James5

Today is Blog Action Day 2008, one day of the year where blogs all over the internet, all post on the same topic to raise awareness about an issue. This year the topic is poverty.

The law, and international law, can seem slightly distant from the ‘front line’, ‘real world’ of poverty alleviation. Lawyers aren’t as required ‘in the field’, as much as professions like medical personnel, development workers and aid workers are. So it can sometimes be difficult to remember how the law can help reduce poverty or the situation of those in poverty.

Though mostly aspirational, I think there are at least two ways law can be used to help the poor.

First, the law can empower the poor, providing them with enforceable rights to use against oppressors or to increase their bargaining power with powerful nations. Law can replace political, military or economic power as a negotiating tool in international relations. For example, international trade law has arguably empowered poorer nations when dealing with their more powerful counterparts, enabling them to demand fairer trade deals and, at the WTO, reject trade deals they don’t see as meeting their expectations. These rights can then be realised in the independent forum of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, that avoids the political power plays of traditional international relations and can enforce the rights of all countries.

Of course, just as domestically, this hypothetical empowerment is subject to many limitations. The massive difference in resources available to countries during negotiations is a major impediment to less powerful nations pursuing good trade deals, and this is again reflected in dispute settlement, though to a lesser degree.

Second, law can restrict the powerful, forcing them to consider the impact of their actions on those in poverty and stopping them from compounding the situation of the worse off. This can be seen as the flip side to the above. Powerful nations are limited in their ability to, for example, damage the environment or fund conflicts, by international agreements. An example of this could by the recent Kyoto Protocol, where countries agreed to limit their output of greenhouse gases, restricting both rich and poor nations.

Once again, the actual outcome of these restrictions is dependent on the powerful nations signing up to and abiding by these agreements. As Kyoto shows, if the level of compromise is too high then the agreements can often be slightly ineffective.

Ultimately though, international law has massive potential to impact on the lives of the world’s poorest. By empowering poor nations and peoples, or restricting the powerful, it can be used to lift people out of poverty or stop the powerful from oppressing the poor.

As individuals, we can also use international law to help the poor by advocating to our governments to negotiate and use international law not only in the national/economic/selfish interest, but to also consider the impact agreements have on global poverty and the poor.

Though lawyers aren’t always on the front line of poverty alleviation, we still have an important role to play in developing the structures that countries and individuals work in. So though indirect, I believe the law has a central role to play in realising a world without poverty.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Peter Singer thinks that people should be more open about their giving and that, contra to the Biblical message, we shouldn’t care what motivates them. He says that this will create peer pressure and encourage others to give more, citing sites such as Bolder Giving and 10 over 100 as good examples of encouraging charity.

Jesus said we should give alms in private rather than when others are watching. That fits with the commonsense idea that if people do good in public they may be motivated by a desire to gain a reputation for generosity. Perhaps when no one is looking they are not generous at all. …

From an ethical perspective, however, should we care so much about the purity of the motive? Surely what matters is that something was given to a good cause. We may well look askance at a lavish new concert hall, but not because the donor’s name is chiselled into the marble facade. Rather, we should question whether, in a world in which 25,000 impoverished children die unnecessarily every day, another concert hall is what the world needs.

I’m not convinced by this utilitarian ethic of giving.

First, motive is important to giving. If we are motivated by public acclaim instead of the benefits of the recipient the gift is compromised not only from a moral perspective but also from a utilitarian one. When the recipient’s needs are displaced by selfish ambition it is unlikely that the gift will be that best suited to them. As an example, the RED campaign has been criticised for only contributing to ‘focus group friendly’ causes and ignoring the real need because its primary motive, wasn’t helping others, rather it was marketing.

Second, I wonder whether the ‘peer pressure effect’ really requires the giver of the gift to publicise their generosity or whether the recipient can spur on donations by publicising that they are getting money. Charities often promote how close they are to their goal, how the last donor gave $25 or how they’ve got a “dollar for dollar” campaign going to encourage people to give. Why do we need individuals to do this when the charities can do a better job of it themselves?

