1. Winter 2015
UCL Law Society
SILK v BRIEF
THIS IMAGE IS REPRESENTATION OF THE LAW. WE BELIEVE IN LIBERTY, FREEDOMS AND JUSTICE

2. Setting precedents, not following them…
because tomorrow will not be like today.
Being a lawyer at Allen & Overy means having the vision to think beyond what has been done before and the
www.aograduate.com
@AllenOveryGrads | www.facebook.com/allenoverygrads
A career in law
Setting precedents, not following them…
because tomorrow will not be like today.
Being a lawyer at Allen & Overy means having the vision to think beyond what has been done before and the
www.aograduate.com
@AllenOveryGrads | www.facebook.com/allenoverygrads
A career in law
Silk v Brief | 1
Welcome
Editor:
Firoza Dodhi
Design Editor:
David Tudor
Senior Editor:
Callum Macauley
Editorial Team:
Shehnai Arora
Benjamin Barsky
Louise Beynon
Elron Elahie
Mohammed El-Gendi
Tai Falby
Shayan Farooqi
Matilde My Kristensen
Laura Lee
Freya Mansfield
Joana Santos
Ellie Warren
Joel Wong
Annie Wood
Clara Yeo
Graphic Design:
David Tudor
Graphics and Photography:
Beatrice Chia
Nadim Chowdhury
Mariam Hawath
James Saunders
Silk v Brief
is the magazine of the University College
London student Law Society, produced by
students, for students, and is edited by
the Society’s Publication Officer.
UCL Law Society is a not for profit
student organisation, and views expressed
herein are not necessarily those of the
editor or the Society. Content may not be
copied, printed or otherwise disseminated
without prior permission.
Advertising:
For futher information, including as
advertising rate card, please e-mail
firoza.dodhi14@ucl.ac.uk
Silk v Brief Magazine
C/O UCL
Faculty of Laws
Bidborough House
38-50 Bidborough Street
London
WC1H 9BT
TEAM
Letter from the Editor
Letter from the President
Debate - This house would repeal the Human Rights Act
United Kingdom, Who do you want to be?
Rufugee Crisis: The struggle between the principles of solidarity and national sovereignty
A Hostile Respone to a Human Crisis
The Second Amendment: All that stands between dangerous freedom and peaceful slavery
All Roads lead to Paris: International Legal Action on Climate Change and the Paris
Climate Conference
In Conversation with Nicholas Pincott, Norton Rose Fulbright Partner, Energy and
Construction Projects Group London
A Radical Proposal: Privatise Marriage
Cuts to Social Security
Wigs and Petticoats - Eliza Orme LLB
Purpose of Democracy: Person or Policy
Madamoiselle Prive - Chanel in the 21st Century
If law Promoted Catharsis and Vengeance
The Development of Legal Risk Management in the City
Foxes and the Constitution
Towards an Unaccountable State - The Conservative Party in Power
American Healthcare’s Untapped Potential
Want to live in London? Think Again
Prisoners Voting Rights
In Defence of Hipsters: Exploring the Real Villians of Gentrification
Chris Pratt’s War on Interplanetary Terror
Shall we put it to a vote then Gentlement?
Prostitution and the Problem of going Swedish
The Reality of LLBeing
Mental Health and the Role of Aspiring Lawyers
Advise Doris
ABOUT
CONTACT
CONTENTS
WELCOME Silk v Brief
2
3
5
9
13
14
18
20
22
24
26
30
31
33
34
36
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
64

3. Silk v Brief | 3
Letter from the President
LETTER FROM THE
PRESIDENT
R: A letter? Really?
F: Yes Ryan, a letter.
R: Do I have to?
F: Yes.
This wasn’t part of the job description.
Dear BenthamBidboroughites
First term has really flown by, hasn’t it?
We’ve had Freshers come and go; Lord Wilson of Culworth gave our Junior
Mooting finalists a good grilling; The Magic Circle duked it out at our annual
debate; and Rory threw an absolute rager of a Halloween Ball out in
Shoreditch.
I am always amazed at just how fast time passes at University. Just
yesterday we were all mouthing the words to Burlington Bertie, hoping we
wouldn’t get a face full of gin – and now, we’re scrambling to read articles
from The Financial Times, hoping that we’ll manage to drag ourselves
through that interview.
Freshers, I’m sure you’ve realized that weekly Loop nights and getting your
essays/reading done on time don’t generally go hand in hand. Find a
balance. Remember to have fun, but don’t forget why you’re here. Have they
mentioned midsessionals yet? No? Yes? Maybe?
Relax. They aren’t too bad. Read the cases, open your textbooks, and write
some notes. You’ll do fine, and you get to experience first hand what a law
exam is really like! Top tip: Skimming the law express books won’t cut it.
Trust.
Before you know it, it’ll be Easter. Exams will come and go, leaving you
utterly exhausted – and first year will have become just a memory.
My advice? Do all the things you want to do. Want to do Parkour? Join
the Society; it’s not too late. Want to go to Amsterdam/ Berlin/ Prague/
…Brighton? Stop making excuses - just go. Embrace the opportunities we
have here at the Law Society, join Singles Debating, join Negotiations, Sign
up for Bentham’s Got Talent.
Second years, I’d wish you a Merry Christmas, but let’s not kid ourselves
shall we? Keep plugging through those applications. Your hard work will pay
Ryan Chu
off. Those of you who haven’t decided on a career path, stop
watching Netflix, and start thinking about the whole job thing. (Do
as I say, not as I do)
Don’t forget to take a break from time to time. All that stuff I told
the Freshers - that all applies to you! And since you’re second
years, I’m sure you’re all much better at managing your time
(amiright?), which means just as much time for you to enjoy
yourselves!
And now, my dearest Finalists. Disregard all the above. We’re too
old for that optimistic, happy go lucky spiel. Pessimistic? Not at all,
I’d call it being realistic.
(I kid)
If anything, the above applies to us most. This is our last year at
University. It’s up to us to make it the best yet.
Thank you to the committee, for your steadfast support, your
dedication to the society, your hard work and your contribution
towards some of the best memories I’ll have of UCL. Thank you, to
the Undergraduate Office and Support Staff, we’d (quite literally) be
lost without you. Finally – thank you to our sponsors, without whom
we simply could not operate.
Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year. Now get out there and do
something with your lives xoxo
Ryan.
LETTER FROM THE
EDITOR
Dearest Bidboroughites,
The lights, joy and warmth (rhetorically speaking) of the Holiday-season
surround us. We have reached the end of our first term of
2015/2016—which for some of us, has undoubtedly come too quickly
and for others not soon enough!
So, as you race around Bloomsbury and make the trek to Bidborough
through the last days of term, I’m thrilled that you’ve decided to pick up a
copy of your favourite law publication.
The Silk v Brief, to me, embodies the UCL Law Department. It is a
tangible collection of various works throughout our year, and also, more
significantly represents our thoughts and those of our peers. It is as much
the contributors’ publication, as it is all of yours.
As I do a read-through of the final product, I cannot help being proud of
the caliber of articles, the quality of writing and the passion that drives
everyone who has contributed. The creativity of those who helped develop
this edition of the Silk v Brief is indicative of our incredibly talented
community. To the people who have given so freely of their time-from
their reading, essays and degree work—thank you for making the Silky B
what it is. I hope you take pride in knowing that those reading this journal
are celebrating your photographs, artwork, articles and stories!
Our Legal Feature Section throws light on the increasingly contentious
issues involving the UK and its relationship with the European Union. Our
inaugural International Feature, features the writing of Harvard University
A.B Candidate Andres Lopez-Garrido. Our Editorial Feature celebrates life
and design with a review of a Saatchi Gallery Exhibition. Eminent
professionals working in the City have answered our questions: Claire
O’Brien discusses legal risk in her role at Deutsche Bank; Nicholas Pincott
of Norton Rose Fulbright speaks to the global significance of developing
new energy sources.
I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to all those who have helped in
bringing the first edition of the Silk v Brief 2015 to publication.
Firoza Dodhi
To the entire Editorial Team, your incomparable advice shaped these
articles into what we see today. Callum, you are a writing genius, but an
even greater editor—your opinions and insight have been invaluable. Beat,
thank you for creating graphics that speak a thousand words. James,
thank you for giving me free reign over your Flickr account—clearly I was
captivated.
David, thank you so much for your hard work, commitment and support
through this entire process. Our shared vision for developing the Silky B,
made this process such a rewarding one!
I must finally say thank you to the Committee—you are the funniest and
most inspirational group of leaders whom I have the privilege of working
with. The banter flows constantly, and the support is endless. Thank you;
especially to Ryan and Charlie who gave me the freedom to push the
limits of this edition to the best it could be—I appreciate your faith in my
ability.
A very happy holiday season to you and your loved ones: safe travels,
and know that the welcoming walls of Bidborough House will be waiting
for your return in January.
It is with great pride that I bring to you the Winter Issue of the Silk v
Brief 2015.
Happy Reading!
Firoza Dodhi
Letter from the Editor
2 | Silk v Brief

4. EU
LETS TALK
4 | Silk v Brief
VsVs
The UK’s 2015 General Election brought several surprising results
to the House of Commons: a Conservative government elected by
majority, the dramatic collapse of the Labour party influence, and
UKIP yielding a lone representative despite spiralling vote shares.
