Nexus Magazine Winter Edition 2015-16 'SPACE'

THE

SPACE

theme the martian and more / 20 alumni graduate job searching / 8 Debate who owns space? / 40

ISSUE

COLOPHON NEXUS MAGAZINE WINTER 2015 / 2016 Date of Publication 19 February 2016 Nexus Nexus Student Association nexus@rug.nl Nexus Magazine Committee 2015-2016 Nathalie Bienfait (Editor in Chief) Kata Magyar Kylie Mckenzie Morrell Eve Aycock Christian Skrivervik email us at: nexusmagazine.law@gmail.com Facebook: The Nexus Magazine Twitter: @nexus_mag

)

Founder Nexus Magazine Gemma Torras Vives Graphic Design Nathalie Bienfait / Christian Skivervik Cover Photo Entropymag.org - The Poetics of Spaces Logo RE_Oslo Authors Nathalie Bienfait / Ray Hardono / Allan Ochiel / Gosia Mlek / Fredrik Hafen / Bart van der Geest / Gemma Hayes / Eve Aycock / Kata Magyar / Kylie Mckenzie Morrell / Ahmad Alsahaf / Claire Kemesu-Egri / Veronika Yefremova

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

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 2

)

table of contents

THEME Life on Mars 22 thE mARTIAN 26 One giant leap for man kind 30 the International SpACE STATION 32

nexus

A waste of space 36

40 who owns space?

Schedule: upcoming events 5

debate

Nexus/VINTRES GREEN DAY 17 44 Allan Ochiel: it’s okay not to have a plan Ray Hardono: diary of a mun-er 6 gosia mlek: how to get a job 8

3

off topic

alumni

south korean 12 conscientious objectors

46 Fredrik hafen: go for it and you will get there

dear readers, Many things are happening in this world to which we need to pay attention: black and ethnic minorities fight for justice; women battle for equality; human rights abuses are rampant; climate change is on the march; corruption often out of control. But what if we stop for a moment and consider, not just the Earth on which we live, but also the abyss that surrounds us. Let us take a step back and view Earth from a kinder distance - space is this issue’s theme for the Nexus Magazine. The Editorial Team has been working tremendously hard to make a fantastic magazine for you, so I hope you enjoy reading as much as we have enjoyed writing!

For starters, Ray Hardono, having won numerous “best delegate” awards at Model United Nations all around the world gives us an insight into the life of an experienced MUN-er. Next up, Bart has written an article about the problem huge numbers of conscientious objectors being imprisoned every year in South Korea. An insightful piece into a little-mentioned issue.

Our alumni articles this time feature Allen, Freddie and Gosia. Gosia gets us a little closer to cracking the employment secret and the first two have written about their adventures since they completed the programme.

To us ease into our “space” theme, Gemma has written about the MarsOne expedition to establish a colony on Mars - a controversial endeavour that sees participants chosen through an open selection process and filmed, reality TV-style, for their one-way trip to the Red Planet. Next is a piece from Eve, who has researched the booming space industry of her own Isle of Man (reported to be the 4th most likely nation in the world to return to the Moon). Bart returns with a legal comment on the film “The Martian” and how well it reflects international law regarding space. Penultimately Kata informs us about the fascinating world of the International Space Station. And finally Kylie’s a ‘Waste of Space’ addresses the worrying amount of rubbish accumulated in our atmosphere.

To round off, our debate revolves around the topic “who owns space”, highlighting the controversial nature of balancing the ‘common heritage of mankind’ with legislation recently passed in the USA allowing private companies to exploit natural resources they find in space. If you have a strong opinion on this topic or any others presented in the magazine, we would love to hear it, so please feel free to Facebook (The Nexus Magazine) or Tweet us (@nexus_mag)!

Best wishes, Nathalie EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 4

UPCOMING NEXUS EVENTS

fEBRUARY 23 General Assembly

MARCH Galant Gala

7

APRIL 11 29-1

5

Themed Party* Active Members’ Trip

*Items with an asterix are subject to review at the discretion of the committees*

Model United Nations

diary of a mun-er

RAY HARDONO / LLB 2

M

y name is Ray Hardono, I am nineteen years old, and a second year LLB student from Jakarta, Indonesia. There are many people who are familiar with Model United Nations: MUN is an academic simulation/competition in which students and young professional acquire further skills in diplomacy, public speaking, debating and research.

As for my MUN background, I started MUN back when I was in high school when my principal offered to let me participate in our school’s Model UN conference. When I started Model UN, I became fixed on the idea of “being a Diplomat”; MUN opened my mind to international affairs, and was one of the reasons why I chose the program I am doing at University. In my first year of university, I started MUN again in the Groningen Model United Nations 2015 - in order to test the legal skills I had learnt at University. To be honest, it was quite intimidating, since everyone in the conference was older than me; moreover

some people were already doing their masters.

In that first MUN, I represented New Zealand in the UNSC and to my surprise I was able to perform quite well. From that point I knew that I was hooked on MUN. In the following month I participated in a MUN held by the Student Amsterdam MUN Foundation, in Amsterdam, where I represented Angola, again in the UNSC. After the two conferences, I thought I could take my previous Model United Nations experience to an international MUN, which is why I decided to participate in the Paris and Stockholm International MUN conferences. In PIMUN (Paris), I represented Australia, in the Historical Legal of Nations Crisis Committee, with the topic of the Spanish Civil War. In SMUN (Stockholm), I represented Germany in the European Council, with two topics: Homegrown Terrorism and Ukraine – Russian Relations with the European Union. Both International MUNs gave me a new dynamic on how MUN could really influence the youth and how, in these particular MUNs, I was able to travNEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 6

PHOTOS: FACEBOOK.COM

el, meet new people as well as having to try to work with university students and young professionals from all over the world. Particularly in Paris, the conference itself was held in the Law Faculty of the Sorbonne University and the Plenary Session was held in the UNESCO headquarters, where I got a chance to sit in the official stand that says “Indonesia”. And how proud I was to be there!

The last MUN I went to was an interesting one. I went to the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos MUN (Madrid), which is one of the biggest MUNs in Spain. However 98% of the delegates were Spanish, so I was a little bit lost in translation but it was still an amazing experience. I represented the UAE in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, with the topic of Syrian Refugees.

MUN presented me with the opportunity to further improve my knowledge in negotiating, debating, lobbying and researching skills. I believe that these skills are fundamental not only in being a Diplomat but are also vital skills needed in the my later career. Since it is imperative for one to be able to convince others of their standpoint, however one must understand what one is talking about, that is where research and having a good basis of one’s country comes to play.

Moreover, Model United Nations has given me the opportunity to deepen my knowledge of world issues and to be a better global citizen. Since, I believe that MUN is one of the tools to change the perspective of the youth and for the youth to be 7

aware of the things that is happening in the world.

To be honest, if you study law, I bet that it would not be hard for you to do MUN. Since, the mind of law students is generally structured in a way that it is easy for us to convey solutions, present the issues that must be dealt with and, of course, our knowledge in law helps as well. When asked about getting awards, generally, it’s just the matter of them putting enough effort in the topic itself. In Model UN, you cannot excel if you just ‘wing it’ or ‘talk without any base’, you have to work hard to obtain what you want. Usually, I use the IRAC (issue, rule, application, conclusion) method of solving cases that we were taught in last year’s EU law class. It definitely works.

Nevertheless, the excitement in Model United Nations is not entirely on the awards given; however it is to enjoy the conference with the people you meet there. Most European MUNs give a chance to meet people from around the world and make lasting friendships. When meeting others, I get to see other young people’s perspectives of the world.

Moreover, it widened my connections, not only on an international level. Again, not only do you meet these delegates, but also you must be able to lobby, persuade, debate and work with them to have a resolution presented. This is where MUN gets challenging; yet exciting. With MUN, you “travel, meet and persuade”.

SOON TO BE GRADUATES

JOB-SEARCHING

a FEW TIPS ON HOW TO GO ABOUT THE WORST MOMENTS IN YOUR LIFE TEXT & PHOTO: GOSIA MLEK

R

ewriting this article after nearly two years from its initial publication not only makes me nostalgically look back to the fabulous time I spent during my LLM in Groningen, but also reminds me what a tremendous journey one has to take to land a decent job. After graduating in 2014, I did an unpaid traineeship at the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and later I did a paid traineeship at the European Commission in Brussels (which was an absolute blast!), to then come back to Poland, where I now work for an international quasi-law firm, dealing with contract negotiations and due diligence in the banking sector - where I also sometimes happen to recruit new candidates.

It is a great pleasure to rewrite my text for the Nexus Magazine, and I hope that my advice will be of at least some use to you.

I have decided to skip the former introduction, where I went on about the horrible experience that job-searching is (which started with the advice “don’t do it” and then focused on the drop in self-esteem, constant frustration and inevitable disappointment).

Instead, let me open with a more hopeful statement – you WILL become successful. Employers ALREADY want YOU because you studied abroad and your English is amazing. So, stay ambitious, aim towards the stars, and do not let little failures (and little people) take you down. Now, to help you a bit in those helpless times of job search, see below my subjective list of tips for a less painful career start.

1. INTERNSHIPS

In general, when you are entering the job market, there are a few factors that make you a desirable candidate - and these really are not your university grades. Instead, these are: languages, relevant character features/soft skills and experience. As much as you may have of the first two, it is the lack of the latter that makes you less attractive as a prospective employee. That is why it will make your post-graduation job-search less painful if you have at least some minimal work experience beforehand. I know it may sound inhumane to suggest that, instead of spending the summer at home with your family, you go and do a unpaid internship (these are obviously easier to get than the paid ones), but it eventually will… pay back.

Of course, you can postpone internships to the time after graduation (as I did), but do not expect that you will get a well-paid job straight out of Uni, and doing it beforehand can save a lot of stress and disappointment.

