the question of preservation of the Ukrainian heritage gained even more importance. II. Crimean Gold—Ukrainian Heritage? In pursuit of answers, the Crimean Museums initiated a legal action against the AP Museum on 19 November 2014 in the Netherlands,[8] to which Ukraine has been involved as an intervening party.[9] In determining whom the Crimean Gold should be returned to, the District Court of Amsterdam (‘Court’) evaluated whether (i) there has been an illicit transfer of the artifacts; (ii) if yes, who has the right to claim their return, and therefore to whose heritage it belongs. In doing so, the Court applied the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (‘1970 UNESCO Convention’),[10] which was implemented in the 2016 Dutch Heritage Act and used the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (‘1995 UNIDROIT Convention’) as an ‘inspiration’ for interpreting the legal standards used broadly.[11] First, for the artifacts to be claimed for return, the fact of their illicit transfer from the country of origin should be established. Here, the Court used the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention to broaden the provisions in the 1970 UNESCO Convention applied.[12] Some of the named principles support the notion that the lex originis of the artifact is key to determine the lawfulness of a transfer.[13] This means that the illicitness of the transfer shall be resolved by the law of the State of origin of the cultural object.[14] In Ukraine, as the State originis, under Article 23 of the Law on Export, Import, and Restitution of Cultural Objects (‘Ukrainian Law on Cultural Objects’), for the transfer to be illicit, the latter should not have been returned to the territory of the requesting State at the time prescribed by the loan agreement.[15] Although this provision requires the transfer, ie the export or import, of the cultural objects to be illicit, the Court interpreted this rule broadly, following the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention approach,[16] to also include the case of non-return of the objects.[17] In this case, the loan agreements obliged the AP Museum to return the Crimean Gold to the five Ukrainian museums by September 2014. Having returned some to the National Museum of History of Ukraine, the retention of the Crimean Gold from four Crimean Museums beyond the return date was considered to be illicit.[18] Second, having established an illicit retention, the Court continued by turning to the 2016 Dutch Heritage Act, which in Article 6.7 provides that return may be claimed either by   ‘the State Party from which the property originates or by the party with a valid title to such property’.[19] This provision therefore allows, alongside States, also non-State deprived owners to claim return of the artifacts,[20] meaning that both Ukraine and the Crimean Museums could bring the return claim. This broad approach also arises out of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention.[21] Nevertheless, while both Ukraine and the Crimean Museums could bring the return claim, the question now was whose claim would succeed: whose cultural heritage did the artifacts belong to? The Court was not convinced by the Crimean Museums’ arguments that the Crimean Gold had stronger cultural-historical links to Crimea as a physical place and should therefore be returned to its ‘true home’.[22] Instead, the Court sided with Ukraine, which claimed return of the Crimean Gold as objects of national patrimony and state property based on Ukrainian law, which designates the artifacts of the Crimean Museums as such.[23] Such national patrimony establishes a ‘genuine link’ from a cultural-historical perspective,[24] and therefore overrides the ‘operational management’ of the Crimean Museums over the Crimean Gold under the loan agreements. And here, the annexation of Crimea is irrelevant to the legal status of the named Ukrainian-registered cultural objects,[25] as Ukraine had transferred the named ‘operational management’ over Crimea-based cultural objects to the National Historical Museum of Ukraine shortly after the annexation.[26] Crimea—or the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as provided in the Constitution of Ukraine—has been part of independent Ukraine since 1991.[27] Although Crimea enjoys some autonomy in administering its historical objects,[28] the Court held that, in case of concurring claims between a State and a non-State party, the claim of the State which protects the artifacts as national patrimony will prevail.[29] At the same time, the Court refrained from ruling on the question of ownership over the Crimean Gold relying on Article 1012 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, which states that ‘ownership of the cultural object that is subject to a return request by a State Party will be decided upon after return by the national laws of the state that claimed for its return’,[30] ie after the objects return to Ukraine in accordance with its laws. Nevertheless, the Court held that the Crimean Gold is indeed Ukrainian heritage. This made Ukraine one step closer to restoring and maintaining its sustainable preserving of the artifacts. However, not satisfied with the decision of the Court, the Crimean Museums lodged an appeal with hopes of having the ruling overturned. In its grievance, the Crimean Museums restated that the Crimean Gold had no links to Ukraine, but rather to the Crimean Peninsula and therefore should be returned to the latter. The Court of Appeal, faced with this intricate issue before it, came to a decision after more than two years of consideration. It ultimately upheld the Court’s assessment: the Crimean Gold shall be returned to Ukraine.[31] However, in coming to its decision, the Court of Appeal pointed out several ‘buts’. A. The first ‘but’: there has been no illicit retention of the Crimean Gold by the AP Museum While Ukraine had based its claim on Article 6.7 of the 2016 Dutch Heritage Act, as discussed above, in their appeal, the Crimean Museums focused their claims on Article 6.3 of the same act. They argued that the retention of the Crimean Gold by the AP Museum beyond the term prescribed in the loan agreements resulted in an illicit export of the Crimean Gold in the sense of Article 6.3.[32]  Here, Article 6.3 of the 2016 Dutch Heritage Act provides that: It is prohibited to bring into the Netherlands cultural property that: a. has been taken outside the territory [1] of a Contracting State in violation of the provisions adopted by that Contracting State in accordance with the objectives of the 1970 UNESCO Convention with regard to the export [2] of cultural property from that State Party or with regard to the transfer of ownership of cultural property; or b. has been stolen from a contracting state.[33] The Court of Appeal began the evaluation of the Crimean Museums’ claim by right away establishing that Article 6.3(b) is not relevant as there has been no theft of cultural property.[34] While Article 6.3(a), in the parts relevant to the factual pattern of the dispute, provides for two issues which the Court of Appeal had put a finger on. First, the judges established that at the time the Crimean Gold was initially ‘taken outside the territory’ of Ukraine, such taking outside the territory was legal and there had been no violation in the meaning of the 1970 UNESCO Convention (the language of which, inter alia, Article 6.3 adopted). The Court of Appeal specifically mentioned that the Crimean Gold had quite a journey from Ukraine to Germany and finally to the Netherlands in accordance with the validly executed export licenses issued by the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine.[35] For these reasons, the initial ‘tak[ing] outside the territory’ of Ukraine lacked any breaches. And second, the question for the judges to resolve therefore orbited around the following issue: whether the term ‘export’ in Article 6.3(a) should be interpreted broadly as to include the retention of the cultural property beyond the term enshrined in the loan agreements. If yes, whether such retention is legal or would otherwise result in an ‘illicit export’, as the Crimean Museums suggest. To recall, the District Court had engaged in an interpretation of the same matter by reverting to the broad approach found in the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention and therefore coming to a positive answer to this question. On the appeal stage, however, the judges considered this instrument irrelevant and not applicable.[36] For this reason, the Court of Appeal relied on the 1970 UNESCO Convention, in particular its object and purpose, preamble,[37] and Articles 2(1), 3 and 6(b) in establishing the scope of the term ‘export’.[38] After looking at these provisions, the judges concluded that the 1970 UNESCO Convention was meant to give the terms ‘export’ (and ‘import’) nothing more than their ordinary meaning. Therefore, this instrument only addresses situations in which illicit acts are committed at the time when the cultural property is transferred from one country to another, and this does not include cases when illicit acts occur if the cultural property remains in the other country longer than permitted.[39] The retention of the Crimean Gold by the AP Museum was therefore legal,[40] and as such, contrary to the flawed belief of the Crimean Museums, cannot be regarded as an ‘illicit export’. At the end of the day, as the Court of Appeal underlined, the reason why the AP Museum retained the Crimean Gold was not because it wished ‘to embezzle the Crimean [Gold]’ or engage in ‘other illicit practices’,[41] but simply because Ukraine is against its cultural heritage being returned to the illegally occupied Crimean Peninsula (effectively controlled by the Russian Federation). Although the judges did comment that ‘handing over the museum pieces to the Crimean Museums would in no way imply recognition of the secession of Crimea from Ukraine and its affiliation with the Russian Federation’.[42]  B. The second ‘but’: in any case, the 2016 Dutch Heritage Act and the Ukrainian Law on Cultural Objects do not apply Despite all the evaluation of Articles 6.7 and 6.3 of the 2016 Dutch Heritage Act, the Court of Appeal held that this instrument was not applicable in the case at hand. The simple reason being that there had been no cause of action able to ‘activate’ these provisions. In particular, as discussed above, Article 6.7 enshrined the right of the State originis as the claiming party, while Article 6.3 enlisted grounds entitling such a claiming party for the establishment of an illicit activity over cultural property. Neither provision applied individually because they were designed to work in tandem. While in practice, the Crimean Museums, seeing the disadvantage for its position had it relied on Article 6.7, and same as Ukraine, seeing the disadvantage for its position had it relied on Article 6.3, both avoided mentioning the two provisions together. This was picked up by the Court of Appeal, which ultimately concluded that since the Crimean Gold was ‘taken outside the territory’ of Ukraine legally, and since the resulting retention by the AP Museum was legal, neither article was applicable.[43] In a similar manner, contrary to the decision of the District Court, which evaluated Article 1012 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, providing that ‘ownership of the cultural object that is subject to a return request by a State Party will be decided upon after return by the national laws of the state that claimed for its return’, the Court of Appeal held that this provision is only applicable to claims based on Article 6.7 of the 2016 Dutch Heritage Act. And since such a claim failed, as shown above, there can be no application of Article 1012 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, and in turn, the Ukrainian Law on Cultural Objects, which it would trigger.[44] C. So, what did  apply? Now, the question arises: what did the Court of Appeal apply in coming to its decision? In essence, the Court of Appeal ruled on the cultural heritage issue based on the evaluation of the ‘[r]ights to the museum exhibits of a proprietary nature (and restrictions thereon under Ukrainian Law)’.[45] The parties did not object to the Crimean Gold belonging to the Ukrainian Museum Fund and being governed by the Law of Ukraine on Museums.[46] The Court of Appeal therefore evaluated the following Ukrainian Laws. First, the Law of Ukraine on Museums. It was enacted in 1995 and is designed to preserve Ukrainian cultural heritage and provides for limitations as to the exercise of the rights over cultural property.[47] In this vein, the Court of Appeal noted the steps that Ukraine had taken to safeguard its cultural property, namely: On 20 July 2000, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, on the basis of the Law of Ukraine on Museums, had introduced a Regulation on the Museum Fund of Ukraine (‘Regulation’), with provisions relating to, inter alia, alienation of cultural objects.[48]  On 23 March 2014, soon after the unfolding of the Euromaidan, the Regulation was supplemented by Article 41.1 which authorised the Minister of Culture of Ukraine to make decisions with regards to the cultural property which became subject to a force majeure situation (risk of destruction, loss, or damage). On 13 May 2014, such a decision was indeed made by the Minister of Culture of Ukraine, by results of which it was decided that cultural property subject to force majeure were to be temporarily transferred to the National Museum of History of Ukraine in Kyiv.[49]  And second, the Court of Appeal looked at Article 13 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 18 of the Law of Ukraine on Protection of Archaeological Heritage, which both establish Ukrainian cultural property as part of the Museum Fund of Ukraine.[50] As a result of these laws and regulations, Ukraine argued that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea could not be considered as the rightful ‘owner’ of the Crimean Gold. Although the Autonomous Republic of Crimea does exercise some autonomy in managing the museum artefacts, as discussed above, at best, as Ukraine argued, the prior could be the owner of the buildings where its museums were located, and not its contents.[51] The Crimean Museums, not satisfied with the Regulation and the decision of the Minister of Culture of Ukraine above, objected in the court proceedings that a force majeure situation had indeed occurred,[52] and in essence that (i) the Ukrainian Laws above are not relevant since the Crimean Museums held the ‘operational management’ over the Crimean Gold under the loan agreements; and again, (ii) simply because the Crimean Gold has direct links to the Crimean Peninsula, in contrast to Ukraine. Based on the evaluation of the above, the Court of Appeal first and foremost underscored that it will not be deciding on the matters of ownership, similar to the position of the District Court, as it is not decisive in the matter.[53] Nevertheless, it did hold that although the Crimean Gold did originate from Crimea and can be regarded as Crimean heritage, it is still cultural heritage of Ukraine. This is so because Ukraine has existed as an independent State since 1991.[54] And because of this, Ukraine has an overriding interest in preserving the artefacts. It had not only safeguarded its interest by enacting the Law of Ukraine on Museums, but also by continuously created a regime of protection of its cultural heritage (including the Regulation).