Amidst this political change, the new Conservative government is now
obliged to fulfil its campaign pledges, lest they face the wrath of
Jeremy Corbyn at the dispatch box. Most notably, they pledge to
“scrap Labour’s Human Rights Act and introduce a British Bill of
Rights”, a plan they have put into action with a Paper set for public
consultation by the end of 2015. The various repercussions of this
momentous reform proposal will be advanced in two opinions firmly
set on either side of the fence.
THIS HOUSE WOULD REPEAL THE
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
DEBATE
Silk v Brief | 5
Debate

5. The English judiciary’s painstaking evolution, ironclad reputation
and instrumental role in the political system is evidence of its
importance in the preservation of British tradition. It should
therefore be seen as a more legitimate authority for
decision-making on local issues requiring the delicate balance
between human rights and general interests like national
security and public safety.
Some are concerned with the international impact that the
repeal of the HRA will bring. It would be foolish for opponents
of this reform to mischaracterise the repeal of the 1998 Act
as the UK government abandoning human rights protection
entirely. On the contrary, I believe the proposal would seek to
strengthen and expand on the rights provided for in the
Convention, while the English legal system’s history of
inventing prerogative writs and habeas corpus shows a clear
dedication to the advancement of human rights. It is important
to distinguish between support for the Convention and for the
European Court of Human Rights.
Whilst it is true that removing itself from the strict jurisprudence
compliance of the Strasbourg court can have implications on
the obligations of other Member States to the Convention, it
cannot be ignored that the key purpose for this reform is to
protect the human rights interests of UK civilians, a noble
cause which should not be sullied by allowing other parties to
justify by analogy any unacceptable conduct. Absurd reasoning
cannot be prevented and the appropriate response would be
by way of reason, logic and pragmatic discourse and not by
halting the development of virtuous reform attempting to right
a wrong.
This motion must stand.
Hoffman: “Since the [European Convention of Human
Rights was] incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act
1998… [t]he result has been that UK judges have reached
decisions… which would have astonished those who agreed to
our accession to the Convention in 1950. That is what has
gone wrong.”
It is against this backdrop of learned opinion that the
Conservative government outlined in its general election
manifesto a proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998
(HRA) and replace it with a British Bill of
Rights.Notwithstanding rhetoric-filled, politicised manifestos, this
reform has been a largely non-partisan proposal, supported in
2007 by Labour PM Gordon Brown who published a Green
Paper with an intention to replace the HRA with a Bill of
Rights. The impetus was clear: remain faithful to the original
substance of the European Convention of Human Rights (’the
Convention’), but gain independence from the oft-criticised
interpretations of the Convention by the European Court of
Human Rights in Strasbourg. It was thereafter propagated by
the Coalition government and now the Conservatives.
Following consultation with the Joint Committee on Human
Rights a list of recommendations has been proposed for a Bill
of Rights, which the Conservative government will likely take
as a skeleton for their draft Bill. The principles of this Bill can
be summarised as featuring:
1. A strengthening and expanding of Human Rights protection
in excess of the already existing provisions set out by the
ECHR
2. Providing for further political and social rights which are
neglected in the HRA, especially for freedom of assembly,
expression and privacy
3. Quasi-entrenchment through Parliamentary and judicial
safeguards including exclusion from the special ‘manner and
form’ procedure under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949
4. Providing national ownership of the protected rights through
incorporation of shared national values to the Courts and
Tribunals Judiciary
5. Expansion of rights protection in devolved administrations to
better suit regional expectations
The promulgation of the HRA has ushered in a new
constitutional paradigm, with the long-established Diceyan
orthodoxy of Parliamentary sovereignty rendered outdated by
the foreign presence of the Convention, entrenched by HRA
s.3 insofar as the Courts being obliged to stretch or take
alternative interpretations of all Parliamentary legislation for
consistency with the Convention, or to issue a declaration of
incompatibility if legislative intention is clearly against the
Convention’s provisions. To promote the passing of the Act,
Lord Irvine (then-Lord Chancellor) claimed that incidents
where the Courts would be forced to legislate whilst
disregarding Parliamentary sovereignty would be “very rare”.
Yet, as of fall 2015 there have already been 29 declarations
of incompatibility, 28 of which have been deemed persuasive
enough by Parliament to be acted upon through legislation,
excluding the countless more ‘alternative’ judicial interpretations
which have altered the effect of legislation. Without repeal, the
HRA will lead the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy to be
chipped away by the judiciary at a rate which the political
system is not prepared for.
The HRA has also diluted judicial sovereignty by granting the
right for individuals to appeal domestic decisions to Strasbourg’s
European Court of Human Rights whose rulings are binding on
the government (ECHR Art.46). The expansion of decisive
interpretation to a foreign judicial department capable of giving
increasingly progressive and creatively binding opinions is
worrisome. The Conservatives characterise this as a “mission
creep”, because Strasbourg is unjustified in steadily stretching
the text of the ECHR outside the scope with which it was
originally drafted and ratified in.
Although it can be advanced that neither declarations of
incompatibility nor international treaties bear any legal force, the
political consequences for a Parliament ignoring the declaration
of unlawfulness by the Strasbourg Court are evident. In its
display of defiance through the statutory disenfranchisement of
prisoners from voting in parliamentary elections (Hirst v UK
(No 2) [2005] ECHR 681), the House of Commons voted
overwhelmingly (234 to 22) to retain the ban, amidst strong
criticism from the contracting parties of the ECHR and civil
rights groups. It will be with undeserved hesitation that the
government considers going against future unjust ruling from
Strasbourg.
The legitimacy, accountability and authority of the Strasbourg
judiciary are also in question, particularly for being a worse final
arbiter than the UK Supreme Court in adjudicating conflicts
involving the civil liberties and livelihoods of British citizens.
Strasbourg judges originate from countries with questionable
legal traditions like Azerbaijan, Russia and Moldova, lack of
oversight during nominations means nepotistic appointments are
prevalent. These limitations of the judiciary are compounded by
the Strasbourg court’s tendency to, in the words of Lord
Hoffman, “aggrandise its jurisdiction and impose uniform rules
on Member States.” In no fewer than 10 instances has this
European court departed from the UK Supreme Court’s
decision, ignoring the margin of appreciation doctrine. It is not
difficult to envision the awkward situations where the Supreme
Court must distinguish between which reasonings to adopt.
FOR THE MOTION
VsVs JONATHAN WONG
6 | Silk v Brief
Debate
The English judiciary’s painstaking evolution, ironclad reputation
and instrumental role in the political system is evidence of its
importance in the preservation of British tradition. It should
therefore be seen as a more legitimate authority for
decision-making on local issues requiring the delicate balance
between human rights and general interests like national
security and public safety.
Some are concerned with the international impact that the
repeal of the HRA will bring. It would be foolish for opponents
of this reform to mischaracterise the repeal of the 1998 Act
as the UK government abandoning human rights protection
entirely. On the contrary, I believe the proposal would seek to
strengthen and expand on the rights provided for in the
Convention, while the English legal system’s history of
inventing prerogative writs and habeas corpus shows a clear
dedication to the advancement of human rights. It is important
to distinguish between support for the Convention and for the
European Court of Human Rights.
Whilst it is true that removing itself from the strict jurisprudence
compliance of the Strasbourg court can have implications on
the obligations of other Member States to the Convention, it
cannot be ignored that the key purpose for this reform is to
protect the human rights interests of UK civilians, a noble
cause which should not be sullied by allowing other parties to
justify by analogy any unacceptable conduct. Absurd reasoning
cannot be prevented and the appropriate response would be
by way of reason, logic and pragmatic discourse and not by
halting the development of virtuous reform attempting to right
a wrong.
This motion must stand.
AGAINST THE MOTION
If the Conservatives wish to do away with something as
fundamental and far-reaching as the HRA, the reasons would
have to be extremely compelling and their proposed model
devoid of flaws. Instead, their case is evasive. The
Conservative proposal fails to consider the far reaching
domestic and international ramifications repealing the HRA
would have, and fails to provide anything more than ambiguous
principles that contradict media statements. Most importantly,
the proposal has ignored the large body of cases that
demonstrate the overwhelming good the HRA has done, in
favour of focusing on a comparatively miniscule handful of
cases that may not be relevant to this debate.
It is strange for the proposition author to claim the new British
Bill of Rights would stand in support of the Convention when
Chris Grayling, former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary,
has explicitly stated he believes the Convention “does not
make this country a better place.” Stranger still that the
proposition author should characterize the HRA as importing
foreign values when British civil liberties were a key inspiration
for, and are indeed enshrined in, the Convention. Claims that
the HRA undermines parliamentary sovereignty and judicial
supremacy also stand at odds with the fact that the HRA was
specifically tailored to impact neither doctrine.
Beginning first with the Conservative war cry that the HRA
undermines parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy:
it does not. What the HRA does is allow claimants to settle
matters of human rights in domestic courts rather than
travelling to Strasbourg, saving them time and money –
£30,000 and five years by a 1998 estimate. It does not
allow courts to place the Convention over any Acts of
Parliament nor render any piece of domestic legislation null or
void. The HRA obliges judges to interpret legislation compatibly
with Convention rights ‘as far as is possible to do so’,
however, on the rare occasion that legislation cannot be
reconciled with the Convention, all that need be issued is a
declaration of incompatibility. It is domestic legislation which
remains binding; the hierarchy expressed by the doctrine of
parliamentary sovereignty therefore remains untouched and
interpreting statutes remains within the Supreme Court’s role.