2. Start early

No matter what you want to do after graduation (and possibilities really are endless), it is always good to start thinking about your career earlier than on the graduation day. So if you want to e.g. do a graduate scheme (see below) and you are about to graduate this summer, you are already late. If you are aiming for a job at a corporation (especially in the UK), their recruitment for September starts in September the NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 8

year before, unless you are considering a City law firm, where they are probably currently recruiting for the next century (or maybe 2019). But nowadays, even smaller companies often prefer to recruit in advance, because in this way they don’t risk rushing their decisions. Of course, it very much depends on the country and the area of business, but thinking and researching in advance is always crucial. So do try to think beforehand, especially because at the end of the final year you will probably be extremely busy with Uni-work. And just to scare you a bit more, it is much better to have a job (any job!); a graduate scheme, or maybe ‘just’ an internship figured out before you graduate. That is due to the fact that if you do not succeed immediately and stay unemployed for a while, some future employers may ask you about that gap, and... well, it does not sound so good to say, “I started too late”.

3. TELL EVERYONE

Seriously, the best thing to do is to make sure EVERYONE knows that you are looking for a job. Make it your status on Facebook. Call your uncles/aunties, your parents’ friends and even your high-school teachers. Insert that information into every conversation you have. You never know when someone will know somebody who knows something about a company that is looking for new employees. And most importantly, companies are more likely to hire someone who got referred to them by a person they know and trust (at my company, over 30% of hires are from employee referrals – and employees often get a bonus for referring a friend, so they also have an incentive to recommend you!). Just think about it, if you were a manager of a company, wouldn’t you prefer to hire a candidate your friend recommended over someone you only met for a twenty-minute interview?

4. GET TO KNOW THE VOCAB

You might be surprised, but there are a whole lot of new words related to job searching that you might want to get to know. Competency based interview questions, networking, numerical tests (that we, lawyers, dread so much...), logical or verbal reasoning tests, assessment centres etc. Perhaps most of you know what these are, but it’s worth pointing out because knowing your enemy’s language is the first step to success.

9

5. Test test test

Do the tests. When you see in the description of the recruitment process that the employer will include a numerical test – practice it beforehand. If you take the risk of submitting the test after doing it for the first time, you will most likely fail. It’s as simple as that. Many practice tests can be found on online, so you’ll have plenty of opportunities to familiarize yourself with them. Even applying for a legal job at the European Commission (through the EPSO recruitments process) involves three tests (including numerical!) for which, according to statistics, the successful candidates start preparing … 10 weeks in advance! They are usually timed and the only things that employers actually check is whether you are able to prepare yourself properly, and whether you are able to take their recruitment seriously. Also, it’s a fantastic method of getting rid of 70% of the applicants without having to review any of their CVs! Don’t get tricked, be smarter – prepare!

6. Interviews

Be yourself, look nice, smile, and get to know if you like the manager. Participating in a job interview from the other side, this time in the role of the recruiter, made me realise how much the fact of being a nice person really matters in reality. What recruiters look for is a person who will fit the team spirit, who is pleasant and just… normal. So be yourself and try to balance the exhibition of your fabulous CV points, with modesty. Do not lie. When you do not know the answer, admit it – it is exactly what the managers look for: a material for an honest employee.

7. Dress appropriately

– and this means very elegant. If the recruiter sees your effort in looking nice, they know you are treating their offer seriously. Be courteous, and really, just SMILE. Even if the interview is on the phone and you are stressed as hell – smile, and then your voice will sounds more pleasant (this is actually what the telemarketers do). Always think first: “if I were recruiting, how would I like the candidate to be?”

Then be it. And last but not least – if you do not like the manager with whom you would be cooperating, do not take the job. It can turn out to be a nightmare, and in the end a worse experience than not taking the job - to report to someone who you don’t like.

And remember: you are not begging for job – you

are offering your skills. And as much as you should sell those skills well, you should also think whom you want to sell them to.

8. Consider your options

As an International Law (and perhaps even as a European Law) student, you graduate with very little prospects of becoming a real court lawyer (unless you succeed in the application to the City law firm, for that 2019 intake, of course – they basically recruit anyone who has their desired skills and then they educate them). This is why there is no clear-cut career path that you and your classmates could follow. Start thinking about your career at an early stage; try different internships to figure out what your skills and weaknesses are, and to find out what interests you the most. Think about both private and public sector, NGOs, lobby companies or maybe even your own business! Some companies, especially start-ups, offer jobs to inexperienced candidates too, so it is worth looking around. Also, if you decide you would like to get qualified as a lawyer within a certain jurisdiction, some countries have e.g. 2-year long law degrees (like Poland or England/Scotland – though it is rather expensive to do it), and in some you have to work at a law firm for a certain period of time and then pass a state exam. Possibilities really are endless!

9. Graduate schemes

Think about graduate schemes. Corporations often offer these (in different countries), and they come with both advantages and disadvantages. On the cons side, you’ll find possible longer working hours and lower initial salary, for example. However, the grad schemes give you massive opportunities to learn, and you are not expected to have any previous experience because they will teach you everything you need to know about the particular area you were recruited for. No matter if it is a graduate scheme or not, you should always check what the employer is actually offering. For example, whether overtime is paid (you’d like that...), and what happens if you fail an exam (yes, you can get exams at work too!). This is especially the case in the UK where you normally work towards a Diploma in something. If you fail, you often have to pay back what the company invested

in you, and if the darkest scenario comes true, you might get fired and buried in debt…

10. Research research research

It may seem like a cliché, but I must mention it.

If you are starting an application, make it company-specific. Omit general terms. Don’t recycle cover letters. Research what exactly they do and what their perfect employee profile would look like. Maybe you know someone who works or worked there?

Maybe you can contact them on LinkedIn? Tried JobCrowd? WikiJobs? Go there, do research, get in contact with people who went through the same application process and get tips from the most successful ones.

11. LINK-IT-IN AND NETWORK

A LinkedIn profile is a must! Make it look fabulous.

Post show-off articles from The Economist (because, obviously, it is your usual morning lecture), brag about your successes, put a gentle-smiling professional-looking picture on your profile and LIKE everything you think may be useful to get yourself seen. Additionally, although networking might again sound like a cliché, you never know when your good impression might bring results in the future. And it is the best way to really show your best effort to the people with whom you cooperate – be it your classmates (who will eventually become successful people too!) or your internship supervisor. Although it may seem not very noble, keep in mind that the people you meet can eventually help you get a job, so maintain those connections. It is, generally, good to know people.

12. Liking employer’s Facebook profile – make sure yours is decent. Watch out: there are spies out there. Employers often ask you to “like” their profiles on Facebook, but this may not just be a matter of marketing, but also of... spying on candidates. By doing so, you are making yourself easier to find and the contents of your profile might be visible to the recruiters. And, as all of the students in Groningen know, some things are better left undisclosed.

So maybe make your drunken pictures visible for

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 10

“friends only” and avoid posting that you absolutely HATED the application to that firm. Well, because haters gonna... have no job.

13. Get friendly with NEXT

At most of the universities there are career services that are supposed to help and advise students. Our career service might not be the most visible among other University organisations, but it can certainly help you by giving you, for example, a free CV check.

I even managed to schedule a mock interview with them, and it was free of charge!

GOSIA MLEK / ALUMNI

14. Consider the European Union

I never meant to suggest any specific employers in this article, but the EU is really a fantastic choice for people graduating from International Law and European Law (the latter indeed quite obviously).

Research deadlines for traineeships at the European Commission, European Parliament, EU agencies, Committee of the Regions, European Economic and Social Committee etc. and if you are an LLM, maybe even the European Central Bank. They pay well (as for traineeships), and life in Brussels comparerd with other trainees is like another Erasmus, and their applications are not as painful as the level of EU bureaucracy would suggest. And you might have an advantage if you come from a country that is under-represented in the European structures. And you get to know many successful people (my former Head of Unit is now the Minister of Justice of Romania!) and make friends with like-minded thinkers.

In addition you pimp-up your CV and you may get offered a contract if you’re lucky. So do it!

15. And most importantly - think about what you like

I know it is easy for me to say it now when I already have a job, but it really, really is the worst thing you can do to yourself - to get stuck in a job you don’t like. And I know it does put even more pressure on you to try to figure out what you like, but that is what your youth is for – making mistakes. Though maybe

11

try to make as few as possible. So do not apply to Greenpeace if you do not really care about the environment. Do not apply to work in London if you hate big cities. Do not apply to a pharmaceutical lobby firm if you think that they are doing no good to society. It is, in the end, important to be enthusiastic about what you do, because this is the only way you will be really successful.

There is a lot more to say about this new “job-searching” field of study that you will soon become an expert in. But I would just like to drop this last piece of advice: STAY POSITIVE. What employers are really looking for is confidence, and this comes from optimism. It is extremely hard, but try to imagine that everyone needs to go through it at some point, and the harder you try and the more you practice, the bigger the chances are that you land your dream job.

And it IS possible! Eventually it will happen and once you start your first internship or job, the next ones come much easier. Just remember that nowadays being pro-active is the way to be, and that no job will come to you on its own: you need to get out there and chase it down. With a smile!

GOOD LUCK!!!

conscientious objection problems of peace in the military service of south korea

A

conscientious objector is defined by the United Nations Human Rights Committee as “an individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service” on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience and/ or religion.

In the Republic of Korea [hereinafter ‘Korea’ or ‘South Korea’], mandatory military service applies to all able-bodied men from the ages of 21 to 30 for a minimum period of 21 months (with an additional five weeks of basic military training). Conscientious objection is not guaranteed as a right and, unlike most jurisdictions with military conscription, there exists no alternative service for a minority of men who object to violence on moral or religious grounds. These minority groups - the majority of which are Jehovah’s

Witnesses - are usually sentenced to prison for eighteen months, while the law allows them to be further punished to up to three years in prison.