[55] The Court of Appeal was therefore convinced that Ukraine’s interest in preserving its national patrimony shall be given a priority over any private right.[56] This approach has also been recently upheld by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands on 9 July 2023.[57] III. Crimean Gold—Ukrainian Heritage! As the Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court all determined the Crimean Gold as part of Ukrainian heritage, the fact of it being in dispute in the first place interrupted the sustainable development of the culture of Ukraine. From 2014 to the decision of the Supreme Court, the Crimean Gold remained stored in the AP Museum. Given the geopolitical tensions between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in Crimea which started in 2014, and now in the conditions of a full-scale war started by the Russian Federation, the Crimean Gold was made a ‘hostage of geopolitics’ for more than eight years. This, in turn, has impacted Ukraine’s ability to protect and safeguard its cultural heritage, which has a historical, social, and anthropological value,[58] and is an enabler of sustainable development of the country.[59] The very concept of sustainable development ‘would mean achieving a state of…economic, and social improvement that could be reasonably maintained indefinitely’[60] and ‘would not slow down’.[61] For Ukraine, this development has been impacted since the commencement of the litigation over the Crimean Gold: ‘indefinite’ maintenance was in question and the development had in fact ‘slowed down’. It is crucial, as ‘cultural heritage plays a marginal role’ in contributing ‘significantly to the sustainable development’ of a State .[62] In view of its significance, in September 2015, cultural heritage has been included in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (‘SDG’) being a universal agenda which seeks to strengthen the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainability by 2030.[63] Ukraine, alongside 192 other States, has committed to the 17 SDGs, which although do not identify cultural heritage as a separate goal, integrated it into SDG 11.4. This goal relevantly calls for strengthening efforts to protect cultural and historical heritage.[64] It is crucial because ‘you cannot build a society purely on interests, you need a sense of belonging’—a phrase once said by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, a former president of France, which greatly describes the essence of SDG 11.4. This target specifically addresses cultural heritage. It calls to ‘strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage’.[65] The UNESCO World Heritage and Sustainable Development Programme, among other benefits of successful preserving of cultural heritage, depicts that heritage related activities help people recover a sense of continuity.[66] It further underscores that it cultivates ‘a sense of belonging’,[67] and defines its citizens’ shared identity.[68] Notably, when it comes to the Crimean Peninsula, where the Crimean Gold was excavated, it is very rich in archaeological sites called ‘kurgans’, burial mounds carrying weapons, dishes, statues, and many more items of Scythians, Greeks, and Goths.[69] Exactly these kurgans held the secrets of Scythians, ancient nomadic people who resided in the coastal areas of the Black Sea and Crimea in 900-100 BC.[70] Kyivan Rus’, which had centuries thereafter emerged in the territory of Ukraine, including the Crimean Peninsula, considered itself a successor of Scythians.[71] Now, almost 1,100 years after the emerging of Kyivan Rus’, modern independent Ukraine is preserving the archaeological treasures excavated in Crimea under its sovereignty and part of its long-lasting identity. Although the litigation over the Crimean Gold endangered its prompt return to Ukraine, as well as because soon after the above proceedings commenced, the Russian Federation enforced a law including the Crimean Gold in its national artefacts’ registry,[72] the success of Ukraine in the dispute is an important step towards restoring its heritage and bringing it where it belongs. For instance, similar circumstance had occurred in relation to a fourteenth-century bronze Buddha statue stolen from a Kannon Temple in Tsushima Island in October 2012.[73] Here, South Korea had initiated proceedings in the Daejon District Court, where it was similarly tasked to decide where the statue should be returned to: Japan, who kept the stolen statue; or South Korea, whose heritage it was part of. The Daejon District Court ultimately decided that the statue should be returned to a South Korean Buddhist Buseok Temple, noting that the statue contained ancient scripts describing its origin (South Korean), which the Daejon District Court linked to the invasion of South Korea by Japan in the fourteenth century.[74] By doing so, the Daejon District Court respected the strong cultural-historical link of the statue to the country of its origin, relying on the 1970 UNESCO Convention, regardless of the statue being stolen during the invasion of South Korea. Although the case with respect to the Crimean Gold does not consider larceny, the essence of this ruling denotes the weight which the State originis   has in relation to its cultural heritage—a principle which originated from the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention.[75] Precisely the same is observed in the case of the Crimean Gold. Returning it to Ukraine would restore its heritage for the future generations and preserve people’s sense of belonging. IV. Conclusion ‘A people without knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots’, as Marcus Garvey, a Jamaican-born African American politician, once famously said. Similarly, not having access to one’s heritage endangers its future. In this case, the Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court, although using different approaches to evaluate the matter, all came to the same conclusion: the Crimean Gold is an inherent part of Ukrainian heritage and shall therefore be returned to Ukraine. Thus, the Crimean Gold has found its long way back home and with its return Ukraine can begin to restore the ‘roots’ of its tree of heritage. Leila Kazimi Leila Kazimi is a Ukrainian dispute resolution lawyer specialising in international commercial and investment arbitration. [1] Rudolf Kasinec and Marián Šuška, ‘Case of the Crimean Treasures—to Whom Should the Treasures be Returned?’ (2020) 62 Scientific Journal of the Uzhhorod National University 16. [2] Lyudmila Strokova, ‘Crimea. Golden Island in the Black Sea. Chronicle of the struggle for the “Scythian gold” of Ukraine’ ( The Voice of Crimea , 6 July 2020) < https://culture.voicecrimea.com.ua/en/crimea-golden-island-in-the-black-sea-chronicle-of-the-struggle-for-the-scythian-gold-of-ukraine/ > accessed 10 March 2024. The five museums are (one in Kyiv and four in Crimea): The National Museum of History of Ukraine (Kyiv), the Central Museum of Tavrida (Simferopol), the Kerch Historical and Cultural Preserve (Kerch), the Bakhchisaray History and Culture State Preserve of the Republic of Crimea (Bakhchisaray), and the National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos (Sevastopol). See Amsterdam District Court, Case No. HA ZA 14-1179 ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:8264, 14 December 2016. These artefacts are also referred to as ‘Scythian Gold’, though more commonly as ‘Crimean Gold’ given the multicultural origin of the gold objects which are not only Scythian. See Evelien Campfens and Irina Tarsis, ‘Cri-Me-A-River! Crimean Gold in the Crosshairs of Geopolitics’ (2017) 18(1) International Foundation for Art Research Journal 36, n 3. [3] The exhibition was displayed in two international museums—in Bonn, Germany from 3 July 2013-19 January 2014 (Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, ‘Bonn Museum’) and in Amsterdam, the Netherlands from 6 February 2014-31 August 2014 (Allard Pierson Museum, ‘AP Museum’). See Amsterdam District Court (n 2) [2.1]. See also Strakova (n 2); Campfens and Tarsis (n 2) 40. [4] Strakova (n 2). [5] Gert-Jan van den Bergh, Martha Visser, and Auke van Hoek, ‘Netherlands’ in Lawrence M Kaye and Howard N Spiegler (eds), The Art Law Review  (Law Business Research Ltd 2022) 244-62. [6] Amsterdam District Court (n 2) [2.11]. See also Anastassia Boutsko, ‘Ukraine and Russia Dispute Over Crimea Gold Reaches Next Level’ ( DW , 2 April 2022) < https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-and-russia > accessed 10 March 2024. [7] ‘Interim judgment in the matter of the Crimean treasures’ ( de Rechtspraak , 16 July 2019) < https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/ > accessed 10 March 2024. [8] Amsterdam District Court (n 2) [4.1]. [9] Campfens and Tarsis (n 2) 41. [10] Ukraine, the Netherlands and the Russian Federation are all State Parties of the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (‘1970 UNESCO Convention’). [11] Although the Netherlands signed but did not ratify the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, the Dutch legislator has nevertheless chosen to reflect some of its principles in Dutch Law, including in the 2016 Dutch Heritage Act. See the Explanatory Memorandum to the Implementation of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property adopted in Paris on 14 November 1970 (Parliamentary Documents, Kamerstuk 31255, No. 3, 2007-2008) < https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/netherlands_implementationact_conv1970_memo.pdf > accessed 10 March 2024. See also Amsterdam District Court (n 2) [4.3]; Campfens and Tarsis (n 2) 45. [12] 1995 UNDROIT Convention, Art. 5.2(2); Campfens and Tarsis (n 2) 45. [13] 1970 UNESCO Convention, Art. 4(b). [14] 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, Art. 3(2); Evelien Campfens, Cross-border claims to cultural objects. Property or heritage?  (Eleven 2021) 193. [15] Law of Ukraine on Exportation, Importation and Return of Cultural Values (Vidomosti Verkhovna Rada) No. 48 (1999), Art. 23 [16] Campfens (n 14) 82. [17] ibid 81. [18] ibid 82. [19] ibid 83; Dutch Heritage Act 2016, Art. 6.7. [20] Campfens (n 14) 83. [21] ibid . See also the Explanatory Memorandum to the Implementation of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property adopted in Paris on 14 November 1970 (Parliamentary Documents, Kamerstuk 31255, No. 3, 2007-2008). [22] Campfens (n 14) 77; Amsterdam District Court (n 2) [3.2]. [23] In particular, under the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (February 2, 2000) on the basis of Art. 15(3) of the Law of Ukraine on Museum and Museum Affairs of 29 June 1995; Constitution of Ukraine, Art. 13. See also Evelien Campfens, ‘Whose Cultural Heritage? Crimean Treasures at the Crossroads of Politics, Law and Ethics’ (2017) Grotius Centre Working Paper 2017/068-PIL 7. [24] Campfens (n 23) p. 15. [25] ibid 7. [26] ibid. [27] Campfens and Tarsis (n 2) 39. [28] Campfens (n 23) 15. [29] Amsterdam District Court [4.8]. See also Campfens (n 14) 83. [30] Dutch Civil Code of Procedure, Art. 1012. [31] Court of Appeal of Amsterdam, Case No. 200.212.377/01, C/13/577586 / HA ZA 14-1179, 26 October 2010. [32] ibid [3.4]. [33] ibid [3.5]; Dutch Heritage Act 2016, Art. 6.3. [34] Court of Appeal of Amsterdam (n 31) [3.5]. [35] ibid . [36] ibid [3.14]-[3.16]. [37] The Court of Appeal acknowledges that the 1970 UNESCO Convention generally opposes to the cultural property remaining in the recipient country longer than permitted, by referring to its Preamble, which reads: ‘Considering that it is incumbent upon every State to protect the cultural property existing within its territory against the dangers of theft, clandestine excavation, and illicit export’. Nevertheless, as there has been no ‘theft, clandestine excavation, and illicit export’, the Court of Appeal held that the AP Museum acted legally. [38] Court of Appeal of Amsterdam (n 31) [3.6]; 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, Art. 2(1) and 3. [39] Court of Appeal of Amsterdam (n 31) [3.6] [40] ibid. [41] ibid. [42] ibid [3.8.3]. [43] ibid [3.18]-[3.21]. [44] ibid [3.21]. [45] ibid [11]. [46] ibid [3.22]. [47] ibid [3.25.1]. [48] ibid. [49] ibid. [50] ibid [3.28]. [51] ibid. [52] ibid [3.25.2]. [53] ibid [3.31]. See also ‘Allard Pierson Museum has to hand over the Crimean Treasures to the Ukrainian State’ ( De Rechtspraak , 26 October 2021) < https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Gerechtshof-Amsterdam/Nieuws/Paginas/Allan-Pierson-Museum-has-to-hand-over-the-Crimean-Treasures-to-the-Ukrainian-State.aspx > accessed 10 June 2024. [54] Court of Appeal of Amsterdam (n 31) [3.32.3]. [55] ibid. [56] ibid. [57] Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Case No. 22/00270б ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:3201 (9 July 2023). [58] Wen Xiao, Jon Mills, Gabriele Guidi, Pablo Rodríguez-Gonzálvez, Sara Gonizzi Barsanti, and Diego González-Aguilera, ‘Geoinformatics for the conservation and promotion of cultural heritage in support of the UN Sustainable Development Goals’ (2018) 142 Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 1. [59] ibid. [60] Caleb A Folorunso, ‘Globalization, Cultural Heritage Management and the Sustainable Development Goals in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Nigeria’ (2021) 4 Heritage 1709. [61] Indre Gražuleviciute, ‘Cultural Heritage in the Context of Sustainable Development’ (2006) 27(3) Environmental Research, Engineering & Management, 74-9. [62] Folorunso (60) 1710-1. [63] British Council, ‘The Missing Pillar: Culture’s Contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals’ ( British Council , 2020) 9 < https://www.britishcouncil.org/arts/culture-development/ > accessed 10 March 2024. [64] Jyoti Hosagrahar, ‘Culture: at the heart of SDGs’ ( UNESCO , 11 April 2017) < https://en.unesco.org/courier/april-june-2017/culture-heart-sdgs > accessed 29 May 2023. [65] ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1’ ( UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs , 21 October 2015) < https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda > accessed 10 March 2024. [66] Xiao et al (n 58) 3. [67] Luigi Petti, Claudia Trillo, and Busisiwe Ncube Makore, ‘Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development Targets: A Possible Harmonisation? Insights from the European Perspective’ (2020)   MDPI 13; ‘Culture in the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda: A Report by the Culture 2030 Goal Campaign’ ( Creative Europe , September 2019) 38 < https://agenda21culture.net/sites/default/files/culture2030goal_high.pdf > accessed 29 May 2023. [68] International Council on Monuments and Sites, ‘Heritage as a Driver of Sustainability’ ( Google Arts and Culture ) < https://artsandculture.google.com/story/ewVBpE8qiz0gUQ > accessed 10 March 2024. [69] Campfens and Tarsis (n 2) 39-40. [70] ibid 39. [71] Oleksandr Palii, ‘A History of Ukraine: Great Victories of Great Scythia’ ( Radio Lemberg , 27 December 2017) < https://www.radiolemberg.com/ua-articles/ua-allarticles/a-history-of-ukraine-episode-8-great-victories-of-great-scythia > accessed 10 March 2024. [72] Campfens and Tarsis (n 2) [73] Song In-geol and Gil Yun-hyung, ‘Court rules that ancient Buddhist statue can remain in Korea’ ( Hankyoreh , 27 January 2017) < https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/780472.html > accessed 10 March 2024. [74] Campfens (n 23) 17-8; ‘S. Korea court awards Japan’s stolen statue to local temple’ ( Dawn , 27 January 2017) < https://www.dawn.com/news/1310981/ > accessed 10 March 2024. [75] Campfens (n 23) 15.