The proposition raises the point that political backlash from
ignoring the Convention may cause English courts to
“undeservingly [hesitate]” to go against “future unjust rulings
from Strasbourg”. However, putting aside the little faith the
proposition has in the European Court of Human Rights, a
court that the UK has significant influence in, a seeming breach
VsVs CHARLENE PHUA
Silk v Brief | 7
Debate
Hoffman: “Since the [European Convention of Human
Rights was] incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act
1998… [t]he result has been that UK judges have reached
decisions… which would have astonished those who agreed to
our accession to the Convention in 1950. That is what has
gone wrong.”
It is against this backdrop of learned opinion that the
Conservative government outlined in its general election
manifesto a proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998
(HRA) and replace it with a British Bill of
Rights.Notwithstanding rhetoric-filled, politicised manifestos, this
reform has been a largely non-partisan proposal, supported in
2007 by Labour PM Gordon Brown who published a Green
Paper with an intention to replace the HRA with a Bill of
Rights. The impetus was clear: remain faithful to the original
substance of the European Convention of Human Rights (’the
Convention’), but gain independence from the oft-criticised
interpretations of the Convention by the European Court of
Human Rights in Strasbourg. It was thereafter propagated by
the Coalition government and now the Conservatives.
Following consultation with the Joint Committee on Human
Rights a list of recommendations has been proposed for a Bill
of Rights, which the Conservative government will likely take
as a skeleton for their draft Bill. The principles of this Bill can
be summarised as featuring:
1. A strengthening and expanding of Human Rights protection
in excess of the already existing provisions set out by the
ECHR
2. Providing for further political and social rights which are
neglected in the HRA, especially for freedom of assembly,
expression and privacy
3. Quasi-entrenchment through Parliamentary and judicial
safeguards including exclusion from the special ‘manner and
form’ procedure under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949
4. Providing national ownership of the protected rights through
incorporation of shared national values to the Courts and
Tribunals Judiciary
5. Expansion of rights protection in devolved administrations to
better suit regional expectations
The promulgation of the HRA has ushered in a new
constitutional paradigm, with the long-established Diceyan
orthodoxy of Parliamentary sovereignty rendered outdated by
the foreign presence of the Convention, entrenched by HRA
s.3 insofar as the Courts being obliged to stretch or take
alternative interpretations of all Parliamentary legislation for
consistency with the Convention, or to issue a declaration of
incompatibility if legislative intention is clearly against the
Convention’s provisions. To promote the passing of the Act,
Lord Irvine (then-Lord Chancellor) claimed that incidents
where the Courts would be forced to legislate whilst
disregarding Parliamentary sovereignty would be “very rare”.
Yet, as of fall 2015 there have already been 29 declarations
of incompatibility, 28 of which have been deemed persuasive
enough by Parliament to be acted upon through legislation,
excluding the countless more ‘alternative’ judicial interpretations
which have altered the effect of legislation. Without repeal, the
HRA will lead the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy to be
chipped away by the judiciary at a rate which the political
system is not prepared for.
The HRA has also diluted judicial sovereignty by granting the
right for individuals to appeal domestic decisions to Strasbourg’s
European Court of Human Rights whose rulings are binding on
the government (ECHR Art.46). The expansion of decisive
interpretation to a foreign judicial department capable of giving
increasingly progressive and creatively binding opinions is
worrisome. The Conservatives characterise this as a “mission
creep”, because Strasbourg is unjustified in steadily stretching
the text of the ECHR outside the scope with which it was
originally drafted and ratified in.
Although it can be advanced that neither declarations of
incompatibility nor international treaties bear any legal force, the
political consequences for a Parliament ignoring the declaration
of unlawfulness by the Strasbourg Court are evident. In its
display of defiance through the statutory disenfranchisement of
prisoners from voting in parliamentary elections (Hirst v UK
(No 2) [2005] ECHR 681), the House of Commons voted
overwhelmingly (234 to 22) to retain the ban, amidst strong
criticism from the contracting parties of the ECHR and civil
rights groups. It will be with undeserved hesitation that the
government considers going against future unjust ruling from
Strasbourg.
The legitimacy, accountability and authority of the Strasbourg
judiciary are also in question, particularly for being a worse final
arbiter than the UK Supreme Court in adjudicating conflicts
involving the civil liberties and livelihoods of British citizens.
Strasbourg judges originate from countries with questionable
legal traditions like Azerbaijan, Russia and Moldova, lack of
oversight during nominations means nepotistic appointments are
prevalent. These limitations of the judiciary are compounded by
the Strasbourg court’s tendency to, in the words of Lord
Hoffman, “aggrandise its jurisdiction and impose uniform rules
on Member States.” In no fewer than 10 instances has this
European court departed from the UK Supreme Court’s
decision, ignoring the margin of appreciation doctrine. It is not
difficult to envision the awkward situations where the Supreme
Court must distinguish between which reasonings to adopt.

6. of human rights would elicit political anyway- HRA present or
not. Furthermore, the proposition author cannot claim that the
HRA is an avenue for political backlash and then conveniently
fail to mention the political fallout that will surely accompany
repealing the HRA and symbolically divorcing the Convention.
On a more pragmatic note are claims that a new Bill of Rights
would better prevent abuses of Convention values through
practical application. In particular, the government has criticized
the HRA for preventing foreign criminals from being deported.
The Conservatives are particularly keen to ‘clarify’ Articles 3
and 8 of the Convention in their new bill of rights.
While cases of criminals like Abu Qatada, and Mohammed
Ibrahim hiding behind the HRA rightly inspire outrage, repeal of
the HRA will likely not change the final decisions in similar
future cases. It is true that Article 8, the right to private and
family life, has been, in the words of former Attorney General
Dominic Grieve, “invoked irritatingly often to justify foreign
criminals escaping deportation at the end of their sentences”.
However, as Grieve points out, this has “little to do with the
Convention and a lot more to do with our domestic courts and
the failure of the UK Borders Act 2007 to address this issue
as intended”. The Immigration Act of 2014 has since further
made clear on what public interest grounds Article 8 will be
ignored, begging the question of how much more clarification
can a new bill bring in without infringing on the “inalienable
rights” outlined in Article 8. Similarly, repealing the HRA is
likely to change little regarding the total prohibition of torture
(Article 3), as the controversial clause which prevents govern-
ments from deporting immigrants to countries where they are
at risk of being tortured is enshrined in international law.
Proposals to ‘clarify’ Article 3 in a new Bill of Rights are also
at present ambiguous and seemingly at odds with both the
European Convention and the UN Convention on Torture.
Courts will still be bound not to deport those at risk.
Lastly, the UK cannot ignore its position as an international
leader in human rights. Already the Conservatives’ proposal to
repeal the HRA has been an excuse used by Russia and
Ukraine to procrastinate on implementing judgements. No doubt
others will do the same if the UK continues to challenge and
undermine the Convention. It is not just EU member states who
look to the UK for matters of human rights. Venezuela and
Kenya have similarly stalled on serious matters using the UK
government’s current position as justification. It sounds
dramatic to say the Convention will crumble if the
Conservatives go ahead with their plan to repeal the HRA, or
worse, their threat to leave the Convention entirely, but the
Convention is reliant on peer group pressure and it will lose
authority if it is undermined by one of its founding members.
It is difficult to see how David Cameron intends to “respect the
spirit of the Magna Carta” with the new Bill of Rights when its
existence would thoroughly debase the integrity of not just the
Convention, but of human rights in general. This point alone
should give the Conservatives pause.
Putting aside all of the above, however, it is important to
conclude that the HRA has done undeniable good in the UK.
One simply has to look to the advertisements lining London
Underground walls to find numerous accounts of individuals
who have benefited from the HRA. Trafficking victims,
homosexuals in the armed forces, children in police custody —
the list of beneficiaries goes on. Repealing the HRA removes
an already tried and tested shield against the excesses of the
state. The Conservatives might surprise us and actually
produce a bill that provides more rights rather than less, but
until that is assured, repealing the HRA remains a worrying
proposal, even without considering the international
consequences for the UK’s foreign affairs and human rights.
The opposition maintains that repealing the HRA would be a
tremendous mistake at this stage.
This motion must fall.
8 | Silk v Brief
Debate
During the course of every nation’s history, there are moments
when its people are faced with a question that will fundamen-
tally impact its fate. The British EU membership referendum
certainly is such a question. This is a call for a British ‘Yes’
to the Union, a call for EU membership: the best way for
Britain to preserve its prominent position on the world stage,
economic prosperity and values.
When a Russian official called Britain “a small island nobody
pays attention to” at the 2013 G20 summit, British Prime
Minister David Cameron responded that "Britain is an island
that has helped to clear the European continent of fascism…
an island that helped to abolish slavery, that has invented most
of the things worth inventing,… that has the sixth-largest econ-
omy,… the proudest history..."
These achievements are beyond question. Yet with giants like
the USA, China and Russia dominating the world stage and
the Empire but a memory, the question that arises is: where
would Britain’s political leverage come from, if it leaves the
EU? The Commonwealth, while certainly great for organising
cricket tournaments, is a far cry from the Empire that once
mobilised Indians, Australians, Canadians and nations the world
over to fight under the British flag against fascism.
United Kingdom, who do you want to be?
Observing Britain’s recent foreign policy, one cannot help but
notice that much of it is not steered by England, but by China,
Russia and Saudi Arabia.