Around 600 to 700 conscientious objectors are sent to prison each year; they account for more than 90 per cent of all imprisoned conscientious objectors [CO] in the world, according to Jehovah’s Witnesses, the United Nations Human Rights Council and human rights groups. Once their sentence is over, they are prohibited from getting a job in any state agency, local autonomous entity, or public organization. Furthermore, they are often shut out of jobs at big companies and frequently must settle for part-time work with low salaries.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has recognized conscientious objection as an inherent part of the right to freedom of thought,

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 12

BART VD GEEST / LLB 3

conscience and religion under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Korea is a party. As a result, most signatory states with mandatory military service have introduced or at least taken steps to introduce alternative systems for COs. In Korea, however, which has incorporated a strict military service system due to security tensions existing on the Korean peninsula, the recognition of conscientious objection remains problematic. The Korean government continues to favour national security over realizing its international legal obligation to provide for its citizens the rights guaranteed under Article 18.

The persecution of COs - during the Korean War and the decades that followed - was largely ignored by both media and academia, but in the past decade it has received widespread attention, with cases going up to both the Korean Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court several times. Despite Korea’s conservative stance 13

on imposing military duty on its citizens, there exists a growing trend among academia, lawyers and jurists to recognize conscientious objection to military service as a right which should be upheld under the Korean Constitution and in accordance with international principles of law. The Korean government is also receiving an increasing amount of international pressure: the Human Rights Committee and Amnesty International, for example, have urged South Korea to look for alternative solutions.

THE MILITARY SERVICE ACT The Korean conscription system is primarily regulated by the Military Service Act, which establishes the enforcement mechanisms for mandatory conscription and punishment in case of violation. The Military Service Act has its legal basis enshrined in Art. 39 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that: “(1) All citizens shall have the duty of national defence under the conditions

PHOTOS (LEFT TO RIGHT): NBCNEWS.ORG; WRI-IRG.ORG; BLOGSFT.COM

as prescribed by Act.” and “(2) No citizen shall be treated unfavourably on account of the fulfilment of his obligation of military service.”

The Military Service Act requires compulsory military service for all Korean men between the age of 20 and 30 for a period of 21 months (Army, Marines), 23 months (Navy) or 24 months (Air Force). It provides that: “Any man who is a national of the Republic of Korea, shall perform faithfully military service under the conditions as prescribed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and this Act […]. Except as provided by this Act, no special exception to the military service may be prescribed”. Military service can only be postponed up to a certain age for students and for those with medical reasons; when the age limit is reached, postponement is no longer possible.

Exemptions from military service are granted only to those who suffer from disease, or mental/physical incompetence. Exceptions are not provided for those who fail to complete a physical examination for conscription without “justifiable cause”, or to those who fail to enlist after the conscription call without “justifiable cause”. Accordingly, Article 88 stipulates that those who fail to enlist after the conscription call are liable for a prison sentence of up to 3 years. Under Article 90, refusal of call-up for reserve training is punished with a fine of up to two million won (approximately $2,000) or imprisonment for not more than 6 months. Criminal liability is also awarded to men who “desert, abscond, or injure their bodies or commit any deceitful act,

with the intention of evading the military service”.

SHIFTS IN PERCEPTION On January 2002, in an unprecedented case, Senior Judge Si-hwan Park of the Seoul District Court decided to send the case of Lee Kyung-soo, a Jehovah’s Witness, to the Constitutional Court, maintaining that Article 88 of the Military Service Act might violate the constitutional freedoms of conscience and religion. In 2004, and later in 2011, the Constitutional Court held, however, that Article 88 was constitutional. The majority of the Court acknowledged, nevertheless, the need for a system of alternative military service, pointing out that “the time [had] come to hold serious social discussions and find a solution at the national level.” In 2004 and 2015 several COs were acquitted by the Seoul District Court and the Gwangju District Court respectively, forcing administrative institutions to pay attention to the issue. This too was later reversed by the Supreme Court. Yet in both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court there were dissenting opinions from judges who requested the guarantee of conscientious objection.

Following the not-guilty sentence in 2004, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea officially recommended the Ministry of National Defence to allow substitute services for COs in 2005. In its recommendation, it recognized conscientious objection within the protection of the freedom of conscience enshrined in the ConstiNEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 14

tution, hereby deviating from the Constitutional Court’s decision. Although recommendations of the Commission have no legally binding force, this decision is fundamental in that it was the first time that a State institution officially recognised the right.

The CO movement reached its peak when on September 18, 2007, the Ministry of National Defense announced plans for substitute services, which were supposed to start in January 2009.

Unfortunately, these socially progressive plans were revoked when the Lee Myung-bak administration altered its position after winning the presidential election. In December 2008, the Ministry of National Defense released to the media a statement holding that the government would discontinue its plans due to a consensus study holding that the majority of the Korean people were against the introduction of alternative services.

According to a recent Gallup poll, however, an increasing number of Koreans favour their government offering an alternative service system. This survey, conducted from November 4-7 in 2013 on 1,211 Korean men and women, revealed that 68% preferred adopting alternative service over imprisoning conscientious objectors. This outcome is substantially more positive compared to a similar survey conducted in 2008, which concluded that only 29% favoured alternative service.

There is thus a visible shift in public perception on 15

the issue of conscientious objectors which means that this topic will continue to resurface in Korean judicial and political debates. While the Courts still don’t recognize conscientious objection as a right, an increasing number of judges are left feeling uneasy and apologetic with each verdict that is decided. This is why we repeatedly see cases acquitted or referred to the Constitutional Court.

KOREA’S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ICCPR The strongest legal argument for recognition of conscientious objection stems from Korea’s obligations under international law. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”, which includes the right to manifest religion or belief in “teaching, practice, worship and observance”. These rights are elaborated upon in Article 18 ICCPR. The Republic of Korea acceded to the ICCPR on 10 April 1990, and, though it took reservations to several provisions, it did not make any reservations to Article 18. Furthermore, under Article 2 ICCPR, Korea has undertaken to respect and ensure the rights set out in the ICCPR to all within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction without any discrimination. Therefore, under the ICCPR, Korea has a non-derogable international legal obligation to provide for its citizens the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It is worth noting that under Article 6(1) of the Korean Constitution, international law has the same effect as the domes-

PHOTO: AMNESTY.ORG

tic laws. It must be presumed from this that relevant provisions discussed above are to be interpreted in line with international human rights treaties to which Korea is a State party.

In 1993, the Human Rights Committee, a quasi-judicial body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by its State parties, stated in its General Comment No.22 on Article 18: “The Covenant does not explicitly refer to a right to conscientious objection, but the Committee believes that such a right can be derived from Article 18, inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one’s religion or belief.”

In complaints filed under the Optional Protocol Procedure to the ICCPR in the case of Yoon et al. v. Republic of Korea, the Human Rights Committee found that Korea had violated Article 18(1) by imprisoning two conscientious objectors. It noted that “the author’s conviction and sentence, accordingly, [amounted] to a restriction on their ability to manifest their religion or belief ” and while such restriction may be justified by the permissible limits described in article 18(3), it must not impair the very essence of the right in question. It further observed that an increasing number of States parties to the Covenant which have retained compulsory military service have introduced alternative service for conscientious objectors, and that Korea “[had]

failed to show what special disadvantage would be involved for it if the rights of the authors under article 18 would be fully respected.” This view has since been elaborated upon in similar cases Jung et al. v. Republic of Korea and Jeong et al. v. Republic of Korea.The United Nations Commission on Human Rights, later known as the Human Rights Council, has repeatedly confirmed the Committee’s position in Resolutions adopted in 1989, 1993, 1995, 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2013. In its 2013 Resolution 24/17, it urged States to “provide various forms of alternative service which are compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, of a non-combatant or civilian character, in the public interest and not of a punitive nature”.

CONCLUSION The government has an obligation under Article 18 ICCPR to recognize conscientious objection as a human right. It must therefore take immediate steps to introduce an alternative service which does not discriminate against COs. The argument that alternative service must be withheld in order to protect national security proves to be unconvincing, as conscientious objectors in Korea form a minority group within Korea. Putting in place an alternative system does not necessarily put mandatory military conscription at risk, so long as the government adopts a strict but fair and objective selection procedure that does not target a single group, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 16

NEXUS & VINTRES

GRONINGEN GREEN DAY

TEXT: KATA MAGYAR; PHOTOS: VANNESHA MAE

O

n the 9th of February a thought-provoking lecture was held at our university organised jointly by two student associations, Nexus and Vintres. The topic of Groningen Green Day concerned a highly prominent part of our life; water, from the perspective of environmental law. As it is widely known 70% of our body mass is water, moreover the world is covered by roughly 75% of water. In the lecture the guests had the opportunity to find out more about water initiatives around the globe; special attention being paid to the connection of the Netherlands and the European Union.

Even though Europe does not suffer from significant water scarcity, the lecturers (Kees van de Ven, Carola Bootsman Meinders and Johan Feunekes) made it clear from the beginning that climate change does affect our continent, and solutions should be sought as soon as possible. 60% of the Netherlands lies below sea level, therefore a highly refined institutional background is responsible for managing the troublesome situation. Twenty-two Waterboards operate 17

across the Netherlands on a daily basis with aims like preserving the quality of the water, protecting biodiversity and effectively handling urban waste in the water. Not only Waterboards play a safeguarding role in water management, but the European Union, provinces, Regional Water Authorities, municipalities and drinking water companies as well. In 2000 the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) was established in order to introduce rules stretching over borders and to commit EU member states to achieve favourable qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies. However, as the lecturers emphasized, only one directive does not suffice, since the problems we are dealing with are highly complex. A strong organisational background is still missing and the exercise of legislative powers differs from country to country, which can result in conflict of interests.

Consequently, in order develop more favourable water conditions four elements were mentioned: adequate EU legislation, balanced cooperation among countries, harmonization of environmental laws and sustainable water management should be supported by other governmental sectors.

The Groningen Journal of International Law is a studentled, not-for-profit, open access, electronic journal edited by students at the University of Groningen.

The Journal seeks to advocate an outlook where legal change, rather than legal description is at the forefront. As such, we address contemporary challenges in international law and novel solutions for combatting them.

Our next issue is dedicated to the topic International Criminal Organisations: Contemporary Challenges. The focus being on emerging difficulties caused by such organisations and on how international law should engage with the issues around it in the future.

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 18

Student Writing Competition For the first time, aiming at the promotion and support of students’ interest in becoming more directly involved in the global discourse around our topic, the Groningen Journal of International Law is holding a student writing competition.