Finally, Singer’s critique of Jesus’ words seems to have missed the wider externality of ‘public giving’ (as it seems a much utilitarian ethics does). While it may result in more money for charities, a point that is far from proven, it will also effect the person giving the donation and the community in which the donation is given.

The person who receives public acclaim for their charitable work is at risk of becoming proud. And while some people would encourage pride, I think it is generally recognisable that it is easier to live among humble people then proud ones.

Beyond the individual, a society in which giving is pressured by “keeping up with the Joneses” is not a place that many of us would like to live in. I think Jesus would have seen the effect that public and ostentatious displays of giving has on society – privileging those that can afford to give at the expense of others and puffing them up with pride – and thus articulated his famous command.

So I’m not convinced by Singer’s article. While I’m sure the creators of sites like Bolder Giving and 10 over 100 have the right motive, to see people give more, I’d question whether the ends justify the means.

See more discussion at Economist’s View.

Popularity: 7% [?]

I must admit that I never really got into the YouTube culture that all my friends seemed to. I liked to watch funny videos every now and then, but I can’t remember ever using YouTube for extended periods of time. So I’ve missed out on great resources such as these videos on rebels and their leaders. Through YouTube I also became aware of a disturbing blend of the reality of war and violent video games. A note, the following videos are quite disturbing and depict a helicopter gunship firing, and killing people. It’s all from the point of view of the helicopter operator and in night-vision so there is no gore, but it still is quite confronting.

This video appeared on YouTube back in May 2006.

The next video is from a recent game, Call of Duty 4, and depicts one of the actual levels in the game.

As you can see the videos are eerily similar. It is almost as if the Call of Duty 4 creators modelled this level directly on the events in the Afghanistan video.

I have been concerned for awhile about the level of violence that we accept in the video game culture, and the gratuity with which gore is displayed in video games. The videos here, however, highlight a central issue of these games that simulate war and killing. Is it really appropriate to be simulating the attacks and deaths of real people, that have actually occurred? I think there is a level of disrespect involved in profiting off and being entertained by actual acts of war.

Of course the flip side of this is a realisation that the technology of war has turned killing into something of a video game. The helicopter operator in the first video could be forgiven for not thinking much of his actions, despite the wide spread destruction his button pressing causes. This is obviously the future of war, and while it may make ‘our people’ safer, the distance between the killer and killing is also quite dangerous.

Popularity: 7% [?]

As you may have already known, my moot team recently came back from Adelaide after competing in the South East Asia Pacific round of the ELSA WTO Moot. Since last November we have been working extremely hard on our submissions. Many late nights were spent in the library, many bad dinners were eaten, some of the team even welcomed in the new year from the fifth floor of the law building. Even after our writtens were handed in we continued to practice our oral submissions and refine our arguments.

At Adelaide we enjoyed the Oaks Plaza in Glen Elg and all its beautiful facilities, in between further work on our oral submissions – some hastily printed out at the last moment. Ultimately though we narrowly missed out on moving through to the next round. We came away with best written submissions for the complainant, respondent and overall. We also went into the Grand Final ranked first, but in the end the team from Wellington went away with the victory.

So why work for over three months straight, holed up in the library with three other self-confessed ‘law nerdlings’ on very technical, non-sexy WTO trade law – apart from a uni-paid for trip to beautiful Glen Elg?

Learning the Law
Well, it teaches you the law. After completing the ELSA WTO Moot my knowledge of WTO trade law has exponentially improved. Not only the narrow area of telecommunication covered by the problem, but even a more general understanding of WTO dispute settlement and overarching concepts such as national treatment, market access and ‘likeness’. While some of the team never want to see a WTO dispute again, I’m excited at what I’ll be able to do with this knowledge in the future.