In 1984, PM Margaret Thatcher sought and received a
guarantee from former Chinese premier Zhao Ziyang that Hong
Kong would be allowed to retain its autonomy after the transfer
of sovereignty and that Britain would retain the right to monitor
the process and raise any breaches.
Yet in 2014 during the Umbrella Movement protest, Chinese
President Xi Jinping made clear to the Iron Lady’s successor
who the real driver in Sino-British relationships was, banning
UK Members of Parliament from trying to investigate Chinese
relations with Hong Kong.
During Xi’s visit to London in 2015, PM Cameron was silent
on Hong Kong, about the 2015 mass arrests of Human Rights
lawyers in China, about the Dalai Lama (whom the PM
confirmed he would not meet again). This made the political
magazine The Spectator wonder, ‘Where is morality?’ (The
Spectator 26.10.2015)
These recent developments, however, are less a question of
morality than one of whether Britain’s freedom to craft its own
foreign policy is being curtailed and whether British rule of law
at home is being undermined.
The ‘Corner House case’ ([2008] UKHL 60) concerned an
investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into an arms deal with
Saudi Arabia, which the UK government put on hold after
receiving hostile reactions and threats from Riyadh.
The case of R (Litvinenko) [2014] EWHC 194 was triggered
by Home Secretary Theresa May’s decision against a public
inquiry into the murder of British citizen and former Russian
spy, Alexander Litvinenko, (on British soil!) in order to not
upset Moscow.
The British intelligence agency GCHQ, as junior partner of the
NSA, spied on millions of innocent Europeans, including British
citizens. This was later deemed to be unlawful by the Investi-
gatory Powers Tribunal. (The Week, 06.02.2015)
The political giants’ ‘divide and conquer’ strategy will work even
better should the UK break apart after leaving the EU. With
most Scottish citizens, Scottish businesses and the SNP
strongly pro-EU (The Herald 7.9.2015), Holyrood would
most likely demand another independence referendum after the
Brexit in order to re-accede to the EU.
Bill Clinton’s campaign for US President included the catch-
phrase that “It’s the economy, stupid.” Bank of England
Governor Mark Carney recently stated that “the UK is the
leading beneficiary” of the free movement of goods, services,
UNITED KINGDOM, WHO DO
YOU WANT TO BE?
JAN-ALEXANDER GREIWE
Silk v Brief | 9
United Kingdom, who do you want to be?

7. 10 | Silk v Brief
capital and labour enshrined in the European treaties. After
decades of post-imperial decline, EU membership and
continued access to the world’s largest single market has made
Britain and especially London once again attractive to business.
Carney added that “Membership has made the economy more
dynamic, open to trade and increased prosperity of all people
in Britain.” (FT 21.10.2015).
Some claim that the UK could leave Europe and still retain
access to the common market, just like Switzerland or Norway.
Nationalists should be careful about what they wish for. Writing
for broadsheet The Telegraph (24.02.2015), Norway’s
Europe minister Vidar Helgesen stated that, while his country’s
contributions are “more or less on par” with what it would pay
if it were an EU member state, it has no voting rights.
In daily newspaper The Guardian (27.10.2015) former
Norwegian foreign minister, Espen Eide, points out that “[a
common market] also means retaining all the EU’s product
standards, financial regulations, employment regulations, and
substantial contributions to the EU budget. Britain […] would
keep paying, [but] it would be ‘run by Brussels’.”
While there are no representatives of British interests in the
American Congress or the Chinese National People’s Congress,
the UK controls the third highest number of seats in Brussels.
One in 10 MEPs are British.
Does the UK want to ‘wait outside’ for Brussels to set a 100%
tampon tax, rather than being a decision maker actively shap-
ing European, and ultimately its own politics? Does a country
with such a proud history want to drift with the tides created
by Beijing or Washington, rather than meeting China and the
USA on equal footing as part of a 500 million strong union?
Though some of us prefer Bratwurst and Weißbier to black
pudding and pale ale, we Europeans are united by our pursuit
of the three fundaments: democracy, human rights and the
belief in opportunities for all. With the balance of power shifting
East, and America facing many domestic and international
challenges, Europe has to stand united to defend its ideals,
economic interests and political sovereignty.
Similar reasons were given when English Quaker William Penn
was the first in the world to call for a European Parliament in
1693. That ideal was echoed when Winston Churchill called
for the ‘United States of Europe’ in 1946. Hence, it is safe
to say that the European Union is just another item on the
long list of brilliant British endeavours that have helped shaped
the world.
United Kingdom, who do you want to be?
DAVID TUDORDAVID TUDOR
Silk v Brief | 11

8. REFUGEE CRISIS
12 | Silk v Brief Silk v Brief | 13
Refugee Crisis: The Struggles between the Principles of Solidarity and National Sovereignty
A few days ago, European Parliament President Martin Shulz
announced that Europe needs a permanent and binding system
for relocating refugees. “European solidarity is about sharing
responsibilities and leaving no one alone.” But should this be
achieved at the cost of national sovereignty? There are people
who, when confronted by this argument, would accuse you of
xenophobia and bigotry, forgetting that there are valid
arguments suggesting that the European Union has gone too
far by enforcing refugee quotas onto the Member States.
Undoubtedly, in times of such human tragedy, the States
should act together and be mutually responsible as a part of
the Union, but should it not be up to them to decide how they
want to help?
According to the EU border agency Frontex, 710,000 people
- mainly from Syria, Afghanistan and Eritrea - arrived at
Europe's external borders in the first nine months of this year.
In August, 2015, 148,880 asylum seekers applied for
protection in the EU, Norway and Switzerland. This is only the
tip of the iceberg. In September, 2015, the European
Parliament approved a mandatory relocation of 120,000
migrants and supported allocating an extra €401.3 million of
EU funding to tackle the refugee crisis.
Meanwhile, thousands of people are still disappointed in how
most of the Member States are dealing with this critical
situation. For instance, it is very popular in Hungary to
criticize the Prime Minister’s actions, even though it is the only
country that has been following the legislation and treatises
which the EU as a whole agreed to: the most important being
the Dublin Regulation about protecting the external border of
the Schengen Area. In principle, if third-country nationals do
not apply for asylum, they are irregular migrants, and Hungary
has an obligation to remove them under the EU’s Returns
Directive. It is remarkable how easily the debate sets aside
rationality and ventures into emotion. Europe can and must
help a large number of people whose lives are in danger, but
in order to do this, proper rules and procedures must be
followed. "Fortress Europe" is not an answer, but neither is
abandoning our external border controls.
The refugee crisis has been on the European Parliament’s
agenda for months. The initial responses to the Commission’s
proposition of the relocation plan were mixed. The Council, in
particular, expressed its firm opposition in May. Many MEPs
voiced their concerns over assimilation issues and the great
significance of tackling problems back in Syria. Four
countries—Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and
Romania—voted against key provisions, and Finland abstained.
Debate was centered on the issue of national sovereignty, as
policy areas of fundamental importance were at issue including
territorial integrity, national identity and social cohesion.
Recent Parliamentary elections also suggested that there is
general dissatisfaction in Poland with the EU’s actions in
dealing with the crisis. A Catholic right wing party, which is
openly opposed to many of the EU’s social policies, came into
power. Many politicians warned of the possible ‘Orbanisation’
of Poland. The party has huge support, reflected in 37.6%
votes. Since the electorate is not comfortable with sacrificing its
country’s sovereignty over such a sensitive issue, is the EU
doing the right thing by forcing it upon them? The fact that
the proposal was passed according to the system of qualified
majority voting- under which a minority of states can be
overruled- highlights the controversial nature of the EU’s
tactics.
Certain problems, which may arise after the relocation of
migrants, seem to have been overlooked. These include
language differences which would decrease migrants’ chances
of employment. Instead of the EU’s imposition of short-term
solutions on the States, backed by solidarity arguments, a
better approach would be to simply leave it to the national
governments, where democratic legitimacy prevails. The UK has
been handling the situation well through financial contribution
and a restrictive selection process of distinguishing asylum
seekers and economic migrants. The EU needs a long term
objective concerning the crisis because at the moment the
Union’s end game is unclear.
The EU should focus on finding a political solution to the Syrian
conflict, in close cooperation with the United Nations. Debates
should be focussed on the risk of escalated military activity
following recent Russian attacks, jeopardising the safety of
civilians. It should push wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia and
other Arab Gulf states to get involved. We should start to look
at the wider picture: about tackling traffickers and supporting
the refugee camps in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. A lasting
solution can only be achieved by economic and political
progress in the countries from which refugees are fleeing, not
by encouraging more asylum seekers to enter Europe, which is
what Angela Merkel’s open borders policy is doing.
REFUGEE CRISIS:
THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE
PRINCIPLES OF SOLIDARITY AND
NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
KLAUDIA DOMANSKA

9. The ongoing humanitarian crisis facing Europe has seen the
argest exodus of refugees from any State since World War II.
Civil conflict, terror and oppression have resulted in many being
forced to make a desperate journey in the hope of rebuilding
their lives. Yet how do we respond to this in Europe? At best,
popular discourse is guilty of conflating the experiences of
refugees which results in one (very distant) bubble of Middle
Eastern horror. This desensitised empathy is, a marked
improvement when compared to press treatment of refugees at
the early stages of the crisis, but still fails to meet acceptable
moral standards. In a bid to understand the harsh realities of
those fleeing oppression and war, it is vital to identify the
idiosyncrasies of each country. Contrasting the individual
experiences of refugees with the collective response in Europe
does not make for light reading, but it is written in the hope
that ignorance is the main barrier to a compassionate audience.