The essay has to be a legal article; therefore, it should include proper footnotes and citations. Articles must not exceed 5,000 words (excluding footnotes).

Naturally, the focus of your article is at your discretion, however some general perspectives that we are particularly interested in include: Defining organised international crime The role of international law in the prevention and regulation of international criminal organisations The role of non-state actors in the prevention and regulation of international criminal organisations International criminal organisations as a threat to human rights, and/or international peace and security Regulation of international cyber-crime organisations

The deadline to submit articles is the 10th April, 2016 at 23:59.

No essays will be accepted after this time. The articles must be submitted to our email address groningenjil@gmail.com.

The three best articles will be published in our upcoming issue, in May 2016.

Happy writing!

19

OUTER SPACE MYSTERIES OF THE COSMOS REVEALED

PHOTO: 7-THEMES.COM NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 20

LIFE ON MARS

Gemma Hayes takes a look at a mission to inhabit the red planet

THE MARTIAN

Bart van der Geest considers Hollywood’s take on Space law

ONE GIANT LEAP FOR MAN KIND

Eve Aycock examines the little-known Isle of Man‘s space potential

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

Kata Magyar unveils the details of the zero-gravity village in space

A WASTE OF SPACE

Kylie Mckenzie Morrell explores rubbish in space

21

PHOTO: THEGUARDIAN.CO.UK TEXT: GEMMA HAYES / EXCHANGE

“If we are to send people, it must be for a very good reason - and with a realistic understanding that almost certainly we will lose lives. Astronauts and Cosmonauts have always understood this. Nevertheless, there has been and will be no shortage of volunteers.”

- Carl Sagan

I

In October 2015 NASA released detailed plans for its next phase of space exploration – to reach Mars and establish a human colony there. The plan consists of three phases, the first stage is already underway with rotating crews permanently living on the International Space Station conducting research into the viability of living on Mars, as well as monitoring the effects on the body of living for such a long time in a zero gravity environment. The second phase involves conducting ‘complex experiments’ of preparation in the space

around the Moon in an attempt to reduce the reliance on Earth of the astronauts, space stations, and rockets. The third and final phase involves the establishing of a colony on Mars, with NASA aiming to have the first boots touching the planet during the 2030’s.

However NASA is facing stiff competition from Dutch company MarsOne, which is also seeking to establish a colony on Mars.

The Dutch competition aims to launch a preparatory mission in less than five years.

The project has chosen astronauts from

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 22

life on mars exploring the mars-one mission to the red planet around the world in an open selection process, in which over 200,000 people applied for 24 places. The first crew of 24 is to be selected imminently with training to begin during 2016.

The application process is set to reopen every year to - in the words of MarsOne - replenish the training pool regularly. The first crew of 24 members is set to depart in 2026 followed by a new crew every 26 months thereafter.

Those behind the MarsOne expedition like to stress the pioneering exploits of the project; to further the development of the human race.

At a time when the Earth increasingly does not have enough resources to sustain future generations, moving to the Red Planet appears to be a logical progression for those behind MarsOne. However since its conception in 2011, the project has faced some severe and growing criticism, from those on the outside as well as those involved in the space program.

For many, the reality of sending civilians on a one-way mission to Mars is little more than a

23

suicide pact and the race to reach Mars means that little research can be conducted into the impact on the human body of living in a lower gravity environment. Furthermore, while the initial goal of MarsOne is simply to reach and establish a colony on Mars, it has been suggested that subsequent missions will carry out a number of experiments on the human condition. Such experiments may include sending a pregnant woman into space to see the impact on the foetus, as well as the eventual establishment a breeding colony of humans on the planet composed of a concentrated gene pool.

No doubt these experiments fall far outside the earthly jurisdiction of the Nuremberg Code, which provides a code of ethics for human experimentation. It is a core principle of the code that any experiments conducted must be for the betterment of society, however any risks taken cannot exceed the humanitarian importance of the results of such an experiment.

Issues may arise by virtue of the fact that this one-way mission to Mars cannot be terminated

PHOTO: PHYSICSFOCUS.ORG

and any unnecessary pain or suffering caused to the participants cannot be reversed. In addition there has even been backlash from participants in the program. Recently one of the final 100 participants in the program, Joseph Roche, spoke out against a rigged selection process which sees the top candidates for the mission also being its top funders. As candidates progress they are encouraged by MarsOne to buy more merchandise to finance the research, therefore are essentially buying their way onto the program rather than being more rigorously tested as with more traditional space programs. However the final issue which many have with the expedition is the plan of MarsOne to broadcast the whole mission equating itself to an Olympic style televisual extravaganza, from which they expect to yield 10 times the revenue of the Games.

With all that, the question must be asked: why is there such a drive to establish a human colony living on Mars? Mars has a highly inhospitable atmosphere, with surface temperatures potentially reaching -150oC. The planet itself cannot support human

life with an atmosphere 1% of that on Earth and gravity levels 65% lower than Earth. Recent NASA missions have discovered a limited amount of water on the Red Planet which MarsOne plans on being able to extract to use both as a water and oxygen source. Essentially Mars is an entire planet of desert, nowhere near as hospitable as even the deserts on Earth. Further, the mission will have to bring its own food stocks with it, to support the astronauts until they are able to establish their own food source – a diet set to revolve predominantly around cultivated lettuce. There is no doubt that life on Mars would not be easy, so just why is there such a race to establish a colony on Mars?

For those at MarsOne, getting to the Red Planet appears to be little more than a ‘prospect of adventure that compels humans to seek new frontiers to explore.’ The organisation lists three reasons to go Mars; the first being to realise a dream, the second because of curiosity, and the third to create ‘the next giant leap for mankind.’ While the MarsOne website does make some reference to conducting research on the NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 24

planet, other organisations including NASA make more concrete arguments as to why humans should establish a base on Mars. Many of the arguments focus on how going to Mars will better humanity, such as those made by Alexander Kumar who wrote that ‘only by pushing mankind to its limits, to the bottoms of the ocean and into space, will we make discoveries in science and technology that can be adapted to improve life on Earth.’ Reaching Mars would open up unlimited solar resources, including fuels, minerals and endless of solar energy. While, ideologically, the scholarship considers abundant resources of Mars as a way to overcome the have and have not competition between the West and the rest of the Earth by creating a global generation of rich humans – not subjected to the growing environmental pressures faced by the Earth. However it is ideological to think that the abundance of the solar system will not be divvied up between sovereign

nations on Earth or even between corporations.

Considering all this information, the question arises whether it is ethical to continue space exploration and more specifically the conquering of Mars, if the goal is simply to exploit the solar system in a way that humanity has exploited the Earth to the point of now, where the planet is fragmented by war and environmental destruction? Moreover, and in reference to the previous issue of the Nexus Magazine, surely the same ideological outcome can be achieved, not by space exploration, but through the proper management of the finite resources the Earth already possesses. For instance, NASA receives around 1% of the US Federal budget, which in 2015 translated to $17.5 billion. Comparably the US contributes $1.9 billion to the UN’s World Food Programme which aims to combat world hunger.

Furthermore the missions to space themselves

From out there on the Moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch.’

- Edgar Mitchel require vast amounts of the Earth’s finite resources, such as oil. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that if the US and other countries with space programs were to redirect the funding into preservation of the environment, the benefits that are hoped to be gained from reaching Mars could actually be ensured on Earth itself. This was no more starkly brought into light than at the UN Climate Change Conference held in Paris in November-December 2015 when countries from across the globe came together in an attempt to bring to a halt the slow, yet ever progressing, destruction of our planet.

As seen in the Autumn 2015 edition of the Nexus Magazine, social movements, such as those inspired by the documentary “Cowspiracy”, offer empowered individuals a real and viable way to ensure the future of the Earth which, with collective action on a government level, can ensure the preservation of our own planet without the need to colonise Mars.

25

However, this does not mean that all of the time, investment and research which has gone into assessing the viability of living on the Red Planet has to go to waste. Astrologists such as Lucianne Walkowicz warn against the reliance on Mars as a backup planet for the wrongs that we commit on Earth, however the research that has gone into how to live on Mars could go to solving the overpopulation issues faced by humanity today. The Earth possesses inhospitable barren environments with little to no habitation, also known as deserts. The research conducted into what is required in order to inhabit Mars could be reapplied to the Earth in order to turn this barren land into a rich oasis in which to provide enough resources to sustainably feed and support the development of the growing human species. It is for humanity to ensure that - in conquering the stars - we do not lose our home!

THE MARTIAN Matt Damon, Hollywood and International Space Law 2015 was a great year for space exploration. In the race to develop a reusable rocket, companies Space X and Blue Origin successfully landed intact booster rockets; nine years in the making, NASA mission New Horizons became the first-ever to fly past dwarf planet Pluto; NASA’s Cassini spacecraft completed the closest ever flyby of Saturn’s icy moon Enceladus; and NASA’s Dawn Spacecraft became the first to orbit dwarf planet Ceres. Closer to home, scientists found the strongest evidence yet of flowing water on planet Mars. Scientists also announced the discovery of Kepler 452b, the most Earth-like planet found to date. In addition Hollywood blockbusters such as ‘The Martian’ and ‘Star Wars’ also contributed, at least on my part, to a renewed interest in space exploration. In light of these astonishing discoveries, I would like to explore the international laws on outer space by looking at a few curious references that were made in ‘The Martian’.

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 26

TEXT: BART VAN DER GEEST PHOTO: SCREENRANT.COM

BART VD GEEST / LLB 3

D

uring a manned mission to Mars, Astronaut Mark Watney, played by Matt Damon, gets left behind on Mars by his crew after a fierce storm hits the camp and he is presumed dead. Watney survives and finds himself stranded alone on the hostile planet with few supplies.