A snapshot in time of English folk music, queer visibility, and gender non-conformity Alex Garden is a fiddle player, guitarist, composer, and producer with a unique approach as a result of ten years experience performing folk, classical, and improvised music around the UK. Alex uses they/them pronouns. Their projects include The Drystones, Sheelanagig, Tarren, Harriet Riley & Alex Garden, The Terra Collective, and The Longest Johns, and they also produce a variety of collaborative work as a recording artist alongside this. Their longest running project, The Drystones, has been nominated for the BBC Young Folk Award and received an Arts Council England project grant in 2021 for a new tour, with a mission to involve more younger audiences in UK Folk music.  CJLPA : How were you introduced to folk music, and what encouraged you to pursue your passion for folk music as a career?   Alex Garden : As a child from a Scottish family living in England I was introduced to ceilidhs and traditional songs and tunes. This, combined with a proximity to the incredible Priddy Folk Festival in Somerset and encouragement from an amazing violin teacher, led me to playing folk tunes on the fiddle in my free time. As teenagers at our local comprehensive school, Ford Collier and I discovered an overlapping passion for traditional music and we started playing together as The Drystones when we were around fifteen.[1] Along our journey we were very fortunate with the experiences we had, such as playing at Glastonbury Festival multiple times, appearing on BBC radio programs, supporting our heroes onstage, and producing our debut studio album. The opportunity for young people to have these experiences and to truly believe that they can make a living out of their music is very rare. We were extremely lucky to have been given the space and time to develop as young musicians and it's something I cherish every day.   A career in folk music is not particularly glamorous or financially lucrative. I seem to spend a lot of time in fields, motorway service stations, and the odd night sleeping on hay bales in a barn. However, the community, creativity, and the love it brings me is incredible.   CJLPA : What is your approach to instrumental music? What makes it unique?   AG : My approaches to all music vary from project to project, and day to day. Some projects, like my trio Tarren, are rooted in specific traditions; in this case the English tradition.[2] Others, like The Drystones, are informed by folk music more broadly, and fuse electronic, techno, and prog genres together. Then there are more theatrical shows with Sheelanagig, and a unique duo project with Harriet Riley on vibraphone which brings together folk, minimalism, and jazz through entirely new compositions.[3] Generally, I love writing and improvising new music within a broader view to reworking old material. One constant throughout my work is trying to achieve perpetual fresh perspectives within the living tradition.   CJLPA : Tarren has recently been awarded a grant from the English Folk Dance and Song Society, which you are using to research gender in English traditional song. How is harmful gender discrimination visible in English traditional song and folk music more broadly?   AG : When we talk about folk music we are generally discussing music, dance and text, which dates back to a time where this material was passed on and recycled through the aural tradition. This works a little like the game Chinese whispers, where each time the material is passed from person to person it changes slightly, either by accident or deliberately. The reason many of these songs still exist today is that they were being transcribed and written down by folk song collectors, such as Cecil Sharp, who was mostly active during the Edwardian period. Sharp is a controversial figure often accused of being racist and fascist. However, in order to keep this section about gender and music, I will let you do your own reading around this to form your own judgements. Through the work of these collectors, we see that that a lot of songs, tunes, and texts have a wide diaspora across the country, across the world in some cases, with significant localised nuances and variations.   Gender and class equality issues come into play for several reasons during this collecting process. Firstly, the songs themselves were often collected by men from other men, because both the academic pursuit of folk song collecting and many of the working environments where the songs were sung were inaccessible to women. Many of the songs collected during this time, known as the ‘first revival’ in England, were misogynistic and violent towards women, often mistreating them in a variety of barbaric ways.   The famous Anglo-American ballad ‘Pretty Polly’ serves as an example. The male protagonist, an unnamed ships carpenter, promises to marry Polly and subsequently murders her when she becomes pregnant before the wedding, burying her in a shallow grave. I’ve heard this song being sung in folk clubs many times and it’s often sung with a kind of apathy for the message or meaning behind the text and being glorified simply for being part of the tradition. This is just one example of many songs.   There are also old songs which can be said to promote transphobia, which is surprising as we generally regard trans visibility in Western culture to be something which appears much later on in the late 20th century. The song ‘The Close Shave’ (and various other versions) tells the story of a sailor coming into port after a long time at sea to trade gold. He meets a pretty maid and they spend the night together. When he wakes in the morning, his gold is gone and instead he finds a woman’s dress, a wig, and a shaving kit. The song’s pinnacle is the line “my pretty maid’s a man’ I cried, and thanks be I fell asleep, for I’d rather lose a bag of gold than wake up with that creep’. Here, we see an attempt at humour at the expense of a cross-dressing character which plays into the narrative that men are often unfairly and deliberately deceived into being attracted to trans people, and teaches that it is acceptable to shame them. I’m very much in favour of musical humour and taking traditional material with a pinch of salt, but I’ve experienced this song being sung by all ages and watched as they all sing the line ‘wake up with that creep’ while smiling and laughing.   I think we need to take more responsibility when we are working with older material, acknowledging its shortcomings and educating audiences and performers about the dangerous messages hidden in these songs. They can be sung with better sensitivity, understanding, and context. For example, sometimes the meaning of a narrative can be flipped with a few simple edits. We can learn so much from history and folklore; let’s not simply erase it. Instead let’s use our critical faculties to interrogate the parts of our history we are not happy with.   Unfortunately, gender inequality in the English music industry extends to the present day at gigs and festivals. I have heard so many anecdotes from friends and colleagues where they have been mistreated, patronised, and embarrassed as performers because they identify as a woman, a trans person or non-binary identity. A friend who identifies as a woman was asked by her manager in public whether she has an ‘OnlyFans’ account (a user generated content site which is primarily used by sex workers to post pornographic material). A different woman’s performance was interrupted by a male sound engineer who said that she didn’t know how to tune her instrument, and another friend was sexually assaulted by venue staff.   On an everyday level we see constant micro-aggressions, such as women on stage only being described as ‘beautiful’ or ‘gorgeous’ whereas in the same breath men are described as ‘talented’ and ‘masterful’. This is so damaging to our beloved industry, and to the individuals who make this musical community thrive. If you witness any of these behaviours, please call them out. If you perpetrate any of these behaviours, please stop, retreat, seek help, and learn from your mistakes.   CJLPA : Why did you feel that it was important to use this grant to address gender discrimination in folk music culture?   AG : Folk music in the UK is like a massive extended family. It includes people from all around the world, from every background, and is constantly in flux. It is the community which accepted me with open arms as a young person, taught me everything I know about performing, and gave me the career I have today. The same is true for many of my friends, and I know they hold this community very close to their hearts.   Much like in any other industry, it is paramount that we tackle discrimination in order to keep everyone safe and to continue welcoming new people from all backgrounds. If we don’t do this, there will be no fresh perspectives, no innovation, and no new ideas coming to the fore. The living tradition exists because it constantly interrogates and challenges itself to solve problems and to drive forward into new fields.   Writing in 2023, I am seeing huge changes happening in UK folk. Music is becoming more influenced by other cultures from around the world; it is delving into the world of electronic music and high production value, it is finding its place in gamer and fantasy culture, and it is cross-pollinating into many more disciplines which I don’t have the time to list. It also occasionally flirts with mainstream pop music, and achieves moments of viral, global popularity mostly thanks to social media. It is more important than ever that we address issues around discrimination in order to keep the genre and the community alive and thriving for generations to come.   CJLPA : You have previously spoken about how you chose to come out to wider circles through the article you wrote with Trans portraits. How was this received by your friends and your wider circle?   AG : ‘Coming out’ is a process which varies a lot from person to person. For me, perhaps ‘transition’ better defines my process, as it implies an ongoing period of time between one state and another, as opposed to representing a fixed point in time where there was a change. The article I wrote for Trans Portraits UK in 2022 was an opportunity, not only to describe my initial experiences of being openly non-binary, but also to put this into words for myself at the time, early on in the process.[4] This equates to a time of healing and self-education, whilst letting other people know all the fascinating things I am discovering about gender along the way.   In the article I focused on the euphoric aspect of transitioning, and made suggestions for how other people can make life easier for non-binary and trans folk around them. I had very positive responses from friends and the wider music community, and it has helped me form connections with other queer musicians, facilitated some fascinating conversation, and hopefully played a small role in spreading awareness of trans issues within the traditional music community.   As I have travelled from place to place playing music in the wake of transition, I have noticed myself create this kind of utopia in my mind of how things could be made a lot easier for the non-binary and trans community. I refer to this through the rest of the article.   CJLPA : As a gender non-conforming musician, how do you express yourself on stage, both in terms of image and through your music, and how do these forms of expression make you feel?   AG : My overall performance practice hasn’t changed a lot since I transitioned. However, the way I feel has changed a lot. Having fun, getting lost in music, and being playful is what it’s all about when I’m performing now. Everything, from the way I move to the way I speak and dress, feels more authentic now the pressure of needing to conform to a binary identity has been lifted.   The way I dress varies, in correlation with my gender-fluidity and an understandable desire to be physically comfortable on stage. Some days I’m feeling more femme and others more neutral. More often than not I’ll be found at a festival sporting some brightly-coloured dungarees, some mud stains, cat-eye sunglasses, and messy hair.   In UK folk music, I’m proud to be flying the flag for gender non-conforming musicians, and I feel extremely lucky to live in a world where we have developed the language and recognition of non-binary gender to facilitate this.   CJLPA : Did you face any challenges growing up as a non-binary person in a rural area where there were few queer spaces? What spaces should be made for non-binary/gender non-conforming people who are unsure about their identity growing up?   AG : Young people have a lot on their plate. While going through the various ordeals and dramas of education and finding an area in which to eventually earn a living, they also need to work out who they are and what their purpose is, on an existential level. We all go through a lot of experimentation in order to draw conclusions on our identity in an often turbulent trial and error process. We try something, we see how it fits, and either keep it up or lose it, and in order to feel secure in our conclusions we need to have just the right support, space, validation, and encouragement from our peers and guardians. Reflecting now, I have been extremely lucky in this regard.   Something that troubled me is the idea of needing to conform to behaviours and appearances of my assigned gender at birth. It took me until I was an adult to realise that this thing that was giving my subconscious such a hard time was an issue that could be addressed by simply looking at my identity in a different way. I recognised my freedom as a grown-up and met other gender-queer folk pursuing a career in the arts thanks to the creative urban hub in Bristol I now call home. Naturally, this process began introspectively and then became something I decided to present outwardly when I was ready.   Having always had a slight fascination with music and the way we develop as musicians, I have found that there are some gendered trends in terms of who learns what instrument, which is particularly noticeable in young musicians. In broad strokes, my experience is that young boys prefer to negotiate a masculine identity and seek catharsis through music, typically learning guitar, drums, or bass and starting bands with perhaps more rhythm and aggression. Young girls seek a broader range of creative outlets and tend to start by learning piano, bowed strings, woodwind, and vocals. This accompanies a noticeable attitude of self confidence in the former group, who mirror the behaviours of professional musicians they have seen live and on screen, whereas the latter group are sometimes more introverted in their approach, participating for self-development  and social aspects of music.   Although there are many academics who have weighed in with fascinating discourse on why this might be, one sees similarities when looking back to the nineteenth century, when women were excluded from public performance and instead encouraged to participate in music purely in private. The same was largely true for composers, conductors, and many other public-facing roles in the music industry. Perhaps we still carry this bias today.   Now, in the twenty-first century, we see the music industry progressing towards more even distribution of roles with regards to gender, race and class. For example, many orchestras have adopted blind audition processes to eliminate discrimination based on anything other than musicianship. However, there is still more work to be done to change our core beliefs and attitudes, particularly for young people, which result in stark imbalances in some parts of the music industry. For example, there are fewer women with jobs in percussion than there are men called David with jobs in percussion.[5]   Not everyone wants to learn music, so speaking more broadly, I will talk you through a few ideas and scenarios which may amount to safer and more encouraging environments for a young queer or questioning person.   Having a lack of queer role models as a young person can lead to them feeling hidden themselves, as they have no-one to show them that queer can also mean successful, happy, and empowered. This, combined with a culture of transphobic and homophobic language from peers, can amount to an extremely hostile place. It is important that we prioritise diversity in our educators, and expose young people to gender non-conforming people or cis-gendered people in roles which traditionally would have been taken by another gender. For the purposes of creating our fictional utopia, let’s have more male textiles teachers, female football teachers, and a couple of non-binary history teachers for good measure.   Spaces with gender allocation are very important too. Changing rooms and bathrooms can be hostile environments for those who are experimenting with gender or transitioning, particularly young and vulnerable people. I would love to see more allocation of safe, gender-neutral spaces alongside separate gendered spaces, and an attitude shift which seeks to educate young people about gender and encourage acceptance and safer behaviour.   The UK government has recently made two very dangerous moves with regards to this. Firstly they have said that the ‘rise in gender neutral toilets’ creates privacy issues and unfair disadvantage in a fairly obvious attempt to draw false equivalences between women’s rights and trans rights, as part of an ongoing anti-trans agenda (more on this later).[6] Secondly, Rishi Sunak said that new government guidelines will include rules about when schools must inform parents about children questioning their gender. Triggers for this are vaguely defined at the time of writing, but can include a young person experimenting with or changing their name, pronouns, or uniform. This is a very dangerous move from a safeguarding perspective, as it will effectively see teachers being forced to ‘out’ trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming pupils to their parents or guardians without their consent and without the time or space to safely develop their identity. Even if a young person simply wants to experiment with their appearance, play in a different sports team, or try different pronouns, this leaves the door wide open for systemic abuse, restricts the young person’s autonomy on a basic level, and can lead to homelessness.   