The responses to the harrowing photograph of three-year-old
Aylan Kurdi proves that a greater understanding of the plight
of individual refugees may go some way to combatting
European hostility. It is time that the population of Europe, the
UK, and ultimately the Conservative government came to
recognise that our ‘efforts’ have fallen ashamedly short.
Dissecting the Horror
A fitting place to start is with Syria, the country from which
Europe has seen the largest number of refugees. What started
with an anti-government protest in 2011 quickly descended
into a national condemnation of President Bashar al-Assad.
The conflict evolved to exacerbate tensions between the Sunni
and Shia Alawite sects, resulting in the use of chemical
weaponry, and paving the way for the extremist Islamic group
ISIS to terrorise Northern and Eastern Syria. This has fostered
a complex political battle and a devastating civil war. According
to the UN, the country has witnessed the deaths of over
250,000 people, multiple human rights violations, and the
consequent flight of more than 11 million people from their
homes. To put this into perspective, 11 million people equates
to half of the precrisis Syrian population.
Afghanistan, the country from which Europe is receiving the
second largest influx of refugees this year, also witnesses a
large displacement of people who face violence and instability.
According to a UN report, almost 5,000 civilians had been
wounded from Taliban attacks and improvised explosives in the
first half of 2015. Those Afghan refugees who are able to flee
are faced with increasing resentment from neighbouring states,
who place the blame for various social issues firmly at their
feet. Consequently, many currently residing in Iran and Pakistan
are being sent back to Afghanistan.
The issues are not just limited to the Middle East. The East
African country of Eritrea presents the third largest group of
refugees fleeing to Europe. A UN inquiry in March of this year
offered an insight into the ruthless oppression of the Eritrean
regime. The country demands indefinite military conscription in
mostly depraved conditions, offers no freedom of speech or
religion, conducts arbitrary arrests and detains civilians with little
or no justification. Consequently, many are fleeing the 22-year
rule of President Isaias Afawerki in the desperate search of
basic human rights.
And finally, the situation in Iraq. After the withdrawal of
American troops in 2009, the Shia led government was unable
to manage multiple factions. A few years on, Sunni militants
led by Daesh had gained control in parts of the Centre and
North of the country. Declaring an Islamic caliphate, committing
atrocities and destroying the country’s cultural heritage sites as
they went, the uprising of Daesh meant that for so many,
leaving their war-torn homes was the only remaining option.
We must draw these distinctions clearly to humanise the victims
of each individual conflict, and to drive home the scale of the
crisis. A striking lack of compassion for refugees from
individuals, states and news outlets across Europe, while
depressing, is perhaps to be expected. Somewhat more
troubling is the subtler dehumanisation of refugees, which can
result the pervasive double standards. The recent plane crash
which killed all 224 passengers on board a Sharm el-Sheik
flight destined for St. Petersburg provides an apt example. Eye
witness accounts, reported by the UK press, described
passengers waiting for a flight home experiencing violence in
the face of “non-existent” airport security. The collective effort
of those struggling through this ordeal was described as
“camaraderie.” This represents a stark contrast to the rhetoric
used to describe refugees. Empathy is offered to Western
passengers who react aggressively in challenging circumstances.
Unfortunately, it appears impossible for many of us to extend
this gesture of compassion to those refugees who are suffering
sporadic violence in the face of extreme adversity. It is from
this toxic mixture of direct xenophobia and passive ignorance
that Europe has failed to formulate a coordinated response,
frequently allowing politics to get in the way of a unified
solution.
The European Response
Eastern Europe has adopted a particularly conservative stance
on the crisis. Hungary has responded to refugees with a
brutally symbolic razor-wire fence along its border to Serbia.
Poland, having just elected the conservative Law and Justice
Party by a large majority, has echoed Hungary’s hostility. Both
countries openly discriminate against refugees, accepting only
those who subscribe to Christianity. Other countries, including
the Czech Republic and Slovakia, have responded in a similar
vein. Sadly, this sentiment isn’t just limited to Eastern Europe.
France, a country which has the more refugees, has pledged
A HOSTILE RESPONSE TO A
HUMAN CRISIS
CALLUM MACAULEY
14 | Silk v Brief
A Hostile Response to a Human Crisis
to accept only 24,000 over the next five years. Even the
admirable stance of Angela Merkel, who operated an open
door policy into Germany, has been met with an increasingly
hostile response from political figures and citizens. The political
implications of increasing the German population by an
expected 800,000 refugees this year alone have seen a
U-turn in policy. Now, one-year limitations on refugee status
for Syrian citizens have been announced in Berlin.
Let us now consider with a closer focus and a higher level of
scrutiny the approach taken in the UK. The commitment to
take on 20,000 refugees over the next 5 years falls
drastically short of the country’s capacity and capabilities, and
is primarily driven by conservative political views. At a time
when powerful leadership is required, UK policy is sending a
message of lacklustre commitment to a Europe which is
already moving worryingly towards the far right of the political
spectrum. This atmosphere is spear-headed by the
Conservative party drive to repeal the Human Rights Act,
legislation which incorporates the European Convention on
Human Rights, which was created in an attempt to prevent the
atrocities of WWII from ever repeating. It has been rumoured
that the British Bill of Rights proposed in its place will limit
remedies for those bringing claims against the government or
public services, and allow judges to ignore rulings of the
European Court of Human Rights. This move towards legal
introversion and clear antipathy towards a diligent human rights
framework sets an appalling example for other European states
in the midst of a humanitarian crisis.
Instead, conversation must be sparked about the integration of
refugees, and potential difficulties which may arise for local
services and communities. It is clear that much of the fear and
anxiety about this process is a matter of perspective: if we
acknowledge that much of the rhetoric is masked by a veil of
xenophobia, and instead view refugees as a group of human
beings who are able to enrich our communities, any short-term
social costs seem like a small price to pay for integration. The
assertion that refugees are mostly economic migrants is a
popular counter argument. Not only is this false and morally
vacant, but paradoxically, this fear may also result in economic
loss. According to a recent EU Commission report, supported
by various European think-tanks, long-term economic benefits
from the refugee crisis are likely to be extensive in the face
of an ageing European population. This should not even be
relevant. Regrettably, in many circles, the draw of economic
benefit carries more weight than basic human compassion.
In what has so far painted a bleak picture of European
attitudes towards refugees, we must also acknowledge those
who have showed compassion. Germany, although beginning
to waver now, has repeatedly strived to welcome refugees, and
Sweden is consistently held up as a positive example. Various
pro-refugee rallies have been staged across Europe, and
closer to home, UK MPs continue to receive waves of letters
from constituents offering support. But we cannot yet pat
ourselves on the back for a job well done, become complacent
and ignore reality. Sweden has seen a string of arson attacks
on refugee camps, as has Germany, and both countries are
beginning to mirror the more hard-line policies of other
European states. In spite of an increasingly globalised outlook
within the EU, there is an astonishing mentality of ‘us and
them’ created by arbitrary borders, serving to dehumanise
those who are less fortunate. Europe must take on the costs
- relatively insignificant and short term - and strive to integrate
refugees. Considering the human life at stake, this is surely a
price worth paying.
The ongoing humanitarian crisis facing Europe has seen the
argest exodus of refugees from any State since World War II.
Civil conflict, terror and oppression have resulted in many being
forced to make a desperate journey in the hope of rebuilding
their lives. Yet how do we respond to this in Europe? At best,
popular discourse is guilty of conflating the experiences of
refugees which results in one (very distant) bubble of Middle
Eastern horror. This desensitised empathy is, a marked
improvement when compared to press treatment of refugees at
the early stages of the crisis, but still fails to meet acceptable
moral standards. In a bid to understand the harsh realities of
those fleeing oppression and war, it is vital to identify the
idiosyncrasies of each country. Contrasting the individual
experiences of refugees with the collective response in Europe
does not make for light reading, but it is written in the hope
that ignorance is the main barrier to a compassionate audience.
The responses to the harrowing photograph of three-year-old
Aylan Kurdi proves that a greater understanding of the plight
of individual refugees may go some way to combatting
European hostility. It is time that the population of Europe, the
UK, and ultimately the Conservative government came to
recognise that our ‘efforts’ have fallen ashamedly short.
Dissecting the Horror
A fitting place to start is with Syria, the country from which
Europe has seen the largest number of refugees. What started
with an anti-government protest in 2011 quickly descended
into a national condemnation of President Bashar al-Assad.
The conflict evolved to exacerbate tensions between the Sunni
and Shia Alawite sects, resulting in the use of chemical
weaponry, and paving the way for the extremist Islamic group
ISIS to terrorise Northern and Eastern Syria. This has fostered
a complex political battle and a devastating civil war. According
to the UN, the country has witnessed the deaths of over
250,000 people, multiple human rights violations, and the
consequent flight of more than 11 million people from their
homes. To put this into perspective, 11 million people equates
to half of the precrisis Syrian population.
Afghanistan, the country from which Europe is receiving the
second largest influx of refugees this year, also witnesses a
large displacement of people who face violence and instability.
According to a UN report, almost 5,000 civilians had been
wounded from Taliban attacks and improvised explosives in the
first half of 2015. Those Afghan refugees who are able to flee
are faced with increasing resentment from neighbouring states,
who place the blame for various social issues firmly at their
feet. Consequently, many currently residing in Iran and Pakistan
are being sent back to Afghanistan.