Learning Skills
Taking part in the Moot will hone your writing, presentation and administration skills. I learnt quite a bit about working in a team, cutting down on a word count, ‘dinner diplomacy’, cutting out excess words, oral presentation, cutting words, and general research/organisational skills. Not to mention putting all this in the context of an extremely tight deadline!

Experiencing the Law
Apart from straight-up learning, the Moot also made me feel a little bit of what it would be like to actually be working in WTO law. Having to know the facts intimately, and how the legal issues would play out, really made me feel personally invested in how things were going. Debating with the team as we disagreed about particular arguments we were running added to this realism.

Meeting the Team
One of the absolute best things about doing the Moot for me was spending time with ‘Odawg’, ‘Jrae’ and ‘Email Elimy’. We had an insane time preparing our submissions and an awesome time in Adelaide. I don’t know if I’d see the Moot as quite as worth it as I do now if it wasn’t for the great atmosphere the team had. Not to mention getting to know our great coaches Andrew and Tania, who went far beyond the call of duty in helping us out.

Meeting People
Finally, the Moot gave me an awesome opportunity to meet some really interesting people. Eminent trade lawyers, academic experts, barristers and WTO appellate body staff – I was amazed at the range of people I met, all of whom were willing and open to share how they got to where they were.

So all in all I would highly recommend you take part in the WTO Moot if you get the opportunity. Especially if you know some crazy cats that you’ll be doing it with! Even if you don’t get to Geneva you’ll have a smashing time and if worse comes to worse, as much as I hate the phrase, “it does look good on your resume”. So maybe, Jessup here I come?

Popularity: 9% [?]

Clare and I had the pleasure of watching Amazing Grace and also Tim Burton’s new Sweeney Todd recently, and it got me thinking about some of the things Blattman has been blogging about how the bad things we are seeing in Africa aren’t that different to what the West was like not too long ago.

The two movies show quite different views of London in the 18-19th Centuries. Amazing Grace is basically optimistic and shows the England embracing the cause of emancipation and battling a few bad apples to see it become a reality. Conversely, Sweeney Todd is a dark, pessimistic movie about the depravity of revenge and man, and the corruption that pervaded all levels of English society.

Amazing Grace is an uplifting, inspirational film designed to get the viewer to believe that change is possible and to honour Wilberforce as the man who killed slavery. And in this limited way it works. I felt rather good after watching it and did feel more inspired that change is possible. However its ignorance of some of the other social issues plaguing England does leave it lacking as a realistic portrayal of English society. One can too easily take from Amazing Grace that the English were basically opposed to slavery the whole time and were only being held back by a retrograde ruling class. Also, England is portrayed as a great place to live, I can hardly remember a portrayal of the poverty and oppressiveness that characterised a lot of English life in the film at all.

Sweeney, on the other hand, revels in its dark portrayal of London as the “pit of the world”. It’s hyperbolic portrayal of the judiciary as corrupt to the core and of society in general being so degraded makes the cannibalism encouraged by Mrs Lovett seems almost acceptable as a natural extension of societal norms. Sweeney touches upon the child slaves in the mines, the horrific conditions in the ‘insane asylums’ and how the rich lorded it over the poor – creating a picture of London far darker, yet in many ways more realistic then Amazing Grace.

Sweeney embraces the London of yesteryear as not the golden, intellectual utopia of Amazing Grace, but rather a city of brutes. England was a country of oppression not only at home but abroad too. While Amazing Grace continues the civilising myth that sustained Western colonialism – that is that the generally good West must teach the bad Africans how to govern – Sweeney Todd demonstrates the hypocrisy of this position.

While there’s nothing wrong with condemning corruption and oppression, let us not forget this is not an ‘African phenomena’. This is not an issue about ‘African/triabl culture’.

Sweeney is a strong reminder of how close we are to the same societal wrongs that shock us again now. We were, and are, just as retrograde as any other society. The modern West has just succeeded in changing the focus and outlet of our retrograde behaviour.

Popularity: 9% [?]