According to the AKT youth homelessness report (2021), half of LGBTQIA+ young people said they feared that expressing their identity to family members would lead to them being evicted.[7] Research from Stonewall shows that almost one in five LGBTQIA+ young people have experienced homelessness in their lives, and those rates climb to one in four amongst trans people.[8] Schools are meant to be safe spaces; in many cases the time a young person spends at school is the only time of the day when they are safe. We need to challenge the government on these guidelines, and we need to ensure that young queer or questioning people are protected and treated with the respect they deserve.   CJLPA : Have you faced any challenges as a non-binary musician and, if so, how do you think these challenges could be addressed?   AG : In terms of the intersection between my gender and career, I feel very lucky to admit that I haven’t faced many specific challenges as a musician so far… other than being mis-gendered a lot. The issues I face day-to-day are most likely ones that are shared by all non-binary and trans people when they are out and about. Working in music means that I have the advantage of working in a wide variety of hospitality settings each year, seeing a lot of different approaches to LGBTQIA+ inclusivity in those spaces, and opening up conversation about it with people who work there. This includes everything from fancy modern arts centres, to barns, city venues, sticky clubs, wedding venues, and, of course, festivals. I see a lot of different types of changing rooms, public toilets, and green rooms, and always breathe a sigh of relief when there is a dedicated genderless space for people like me who experience dysphoria in binary gendered environments.   The main issue I face, and I am sure all my other trans or non-binary friends would echo this, is being constantly mis-gendered or misunderstood. Despite my efforts to speak publicly about issues non-binary people face, to send over information to relevant parties in advance, and to kindly remind people, where relevant, I still get referred to with the wrong pronouns in public while at work. Often this is simply a compère not having enough information, a missed opportunity to ask a question at the right time, a basic slip of the tongue, or another entirely forgivable mistake. However, it does matter. Back to my gender-inclusive utopia, I would love to see a music industry in the UK which champions inclusivity and diversity in every way by working on the language it uses and the questions it asks.   If you work in the music industry, here is a little list of things you can do to make some positive differences to gender non-conforming folk: Practice pronouns. If you don’t already know, simply ask politely; Ensure that information about artists, staff, and crew which is passed on to other staff is accurate, up-to-date, and includes everyone’s pronouns; and Avoid saying ‘ladies and gentlemen’ when addressing a crowd. Say ‘they-dys and gentle-thems’ instead, or ‘ladies, gentlemen, and everyone in between’. If you say it confidently and quickly I promise the only people in the crowd who will notice the difference are those to whom it matters the most.   CJLPA : What are some common misconceptions about non-binary people?   AG : There are a few common misconceptions I hear regularly about non-binary people that I would like to address.   First, we are all androgynous . This is simply not true, and doesn’t work as a way to identify someone and make assumptions about them. Some of us play with androgyny, some or all of the time, but there are also plenty of cis-gendered people who present androgyny too and don’t identify as non-binary. The best way around this is to remember it is never wise to make assumptions about anyone based on appearance, even if you may have heard others do this before without consequence. It’s dangerous and can cause harm even if you don’t intend it.   Second, we’re offended every time you refer to us with the wrong pronouns or salutation/title . We are all human; we make mistakes and move on and that’s totally fine. Most non-binary people get mis-gendered quite a lot and won’t have a problem as long as you are trying your best, offer a correction, and you don’t make a fuss about it. The worst thing for me sometimes isn’t the act of being mis-gendered, it’s the aftermath of having to reassure and re-inflate someone’s slightly bruised ego after a barrage of disproportionate apologies from them. Just acknowledge the mistake and politely move on; it’s ok to make mistakes. That said, deliberate mis-gendering is an act of violence and should never be tolerated under any circumstance.   As a side-note, in my experience, words like ‘man’, ‘dude’, ‘guys’, and ‘mate’ are usually not seen as particularly gendered by most people these days. It’s often the tone and the context in which you use these words which is likely to cause someone dysphoria—we just have to make sure we’re vigilant with our language and if we’re not sure of something, ask.   Third, ‘cisgender’ is a slur. The Oxford English Dictionary defines cisgender as ‘describing or connected with people whose sense of personal identity and gender is the same as their birth sex’.[9] It’s as simple as that; nothing more, nothing less. No matter what you might have heard Piers Morgan say, this word is not intended to divide or insult people. Rather, it is necessary as part of the terminology which allows trans and non-binary people to exist, enabling us to define everyone fairly in reference to their assigned gender at birth. If you find this word offensive, I’d suggest this is due to an internalised transphobia which you may have picked up from TV, films, newspapers, and social media. Don’t worry, we can all become better allies no matter where we are coming from and there’s never been a better time to access the resources you need to self-educate about gender variance.   Fourth, we all use they/them pronouns.  Wouldn’t that be nice and simple? I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that. There are a plethora of gender-neutral pronouns which folk use (like ze/hir, xe/xem, fae/faer etcetera), and many people use a combination such as she/they, where multiple types of pronouns can be used to refer to that person. Some people, whose gender is more fluid for example, will constantly vary the pronouns they use in accordance with their experience. The point is, all pronouns are equally important as part of our language. We all have them and we can all use the correct ones when referring to others if we make the effort.   Fifth, pronouns are a preference . Whenever you see ‘preferred pronouns’ said out loud, written on a form, or on a list of options, politely call it out. ‘Preferred’ implies that they are optional and that others can choose which pronouns they use to refer to you (usually he/her). This is not correct. Pronouns can only be decided by the individual, and it’s important we reflect that in the language we use (for example, I do not prefer  they/them pronouns, I actively use they/them pronouns).   Finally, you can infer someone’s sexual orientation by the fact that they are trans/non-binary . This feels really obvious to say. However, I’ve seen so many examples of this assumption being made and it causing someone dysphoria or putting them in danger. Gender and sexuality are not the same thing and are not inherently linked in any way. Any person can experience a gender and a sexuality at the same time and there are no useful correlations. Never assume someone’s sexual orientation, full stop. It’s pretty rude, you can cause genuine harm, and most of the time you’ll probably get it wrong.   CJLPA : How can friends or allies of non-binary people support you?   AG : There are plenty of ways in which friends or allies can support and actively make life better for gender non-conforming folk. I’ve made lots of suggestions elsewhere in this article, so in order not to repeat myself I’ll go into more detail on three main areas which I feel require some work.   Firstly, feeling understood.  If you want to be a better ally as a part of modern western culture, one of the simplest things you can do is go and learn about the incredibly diverse and fascinating history of gender variance around the world and gain an understanding that, despite much of this language being fairly new to us at the moment, gender-variant identities are an ancient and wide-spread practice for humanity. For example, learn about the Hijra communes in South Asia whose origins go back to 400BC and still exist today, indigenous North American Two-Sprit people who traditionally, but not exclusively, fulfil a gender-variant identity, and the Ancient-Egyptian Sekhet which refers to a third gender that does not include men or women and dates back over 4000 years. This is just scratching the surface. Along the way, you’ll read some harrowing stories of how western colonisation has attempted to misrepresent, erase, and exterminate many of these communities, and discover how important it is that we learn about these amazing people. Be aware as you read, lots of the research you find will have been conducted through the western lens of binary gender and you may come across cultural appropriation too (for example, someone wrongly referring to themselves as these identities despite not belonging to these cultures and ethnic groups). Noticing this is an important step in the process. As an outsider, the hope is that when we see and start to understand the hundreds of cultures who have accepted gender-variance successfully before. This gives hope for western society becoming more accepting too.   Secondly, feeling seen. Through a little healthy pedantry we can help a marginalised group in society feel more seen by using the right language. This is so important to building a world which not only validates but celebrates those groups. Be pedantic when it comes to pronouns (they, he, she, etc), salutations (Sir, Madam etc) and honorifics (Mr, Ms, Mrs, Mx etc). Never make assumptions, and if you’re not completely sure (and you actually need to know) ask, don’t assume. In case you were wondering, I use the honorific Mx which is often not included on forms. Similarly to the common honorific Ms (the modern understanding of which we have to thank those brave, pioneering, early twentieth-century feminists), Mx has developed for a reason in order to allow a group of people access to basic things. I’ve made it my mission to call out each and every instance where this is not an option on a form, and have generally been met with companies and institutions happy to change their process once I’ve explained it. There are a few disappointing exceptions I’ve encountered, such as energy giant British Gas, who have still not even responded to me after a year of emails about the matter. In these cases, when Mx is not an option, I’m slightly reluctant to admit in an academic journal, I use the honorific Dr as it’s often the only gender neutral option. My degree is a BA but maybe British Gas could pay for my doctorate one day by means of compensation?   I find it bizarre that, in the UK, companies will often provide options for honourifics like Dame, Lord, Lady, Admiral, and Excellency, without a simple Mx. They also commonly include Christian honorifics such as Reverend or Father, whilst not including them from other major religions such as Islam or Judaism. Call this out. It may seem very insignificant to you, but it will mean a lot to someone out there if we can create options for everyone. Take note if you happen to work designing a form for anything other than medical reasons; perhaps don’t ask for someone’s personal information you don’t need to know. The number of times I’ve been asked my gender for no reason whatsoever is astonishing. Most of the time it is simply irrelevant; we are just taught and accept that we can know someone’s gender without questioning why.   Finally, challenge the government on systemic transphobia.  The UK government have recently announced that trans people will be banned from gendered wards in NHS hospitals, claimed that ‘they know what a woman is’ and said that the ‘rise in gender neutral toilets’ is a problem and have issued regulations ensuring that all new public buildings will have ‘separate male and female toilets’. [10][11] Whilst I agree that having separate toilets for men and women alongside gender neutral spaces is probably the way forward for now, there are several things about this I find very disturbing.   Firstly, the government is actively choosing to allocate space for binary genders, whilst diminishing responsibility for planners and architects to allocate spaces for gender-nonconforming people. If there was no anti-trans agenda here then why would they not simply allocate for all three? Most public toilets come in threes anyway.   Secondly, the government has said very little on the matter of allocation of toilets for disabled people who face a basic lack of access and provision in most public spaces. Many public disabled toilets currently don’t have safety rails, hoists or even ramp access. If they wanted everyone to benefit from reviewing public toilet regulations, surely this is the area which needs the most work.   Thirdly, the research on which this decision was based directly contradicts it. You can read the study for yourself on the government website; their call for evidence presents that 83% of responses are in favour of non-gendered toilet provision whereas 12% are in favour of separate gender toilets only.[12] It also shows that safety concerns for trans or non-binary people using public toilets outweigh those for any other group. Their plan to ‘protect public toilet provisions for men and women’ is a purely political move which uses coded transphobic language and draws a false equivalence between trans people existing freely and the removal of protections for cis-gendered women. If 48% of trans people feel unsafe using public toilets (again, the government’s own research) then why is the government putting forward regulation which harms them? In addition, policing these spaces and promoting this mentality has, and will, also affect cis folk through beauty and behaviour standards, encouraging them to self-police and requiring them to look and dress in certain ways to access those spaces.   The bottom line here is that trans rights do not take away cis-gendered peoples’ rights, and we can challenge the government on this through petitions and well-informed, high-quality journalism. For example, fighting for all women’s rights against the larger issue (the patriarchy) helps all women. More rights for trans and non-binary folk does not equal fewer rights for cis women and men.   CJLPA : Where are your favourite queer-spaces and venues in Bristol?   AG : There are plenty of safe spaces for queer people to enjoy in Bristol and it’s one of the reasons I am so deeply in love with this beautiful city. Strange Brew is a venue I talk about a lot as it has one of the best examples of how to do toilets. Three options are provided—urinals, gender neutral cubicles, and women’s only cubicles. I have never felt unsafe with that system, nor have I ever heard anyone take issue with it. I’ve never seen any queues, even when the venue is sold out, because everyone is catered for based on what they actually need. Take note venue architects! They also host amazing jam nights, live gigs, quizzes, drag, comedy, the lot.   Other great spaces include Lost Horizon, Jam Jar, The Gallimaufry, Old Market Assembly, St George’s, and my local pub, The Greenbank, where I run a twice-monthly inclusive folk session which anyone is welcome to attend. This interview was conducted by Abi Dore, a Legal Researcher for the Human Rights Volume of CJLPA 3. In addition to her role at CJLPA, Abi is currently working as a Trainee Lawyer and will qualify as a lawyer in England and Wales in February 2024. [1] The Drystones < https://www.thedrystones.co.uk/ > accessed 17 October 2023. [2] Tarren < https://tarrenmusic.com/ > accessed 17 October 2023. [3] Bob Fish, ‘Harriet Riley & Alex Garden’ — Sonder III’ ( Folk Radio UK ,   13 October 2023)   < https://www.folkradio.co.uk/2023/10/harriet-riley-alex-garden-sonder-iii/ > accessed 19 October 2023. [4] ‘Alex Garden’ ( Trans Portraits UK , 2022) < https://www.transportraitsuk.org/alex-garden > accessed 19 October 2013. [5] Emily Gunton, ‘Bang the drum for change: why do orchestras have so few female percussionists?’ Guardian (London, 8 March 2021) < https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/mar/08/why-do-orchestras-have-so-few-women-percussionists > accessed 20 October 2023. [6] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and The Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP, ‘All public buildings to have separate male and female toilets’ ( Gov.uk , 4 July 2022) < https://www.gov.uk/government/news/all-public-buildings-to-have-separate-male-and-female-toilets > accessed 20 October 2023. [7] < https://www.akt.org.uk/youth-homelessness-report-2021 >. [8] Chaka L Bachmann and Becca Gooch, ‘LGBT in Britain: Trans Report’ ( Stonewall ) < https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_-_trans_report_final.pdf > accessed 20 October 2023. [9] ‘Cisgender’ ( Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries )   < https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cisgender#:~:text=%2F%CB%8Cs%C9%AAs%CB%88d%CA%92end%C9%99r%2F,same%20as%20their%20birth%20sex > accessed 20 October 2023. [10] Aubrey Allegretti, ‘Trans hospital patients in England to be banned from female- and male-only wards’ Guardian (London, 3 October 2023) < https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/03/trans-hospital-patients-in-england-to-be-banned-from-female--and-male-only-wards > accessed 20 October 2023. [11] Badenoch (n 6). [12] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, ‘Toilet provision for men and women: call for evidence—analysis of responses received’ ( Gov.uk , 13 August 2023) < https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/toilet-provision-for-men-and-women-call-for-evidence/public-feedback/toilet-provision-for-men-and-women-call-for-evidence-analysis-of-responses-received > accessed 20 October 2023.