Hearing of the existence of a small US-owned rocket lander that was sent to Mars in preparation for another NASA mission, that is located not too far from the base, Watney prepares to leave the US NASA-owned “Hab”, or habitation pod to go search for the Ares 4 lander. In a video log he comments that he is essentially leaving US territory to navigate ‘international waters’: “There’s an international treaty saying that no country can lay

27

claim to anything that’s not Earth. And by another treaty, if you’re not in any country’s territory, maritime law applies. So Mars is “international waters.” NASA is an American nonmilitary organization, and it owns the Hab. So while I’m in the Hab, American law applies. As soon as I step outside, I’m in international waters. Then when I get in the rover, I’m back to American law. Here’s the cool part: I will eventually go… commandeer the Ares 4 lander. Nobody explicitly gave me permission to do this, and they can’t until I’m aboard Ares 4 and operating the comm system.

After I board Ares 4, before talking to NASA, I will take control of a craft in international waters without permission. That makes me a pirate! A space pirate!”

PHOTO: NASA.GOV

The first treaty Watney mentions is the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “Outer Space Treaty”). It is essentially the foundational instrument of the outer space legal regime, and Article II states that outer space, including any celestial body (planets, moons and asteroids) is “not subject to national appropriation, by means of claims of sovereignty or by any other means.” Other principles suggest that they are furthermore “free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law” and exploration shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all mankind.

That other treaty Watney mentions is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which is not entirely correct, as space

cannot fall under maritime law, but it is presumably an easy way to show to a non-legal audience that there are certain parallels between the status of the High Seas in UNCLOS and that of outer space and celestial bodies in the Outer Space Treaty. For example, just like all claims of sovereignty over the high seas are invalid, all claims over Martian territory are invalid according to the law.

Watney is correct in stating that American law applies while he is in the habitat and in the rover as Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty requires a State Party, on whose responsibility an object launched into outer space, to retain jurisdiction and control over any objects or personnel thereof. This is similar to Article 92 UNCLOS on the status of ships on the high seas.

Less accurate is his statement that he will become the world’s first space pirate. In fact, Watney was given permission to occupy the Ares 4 lander

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 28

even before getting there, as NASA officials and their colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory assisted him in getting the Ares 4 lander ready for launch and in getting all the calculations to line up successfully. Professor Phil Steinberg, commenting on the legal references in The Martian in his blog, points out that even if Mark Watney did not have permission, Articles V and XII set out a norm of hospitality for celestial bodies. They respectively require the astronauts of one State Party to render all possible assistance, and all stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles to be open to representatives of other States. While this may not directly apply to Watney - the launcher also falling under U.S. jurisdiction - these clauses do help to suggest that Watney, legally considered as an envoy of mankind, does in fact have the authority to use any equipment that is available to him.

The obligation to assist astronauts of another State who are in distress was elaborated upon in the 1968 Astronaut Agreement. Article 3 states that “If information is received or it is discovered that the personnel of a spacecraft have alighted on the high seas or in any other place not under the jurisdiction of any State, those Contracting parties which are in a position to do so shall, if

necessary, extend assistance in search and rescue operations for such personnel to assure their speedy rescue.� The movie hints at this agreement, when the Chinese National Space Administration offers help to NASA by offering a small pod which can act as a rendez-vous with the larger space ship that is set on course to rescue Watney. By doing so, the Chinese space agency gives away its secret technology. Perhaps the decision was also a political one, as the president of the Chinese National Space Administration says, it would be disastrous if the world were to come to know about the fact that China could have helped and did not.

By looking at these references I have merely skimmed the surface of what international space law is. The foundational laws I have explored will, however, be fundamental once mankind starts sending manned missions to Mars. It has been suggested, however, that we will need to develop our outer space laws much further if we are to set up a colony in Mars or some other distant world. It will be interesting to see how these laws develop in the future.

Are you interested in our theme? Do you have suggestions for future editions? Do you have opinions that you want to react on from this or previous editions of The Nexus Magazine?

Have a chat with a member of the Editorial Team at a Nexus event, get in touch via Facebook (The Nexus Magazine), Twitter @nexus_mag, or email us at: nexusmagazine.law@gmail.com 29

How the Isle of Man became the fourth most likely nation to return to the Moon

One giant lea

T

he Isle of Man is a small island located in the centre of the Irish Sea, surrounded by Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales with a population of 85,000 people. I was born and bred on this island, and, since travelling to shores afar, I have become accustomed to the bewildered expression given in reaction to when I tell people that I come from this little-known place. Although the island is known to some due to the Isle of Man TT – an annual motorcycle race internationally renowned as being amongst the most dangerous races known to man – it is widely unappreciated just how prominent a player it is in the global space industry. Quite astonishingly, the Isle of Man is ranked as the fourth most likely nation to return to the moon, shortly behind the spacefaring giants of the United States of America, China, and Russia. Even amongst islanders, its impressive stance in space commerce flies under the radar. A report by the Isle of Man’s Institute of Directors stated “In the new space economy, you can be small and succeed.

You don’t need astronauts to be in the space business.

The Isle of Man has built a powerful industry niche for other countries to follow.”

The island’s voyage into space began in 2001, when the Isle of Man Government concluded an agreement with local firm ManSat to file for particular orbital positions and radio frequencies with the International Telecommunications Union based in Switzerland.

In 2006, the CEO of ManSat engaged the island with the international space sector to prepare for the introduction of the zero rate of corporate tax. There are now over thirty space companies located on island, with the space industry employing 25,000 people and estimated to be worth £8 billion to the UK economy.

TEXT: EVE AYCOC

But how on earth did the Isle of Man achieve its meteoric rise into a billion dollar international industry? There are many reasons why the island is a favourable jurisdiction for space industries.

Regarding taxation, the island’s rates are a decisive factor in attracting space companies. Indeed, the Isle of Man’s standard rate of corporate income tax is 0%, while its personal tax regime offers a standard tax rate of 10%.

A further reason that makes the island a desirable location for space commerce includes the fact that the Isle of Man’s professional services sector – comprising legal, accounting and insurance services – has generated esteemed expertise in the international space and satellite industry. From a personal perspective, having done work experience at Cains – the Isle of Man’s most prominent space law firm – I learned of the company’s role in advising clients in aspects such as contract negoNEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 30

ap for man kind ISU educates postgraduates and professionals to equip them with the necessary experience for working in space-associated activities. The ISU developed the International Institute of Space Commerce (IISC), situated on the Isle of Man. The intention of the IISC is to act as a resource that provides a neutral global ‘think tank’ that creates new ideas and provides solutions to current and future issues that may arise within the space industry, by uniting experts from academia, government, the media, business, and international and non-governmental organisations.

CK / LLB1 PHOTO: STAR TRAILS OVER NIARBYL, ISLE OF MAN, STYLIST MAGAZINE UK

tiation; multi-jurisdictional satellite financing; and procurement of satellite construction. Cains acts for some of the world’s leading satellite operators, and is an institutional member of the International Institute of Space Law. Concerning financial assistance, the Isle of Man’s Department of Economic Development’s Financial Assistance Scheme is instrumental in both encouraging local businesses to use new technologies and practices, and also for enabling new businesses to flourish on island. Capital grants cover up to 40% of costs of new buildings, refurbishments, and new machinery, with operating grants providing for up to 40% of the costs of aspects such as imposing quality standards like energy conservation, and the costs of specific new marketing ventures.

A final point that explains the island’s prominence in space commerce relates to the Isle of Man Government’s partnership with the International Space University (ISU), located in Strasbourg, France. The 31

However, in recent times, certain signals have beckoned a crash landing for the Isle of Man’s space industry. Excalibur Almaz – a space exploration and tourism company founded on the island whose spacecraft was exhibited at my former school – departed the Isle of Man last year. The contentious company has produced more lawsuits than space flights during its existence, having been sued twice for alleged fraud.

The Isle of Man’s Economic Development Minister, Laurence Skelly, commented on Excalibur Almaz leaving the island: “I am saddened to see the end of the potential space tourism project.” He added “However, it is not the end of the Isle of Man’s space industry, which is alive and well.”

The future of the Isle of Man’s role in space commerce remains an unknown frontier, much like the wider cosmic concept of infinity is – and always will be – to the human mind.

the International Space Station A CLOSER LOOK AT EARTH’S LARGEST EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITY PHOTO: BLOGONTHEUNIVERSE.ORG

T

he idea of the International Space Station (ISS) emerged mainly due to human space activities such as the moon-landings, one of the most determining phenomenons of the 70s, and also the undeniable presence of space tourism. Prior to the establishment of ISS there had already been some cooperation on a bilateral level between the United States and European countries, since exploring and using outer space became a priority during the Cold War. However, the ISS is regarded as the first long-term, truly international project with the aim of refining our current knowledge of outer space. With the help of my article I would like to reflect on the significance of ISS by giving a brief analysis on its creation and mission, moreover in the second part the Station’s legal framework will be discussed in greater detail.

WHAT IS ACTUALLY THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION?

The International Space Station is a unique place, a habitable artificial satellite, a microgravity (weightless) laboratory where science, technology and human innovation exist at the same time.

On a daily basis such research breakthroughs occur at the Station that are simply not possible on Earth, this way the horizons of human beings are being broadened persistently.

The first Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) took place in 1988 between the U.S. (NASA), Japan (JAXA), Canada (CSA) and several European states represented as a whole by the European Space Agency (ESA). Frans von der Dunk, an acclaimed legal scholar argues in his article ‘Space Law in the Age of the International Space

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 32

KATA MAGYAR / LLB 1

Station’ that Brazil was an additional founding party of the ISS, but as a special partner through bilateral agreement with the U.S. At that time the station was called ‘Freedom’ and its final completion was scheduled for around 2010. However, before the first IGA had formally entered into force, the collapse of Communist regimes all over the European continent resulted in remarkable structural and geopolitical changes. This wholly new situation with fewer political or ideological barriers led to the invitation of Russia (Roscosmos) to join this international partnership. As a conclusion, in 1998 the first IGA was transformed into a second version and its name was no longer ‘Freedom’, but the International Space Station.