The issues are not just limited to the Middle East. The East
African country of Eritrea presents the third largest group of
refugees fleeing to Europe. A UN inquiry in March of this year
offered an insight into the ruthless oppression of the Eritrean
regime. The country demands indefinite military conscription in
mostly depraved conditions, offers no freedom of speech or
religion, conducts arbitrary arrests and detains civilians with little
or no justification. Consequently, many are fleeing the 22-year
rule of President Isaias Afawerki in the desperate search of
basic human rights.
And finally, the situation in Iraq. After the withdrawal of
American troops in 2009, the Shia led government was unable
to manage multiple factions. A few years on, Sunni militants
led by Daesh had gained control in parts of the Centre and
North of the country. Declaring an Islamic caliphate, committing
atrocities and destroying the country’s cultural heritage sites as
they went, the uprising of Daesh meant that for so many,
leaving their war-torn homes was the only remaining option.
We must draw these distinctions clearly to humanise the victims
of each individual conflict, and to drive home the scale of the
crisis. A striking lack of compassion for refugees from
individuals, states and news outlets across Europe, while
depressing, is perhaps to be expected. Somewhat more
troubling is the subtler dehumanisation of refugees, which can
result the pervasive double standards. The recent plane crash
which killed all 224 passengers on board a Sharm el-Sheik
flight destined for St. Petersburg provides an apt example. Eye
witness accounts, reported by the UK press, described
passengers waiting for a flight home experiencing violence in
the face of “non-existent” airport security. The collective effort
of those struggling through this ordeal was described as
“camaraderie.” This represents a stark contrast to the rhetoric
used to describe refugees. Empathy is offered to Western
passengers who react aggressively in challenging circumstances.
Unfortunately, it appears impossible for many of us to extend
this gesture of compassion to those refugees who are suffering
sporadic violence in the face of extreme adversity. It is from
this toxic mixture of direct xenophobia and passive ignorance
that Europe has failed to formulate a coordinated response,
frequently allowing politics to get in the way of a unified
solution.
The European Response
Eastern Europe has adopted a particularly conservative stance
on the crisis. Hungary has responded to refugees with a
brutally symbolic razor-wire fence along its border to Serbia.
Poland, having just elected the conservative Law and Justice
Party by a large majority, has echoed Hungary’s hostility. Both
countries openly discriminate against refugees, accepting only
those who subscribe to Christianity. Other countries, including
the Czech Republic and Slovakia, have responded in a similar
vein. Sadly, this sentiment isn’t just limited to Eastern Europe.
France, a country which has the more refugees, has pledged
Silk v Brief | 15
A Hostile Response to a Human Crisis
to accept only 24,000 over the next five years. Even the
admirable stance of Angela Merkel, who operated an open
door policy into Germany, has been met with an increasingly
hostile response from political figures and citizens. The political
implications of increasing the German population by an
expected 800,000 refugees this year alone have seen a
U-turn in policy. Now, one-year limitations on refugee status
for Syrian citizens have been announced in Berlin.
Let us now consider with a closer focus and a higher level of
scrutiny the approach taken in the UK. The commitment to
take on 20,000 refugees over the next 5 years falls
drastically short of the country’s capacity and capabilities, and
is primarily driven by conservative political views. At a time
when powerful leadership is required, UK policy is sending a
message of lacklustre commitment to a Europe which is
already moving worryingly towards the far right of the political
spectrum. This atmosphere is spear-headed by the
Conservative party drive to repeal the Human Rights Act,
legislation which incorporates the European Convention on
Human Rights, which was created in an attempt to prevent the
atrocities of WWII from ever repeating. It has been rumoured
that the British Bill of Rights proposed in its place will limit
remedies for those bringing claims against the government or
public services, and allow judges to ignore rulings of the
European Court of Human Rights. This move towards legal
introversion and clear antipathy towards a diligent human rights
framework sets an appalling example for other European states
in the midst of a humanitarian crisis.
Instead, conversation must be sparked about the integration of
refugees, and potential difficulties which may arise for local
services and communities. It is clear that much of the fear and
anxiety about this process is a matter of perspective: if we
acknowledge that much of the rhetoric is masked by a veil of
xenophobia, and instead view refugees as a group of human
beings who are able to enrich our communities, any short-term
social costs seem like a small price to pay for integration. The
assertion that refugees are mostly economic migrants is a
popular counter argument. Not only is this false and morally
vacant, but paradoxically, this fear may also result in economic
loss. According to a recent EU Commission report, supported
by various European think-tanks, long-term economic benefits
from the refugee crisis are likely to be extensive in the face
of an ageing European population. This should not even be
relevant. Regrettably, in many circles, the draw of economic
benefit carries more weight than basic human compassion.
In what has so far painted a bleak picture of European
attitudes towards refugees, we must also acknowledge those
who have showed compassion. Germany, although beginning
to waver now, has repeatedly strived to welcome refugees, and
Sweden is consistently held up as a positive example. Various
pro-refugee rallies have been staged across Europe, and
closer to home, UK MPs continue to receive waves of letters
from constituents offering support. But we cannot yet pat
ourselves on the back for a job well done, become complacent
and ignore reality. Sweden has seen a string of arson attacks
on refugee camps, as has Germany, and both countries are
beginning to mirror the more hard-line policies of other
European states. In spite of an increasingly globalised outlook
within the EU, there is an astonishing mentality of ‘us and
them’ created by arbitrary borders, serving to dehumanise
those who are less fortunate. Europe must take on the costs
- relatively insignificant and short term - and strive to integrate
refugees. Considering the human life at stake, this is surely a
price worth paying.
DAVID TUDOR
BBC NEWS

10. Aim beyond pure legal knowledge. Beyond commercial advice.
Be known for something more: a clarity of thought and an instinct for
problem solving that can influence governments and leading businesses
the world over. Join us and we’ll help you enrich and expand your worldview,
grow your skills and influence new ways of thinking. In other words, we’ll
help you move minds.
AshurstGraduates AshurstGraduates Ashurst
Begin now at careers.ashurst.com
Graduates in Law
MOVE YOUR MIND
Silk v Brief | 17
JAMES SAUNDERS

11. therefore implausible, what then must we persist in a
dangerous freedom? A strongly supported starting point is the
banning of assault rifles, due to the last four massacres
involving the use of these weapons. Other diplomatic methods
of gun control include the closing of the ‘gun show loophole’
which allows gun sales to proceed even if background checks
are still pending, for which Hilary Clinton is a strong advocate.
The pro-gun members argue the solution from an antithetical
line of thinking. Many firmly believe that increasing the
circulation of guns would allow the people to better defend
themselves. The rationale is severely hindered, however, as it
could catastrophically backfire resulting in more gun violence
occurring. Surely logic dictates that adding more guns into the
equation will only intensify the issue?
Nevertheless, the state of the debate remains highly unstable.
But one thing is for certain, this ‘dangerous freedom’ currently
operating as a result of the Second Amendment is at risk of
destroying its own purpose. Action must be taken. On the most
part the danger associated with the freedom to bear arms is
felt by the innocent and helpless.
Silk v Brief | 19
The Second Amendment - All that stands between Dangerous Freedom and Peaceful Slavery
18 | Silk v Brief
The Second Amendment - All that stands between Dangerous Freedom and Peaceful Slavery
America’s ‘right to bear arms’ has become an increasingly
contentious issue, especially with recent shooting massacres
sending shockwaves across the nation. For many, the Second
Amendment symbolises the justification of an ongoing national
tragedy, but huge numbers of Americans regard this
constitutional right as the backbone of freedom.
The Second Amendment’s role is a deeply enshrined principle
of American liberty. George Orwell’s popular quote is at the
heart of much of the discussion: “That rifle on the wall of the
labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of
democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there”. Evidently,
for many Americans this is a never-ending task, and
democracy stands strong only when protected by an armed
civilian militia, ready to fend off a future tyrannical government
should one arise. Seemingly, in his ‘Farewell Address’, George
Washington predicted the very government he established
would be run by “unprincipled men” who will “be enabled to
subvert the power of the people”. Thus, the Second
Amendment is a constitutional right to maintain freedom, resist
government oppression and maintain liberty. The Second
Amendment exists to safeguard the First.
Exploring the roots of the Second Amendment itself opens up
the debate. It appears to reveal a huge flaw in the ‘pro gun’
argument, which heavily relies upon the ‘right to bear arms’
as a sacrosanct constitutional right. The Second Amendment
of the United States Constitution in full reads: "A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed”.
An often disregarded aspect of the Second Amendment is the
beginning concerning the “well regulated militia”. The focus
point here is ‘Militia’ (loosely defined as a military force rose
from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an
emergency). In 1791, scepticism of the Union, due to
mistrust of other States and ‘big government’, constituted a
reasonable justification for the bearing of arms and the need
for a “well regulated militia”. Now, clearly America is not in
such an uncertain state, and its chances of any imminent
warring is, setting aside Middle Eastern conflict, Russia’s
meddling with Ukraine and tension in the South China Sea,
pretty low. Nevertheless, established united armed forces
exists, whereas, in 1791, the possibility of an imminent
internal invasion was real and a citizen army was required to
safeguard constitutional rights. Hence the amendment can be
seen as being outdated.