Ronald W Meister is a distinguished legal professional serving as Senior Counsel at Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman in New York City. Holding the prestigious role of Chairman of the Board at the National Institute of Military Justice, Meister brings a wealth of experience in litigation across federal, state, and military trial and appellate courts. With a background as a military judge and a history of representing active duty reserve and former military personnel, his legal journey is marked by expertise and dedication. Notably, Meister has played a significant role in legal matters around Guantanamo Bay, defending in 2014 a Navy nurse refusing to continue force-feeding detainees. His impactful contributions to the legal landscape make Ronald Meister a standout figure in the field. CJLPA : We are pleased to welcome you today, Mr. Ronald Meister, to interview with The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art . By way of introduction, you are currently a Senior Counsel at Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman and Chairman of the Board of the National Institute of Military Justice. Prior to this, you concentrated on litigation and federal, state, and military trial and appellate courts. You were also formerly a military judge and represented active duty reserve and former military and personnel among your vast experience. You also offered your legal services at Guantanamo Bay, which is what we would like to focus our interview on today. To begin, in July 2014, it was reported that a Navy nurse refused to continue force-feeding detainees at Guantanamo Bay. You acted as lead attorney for this former Guantanamo nurse. Can you please tell us what prompted you to take on this case?   Ronald W Meister : Well, as you mentioned, I served as a Navy JAG ( Judge Advocate General ) officer and as a defence counsel and military judge during the Vietnam era. I have continued my involvement in military justice since then and to this day as chair of an organisation called the National Institute of Military Justice. I have been involved in Guantanamo matters, coordinating an observer program for NIMJ and travelling to Guantanamo. I have written briefs on Guantanamo Bay cases for the US Supreme Court. When this case arose, I was contacted by a retired brigadier general, who had been involved with an organisation called ‘Physicians for Human Rights’. He brought the case to my attention and asked if I would be willing to represent the nurse, which was the kind of case my education and experience had prepared me for and would be interested in doing.   CJLPA : Particularly in this case, the nurse faced a potential discharge from the military for refusing to continue administrating force-feedings at Guantanamo. How did the Navy explain the complaint against them?   RM : The Navy is not in the business of explaining, the Navy is in the business of ordering. And they wanted the medical personnel at Guantanamo to do certain things. And they are unhappy when they do not do them. To the extent that there was any explanation at all, they expressed, perhaps regarding it as compassionate, a desire to prevent prisoners from committing suicide by refusing to eat.   CJLPA : From your observation of this case, was force-feeding a means of discouraging the detainees’ protests against their living conditions, or rather an attempt to prevent them from risking death?   RM : There is no doubt that they are trying to discourage protests. There is no evidence that any detainee was on the verge of death from a hunger strike. They wanted to discourage prisoners from conducting what they called ‘asymmetrical warfare’. The Navy had the guns, the military had the ammunition, and the person had nothing, so they were fighting back with the only available tools. And one form of protest was to engage in a hunger strike.   CJLPA : Could you discuss the legal obstacles you encountered while taking on this case and how you overcame them?   RM : The principal philosophical obstacle was the ingrained military habit of obeying orders, which are presumed to be legal. And there is considerable difficulty to carry the burden of proving that the order is illegal. We also faced a Supreme Court decision from 1950 called Johnson v. Eisentrager , which held that US courts had no jurisdiction over German prisoners of war held outside the geographic boundaries of the United States. So, the Eisentrager  case had been upheld and enforced by that time over the years and was a precedential obstacle that had to be overcome or distinguished.   CJLPA :   Eventually, the US Navy dropped all charges against the nurse. What factors do you think played a key role in this outcome?   RM : Well, they did not tell us why. As I said, they are not in the business of explaining. We had enlisted the support of some extremely helpful organisations, who felt that the vindication of nursing ethical obligations was important, principally Physicians for Human Rights, which I mentioned before. We also succeeded in getting the help of the American Nurses Association, which was very vigorous in support of our client and ultimately, at the conclusion of the case, granted him an ethics award—the first one they had ever issued. We got some support to a lesser degree from the American Medical Association. This profoundly conservative organisation was less enthusiastic, at least at the outset, than the American Nurses Association. But they did help.   Presumably, due to the attention focused on the case, the Department of Defense, which has a Committee on Medical Ethics, ultimately issued a statement supporting our position. That was persuasive once we had some support within the Department of Defense. I think a couple of other things that helped us are that the nurse himself had a highly admirable military record. He had, by that time, over 17 years of service. He had asked the Navy to send him to nursing school, which they did, where, among other things, he learned nursing ethics.   We also never disclosed his identity because we wanted to avoid any possible argument that he was doing this for publicity or his career. Even after the charges were dropped, even after efforts to bar his successful retirement from the Navy were over, and after he retired and started receiving his military pension, we did not disclose his name. So, indeed, when the ANA granted him its ethics award, I accepted it on his behalf and ultimately delivered it to him. We used to call him ‘Lawrence Nightingale’. But we never disclosed his actual name.   CJLPA : In this case, it seems that the court of public opinion or the pressure of publicity was not necessary to get the Navy to drop charges, but rather just the internal investigations and the dialogue between both sides.   RM : There was a degree of press attention to the case in the military and civilian press. So again, while we did not receive or expect an explanation, I think all of those factors together persuaded the people making the decisions ultimately to drop this case.   CJLPA : In addition to representing the Navy nurse, you also prepared the brief for the National Institute of Military Justice as amicus in support of petitioners in respect to the Rasul v. Bush   case. For our viewers, Rasul v. Bush   was the landmark US Supreme Court case that decided that US courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus  petitions filed on behalf of the foreign nationals imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. I would like to ask you a few questions about this brief used in respect to Rasul . Reflecting now, what was the strongest legal argument in that brief that ultimately won the court over and why?   RM : There is no evidence that any arguments we made in our amicus brief made a difference to the court. There were a huge number of amicus briefs filed in support of the petitioners in the three related cases Rasul ,  Padilla , and Hamdi . And there is no mention anywhere in all the Supreme Court opinions in all three cases of any of the amicus  briefs. We made arguments that included domestic and international law arguments, and arguments specifically grounded in the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory, and which is binding in US courts. None of the international law arguments entered the court’s opinion. That is not to say that the pressure of some arguments was ineffective. We just do not see that described as the rationale for the decisions in the case.   CJLPA : In the brief, you exposed the double standards in the application of the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, or the GPW under international law, whereby the US government declared the detainees to be outside the law, such that none of the existing rules governing the treatment of individuals detained in combat applied. Meanwhile, the US expected other nations to abide by international law and extend protections to Americans captured or detained in armed conflict. What impact, if any, do you think this double standard has had on the US?   RM : Well, let’s talk about what arguments were ultimately persuasive. You have to read behind the opinions and try to deduce what caused the Supreme Court to come out the way it did. The ultimate factor, I think, is that the idea that Guantanamo Bay was outside of the law, outside of US law, outside of international law, was too much for a majority of the Supreme Court to swallow.   Courts have been telling the executive in the United States for years what it cannot do. That goes back to Marbury v. Madison   under   Chief Justice Marshall in the early 1800s. It most famously came to a head in the Steel Seizure Case ( Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer ) in the US Supreme Court. So it is not unfamiliar for the Supreme Court to say to the executive, ‘you cannot do this’. And I think the effort of principally Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to create a place in Guantanamo that was totally outside the law—domestic law, international law, Cuban law, any kind of law—where there would be no accountability whatsoever, was too much for the court to swallow. So, while in Rasul , the case in which we submitted our brief, the court relied exclusively on US domestic law and, to some extent, its roots in the English common law, I think when you take the three cases together and the many opinions, there may have been a bit of cover for a desire to apply some of the standards of international law, though they never said it.   The most important of these is Justice O’Connor’s opinion in the Hamdi case. Justice O’Connor wrote for four justices that there was accountability . She never uses the words Geneva Convention. But she writes an opinion that gives Hamdi and those in his condition procedural rights equivalent to what is provided in the Geneva Conventions, though she never says that. She makes up a structure that she says is applicable, including the right to counsel and knowledge of the charges against you. And she just says, these would be good things, and we think that, as on oversight of the justice system you ought to be doing this.   Well, we have  a structure. You do not need to make these things up. We have a document interpreted to tell you what kind of rights people have. It’s called the United States Constitution. And because of that, Justice Scalia, who I think it is fair to say, was a more sophisticated thinker on constitutional issues than Justice O’Connor was, just tears this opinion apart. He says: ‘You are making up a constitution’. But it worked for her and for the three judges who joined her, and then for the two other judges who joined the plurality opinion, to make a decision in the case. So, while you cannot find in the opinion a reliance on international law, you do if you read it in a certain way, as I do, and you find that the concepts of international law are what turned the tables in that case. So that is the background.   You asked me about the double standard. Other countries regularly point out the hypocrisy of the United States in preaching to them what they can do with prisoners, what they can do on the battlefield, what kind of force can be used, when the US itself is a principal purveyor of torture, and is a principal purveyor of massive retaliation, as for example in Iraq, and that decreases this country’s credibility when it seeks to enforce standards on the others.   CJLPA : You mentioned how Justice O’Connor discusses international law concepts without explicitly referring to international law. Why do you think there is a reluctance to rely on international law within the judgment specifically?   RM : There has been a long unwillingness in this country to submit its conduct to international oversight and control. At least in our modern memory, it goes back to our unwillingness to join the League of Nations after World War I. There has certainly been a trend of isolationism in the history of this country, unwillingness to submit to certain international tribunals, and a feeling that we know what is best for ourselves. Still, at the same time, we tell other people what is best for them based on our standards. And one of the great exceptions to that was this country’s adherence to the Geneva Conventions. And if you look at the background and the rationale of those provisions, much of it is with the understanding that it protects US forces: if we adopt these standards and comply with them, we have a stronger argument that our forces fighting overseas will be protected. I wonder if that concept prevails to the present day and certainly it was not at the forefront of Secretary Rumsfeld’s mind, when he said, ‘We are going to put people in a position without rules’.   CJLPA : You also set out various protections and guarantees codified in the military justice system, including the right against self-incrimination, the right against cruel and unusual punishment, or the right to a speedy trial. The detainees went through military courts, and yet none of the detainees ever got to realise these rights. Why?   RM : Well, it is not accurate to call these people detainees. The government, the Defense Department, wants to call these people detainees, as if they are just waiting for a bus to come along. They are prisoners, long-term prisoners. They are prisoners in very harsh conditions. So, some people prefer to refer to them as prisoners. Whatever the term you use, these are neither military courts nor courts-martial. The rights we describe in our brief are those that developed under, most recently, the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, which has been in effect since the early 1950s. And they are well-established. But military commissions are a very different animal. Military Commissions are made up ad hoc. And the rules are made up ad hoc.   There was a long process of developing rules for these particular commissions that went through several rounds of legislation and litigation in the courts, and several times, Congress had to go back to the drawing board and start all over again. And ultimately, through those rules, a right of counsel was recognised. Other rights are enforceable in military courts, as in US civilian courts, like the right to a speedy trial, which are not  effective in these military commissions. And you have people who have been awaiting trial for over a decade, or over two decades, since some of the alleged behaviour occurred. So, to respond directly to your question, the prisoners did not get the rights guaranteed in military courts because they were not before a military court. They were before a military tribunal. And we have to recognise that those are two different things.   CJLPA : In the context of the war on terror and Guantanamo Bay, it is concerning to see how clear, coherent laws are disregarded in the name of national security. From your perspective, as a former judge, how can we ensure that the checks and balances system will not be interfered with again, as it was for the Guantanamo Bay prisoners?   RM : I can only say what was reportedly attributed to Jefferson: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. There have to be people who are prepared to take up unpopular causes for unpopular defendants. And that has been the case in this country. There are many good people I know that you have interviewed, many others who forcefully stood up for the rule of law. And that is not an easy choice and was not inevitable in this case.   When military tribunals were established first in Guantanamo, the National Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers took a policy position that they would not participate, they wouldn’t defend any of these defendants because it was an unfair, unjust, and indefensible system, and they didn’t want to be part of it. That position turned. Many dedicated lawyers, solo practitioners, academics, large firms, and small firms took up the cause of providing defence and making arguments, essentially that: ‘We’re better than this. The country is better than this. The country deserves better than this’. There will always be people who will do that.   There have been books written about them. There’s a wonderful book called The Guantanamo Lawyers that talks about the efforts that they have made here. It is also much dependent on the atmosphere at the time, a time when there are attacks on the United States, a time when there were 1000s of people killed. At any time of warfare, the courts, like any other institution, are in a defensive posture and do things out of concern for public safety and national defence. In retrospect, when much of that fear goes away, they have second thoughts about these things, so we have to be careful not to be entirely in a moment of fear and to recognise the historical context, which is very difficult.   CJLPA : That leads to my final question: what legacy would you like our viewers to draw from Guantanamo Bay?   RM : It is a question with many facets to it. From the standpoint of my involvement, one lesson is what I just said a moment ago: if we have standards, if we have ideals, if we have processes, if we have rules, then those rules ought not to be easily overcome by fear, by a desire for retribution. And we have to be true to our principles. The Constitution is a wonderful document that continues to evolve despite the views of so-called originalists. It has to change with context, and new situations always arise.   Guantanamo had some precedents in the establishment of military commissions. Only a few were on this scale, though there were in the Civil War and other times attempts to forego the civilian process completely. While during the Civil War, the courts were far more willing to accept the exigencies of the military condition, they later came to a more balanced understanding of what was permissible and impermissible.   But we have rules. We do not need to invent rules to apply the rules in cases like this. And we need people who don’t think they’re above the law and that what they do is beyond the law.   CJLPA : Thank you, Mr Ronald Meister, for taking the time to speak with us today, to tell us about your legal experiences with respect to Guantanamo Bay and for offering your valuable insights. It has been a great privilege for us and a very fascinating discussion. This interview was conducted by Nadia Jahnecke, Legal Editor and Founder of Human Rights Volume of CJLPA 3. In addition to her role at CJLPA, Nadia is currently working as a Trainee Lawyer and will qualify as a lawyer in England and Wales in March 2024.