Construction works began in November 1998

33

and, although the last major part of the Space Station was attached in May 2011, the space station has been continuously inhabited since November 2000. The International Space Station weighs almost 400 tonnes and covers an area as big as a football pitch. It would have been impossible to build the Space Station on Earth and then launch it into space in one go. To solve this problem the Space Station was taken into space piece by piece and gradually built in orbit, approximately 400 km above the Earth’s surface. Operating the system of the ISS requires the support of facilities managed by all of the international partner agencies and countries involved in the program, thus a harmonized working method on an international level is of key importance. The significance of the International Space Station manifests not only

in its crystal clear international nature, but the fact that the Station brings together international flight crews, globally outsourced communications networks, and the whole international scientific research community just to name a few.

Article 1 of IGA. The political dimension of IGA emphasizes the prominence of the joint efforts of the parties, under the lead role and supervision of the United States for overall management and coordination to create an integrated ISS.

The International Space Station with European Space Agency’s Columbus laboratory flies 400 km away from Earth at very high speeds. As it is stated on the ESA’s website, at 28 800 km/h, it only takes 90 minutes for the weightless laboratory to make a complete circuit of Earth, which means that astronauts working and living on the Station experience 16 sunrises and sunsets each day. The website provides visitors with the opportunity to get a glimpse of Earth from the space station through a camera fixed to the station which takes a photo every 90 minutes. From the beginning the Station was built to be able to function for decades and, as was stated in the 2010’s edition of the National Space Policy of the United States, to play a more extensive role in terms of human space activities such as diplomatic, medical or educational purposes.

The jurisdiction of the ISS is also defined within the confines of the IGA. The Intergovernmental Agreement allows the partner states to extend their national jurisdiction in outer space, so the elements they provide and possess (e.g. laboratories) are identified with the territories of the states. The basic rule can be found in Article 5 IGA, which states that ‘each partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers, and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are its nationals’. This means that each of the parties is legally responsible for the respective elements they provide. European States are treated as a homogenous entity, called the European Partner on the Space Station. Within this organization, European States are allowed to apply their respective national laws and regulations with respect to the European elements, equipment and personnel.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The central objective of the state parties was to regulate specific aspects of this permanently inhabited, international facility in outer space and to define the rights and obligations of each of the countries, and their jurisdiction with respect to their Space Station elements. The International Space Station’s legal framework is built on three levels; The International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), four Memoranda of Understandings, and various bilateral Implementing Agreements.

The aforementioned IGA is an international treaty signed on 29 January 1998 by the fifteen governments involved in the Space Station project. This key document establishes ‘a long term international co-operative framework on the basis of genuine partnership, for the detailed design, development, operation, and utilisation of a permanently inhabited civil Space Station for peaceful purposes, in accordance with international law’, as stated in

As it is stated above, the legal framework allows the application of national laws, to be more specific in such areas as criminal law, liability issues, and protection of intellectual property rights. As international space law highly evolves around criminal liability and intellectual property rights, these two areas are worth dealing with more thoroughly.

Regarding the former, Article 22 IGA is the most relevant, establishing the internationally accepted active personality principle, meaning parties may exercise criminal jurisdiction over personnel in or on any flight element who are their nationals. As for intellectual property rights, article 5 IGA is to be taken into consideration, which holds the view that an activity occurring in or on a Space Station flight element shall be deemed to have occurred in the territory of the Partner State of that element’s registry, therefore active personality applies again.

When it comes to the European states, this approach might result in controversy, since the ESA cannot be regarded as a state. To solve this matter,

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 34

Article 21(2) IGA provides a solution for any European Partner State: to regard the activity as to have happened within its territory. Germany and Italy have already taken advantage of the article and extended the scope of their national legislation to protect inventions of the European module of the ISS. The second layer of the legal framework of the legal framework of the ISS comprises the four Memoranda of Understandings (MoUs) existing between the NASA and other national space agencies, namely ESA, CSA, Roscosmos, and JAXA. In international law an MoU is generally not regarded as an agreement that generates rights an obligations. It is rather considered to be a type of an arrangement that indicates political and moral commitment on behalf of an international organisation, a government or a constituent part of the latter. The aim of these agreements concluded between space agencies is to describe in details the roles and responsibilities of the agencies in the design, development operation, general objectives, safety missions and to provide a general description of the Station. Last but not least, the third level consists of various bilateral Implementing Arrangements between the space agencies have been established to implement the Memoranda of Understandings. These Arrangements distribute concrete guidelines and tasks among the national agencies.

1

2

3

FUTURE OF THE ISS

With regard to future challenges and tasks attention has to be paid to the most recent mission of the ISS, Expedition 46 (this mission forms the forty-sixth expedition of the ISS). It was launched in December 2015 and will end in March 2016.

Russia, Europe and the USA are all represented in crew members, continuing the Station’s international nature. Research fields include biology, physical science, human research and educational activities, which are all contributing to future discoveries that can benefit all of humanity.

35

PHOTOS 1: CALLOFDUTY.WIKIA.COM 2: NASA.GOV 3: WWW.ESA.INT

A WASTE OF SPACE? an insight into the state and effects of pollution in space

TMAGAZINE.CO.UK

W

hen we think of outer space, we imagine it as a desolate, empty place.

However the area around Earth is swimming with millions of pieces of man-made debris which could potentially risk harm and damage. But where did all of this trash come from? What kind of problems does it cause? And how does it affect us?

How much waste is there in Space?

To put it simply, too much. There is far too much waste orbiting our Earth, in fact it is considered by many to be the most prominent issue in the arena of outer space security and safety. More than a half-century of space activities by the various spacefaring nations have left a debris environment that is continuous and threatens to render the outer space environment useless, particularly in low Earth orbit.

There are over 21,000 pieces of space waste larger than 10 centimetres and half a million bits of trash between 1 cm and 10 cm that are estimated to circle the planet and this number is only set to increase.

There are also millions of pieces of debris smaller than 1 cm. NASA’s Long Duration Exposure Facility spent more than 5.7 years in low Earth orbit to help analyse the risk from debris, over 20,000 impacts have been documented on the spacecraft. In Low Earth-orbit, objects travel at 7 kilometres per second, at that speed, a tiny fleck of paint packs the same punch of a 250 kg object travelling at 96 kilometres per hour. Not only can such an impact damage critical components such as pressurized items, solar cells, or tethers, they can also create new pieces of potentially threatening debris. The most heavily shielded spacecraft ever to have flown, the International Space Station, changes its flight path if it is expected to come within a few miles of a large piece of debris. So far such course alterations have happened about once a year.

look out for falling objects!

Earth’s orbit is separated into three zones. Low Earth-Orbit (LEO) that covers the area of 2002000km above the surface, pieces of space waste in NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 36

KYLIE MCKENZIE MORRELL / LLB 1

this region are impacted by our atmosphere, which over time degrades their orbit and drags them back to Earth. This is also the section for most piloted spacecrafts due to its easy access from Earth. Navigation and communication satellites tend to be in the second section, the Semi- Synchronous Orbit (10,000 - 20,000km above the surface). Whereas satellite telecommunication and weather satellites orbit in the Geosynchronous Section, over 36,000km high, and can remain aloft for millions of years. Basically the lower the orbit the more likely the object is to remain in space before returning to Earth. Pieces of debris are constantly falling from the sky, but only objects larger than 10 cm survive in some form, likely in smaller fragments. In the last five decades, an average of one piece of debris fell to the Earth each day. Most of the space waste raining down burns up in the atmosphere before it ever reaches the surface of Earth.

Those that survive often fall into water; remember, the ocean makes up approximately 70 percent of the Earth’s surface. According to NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office, no serious injury or significant property damage from falling debris has been confirmed 37

as yet.

how did it all get there?

In 1957 the Soviet satellite Sputnik was launched and mankind began its journey to reach for the stars although the first probe in space returned to Earth after only three short months, it kicked off a series of launches that inspired people around the world. The launching of all these different satellites caused the area of space effected by Earth’s gravitational pull to be filled up with large chunks of metal. Inactive satellites, the upper stages of launch vehicles, discarded bits left over from separation and even frozen clouds of water and tiny flecks of paint all remain in orbit high above the Earth’s atmosphere. When one piece collides with another, even more debris is created.

Despite a lot of these objects being very small the U.S. and Russia militaries are able to track most of the mess. Objects up to 10cm in size can be seen on radar and with telescopes from Earth. When preparing for any kind of launch, mission controllers screen the predicted post-launch orbit for potential colli-

sions to avoid as much damage as possible - as you can imagine this is very tedious work and can be a cause for much delay in getting satellites and rockets launched.

On newer space shuttles and the International Space Station there is equipment installed that allows them to change their orbit if any large object approaches them. The problem is that everything sent into space still faces the very real threat of colliding with smaller untraceable objects that can cause considerable damage. Despite being able to track the larger pieces of debris, every satellite still runs the risk of colliding with them, a large collision could lead to the satellite being knocked out of orbit or damaged to the extent that it can no longer perform its function. If the 1,000 active satellites that are currently orbiting the Earth were lost the replacement cost is estimated at around €119 billion, and that is without considering the knock-on effects on wider society. With this in mind, there have been many proposed missions to help clean up debris from around the Earth.

Legality and Possible Solutions

According to Prof Heiner Klinkrad, the head of the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Space Debris Office told reporters, “There is a consensus among debris researchers that the present orbit debris-environ-

ment is at the rim of becoming unstable within a few decades, a phenomenon that is commonly known as the Kessler Syndrome, and that only active removal of five to 10 large objects per year can reverse the debris growth.”

There are UN guidelines in place for space debris but these guidelines are not binding upon the member states of the UN and only a few spacefaring nations have implemented them as non-mandatory requirements into their space programs therefore making it very hard for any additions to the debris to be regulated. This means that as long as there are no binding regulations countries can continue to send whatever they wish into space without any regard to how much waste they may create in the process.

Another major issue is the fact that under Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty, in which space objects - including non-functioning satellites and other space debris - continue to belong to the country or countries that launched them. There is no right of salvage which means that even though a satellite or other space object may not be functioning, it does not imply that it has been abandoned by the nation that launched it. Therefore, without consent from the nation that launched and operates or owns the satellite or space object, it cannot be disposed of or otherwise interfered with. This is further complicat-

PHOTOS (LEFT AND RIGHT): THEECONOMIST.COM; PHYS.ORG

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 38

ed by the fact that international space law deems fragments and parts from space objects as individual space objects in themselves, which would require identification to determine the owner and either individual or blanket consent to remove it from orbit.