In 1939, the Supreme Court had its say too. In United States
v. Miller the court unanimously held that Congress could ban
possession of sawed-off shotguns due to having no justifiable
role in maintaining a “well regulated Militia”. This made it clear
that the Second Amendment “must be interpreted and applied
with the view of its purpose of rendering effective Militia”. In
the 2008 Heller case, the Court departed from the firm militia
orientated view, and allowed the individual rights to possess
arms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defence
within the home. However, the Court were clear that the
Second Amendment is not an unlimited right, and is not a right
to own and carry any weapon in any manner, for whatever
purpose. According to this line of thinking, America’s current
amount of guns (including high powered assault rifles) and the
way in which guns are so uncontrolled appear to exceed not
only the limits of current militia requirements, but traditional
purposes too.
Highlighting the disproportionate possession of guns, in terms
of protecting the security of the state, is reflected through a
stark analysis of comparative statistics between the U.S and
other Western democracies (where a blanket ban on guns
operates). In the UK deaths from gun violence were barely
above 30 compared to 10, 000 and more in America. Even
a fleeting glance at the statistics indicates that America’s
bearing of arms significantly increases gun related deaths.
However, these statistic fail to acknowledge the fact that almost
three quarters of these incidents are gang related in the US.
In reality it, therefore, may not be foreseeable that a ban of
guns would be an effective remedy as guns will continue to be
circulated, albeit illegally. However, this does not retract from
the reality of the situation; far more compelling for many is that
even the other non-gang related incidents could be greatly
reduced.
Theoretically, the gun dispute could forever persist. Most
pressing is addressing the issue surrounding the huge death
toll, and crafting a solution to address it. Completely abolishing
the Second Amendment, whilst reducing the number of guns
circulated, is not without its flaws. The introduction of the
Eighteenth Amendment, ‘prohibition act’, did not prevent alcohol
manufacture. Similar parallels could be drawn that those with
guns would keep their guns. Worse yet, the illegal trade of
alcohol produced the ‘Al Capone’ figures; transferring guns into
the equation allows for them to flourish in a similar way,
leading to much greater levels of street violence – possibly
even increasing gun deaths.
If the option to completely abolish the Second Amendment is
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
ALL THAT STANDS BETWEEN
DANGEROUS FREEDOM AND PEACEFUL
SLAVERY.
BEN BALZAN

12. ©The University of Law 2015
law.ac.uk
Find out more
Think Big
Whatever your ambitions,you
just need to think big and we’ll
prepare you to succeed.
We have places available for our
market leading GDL,LPC and
BPTC law courses which have
been designed to match the
demands of today’s employers.
*Statistics taken from full-time LPC
students graduating in summer 2014
I liked the focus
on practical skills
to make you
really think and
act like a lawyer
Lauren Riley
Solicitor and Founder
of The Link App
Graduated ULaw 2010
20 | Silk v Brief
Paris, the city of lights, has long been renowned as one of
the most magical places in the world. It’s only fitting, then, that
it’s also the host of the 21st meeting of the Conference of
Parties, which is meeting from November 30th to December
11th, in order to tackle a problem that will need everything
short of an actual magic wand to be resolved. The COP was
established in 1995 in order to coordinate international coop-
eration on environmental issues, particularly climate change.
Since then, it has produced some of the most notable interna-
tional legal agreements in the area of environmental law. COP3
established the Kyoto Protocol, COP11 saw the creation of the
Montreal Action Plan, and COP17 the creation of the Green
Climate Fund.
Unfortunately, previous agreements have been sorely insufficient
in reducing global emissions. The current climate regime is
hampered by a combination of the fact that agreements are not
truly binding, and that they apply only to “developed” coun-
tries—and not developing nations. The Kyoto Protocol, for
example, required no reduction in emissions from Indonesia,
India, China and Brazil which today, along with the U.S. are
all on the list of world’s top 5 emitters of CO2. Because the
agreement was non-binding, other countries (such as Russia)
merely skirted their responsibilities, and the U.S. refuses to
ratify it. If COP 21 is going to reform the international legal
climate regime, it must solve the problems that doomed the
Kyoto Protocol to failure.
The first step in understanding how difficult it will be to create
a binding agreement that is both efficient and effective is to
come to grips with how severe and immediate a crisis climate
change actually is. David Archer, a Geologist at the University
of Chicago, has done breakthrough research in what he calls
the “long tail” of the carbon cycle. His most important finding
is that CO2 in the atmosphere plateaus, even after emissions
have been decreased. Archer posits that if we stopped emitting
CO2 today, we would not see a reduction in atmospheric CO2
until mid-century, and the effects would last for several
hundreds of years. In fact, we would never return to a world
where there are less than 400 parts per million of CO2 (a
level we recently reached this decade) in the atmosphere, no
matter what we do.
This means that any agreement that comes out of COP21 will
need address the urgency of the issue, and not leave anything
to chance. The fact that the agreement is intended to be
binding is a good first step. The ability to hold countries
accountable for their emission reduction targets is essential in
any agreement that comes out of Paris. Nonetheless, a binding
agreement is not enough. Precision in delineating goals, and
the creation of a mechanism that ensures everyone comes to
the table, are equally important aspects of these negotiations.
Precision is important because a binding agreement means
nothing if its terms are not stipulated clearly. Simply mandating
emissions reductions, or establishing vague goals for the next
few years will result in countries doing the bare minimum, and
possibly even emitting more than they do currently. By like
token, the agreement needs to be precise in its ambiguity. Too
much detail restricts countries’ options for emissions reductions,
and loosens commitment to the agreement. Striking a balance
between rigidity and flexibility can take on many forms, such
as mandating targets but allowing countries to following their
own path to reductions, and ensuring that the agreement has
compliance mechanisms.
Equally important to cooperation is that countries like Brazil and
India feel like they are on equal playing field with the US and
China. COP21 would be incredibly successful if it could
achieve three goals in this regard: 1) creating a dispute settle-
ment, so that countries can keep each other (even the more
powerful ones) accountable 2) establishing targets that are
both representative of past development (US and UK are the
main culprits here) and future development (to make coun-
tries think about how to develop with the least amount of
carbon possible) 3) give economic incentives, via the WTO or
otherwise, for countries to meet emissions (in order to make
sure that economic concerns are at least alleviated).
The world is poised to take action on climate change. With
current technologies (and more development to come),
economic incentives, and transnational cooperation the world
can reduce emissions to 2°C by mid-century. What will make
the difference this time – and it might be the last time there’s
a chance to make a difference – is whether world leaders are
willing to sacrifice a portion of their autonomy, and possibly
their short-term economic interests, in order to protect the world
from the a crisis that has already begun to rear its head, and
will only get exponentially worse from here.
ALL ROADS LEAD TO PARIS
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ACTION ON
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE PARIS
CLIMATE CONFERENCE
ANDRES LOPEZ-GARRIDO
All Roads Lead to Paris: International Legal Action on Climate Change and the Paris Climate Conference
HARVARD COLLEGE

13. 22 | Silk v Brief
In Conversation with Nicholas Pincott, Norton Rose Fulbright Partner, Energy and Construction Projects Group London
Writers Note: I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to
Mr. Pincott for taking the time to be interviewed for this piece,
and for his valuable insight into both, the global energy sector
and life as a commercial solicitor. For the purposes of clarity,
this interview has been condensed and lightly edited.
Career/Leadership:
1. How would you describe your career thus far? What
is the most rewarding aspect of your work? What sort of
complications in the legal industry have you found most
challenging, provocative, controversial, stimulating?
I am in the energy projects group. I am based in London and
do a lot of work in the UK and European markets, but I also
work with colleagues in the Middle East and Africa. Energy is
a sort of universal entity—it is a commodity required differently
in various global markets. There is an international aspect to
all that we do. In terms of key words to describe ones’ career,
challenging would come to mind. It’s very hard work, we are
a service industry that has to anticipate and react to our
clients’ needs. But, it is also very dynamic. The work is
constantly changing and reinventing, and so we need to
adapt—because the unexpected can happen. Yes, it is
challenging in the immediate-term, but ultimately it is
interesting. Moreover, while it is very easy to lapse in cliché
when people talk about it being rewarding to help others
achieve their goals; that couldn’t be more pertinent to what we
do. This is getting people to come together for a common-end:
building a power station, or a port. It is rewarding to be able
to point to a tangible result and say you worked with a team
of other people to make it happen.
2. What motivates you about practising law?
I think it comes back to having found an area—energy and
renewables that I enjoy working on and that I’m proud of
doing. It helps that renewables is an interesting topic that
people are quite interested in talking about. It’s the reason I’m
still here. It is something that resonates with me, and I am
proud to be associated with it.
3. What made you choose Norton Rose Fulbright?
Energy is why I’m doing it. It’s why I’m still doing it. It’s
challenging. I didn’t expect to be here when I was sitting where
you are. I didn’t really have an idea of what I wanted to do.
Part of the reason I studied law, is that it’s a respected
qualification. We learn universally applicable skills: to think in a
logical and ordered way, that’s helpful in problem solving. It’s
important to remember that when working in this specialized
bubble, everyone I work with is bright and motivated and so in
that sense it is easy. Why did I come to Norton Rose
Fulbright? I was a trainee here, so I’ve never worked at
another firm, which I think also says something about the firm.