In his opening remarks during the 74th ExCom of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in October 2023, the High Commissioner Filipo Grandi outlined that, despite borders and policies restrictions, 108.4 million people have had no choice but to flee their homes due to climate change, persecution, war, violence, human rights violations or instability.[1] This proves a reality, that people will always be on the move, but how they move depends on governments’ policies and procedures. When regular pathways are heavily restricted or closed, forcibly displaced people are prone to exploitation, abuse, and human rights violations by smugglers and traffickers. For example, according to the Missing Migrants Project, to date, 28,189 migrants have gone missing in the Med since 2014, with over 2,500 missing in 2023 only.[2] However, challenges that asylum seekers and refugees experience are not limited to the danger of death or human rights violations. Thousands of asylum seekers in the European Union wait for years to hear about their asylum claims decisions. In the UK for example, in August 2023, the asylum backlog reached record high, with 175,000 waiting for a decision on their asylum claim, living in limbo and uncertainty.[3] Other more depressing and worrying examples are related to forced returns to countries of origin when they are not yet safe, like Denmark’s returning Syrian refugees.[4]  All the above, accompanied with the rise of the right wing in Europe draws a gloomy picture for asylum seekers and refugees who have reached Europe, and those who will be forced to do so.[5] In addition to cruel policies, in many instances, the EU policies also fell short of responding to the emerging and forgotten conflicts and humanitarian crises. EU responses lacked an emergency or early warning system and were taken by shock during certain events like the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 and the following humanitarian crisis. Moreover, the lack of holistic and concentrated approaches to humanitarian disasters made responses short-sighted and exclusive. The above shows systemic failures in the EU to live up to the international obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees, especially because refugees have been excluded from spaces where decisions on their lives have taken place. In addition to the fact that governments should be accountable towards the affected communities, having refugees—regardless of their legal status—absent from designing policies, is a missed opportunity. Refugees have the solutions and the insights and their voice is crucial for a welcoming Europe. Earlier this year, in January 2023, over 100 refugee leaders from all over the EU gathered in a three-day summit to draw a picture of an inclusive and welcoming Europe. Participants crafted a roadmap that holds the key to solutions of the main challenges that refugees face. Listening to them, and transforming the scene in Europe based on their contributions would lead to more inclusive, relevant, and dynamic refugee responses and plans. I—Political Exclusion These challenges are underpinned by a fundamental issue, which is the lack of refugees' meaningful participation in creating policies and making decisions that affect their life in the host countries. The lack of avenues for participation and the tokenistic inclusion of refugees and instrumentalisation of refugee organisations and spaces have been counterproductive, and led to policies that cannot respond to the needs of displaced people, but in most cases put them in danger and limbo. History has shown that social movements most effectively bring change when they are led and organised by affected communities. When looking at the movements for women’s rights, civil rights, LGBTQI+ rights, against apartheid, or for independence, there is a clear pattern: the leaders are representatives from their communities. We, affected communities, are best-placed to inform policy needs and implementation.   Participants in the summit attributed the lack of refugee participation to the lack of access to political participation and the deliberate exclusion from decision making. In cases when refugees and/or migrants are invited to participate, their participation is tokenistic and does not confer changes in the power dynamic or lead to actual changes. The importance of the meaningful refugees participation—and of course the migrants participation—in the different contexts, is the recognition that they are capable active participants and not ‘vulnerable’ people as usually referred to.   The key solutions that participants in the summit came up with are the increase in political engagement of migrants and refugees, and particularly the inclusion of young refugees and migrants in decision-making. Refugee participation should be sustained, ethical and funded. Refugee-led organisations or migrant-led organisations should receive stable, flexible, and long-term core funding. Another main factor in making sure that refugees and migrants are participating effectively and informing policy is to build their capacity. Refugees and migrants participation should never be instrumentalised, and they should be involved on an equal footing as partners in the decision-making process.   The Meaningful Refugee Participation pledge is based on the core belief that solutions to refugee problems should come from refugees themselves, and that policies are only effective when inclusive and allow refugees a say on their issues.[6] Towards the Global Refugee Forum and beyond, meaningful refugee participation is the answer.   We have begun to see a shift already in increasing engagement of refugees, with more refugees on state delegations, on panels, and incorporated into dialogues and consultations on refugee policies. Nevertheless, these shifts have mostly taken place at the behest of certain champion states, NGOs, or other actors: we have yet to see a truly systemic change in the refugee response sector so that refugees like ourselves are routinely participating in all levels of strategising, funding, and implementing programs, policies, and other responses that influence our lives.   II—Financial and Economic Exclusion Asylum seekers and refugees, forced to flee their home countries due to violence, persecution, and instability, embark on a daunting journey towards safety and security. However, the path to socio-economic empowerment is fraught with insurmountable obstacles. To appreciate the gravity of this challenge, one must understand the sheer scale of the number of people forced to flee their homes globally as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, and human rights violations. According to the UNHCR as of December 2022, this number stood at 108.4 million and continues to grow. Refugees are not just statistics but individuals with dreams, skills, and untapped potential. Yet, their aspirations for financial stability and economic self-reliance often encounter systemic and multifaceted barriers. This is also a reality even for those who find themselves fleeing to Europe.   The findings from the European Coalition of Migrants and Refugees (EUCOMAR) 2023 report also attest to the intricate web of challenges that impede the financial and economic empowerment and settlement processes of asylum seekers and refugees in their European host societies. Key identified issues included bureaucratic complexities, stereotypes, and systemic barriers such as experiences of intersectional discrimination, prejudice, exclusion, lack of recognition of migrants existing educational achievements and expertise, language barriers, limited financial literacy and lack of information, weak or non-existent social networks, and lack of support for migrant and refugee-led organisations. Systemic Barriers The financial and economic exclusion of refugees and migrants is rooted in systemic oppression which manifests in various forms such as experiences of intersectional discrimination, prejudice and stigma embedded in policies, as well as in the labour market and financial service providers.   For instance, owing to discriminatory practices in the job market, many migrants and refugees are denied equal opportunities for employment and career progression. In many countries, despite their qualifications and skills, refugees are relegated to precarious, low-paid so-called ‘3 D—dirty, demeaning, and dangerous jobs’.[7] According to the European Summit report, this is particularly the case for racialised blacks and people of colour and indigenous migrants, women, undocumented, elderly, and uneducated migrants who might negatively self-select.[8] This type of employment perpetuates instability and precarity in their lives.   Similarly, these systemic barriers and intersectional discrimination have a domino effect and further impact various other aspects such as access to the labour market, financial services and entrepreneurial ventures as well as recognition of previous skills, educational achievements and expertise.   Human Capital and Skills Recognition Another critical aspect of refugees' and migrants' economic exclusion that came up in the findings was the lack of recognition of their skills and qualifications. It was highlighted that delays or non-validation of existing skills and expertise hinder access to suitable job opportunities and also limit access to high-paying jobs as well as career progression prospects.   Language Barriers Language is a fundamental tool for navigating a new host country. Yet many financial institutions use complex and inaccessible language and financial technologies. Thus, refugees' and migrants´ interaction with financial services is often hindered by these language barriers. This unfamiliarity with technical financial jargon is coupled with a general lack of trust in the financial sector due to experiences of discrimination. As a result, many refugees and migrants lack information and awareness about the financial systems and resources available to them. This lack of knowledge and understanding of the terms and features of financial products and services can lead to financial decision-making that does not align with their best interests. It may also lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the terms and features of financial products and services, adding to their exclusion.   Bureaucratic Complexities—Legal Frameworks Access to formal financial services, a fundamental component of financial inclusion, remains a significant obstacle for many refugees. The European Summit report pointed out that refugees and asylum seekers experienced many bureaucratic complexities when accessing banks and financial institutions.   Participants reported experiencing prejudice from financial service providers who questioned their means of income. An OECD report also indicated that banks often assumed refugees and asylum seekers were in the country temporarily hence they classified them as high-risk clients.[9] Thus, financial service providers were hesitant to open bank accounts, lend money to refugees and asylum seekers, or microfinance their entrepreneurial enterprises.[10] Access to basic financial services, such as opening a bank account, is often restricted for asylum seekers and those with undocumented status in some countries. Unlike labour migrants and foreign students who usually possess proper identification documents and residency rights, newly arrived refugees often lack valid identity documents.[11]   Additionally, stringent requirements such as fixed address, identification documentation, and proof of stable income often lead to the rejection of bank account applications, further contributing to financial exclusion. This limitation deprives asylum seekers of financial autonomy and stability, making it difficult to send or receive funds, save money, or access bank loans.[12]   Moreover, the continued tightening of financial regulations, aimed at combating money laundering and terrorist financing, inadvertently works against the economic integration of refugees.[13]   Even when host governments accept alternative forms of identification, international banks and financial institutions owing to a lack of knowledge and awareness of refugee issues and legal frameworks may still have reservations about accepting their applications.[14]   Weak Social Ties and Networks Studies have shown that due to stigma and prejudice, some refugees and migrants may find it difficult to create networks in the host country. Thus, they resolve to stick to their home country communities or ethnic enclaves which can also perpetuate a cycle of exclusion and poverty. Refugees with intersecting social positions such as women, disabled, LGBTQI+, undocumented, and unemployed, often find themselves without a support network to rely on and some might not have social security access as a safety net to fall back on. Consequently, they end up falling between the cracks, especially in times of crisis, as we witnessed during and post COVID-19 and in the current crises of rising inflation, conflicts, and wars. This absence of a robust safety net exacerbates the economic hardships faced by further marginalised refugees such as LGBTQI+ people, Black and People of Colour who may lack the support systems available to other segments of the refugee population.[15] Lack of Support for Migrant-led Organisations Refugee and migrant-led organisations often face numerous hurdles from institutional and political to funding and personal. Administrative, language, and knowledge barriers affect their access to funding. They also compete with established non-community-led NGOs for limited funds, highlighting the need for increased transparency and consideration of refugees' and migrants' specific expertise.   Refugees and migrants often lack the knowledge and understanding required to navigate complex financial systems in host countries. This absence of awareness extends to legal frameworks for establishing organisations, setting up bank accounts, and adhering to tax regulations making it even more challenging to secure funding. The complexity of these systems necessitates seeking legal guidance, which is often costly and inaccessible for underfunded organisations led by migrants and refugees. III—Asylum Reception and Integration Policies When it comes to asylum reception and integration policies, many issues arise. Apart from policy challenges including lack of policy responsiveness, emergency response, and clarity about procedures, structural ones hang on too. In the European summit, refugee leaders reported difficulty for refugees in accessing the information on asylum and procedures, and the unavailability of data, in addition to language barriers, bureaucracy, work and residency rules and travel expenses. Added to that, the imbalanced responsibility-sharing within the EU countries of asylum seekers and refugees. Low quotas of refugee allocation paused an extra challenge.   Participants suggested solutions for the EU governments to uphold the rights of displaced people seeking asylum in Europe and called for trust within the displaced communities. This trust would pave the way to combating discrimination and will preserve the safety, justice, and rights of the displaced people. Access to information and simplified translated information on procedures would save lives. Participants reiterated the need for safe and regular pathways like community sponsorship and family reunification.   Negative narratives around refugees are an added layer to the problem. Participants recommended developing a positive media narrative of sponsored refugees and good practices and developing a refugee-led advocacy and policy dialogue strategy. Despite the fact that the EU abides its own human rights convention,[16] and is signatory to the Geneva Convention, the journey to realise these ideals by asylum seekers and refugees is far from straightforward. The European summit’s report illuminated the intricate challenges encountered by asylum seekers and refugee communities throughout the EU's asylum procedures, detention centres, and integration endeavours. The participants stressed that it is imperative to adopt an intersectional perspective to unveil the numerous layers of human rights transgressions that diverse groups of asylum seekers and refugees experience. Furthermore, it called for the need to conduct a thorough examination of the flaws, constraints, and potential biases inherent in the EU's approach to tackling these issues. The participants discussed that the process of seeking asylum, which is the initial and most pivotal point in the path of asylum seekers, is bound by challenges in the EU and navigating its complexities can be perplexing. As per the right to seek asylum,[17] many asylum seekers often experienc e significant delays in the processing of their applications, resulting in a state of limbo characterised by prolonged uncertainty and heightened vulnerability. Participants noted that the intersectional perspective highlights how specific groups may face additional hurdles during the asylum process. LGBTQI+ asylum seekers, for instance, may fear disclosing their sexual orientation in countries with less progressive attitudes, which can further complicate their claims. Similarly, individuals with disabilities may struggle to access appropriate accommodations or support during the process. Variations in national laws and practices lead to disparities in how asylum seekers are treated. For example, some EU nations have violated the principle of non-refoulement by forcibly returning asylum seekers to perilous situations.