Additionally the methods of removing existing waste are still in their infancy and face substantial technical, financial and political hurdles before they can be effective. One of the more popular ideas for removing space debris is a space harpoon; a ‘chasing’ satellite could harpoon larger debris before dragging it down to burn up in Earth’s atmosphere.

This method includes the use or mechanisms that will rendezvous, attach, and physically move the derelict from a stable orbit to either a graveyard orbit, where it will not interfere with other space objects, or into a less stable orbit that would ensure the destruction of the derelict object within a short period of time. This type removal requires an intimate knowledge of the spacecraft so that an effort to remove it would not result in fragmentation and the creation of additional space debris.

39

So what does all of this mean?

Overall the situation at the moment paints a pretty grim picture. There is far more space waste in our orbit than there should be, and because the lack of binding regulations on countries at the moment the chance that the amount of space debris will increase is very high. Despite the fact that it would be in the interests of all of Earths spacefaring countries (and several large space organisations) to clean up our orbit no one country is willing to step forward and begin the process of creating more detailed international legislation. Additionally research into methods and building the machines that would be able to get rid of current debris would be incredibly costly and time consuming. Political opposition between countries also cause more confusion and make it very difficult for debris to be removed, for example the Russians are not willing to give permission for US machines to ‘harpoon’ their space objects even if they are broken or out of use and vice versa. Until there are regulations in place that are binding on all nations or until the situation becomes so restricting that nothing can be launched and functioning satellites are being knocked out of orbit by pieces of trash, this matter will continue to be a problem to the global space community.

debate: Who Owns Space?

W

hen space crops up in conversation, ownership is definitely not the first thing that comes to my mind. Instead I immediately conjure up images of vast emptiness dotted with the pinpricks of thousands of stars but, in reality, ownership is becoming a major issue in the space exploration saga. The human race continues to advance in this field and with commercial space enterprises just around the corner, questions about power, politics and their interaction with space exploration must be asked and answered! In 1969 Neil Armstrong very famously placed the US flag on the Moon, this gesture may have implied territorial ownership but was in fact only symbolic. The

1967 Outer Space Treaty explains the concept that space should be considered the province of all mankind; that outer space is free for the exploration and use by all states, and that the Moon and other celestial bodies cannot be claimed by a sovereign nation state. Additionally, the Moon and celestial bodies are to be used purely for peaceful purposes and weapons will not be placed in orbit or in space. One hundred and twenty nine countries including Russia, the US, China and the UK have signed and ratified this treaty which is overseen by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. In theory, this area seems very well set up and organised but in reality the situation is not so clear cut.

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 40

TEXT: KYLIE MCKENZIE MORELL PHOTO: PNGIMG.ORG

KYLIE MCKENZIE MORRELL / LLB 1

The question of who owns space raised its ugly head again with the US Space Act of 2015 which was passed into law on the 18th November 2015. This piece of legislation will give US space firms the right to own and sell natural resources they mine from bodies in space, including asteroids. The act has passed with bipartisan support but still requires President Obama’s signature. This is the most significant shot fired in the ideological battle for ownership of the cosmos and is arguably violating the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, as well as International Customary Law that already applies to the universe.

The US government may be able to argue that although the Outer Space Treaty forbids states from claiming celestial bodies, there is no such provision forbidding private individuals (or organisations) from doing so. However, Article 6 of this treaty states “The activities of non-gov41

ernmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.” This means that while the treaty does not explicitly prohibit such schemes, it does require they be authorized by the schemers’ government.

Evidently there needs to be a lot of further development on the international law that currently governs outer space but the question I pose to you is: ‘Who do you think should own space?’ Should it be the common property of mankind or should it belong to whosoever (country or corporation) can grab it first? Perhaps there is even another option that you feel is right?

debate: who owns space T

he question arises, who is responsible for space?

Individual space objects can be made to fall under the jurisdiction of the state of registry, just like ships or aircraft registered on Earth. Looking at space right now, Russia, with 1,324 satellites, has the most satellites currently in orbit, followed by the U.S. with 658. Responsibility, however, does not immediately mean ownership. Responsibility for space means that those with objects in orbit, or indeed international cooperations – such as the International Space Station – are maintained for the benefit of mankind’s development and knowledge.

CLAIRE KEMESU-EGRI / LLB 1

This means that space and future space exploration is not for deepening the pockets of private individuals or companies, but rather for the mutual benefit of everyone here on Earth. We should be driven by higher motives other than just the accumulation of wealth, despite the lucrative opportunities space offers. The greatest difference between knowledge and wealth with regards to space, is that economic arguments favour those who already have footholds in space, the Americans, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Europeans, whereas arguments that focus on the development of our understanding of space favour the majority; knowledge can be shared across the educations systems for generations to come.

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 42

T

he question of who owns space is a very common topic for discussion. If we think of space as an empty, dark substance, then it should, in my opinion, be considered to not belong to anyone. However, as mankind has progressed and many developments have happened due to human beings’ abilty to access space, I think that it is very important to note that space belongs to the people who know how to put it to use. There has been various pieces of legislation passed on this topic, however, in my opinion, such legislation is no use to ordinary people who are not aware of even half of the truth of what goes on in space. Therefore, in my opinion, the experts and the people who actually deal with mission to space are the ones who own space. However, you cannot say that it belongs to one authority or country. This is simply because it is still unknown territory and personally, I think that everyone is entitled to the benefits.

VERONIKA YEFREMOVA / LLB 1

I

think any law that would restrict the economical incentives of space exploration would be detrimental at this point in time.

Space exploration has seen a slow and inconsistent growth since its inception. At worst, it has been limited by budget cuts from governments that were disinterested in purely research-oriented space missions. And at best, it was driven to full capacity by a so-called Space Race between conflicting nations in the 20th century; a race whose true incentives no longer exist.

Therefore, privatizing space and exploiting the economic opportunities space offers may be just what is needed for space exploration and travel to reach a new milestone. So, as an citizen of Earth, I would vote for relaxed, regulatory-only laws, that are based on “finders keepers” principals.

The repercussions of such laws would eventually come, but - hopefully - long after significant gains have been made in space research and technology. Then, the laws could be revised.

43

AHMED ALSAHAF / PhD COMPUTER SCI

ALUMNI:

LIFE AFTER

GRONINGEN ALLAN OCHIEL / ALUMNI

TEXT & PHOTOS: ALLAN OCHIEL

In writing this piece, I was conflicted in exactly what I wanted to emphasise in the events that took place in my life after Gronignen because I would like to tell my experiences as honestly as I can, when sharing what are essentially the highlights of the time that has elapsed. It has been just under two years since I graduated, and my experiences in the LLB Programme will always be remembered fondly, from my arrival in the city as an undergraduate, right up until I left, the wonderful memories of the time I shared with the city and all the great people I met in and through Nexus, as well as beyond, have given me friends for life and that final day at graduation was nothing short of wonderful.

However, that final trip made as a recent graduate from the halls of the Academic Building into the world, which initially began with a feeling of accomplishment, ended with one of nervous uncertainty. The last few years had a steady routine and I purposely removed this comfort from my life when chose not to apply for any Master programs in that upcoming school year. I was not wholly unprepared; there was some semblance of a plan that involved doing an internship somewhere in the Netherlands at a company, with an international profile, to help me determine where my “true� interests in law lie and, ultimately, apply for a Master in the following year to specialise in that to-be determined interest in another country. Thus, began my search of for internships.

It took some time and many, many, many applications over the course of a few months and I was fortunate enough to intern in the legal department of a company named Quintiq. It is a multi-national company that provides supply chain management and planning software to optimise the performance of companies in various industries.

As an intern, I assisted the in-house legal counsels with review of contracts and legal research in the area of intellectual property (IP). There were experiences aplenty to be had and the 6 months spent at the company was an invaluable experience in not only understanding how to apply the knowledge gained while studying in the LLB programme, but also how different the lecture hall and papers truly are from the boardroom and office. The multi-national nature of their operations cemented my desire to pursue a career that was multi-cultural and transnational in nature, and acquired more IP knowledge as well as other office and workplace skills.

During the course of my internship, I began applying to universities in hopes of studying a Master in the upcoming school year, setting the second phase of my plan into motion. Despite enjoying the experience at Quintiq, and having some interest in the areas of law that it dealt with, the path my future would follow was still unclear as to what area exactly I would like to specialise in; but, it was certain that it

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 44

1

2

3

would be in an area outside the domain of public law more than those that fall within it. Furthermore, it became clear to me that I was not entirely ready for working life and a Master is definitely something I needed to pursue in order to feel that would be.

The end of the internship coincided with my acceptance into the University of Copenhagen where I am currently pursuing an LLM, ending to some extent, the uncertainty that I felt at the end of my bachelor. I say to some extent, as the LLM allows one to choose their own courses and thus to determine your own direction. It is a two-year English-taught program with an opportunity to a semester abroad (or an internship/professional placement) with a variety of courses in most fields of law. It has more to offer than that but those were the driving factors behind my application.

When I arrived in Denmark, I was greeted by a good friend and former Nexus boardee, Lykke, at the airport. Moments like those are when I remember that Nexus is, quite literally, a nexus even when not thinking about it. Familiar faces in unfamiliar places are always welcome and can really ease any worries or questions you may have. It is the sort of pivotal moment that can define the first few months and luckily it made my acclimatisation to Copenhagen extremely smooth. Sometimes a small world is an amazing thing.

