Friday, April 7, 2017

Trump's Newest Exec Order - Current Affairs

Trump's Previous Ban
 - Banned travelers from Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria,  Iraq and Libya
 - Bars refugees from coming into the US for around 120 days


This order had been halted by a judge

Why was it challenged?
It was stated that this ban would hurt the economy, it was unconstitutional and was simply a way of banning Muslims.

"[A] Muslim ban by another name"? - (NY attorney general)
Trump had stated in 2015:  “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” 
Opinion: Just by reading this quote, it gives an idea of what Trump's true intentions might be. It is a possibility that he is living up to his own words, however, is going ahead with the proposed 'muslim ban' in a different and almost discreet way.


What makes the new ban any different?
 - The same countries are subjected to this ban except for Iraq
 - The indefinite ban that was placed on Syrian refugees is now removed because of this new ban
 - Green Card holders are no longer affected by this ban


Argument on the ban being unconstitutional
To understand this, we first need to take a look at the US constitution
The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If president Trump had made an exec order that regards a certain religion, would that make it unconstitutional? And by establishing a 'Muslim ban' would that mean he is "prohibiting the free exercise" of Islam by not allowing those who practice it in the U.S. I believe so. If you have anything to say on this be sure to write a comment!




Source
Source

Join Our Mailing List

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Opinion, Analysis, Annotations on the ICJ Court Case: "Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)"

"Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)"

Before reading the actual analysis, know this:
The Silala River is a body of water that flows through two sovereign states. It starts as a "spring" in Bolivia and continues to flow to Chile. In brief, the dispute revolves around the fact that Chile believes the river is an international one, whereas Bolivia believes that it is not a river and would not be one if canals had not been built around it. Keep in mind that an "international river" is "a river that flows through or between two or more countries". Now that you understand the background information, here is the actual analysis and evidence.  (I am including screenshots of the application to the ICJ which outlines the details of the case, here is a link: Chile Application)

Subject of the Dispute:

The definition comes from Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses ofInternational Watercourses(1977).


Image of the Silala River

 Chile's Argument:


By stating this, Chile shows that Bolivia's argument is invalid as the river emerging through a spring still makes it a watercourse. However, because "Bolivia claims that waters from the Silala Spring, which crosses their shared border, ... and that Chile has been artificially diverting water", means that Bolivia has never officially recognized this body of water as a "River". The state of Bolivia (as shown in the quote) refers to this as a "Spring". This means that because Bolivia did not recognize the body of water as a river, therefore, the waters cannot 'form' or be emerged through a spring if the body of water itself has always been one. In other words, a "the waters forming" a spring cannot "emerge" from/through a spring.
I predict that a possible argument Bolivia would have would be that since "Chile has been artificially diverting water", it is unfair to call this water source a "river" if it had originally been a spring.


More Information + Source
More information + Source #2
More information + Source #3


Remember, I am still learning and if my opinion, analysis, arguments, or anything at all could be improved in some way let me know! Also, keep in mind that  I am just providing my own opinion and would be happy to have feedback and opinions from you as well.  

Join Our Mailing List