[18] Moreover, the right to legal representation is inconsistently applied,[19] with some receiving comprehensive legal aid for a fair process while others have limited access to such crucial services. To create a more cohesive and all-encompassing asylum policy, it is essential to ensure secure and regular pathways for refugees. Participants also discussed the importance of safe access and regular pathways, highlighting the challenges faced at both policy and structural levels. They also referred to community sponsorship and family reunification. The participants of the summit highlighted the need for a more unified and equitable asylum policy in the EU. This includes addressing the challenges of policy responsiveness, transparency, and structural barriers, as well as ensuring secure and regular pathways for refugees. Detention centre conditions have been a subject of concern for the summit’s participants. The detention of asylum seekers—including children—can be prolonged, with overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, and subpar living conditions ,[20] which infringe their right to liberty.[21] This includes issues like overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, and substandard living conditions, all in clear violation of international human rights standards, notably Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which explicitly prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.[22] An intersectional perspective uncovers the varying experiences of detainees, particularly those belonging to vulnerable groups, as outlined in Article 24 of the EU Reception Conditions Directive.[23] During the summit, women participants stressed the need for protecting women and children, as they are especially at risk in detention settings, where they may become victims of gender-based violence and abuse. Disabled participants expressed their fears of encountering obstacles in accessing vital healthcare, intensifying the suffering associated with detention. The Dublin Regulation, responsible for distributing the processing of asylum applications, has led to an unequal distribution of refugees among EU member states. This approach places a disproportionate burden on countries like Greece and Italy, where overcrowded refugee camps often struggle to provide essential services. The participants also highlighted that vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors and survivors of gender-based violence, are at a heightened risk within these challenging conditions. Integration Challenges: A Rocky Road to Inclusion Despite its significance in the asylum process, refugee integration faces obstacles due to inadequate integration policies. These challenges manifest in high unemployment, limited education access, and housing difficulties. An intersectional approach recognises distinct barriers for specific groups, such as specialised mental health support for torture survivors and tailored educational programs for refugee children. Discrimination based on gender, race, or ethnicity further hinders integration. Human rights-based integration policies should ensure equal access to work (the right to work and enjoy fair and favourable conditions of work, enshrined in Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[24] is often violated in the case of refugees the summit participants said), and education (refugee children's right to education, as emphasised in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[25] is often thwarted by language barriers, discrimination, and lack of resources) and, similarly, equal access to housing (discrimination against refugees and migrants in housing and employment were highly mentioned and stressed during the summit by the participants—a clear violation of Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights further hampers integration and jeopardises the right to an adequate standard of living).[26] A critical analysis of the EU's approach to asylum seekers and refugees reveals several weaknesses and limitations. One of the key challenges mentioned in the summit lies in the lack of harmonisation and consistent implementation of asylum and migration policies across member states. This creates disparities in the treatment of asylum seekers, undermining the principle of equal protection under the law. ‘The EU's focus on border control and deterrence, rather than a primary emphasis on human rights protection, often leads to policies that prioritise security over individual rights’, said one of the participants. As a result, asylum seekers can face criminalisation, detention, and deportation, particularly when seeking entry. Comprehensive data collection and analysis that consider the intersecting identities and vulnerabilities of asylum seekers and refugees are often lacking. This oversight hampers the development of policies and interventions that address the specific needs of different groups. Conclusion In view of the above discussion, it is patently clear that the challenges surrounding the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees within the European Union are undeniably complex, deeply ingrained, and demand urgent attention. The complex and interconnected nature of these issues was vividly explored across three pivotal domains: policy and political participation, economic exclusion and marginalisation, and asylum policies and regular pathways. The voices of summit participants resounded with a unified call for comprehensive, systemic changes to uphold the EU's commitment to human rights and solidarity. With regard to the issue of policy and political participation, the clarion call is for a harmonised asylum policy. Participants emphasised the critical need for a unified approach, consistent implementation, and inclusive policies. They stressed the importance of recognising and responding to the unique vulnerabilities of refugees, underlining the imperative role of independent monitoring mechanisms to ensure that detention centres align with human rights standards. The plea for immediate action and systemic changes to address human rights violations echoes a key recommendation for a more compassionate and rights-centric asylum system. Turning to economic exclusion and marginalisation, participants illuminated the financial and economic obstacles faced by asylum seekers and refugees. The recommendations presented a roadmap toward economic empowerment and inclusion. This includes a push for inclusive banking systems, cross-sectoral collaborations, and the development of fit-for-purpose funding programs. Establishing a dedicated European banking institution, support for entrepreneurship, and specialised micro-credit systems were pinpointed as crucial elements. The overarching message is clear: economic empowerment is a linchpin in the holistic inclusion of refugees, requiring concerted efforts across sectors and robust support structures. In the sphere of asylum policies and regular pathways, summit participants underscored the necessity of a nuanced understanding of refugees and a challenge to negative stereotypes. The recommendations spanned from demanding accountability and transparency from member states to addressing economic challenges and fostering social inclusion. A comprehensive approach prioritising human rights in all policy decisions emerged as the central theme. The participants emphasised the importance of awareness, equal access to the labour market, training, language learning programs, special quota arrangements, and tax relief. The creation of support networks was highlighted as a pivotal step in enhancing the social capital, financial autonomy, and overall inclusion of refugees during their settlement process. The consequences of inaction are enormous given the overwhelming surge of challenges faced by refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants in Europe. The times demand a united front, where policies are not just documents but living embodiments of empathy and where economic empowerment is not just a goal but a means to human dignity. Immediate and collective efforts are needed to ensure the EU is a living embodiment of its values and guiding principles centering on human rights, solidarity, and compassion. This call to action is not only a moral imperative but a commitment to the very principles that undergird the EU. Maysa Ismael, Shaza Al Rihawi, and Miles Tanhira Maysa Is mael is a programme coordinator with the Global Refugee-led Network. She has worked on refugees’ issues since 2010. In Damascus, Syria, she worked with the United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Organization for Migration. In London, she worked in the field of freedom of expression, protecting civilians in conflict and women, peace and security. She is also a fellow with Beyond Borders' 1325 Women in Conflict fellowship, and a member of the steering group of the Refugee Journalism Project.   From co-founding influential refugee initiatives like Global Refugee-Led Network, the European Coalition of Migrants and Refugees, and Global Independent Refugee Women Leaders to shaping global dialogues on displacement, Shaza Al Rihawi is a passionate advocate for human rights and climate justice. A champion for refugees and displaced people, Shaza's voice resonates through prestigious platforms like Oxford University, COP28, and SDGs, calling for a more just and inclusive world.   Miles Rutendo Tanhira is a Zimbabwean-Swedish International Migration researcher and Founder of Queerstion Media. He is a peace and LGBTQI+ rights activist and a core team member of the European Coalition of Migrants and Refugees. His achievements include being one of the recipients of the European Parliament´s Intergroup on LGBTQI+ rights' Go Visible Award and being selected as one of the Human Rights Campaign´s Global Innovators. He has served on several voluntary boards, including the War Resisters International (WRI) from 2010- 2019 where he contributed to the Handbook for Non-Violent Campaigns 2nd edition. [1] UNHCR, ‘What is the difference between population statistics for forcibly displaced and the population that UNHCR protects and/or assists?’ ( UNHCR)  < https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/insights/explainers/forcibly-displaced-pocs.html#:~:text=The%20total%20number%20of%20forcibly%20displaced%20people%20(108.4%20million)%20encompasses,protection%20and%20internally%20displaced%20people > accessed 1 December 2023. [2] Missing Migrants Project, ‘Migration within the Mediterranean’ ( Missing Migrants Project)  < https://missingmigrants.iom.int/region/mediterranean > accessed 2 December 2023. [3] Callum May, James Gregory, and Mark Easton, ‘‘I struggle not knowing what the future holds’ - Asylum backlog reaches record high’ ( BBC News , 24 August 2023) <   https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66603767 > accessed 2 December 2023. [4] Martha Bernild, ‘Syrian Refugees in Denmark at Risk of Forced Return’ ( Human Rights Watch , 13 March 2023) < https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/13/syrian-refugees-denmark-risk-forced-return > accessed 2 December 2023. [5] Eline Schaart, Pieter Haeck, and Jakob Hanke Vela, ‘Far-right leader Geert Wilders wins Dutch election’ ( Politico , 22 November 2023) < https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-leader-geert-wilders-wins-dutch-election-exit-poll/ > accessed 1 December 2023. [6] Global Refugee-led Network, ‘Refugee Participation Pledge’ ( Global Refugee-led Network ) < https://www.globalrefugeenetwork.org/refugee-participation-pledge > accessed 1 December 2023. [7] Sara A Quandt et al, ‘Illnesses and injuries reported by Latino poultry workers in western North Carolina’ (2006) 49(5) American Journal of Industrial Medicine 343. [8] Jaffer L Najar and Anila Noor, ‘New Voices for an Inclusive Europe’ (Second European Summit of Refugees and Migrants, 2023). [9] OECD, ‘Responses to the refugee crisis: Financial education and the long-term integration of refugees and migrants’ (2016) < https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/financial-education/Financial-education-long-term-integration-refugees-migrants.pdf > accessed 8 November 2023. [10] ibid. [11] UNHCR, ‘Financial Inclusion’ ( UNHCR ) < https://www.unhcr.org/what-we-do/build-better-futures/livelihoods-and-economic-inclusion/financial-inclusion > accessed 8 November 2023. [12] Adèle Atkinson and Flore-Anne Messy, ‘Promoting Financial Inclusion through Financial Education: OECD/INFE Evidence, Policies and Practice’ (2013) < https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/dafaad/34-en.html > accessed 6 November 2023. [13] OECD, 34 OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions (2014) [14] UNHCR (n 11) [15] Miles Tanhira, ‘The Invisible Outsiders Within: An Intersectional Analysis of the Lived Experiences of Transgender African Migrants’ Integration Process in Sweden’ (Malmö University Publications 2022). [16]  European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953. [17]  Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 Article 14. [18] The Refugee Convention 1951 Article 33. [19] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2009, Article 16. [20] UNHCR, ‘UNHCR stresses urgent need for States to end unlawful detention of refugees and asylum-seekers, amidst COVID-19 pandemic' ( UNHCR , 24 July 2020) < https://www.unhcr.org/news/news-releases/unhcr-stresses-urgent-need-states-end-unlawful-detention-refugees-and-asylum > accessed 3 December 2023. [21] European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 Article 5. [22] ibid Article 3. [23] Directive 2013/33/Eu of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) 2013 Article 24. [24] Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 Article 15. [25] ibid Article 26. [26] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2009, Article 21.

I am honoured to be asked to write a short Foreword to this Issue of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art . I was an enthusiastic contributor to the first Issue.   If you read that Issue, I welcome you back and feel sure that you will be pleased with the varied content of this Issue too.   If you are a new reader, you may already know why you have taken up this Issue. If not, I would like to explain in brief why I think its subject matter is important, and why it might be important to you.   It seems to me that the Journal is likely to expand our horizons because it brings together three subjects which often sit in splendid isolation from each other, namely the Law, Politics, and Art. We tend to think about issues and debate them only within their separate silos. The combination can give us new insights for many reasons.   It can shed new light on the strengths and weaknesses of each of those subjects. Literature and art, in particular, can be used to expose deficiencies in the law which are open to criticism and debate. The combination of law and literature is also an effective way of explaining the law. In addition, the combination of all three topics can be used to advocate change in the law. An obvious example of these points is the work of Charles Dickens.   By like token, the law itself can be used to uncover the boundaries of our unwritten constitution. It is sometimes used by litigants for exactly that purpose. In turn, politics must make judgments on matters which are in general beyond legal expertise, but it is often beneficial for there to be a rich discussion outside politics as well.   Space does not permit me to take more than a sample of the contributions to this Issue. Some articles focus on one of the three subjects or leave the possibilities for cross-fertilisation between them unspoken. Others confront the combination of some or all the subjects directly. A striking example of this is Alejandro Posada Téllez’s thought-provoking contribution, ‘Is Peace Merely about the Attainment of Justice?’, on transitional justice. When conflict ends, war criminals may be made accountable by being prosecuted in domestic courts or (post the Second World War) in international courts and tribunals. Another solution is an official reconciliation process aimed at allowing the society to heal. Téllez points out that a reconciliation process may bring about justice for the individual and accountability, which is highly valuable in itself, but it will not necessarily produce a permanent political solution or lasting peace for the society. With the war in Ukraine, these questions are timely and apposite.   Another example is the topic of individual identity and autonomy, which arises in more than one contribution. If we truly believe in the importance of individual expression and personality, we should, I think, be very concerned to know about society’s failings in this regard. These failings may be because politics and the law, operating within their respective domains, have not kept up with social change and expectations. We need to know more about what makes us different from one another and how to adjust for those differences. Contributions in this Issue are helpful to that end.   This is a new journal which is probably unique in making its focus the combination of the three separate subjects of the Law, Politics and Art. I congratulate the Founder, the editors, and the contributors on the excellence of their respective contributions.   Happy reading!