4

5

1. Copenhagen - Birthday, with Lykke and Nienke 2. Malmö 3. Glypotek Museum, Copenhagen 4. Malmö 5. Amsterdam - Sister’s birthday

When looking back at my decision not to apply for any Master programmes prior to graduation I am unsure if I would change anything. The course of events that unfurled in the preceding months have all led to this moment and the initial plan did come to fruition. I guess what I am trying to say is, do not be afraid if you do not know what to do. So long as you have an idea and/or a method on how to determine what it is that you would like to do and a plan of action to get there, you should be alright. As cliché as it sounds, do not stop trying! Also, professional/ practical experience is not a must but can definitely be something worth pursuing either during your LLB, after it or during your Master. The experiences you gain from such a setting and the people you meet can be instrumental in deciding what to do with the rest of your life.

Lastly, like many before me have said, don’t hesitate to contact any of the alumni with any questions you may have on anything, you never know! Some of us may have been in your position and may be able to offer up some fruitful conversation or just conversation.

Allan graduated the LLB in 2013, and don’t hesitate to contact him with any question you may have, at allanochiel@gmail.com - Allan Ochiel 45

ALUMNI:

LIFE AFTER

GRONINGEN TEXT & PHOTOS: FREDRIK HAFEN

FREDRIK HAFEN / ALUMNI

YOU CAN TAKE ME OUT OF GRONINGEN BUT YOU CAN’T TAKE THE GRONINGEN OUT OF ME 1. So, where am I right now?

I am currently sitting on my couch in Brussels enjoying a lazy Sunday afternoon while the washing machine next door is so loud that I can barely hear myself think.

2. What am I doing with my life?

It is rather a question of what my life is doing with me. But so far it has treated me with respect.

3. Who am I? Definitely not someone who wants to tackle such an existential question on said lazy Sunday afternoon.

Currently:

I started my first proper job last October and am now working as the assistant in the Cabinet of the European Ombudsman, Ms Emily O’Reilly. The tile is a bit of a mouthful but it basically boils down to me being the junior cabinet member of a person that is in the news from time to time. The European Ombudsman is the smallest of the EU institutions and a constant thorn in the eyes of the grown-ups like the Commission, the Parliament and numerous Agencies around Europe. My job is ultimately a political one.

The institution has its 40 something seasoned lawyers. I am not needed for the law, I am needed for my communication skills. I am tasked with parliamentary relations, which means I keep tabs on the news and constantly meet people inside the European Parliament. I follow certain Committees and organise meetings between people more important than me. But as the youngest member of the cabinet I, of course, also do a lot of supportive things such as setting up a room for a meeting, writing briefing notes and bringing the occasional coffee. Overall, I have to

do a lot of bluffing and always be careful not to say something that can be turned against my boss. It is a fast paced job that sometimes includes cliché walk and talk briefings in the corridors of the Strasbourg based plenary sessions of the Parliament.

Flashback to the last Semester in Groningen:

I was living with the two best lads that have ever graced the Heymanszaal with their presence. All three of us were busy writing our theses while simultaneously researching for master programmes.

I had just ran out of snacks and the fridge looked apocalyptical. It was in these precious moments that I decided that I needed to see the EU law in my thesis in its wider context. So I began looking for master programmes which focus on a more political side of the European Union. Finally, I ended up applying to a grand total of one programme and got accepted to the masters of European Public Affairs at the University of Maastricht.

Still in the Netherlands. Maastricht:

Maastricht is a lovely city for everyone … well everyone who has already retired and does not dare to move to Florida. As a student city it is less vibrant than Groningen, but for a master programme appropriately so. The European Public Affairs programme is limited to 30 students each year which makes it a collegial environment to study in. However, as the only student without any prior training in politics, I soon had to understand that I had absolutely no clue about research methodology. Methodology is such a big part of the social sciences, but does not really feature in law. My masters included a three month NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 46

1

2

3

4

5

1. RUG to infinity and beyond 2. Same girlfriend - ever since Warhol in Groningen 3. In front of the Berlaymont building of the European Commission 4. First day at the European Ombudsman 5. Snow boarding somewhere in Switzerland

internship which was combined with a thesis on the subject of the internship. Luckily my internship office was incredibly accommodative and gave me enough space to work on my thesis from time to time.

The European capital of firearms trade, terrorism and politics. Brussels:

My first ever internship was in the European Parliament. Here I already realised that I am not one for sitting at a desk all day. There is a big difference between sitting in the library for hours studying for your own benefit and sitting at a work desk for hours producing for someone else’s. I was lucky that in the parliament I was constantly sent around all over the place by my office and every day was full of surprises. The political world is incredibly fast pace.

After my parliament internship I had a quick intermezzo in a competition law firm doing another internship. However, after only a little while it became clear that I was not cut out for the typical lawyer thing. Luckily I was invited to the first interview for my current job shortly after my time at the law firm.

The law firm showed me that there is a humongous difference between the law in academics and the law in practice. I absolutely enjoy learning about law and studying it. After all, my Chalmer’s bible is still the first thing I open when I am confronted with something new in EU politics. However, I found out the hard way that I am never going to be a classical lawyer sitting behind an enormous mahogany desk remembering CJEU cases from back when I was but struggling solicitor.

47

Back to the Future. Well, the present. Today:

I love my current job and I can confidently say that I am qualified for it. Brussels is an amazing city.

Amazingly dirty but also amazing in the opportunities it provides. Most jobs, such as mine, are obtained through contacts rather than open position. If anyone wants to contact me for any questions or just needs a place to crash in Brussels write me an email (see below)

So what have I learned in my 23 years on Spaceship earth? Here a list:

1. Law is awesome to study but frustrating to work in.

2. Politics works just the other way around.

3. Networking is key, but there is a clear difference

between real friends and “network” friends.

4. Everyone goes “ohhh” and “ahh” when you say you studied law.

5. The reason why business people wear long coats has nothing to do with fashion – suit pans are darn cold.

6. After university, no one cares about your GPA. Get good grades for your ego not for your future.

7. When someone yells “Left … the other left” then it’s already too late. Brace for impact.

8. Overselling yourself is bad, underselling yourself is worse.

9. Luck is the determining factor in finding a job.

But if you’re too lazy to throw the dice than you’ll never have it land on 6.

Fredrik graduated the LLB in 2014 and you have any questions or just need a place to crash in Brussels, send him an email at contact@fredrikhafen.eu - Fredrik Hafen

BIBLIOGRAPHY Conscientious objectors

- UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No 22: Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion), 30 July 1993, CCPR/C/21/Rev 1/Add 4.

- Kuk Cho, ‘Conscientious Objection to Military Service in Korea: The Rocky Path from Being an Unpatriotic Crime to a Human Right’ (2007) 9 Or Rev Intl L 187,190.

- See Choe Sang-Hun, ’South Korean Jehovah’s Witnesses Face Stigma of Not Serving in Army’ (New York Times, 3 October 2015) <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/world/south-korean-jehovahswitnesses-face-stigma-of-not-serving-in-army.html?_r> accessed 13 December 2015. See also ‘A life sentence from birth – story of a South Korean conscientious objector’ (Amnesty International, 13 May 2015) < https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/05/a-life-sentence-from-birth-story-of-asouth-korean-conscientious-objector/> accessed 8 February 2016.

- See ‘South Korea: Authorities wrecking lives by jailing conscientious objectors’ (Amnesty International, 13 May 2015) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/south-korea-authorities-wrecking-lives-by-jailing-conscientious-objectors/> accessed 13 December 2015.

- The Military Service Act [MSA], Dec 31, 1993, 6 Statutes of the Republic of Korea 701. Last amended on 31 December 2007.

- The Constitution of the Republic of Korea [heonbeop], Art 39.

- Constitutional Court Judgment of Aug. 26, 2004, 2002 HunKa 1 (South Korea).

- Hitomi Takemura, International Human Right to Conscientious Objection to Military Service and Individual Duties to Disobey Manifestly Illegal Orders (Springer Science & Business Media, 2018), 71.

- ‘Briefing Paper on Conscientious Objection in the ROK- March 2009’ (Minbyun Lawyers for a Democratic Society, 30 November 2010) <http://minbyuneng.prizma.co.kr/?author=1&paged=7> accessed December 2015.

- See ‘Gallup Poll reveals shift in perception of conscientious objection in South Korea’ (Jehovah’s Witnesses, 14 February 2014) <http://www.jw.org/en/news/releases/by-region/south-korea/alternative-service-favored-over-imprisonment/> accessed 13 December 2015.

- UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III), art 18.

-UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol 999, p. 171, art 18.

- See United Nations Treaty Collection, Declarations and Reservations, <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ menu3/b/treaty5> last accessed 13 December 2015.

- UN Commission on Human Rights, Conscientious Objection to military service, 8 March 1995, E/CN.4/RES/1995/83; See also Amicus Curiae opinion submitted to the Constitutional Court of Korea (Amnesty International, 1 September 2014) < https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ POL31/001/2014/en/> accessed 13 December 2015.

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 48

One giant leap for man kind

- http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-18769463 - https://www.gov.im/lib/docs/ded/locatingyourspacebusinessinthe.pdf - http://www.spaceisle.com/stakeholders/cains.html - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/douglas-we-have-a-problem-7876777.html

International Space station

- A. Farand, The Space Station Cooperation Framework (Legal Affairs, ESA) retrieved from: http://www. esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet94/FARAND.pdf - Frans Von der Drunk, Space Law in the Age of the International Space Station retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=spacelaw - National Space Policy of the United States, 2010 retrieved from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf - Tara S. Miller, Partnership - The Way of the Future for the International Space Station, retrieved from: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.npma.org/resource/resmgr/AssetArch/Vol.16-5-Miller.pdf http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/International_Space_Station/International_ Space_Station_legal_framework - http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/International_Space_Station/Where_is_the_ International_Space_Station - https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/cooperation/index.html - http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/np-2015-12-043-jsc-exp-46-summary.pdf

a waste of space

- http://www.space.com/16518-space-junk.html - http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2130/1 - http://www.iislweb.org/docs/Diederiks2014a.pdf - http://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/how-much-junk-is-there-in-space/ - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22299403 - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html - http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34324443 - http://www.sciencealert.com/who-owns-space-us-asteroid-mining-act-is-dangerous-and-potentiallyillegal

49

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

- The Nexus magazine editorial team

NEXUS WINTER 2015-6 | 50

51