As I read the insightful, entertaining, scholarly, and diverse articles in this issue of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art , I wonder to myself how these three elements have become so intertwined. Perhaps it is not surprising as art has always been an expression of power, human identity, perceived truth, and aspiration—qualities also shared by politics and law. This link is therefore certainly not new, but it is perhaps only in recent years that we have become so conscious of it.   25 years ago I answered an advertisement in The Times  for the position of in-house lawyer at Christie’s auction house. At that time, the concept of an art lawyer did not exist. There was, after all, no great need for lawyers in a discreet world based upon gentlemen’s agreements, which functioned very smoothly on the basis of reputations, influence, and relationships. It was, in short, a world apparently untouched by the concerns of law and politics.   Over the following 25 years of my career as an art lawyer, all of that was to change dramatically. The catalyst for that change was not, as one might imagine, the evolving complexity of business in general. Rather, it was a series of historical, political, and technological events which catapulted art and the sale of art into the centre of wider discussions around justice, power, and identity.   The first such event was a belated realisation, in the late 1990s, that the war from 1933 to 1945 in Europe had been an assault not only upon nations and upon people, but upon culture and identity. That attack, which was accompanied by so many personal tragedies, had remained largely unaddressed in the immediate aftermath of the war, allowing artworks stolen by the Nazi regime to continue to circulate in the art market. By the late 1990s, prompted by the opening of European archives, museums, collectors, and the art market were hit with a wave of restitution claims by descendants of the victims of spoliation. Law, ethics, and commercial reality were all brought into play in resolving the resulting disputes.   On the heels of the wartime restitution claims came a focus upon ancient cultural heritage looted from conflict zones. While the 1970 UNESCO Convention had prepared the ground, the signatory ‘art market’ countries were very slow to introduce the national legislation necessary to put into practice the aims of the convention. As a consequence, cultural heritage in conflict zones all over the world continued to be the target of looting. Events in the Middle East would, however, challenge that inaction. Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, unprotected archaeological sites and museums in Iraq were subjected to widespread looting. Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya suffered similar looting as law and order broke down amid their respective conflicts. Because this looting was widely reported in the West, the outcry was such that the art market was compelled to demonstrate that it had in place measures to ensure that looted antiquities from conflict zones were not finding their way into the salerooms. Politicians followed, albeit in the slipstream, introducing national legislation requiring the art market to carry out due diligence regarding the provenance of antiquities. None of these measures will stop the destruction and looting which are inherent to conflict, but they will perhaps help to prevent the fruits of that destruction appearing in the art market. Once again, progress was not achieved by any single measure but by the application of a combination of law, ethics, and commercial reality.   The third catalyst was the question of transparency and compliance. Discretion and confidentiality have always been central to the operation of the art world—and usually for good reason. Sellers understandably prefer not to advertise the circumstances which necessitate the sale of artworks, such as divorce and death. Buyers are also often keen not to advertise their wealth for reasons of personal security. Agents introduce a further layer of opacity, trying to preserve their commercial relationships by keeping confidential the identity of their principals. But in the modern art world, where huge sums are being transacted, a balance needs to be found between transparency and discretion. This need has been met by the passing of laws and regulations in many countries imposing onerous obligations on art market participants to carry out detailed due diligence on their clients and make disclosures to other art market participants. The art market is coming to terms with these critically important new obligations and, in doing so, having to acclimatise to a new environment of legal and compliance rigour—as well as a greater level of transparency, which is to be welcomed.   More recently, there has been a reappraisal of the display and ownership of art which was acquired—not in modern day conflict zones— but from colonies during colonial times or as a result of ancient conflicts. Many countries have, over time, been denuded of their artistic heritage and are understandably upset to see that heritage on display in the collections and museums of the world. This matters because, as the countries who have endured colonisation and invasion know all too well, art is closely linked to history and cultural identity. Politicians, collectors, and the art market are beginning to grapple with the question of ‘who owns history?’. As a result, we are also hopefully progressing towards reconciling the role of the global museum with efforts to recover heritage which was lost in the context of power imbalances.   Even now law, politics, and art are moving into a new phase with the growth of cryptocurrency, non-fungible tokens, digital art, and online sales. In doing so, lawyers, politicians, and artists will test new boundaries and challenge our perception of authenticity, originality, ownership, and value.   As a result of these events, art law is now a recognised discipline, rich not only in legal questions, but also in the consideration of wider political, artistic, and ethical questions. This journal is a wonderful reflection of that, and illustrates, for me, why this is such a fascinating area in which to work and about which to write. It is a privilege for me to have been asked to write this foreword and I hope that you will enjoy diving into this collection as much as I have. Martin Wilson Martin Wilson is Chief Executive Officer and former Chief General Counsel at Phillips auction house. He is a leading art lawyer and the author of Art Law and the Business of Art .

The role of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art  in current public discourse   I am often asked what I am trying to do  with this journal. The expectation is that in a world full of action, the role of any consequential organisation is to be doing something , to be making a point, to constantly rationalise, to assert control in some way over circumstances or concepts that are within no one’s control. This is in my view one of the great problems with the art world today, and also with the fields of law and politics.   In the art world, we feel a need to turn works of beauty, soul, and craftsmanship into objects whose meaning can be extracted, boiled down, and comprehensively explained. Art History courses today teach students to rationalise the artist’s intention and explain a colour scheme or a brushstroke by reference to a political event or other circumstance. We leave nothing to mystery any more. We do not allow ourselves to be haunted by the blurred, rufescent, august scene of JMW Turner’s Rain, Steam and Speed (below). Instead, we conclude that this is a painting 'about' the Industrial Revolution and its mechanical destruction of natural beauty. Perhaps it is that too, but I suggest that we lose Turner’s genius and the spiritual power of this object through attempts to demonstrate our own intellectual capacity for interpretation. We inappropriately confront mystery with logic. Rain, Steam and Speed (J.M.W. Turner 1844, oil on canvas 91 x 122 cm). © The National Gallery, London. In the law, the growing recourse to the judiciary for the resolution of essentially political questions is a different disease with the same cause. The law operates—or is meant to operate—in binaries, giving narrow answers to specific questions by reference to strict tests which adhere to clear and established principles. The law is essentially logical. Asking a judge to rule on whether it is in a child’s 'best interests' to continue living, or to interfere with an unpopular government policy, not only demonstrates a failure of the political system and creates an unhealthy constitutional reliance (as Lord Sumption argued so well in his contribution to our last issue), but also pits hard logic against questions of humanity and morality, which are inherently fluid.   Similarly, the increased politicisation of the arts, visible in everything from Fine Arts courses to Arts Council funding criteria, is a similarly dangerous phenomenon. The Arts Council now chiefly awards funding to projects with a political dimension: either the background of the artist or the nature of the work must appeal to a political objective, such as the overturning of colonial legacies. Many Fine Arts courses now require coursework to meet similar criteria. Besides the appropriateness of officials deciding on what is ‘worthy’ art (dare I say, think of the Nazis’ ‘Degenerate Art’), there is also a tragic opportunity cost. Think of the many struggling ‘non-political’ artists that are not supported; of the wealth of artwork born not out of politics but out of soul and personal meaning, that is not created, or ever seen. That is the true cost to our culture and it is the product of this inappropriate interaction.   The three domains of human pursuit that this journal covers—law, politics, and art—of course interact and overlap in fascinating ways. They add new dimensions and important perspectives to one another. However, the corresponding danger is that sometimes those interactions are inappropriate and in fact damaging to the individual integrity and nuances of those fields. Sometimes a work of art need not be more than an object of individual human meaning and power. Sometimes a legal ruling need not be more than a specific, anodyne conclusion on a point of law. Sometimes an artist-in-training or an arts awards body need not look to ticking political boxes but to valuing art that comes from a place of subjective struggle and truth.   Turning back to the original question of what this journal is about: this journal is aware of the opportunities and risks that come with placing these three fields in such close proximity. This journal is also aware of the risks of agendas, particularly political agendas. As such, as an institution the role of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art is to be nothing but a neutral vessel for the free expression of ideas and thoughts: a place of stillness and reflection at a time of constant motion and little self-awareness. Our editorial processes are rigorous and our activities around the world teeming with ambition. But this journal has no ambition or agenda other than to allow others to express themselves truly freely, constrained only by the limitless bounds of the English language.   I set up this journal because I was exasperated with censorship, at home and abroad. Censorship, however labelled, however well-intentioned, however (seemingly) morally-driven, is still a muzzle on free expression and ultimately free thinking, and is the necessary ingredient for the decline of any culture. We are defined by the quality of our thoughts and the quality of our thoughts is often determined by our ability to express them. This journal will never be bullied into taking a view. Nor will it ever tell anyone else to take or not to take a view. An antidote to today’s problems is not to stymie debate but to improve the quality of public discourse and educate everyone, God forbid! , to be able to think for themselves. I want this publication to be the freest and purest forum in the world for the exposure of new,   brilliant, daring thought.   In many ways the West is in decline. But if there is anything special left that we can offer the world, let it at least be that feeling of freedom and autonomy that leads to the greatest moments of genius and creativity; that rush of innovation and ideas that comes with feeling like there is nothing in your way, no moral-arbitering-Sword of Damocles hanging over you, waiting for you to make a mistake. That is why our editorial guidelines welcome everything from scientific research to black-letter law to creative writing. That is why the contributors to this journal include everyone from Sixth Formers to Supreme Court Judges, painters to politicians, archaeologists to advocates. That is why this journal has even developed its own technology to safely process sensitive information from political dissidents around the world.   Look once again at Turner’s Rain, Steam and Speed . A mechanised train uncompromisingly steams forward against a mystical, classical background where a rowboat moves slowly by human effort across a quiet body of water. Metallic logical and (perhaps moral) self-assuredness pierce a warm and hazy stillness that used to leave room for the unknown and for a slower, more contemplative pace. This was an atmosphere where truth, subtle thinking, and honest feeling did not have to battle against so much noise to be heard. This new journal is one of the last, determined remnants of that old, if romanticised, atmosphere. We will not stifle certain ways of thinking because we think better. We will observe, ponder, and respect what we see. We will publish all  reasoned thinking because we believe that if we have moral courage and genuine openness to difference, then we can nurture and stimulate an improved quality of public discourse.   This second issue of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art  is another important step in that direction, and dare I say, another work of cultural significance. A very special team   The staff of this journal are formidable. This journal started as an idea; then a one-man-band; then a team of six core editors who met in a dusty corner of a Cambridge restaurant; then a group of 36 editors and sub-editors across our three thematic departments; and now an international organisation of editors, designers, business developers, events managers, global ambassadors, and coordinators, only the core of whom can be acknowledged here and overleaf. This group of people, drawn not only from the University of Cambridge but from around the world, share an unreasonable ambition to turn an idea into a major international publication known for its academic rigour, prestige of contributors, and strength of character.   It is humbling to have worked with this remarkable group of people. Every single member of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art  has worked hard, shown great skill, and above all has demonstrated enormous creativity and vision in bringing this journal forward.   Some special thanks are due.   Uma-Johanna Shah has stood in the gap during this journal’s most testing periods. As Design Editor, Uma is responsible for the beauty, quality, and structure of this journal.   Stella Maria Sendas Mendes has had the unenviable but vital task of coordinating all of the journal’s operations. As Managing Editor, Stella has energised and organised this journal, showing great leadership, humour, and panache in the process.   Jack Graveney is the intellectual force behind this journal. As Content Editor, Jack has led the Editors—a team that has ensured this journal has an almost unmatched rigour and precision in its editorial processes and the quality of publication we put out.   As her homeland came under attack by Russian forces and refugees fled to her beautiful home in leafy St Albans, Constance Uzywshyn did not flinch. In her capacity as Executive Editor, Constance continued to bring in the breadth and calibre of contributions that allows this journal to call itself world-class. She has also played a valued role in leading this journal’s many talented staff.   William Fulp is the business brain behind this journal. A former New York stockbroker with a special talent for rearing funds and raising horses (or is it the other way around?), William has not only ensured the financial stability of the journal but has also provided and is implementing a vision for long-term growth and international distribution that, I hope, will make this journal a feasible global publication.   I can state with confidence that you would not be holding this journal in your hand had it not been for the extraordinary efforts, through thick and thin, of the five individuals named above. As much as I have been responsible for the birth of this journal, so too have I at times been its greatest liability. The personal friendship, understanding, and integrity of those mentioned above have ensured the life and growth of this journal in spite of that.   I must also warmly thank Michael Sandle RA for his sincerity, warmth, and humour. Sandle is one of the most important artists of our time. It is this journal’s honour to have his work on our front cover.   Additional thanks are due to those who, in an advisory capacity, have influenced the direction of this journal.   Martin Wilson has brought unique insights from industry and art law that will guide the direction for years to come. Sergiu Sall Simmel has provided applied and highly useful advice for the organisational effectiveness of this journal, as well as its future expansion to North America. Eduarda Gasparini’s superb creative ability, inquisitiveness, and moral support have played an important role in bringing this journal to its final stage. Peter Dixon is one of the most remarkable men I will ever meet and this journal is lucky to have his generosity and creative input. Nathalie Edwardes-Ker’s incredible intellect, strength, and warmth have given me the courage and inspiration to push through with this journal during its toughest times, and I will always be grateful to her for this: I owe her far more than can could ever be expressed here.   Lord Sumption, Lady Arden, Professor John Finnis, and Professor Matthew Kramer—some of the greatest legal minds of our time—have played an important role in ensuring this journal retains its moral courage to uphold freedom of reasoned expression, now and into the future. Alexander (Sami) Kardos-Nyheim Alexander (Sami) Kardos-Nyheim is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of CJLPA .