The people: that may be a clichéd answer, but it’s true. It’s
important to like and care about the person who’s sitting next
to you. It’s certainly something that I feel here, and that is a
unique feature of Norton Rose Fulbright. It’s an important
feature, but one that needs to be kept under review and needs
to be nurtured. I ask myself: is this a place with people I can
work well with? Is it work that I can see myself being proud
of doing?
4. What would be some advice you could give UCL Law
students that you wish you’d got when you were in our
educational place?
I would definitely say keeping an open mind about your career.
For a start, I think the days when a person stays in one job
their whole lives is pretty unusual now. Peoples’ careers
develop in funny ways. We all periodically reinvent from time
to time—so being aware of those trends and learning to adapt
is vital. Careers change, and it’s no bad thing to have unusual
experiences. As somebody who hires people, I am certainly not
exclusively looking for people who did it the same way I did
it. If people have an unorthodox background and come to the
interview in a rather more round-about way, that’s certainly no
bad thing and can be positively a good thing. It makes them
at least as interesting as the person who’s done it my way.
Also, there is a big tendency for individuals’ to want to
specialize in a particular area. While there is a lot of external
pressure to specialize, you can resist this. I believe it should
be the case of being a lawyer first and a specialist second.
This way, you give your clients’ better service: they want the
answer first, but don’t really care if you’re a specialist in the
field. Oftentimes, too, if you are a specialist sometimes you run
the risk of your specialism becoming redundant. In that sense
you should also be looking for the next thing you could
specialize in: stay adaptable.
Energy Sector:
5. Your team was recognized as “stand-out” by FT Innovative
Lawyers 2010 for its work on the Round 3 project as “a key
voice in developing the world's biggest renewable energy
project”. Can you please explain this project and how it differed
from Rounds 1+2?
My term is involved with all sorts of energy projects, but I have
gravitated towards renewable energy in some form: on-shore
wind, offshore wind, and solar PV projects. Some of them are
very large projects (in terms of capital expenditure), while
others are not (usually part of a portfolio to balance economies
of scale). Usually, we either act for developers facilitating:
land rights consent, construction (building and engineering
contracts, utility arrangements and maintenance), or advising
on financing options to the project (equity, debit lending).
Round 3 related to UK offshore wind. There had been two
previous rounds, in which we had advised developers/members
bidding on individual wind-based renewables projects around
the UK. In Round 3 we represented the Crown Estate, which
is basically the owner of most of the seabed around the U.K
and also administers most of the area outside our territorial
waters. Here, developers were getting an entire zone of
seabed, some capable of having many projects developed
within them. It was looking in a very long-term way; trying to
set out a roadmap to give the industry a message that it
wasn’t just individual projects but rather going to be several
projects over many years. This gave reassurance to the
market, investors and the suppliers that need to support the
development.
5. Do you that electricity industry deregulation is a sensible
option?
When people talk about regulation in the electricity market
there are two aspects to that. Electricity is a very regulated
activity for sound reasons. Not anybody can sell and generate
electricity; for a transmission or distribution network, there are
physical and safety considerations. It is regulated because it
involves the retail of utility-type services to the public and that
is accepted as part of our consumer market. There are
practical transmission concerns in moving electricity from one
place to another and that’s where the aspects of regulation fit
in. There are different types of regulations in that sense.
Using the UK as an example, lots of countries still have a
national utility (you buy your electricity by the local authority).
In the 1980’s, Thatcher liberalized the electricity market,
putting it into public ownership. Theoretically, I don’t need to
buy my electricity from the local electricity company—electrons
are electrons, I can buy it from anybody. There is a dilemma
there, if you are a national government. If you don’t already
have a liberalized electricity market and you’re looking at a
changing market, in some ways it’s much easier having it
centrally controlled where decisions are made by a small group
of people. That way, if you’re making a big-picture, strategic
policy change, everything can flow from one source. The
market is very good at responding to specific requirements,
and then producing a revenue stream. However, if you are
making wholesale strategic changes to your countries’ set-up,
the market isn’t really prepared for this. Using South Africa as
example: it has a state-utility and the state-utility is a
responsible for running these competitions, it is the one buying
the electricity, and conducting grid operations. Ultimately, it
depends on what the country needs.
6. With an increasing global focus on discovering sustainable
alternative energy sources, how do you see your line of work
evolving over the next decade in relation to environmental
developments? What are the consequences on financing
emerging energy sectors?
Climate change is very important, but there are extremely
sound business reasons for this that stand in their own right,
quite apart from environmental considerations. If this weren’t
good business it wouldn’t happen. If people didn’t believe that
they could make some level of profit from a venture, they just
wouldn’t invest in it. The money would go wherever there is
a sensible investment with a secure revenue stream coming
out of it. In Western Europe we often talk about security of
supply—Europe imports up to 53% of its energy to the
moment. We import our energy from the Middle East or
Russia, which are impacted by political considerations, referred
to generally as security of supply. Inversely, if you are looking
at other places in the world such as developing markets in
large parts of Africa for example, they face a supply issue,
where there just may not be the infrastructure for generation
of electricity, where they would like to use it. One of the
unique features of renewables is that it can be done on quite
a local level; it doesn’t have to be connected to a
national-grid.
The climate change side is real, and it is an issue, but it
doesn’t have to be solely about that. Renewables need to be
looked at in a totally different light. They are not hobby
projects in fields; they are large-scale energy projects that
happen to use renewables. As in Round 3, if you can show
the industry long-term effects over a decade or two, then
people will make the to install these things. You do have to
show it is not going to happen on a one-off basis, but rather
consistently over time—prices then come down.
There are plenty of other reasons to discuss renewables. You
unlock huge potential with obvious economic and social
benefits. You can create and support local jobs. You are
bringing energy to places where they have not had electricity
before. Consider the impact on a local vendor, who was never
able to use a fridge before, being forced to sell the fish he
catches each day, for whatever price the market demands at
that time. It may sound very obvious and basic, but it makes
some fundamental differences to places that need it in the
world. So, in Western Europe it means one thing, while in
developing economies it has a huge role to play in a different
reason. Norton Rose Fulbright does work in both.
IN CONVERSATION WITH:
NICHOLAS PINCOTT,
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT PARTNER,
ENERGY AND CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS GROUP LONDON
FIROZA DODHI
Silk v Brief | 23
In Conversation with Nicholas Pincott, Norton Rose Fulbright Partner, Energy and Construction Projects Group London
Writers Note: I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to
Mr. Pincott for taking the time to be interviewed for this piece,
and for his valuable insight into both, the global energy sector
and life as a commercial solicitor. For the purposes of clarity,
this interview has been condensed and lightly edited.
Career/Leadership:
1. How would you describe your career thus far? What
is the most rewarding aspect of your work? What sort of
complications in the legal industry have you found most
challenging, provocative, controversial, stimulating?
I am in the energy projects group. I am based in London and
do a lot of work in the UK and European markets, but I also
work with colleagues in the Middle East and Africa. Energy is
a sort of universal entity—it is a commodity required differently
in various global markets. There is an international aspect to
all that we do. In terms of key words to describe ones’ career,
challenging would come to mind. It’s very hard work, we are
a service industry that has to anticipate and react to our
clients’ needs. But, it is also very dynamic. The work is
constantly changing and reinventing, and so we need to
adapt—because the unexpected can happen. Yes, it is
challenging in the immediate-term, but ultimately it is
interesting. Moreover, while it is very easy to lapse in cliché
when people talk about it being rewarding to help others
achieve their goals; that couldn’t be more pertinent to what we
do. This is getting people to come together for a common-end:
building a power station, or a port. It is rewarding to be able
to point to a tangible result and say you worked with a team
of other people to make it happen.
2. What motivates you about practising law?
I think it comes back to having found an area—energy and
renewables that I enjoy working on and that I’m proud of
doing. It helps that renewables is an interesting topic that
people are quite interested in talking about. It’s the reason I’m
still here. It is something that resonates with me, and I am
proud to be associated with it.
3. What made you choose Norton Rose Fulbright?
Energy is why I’m doing it. It’s why I’m still doing it. It’s
challenging. I didn’t expect to be here when I was sitting where
you are. I didn’t really have an idea of what I wanted to do.
Part of the reason I studied law, is that it’s a respected
qualification. We learn universally applicable skills: to think in a
logical and ordered way, that’s helpful in problem solving. It’s
important to remember that when working in this specialized
bubble, everyone I work with is bright and motivated and so in
that sense it is easy. Why did I come to Norton Rose
Fulbright? I was a trainee here, so I’ve never worked at
another firm, which I think also says something about the firm.
The people: that may be a clichéd answer, but it’s true. It’s
important to like and care about the person who’s sitting next
to you. It’s certainly something that I feel here, and that is a
unique feature of Norton Rose Fulbright. It’s an important
feature, but one that needs to be kept under review and needs
to be nurtured. I ask myself: is this a place with people I can
work well with? Is it work that I can see myself being proud
of doing?
4. What would be some advice you could give UCL Law
students that you wish you’d got when you were in our
educational place?
I would definitely say keeping an open mind about your career.
For a start, I think the days when a person stays in one job
their whole lives is pretty unusual now. Peoples’ careers
develop in funny ways. We all periodically reinvent from time
to time—so being aware of those trends and learning to adapt
is vital. Careers change, and it’s no bad thing to have unusual
experiences. As somebody who hires people, I am certainly not
exclusively looking for people who did it the same way I did
it. If people have an unorthodox background and come to the
interview in a rather more round-about way, that’s certainly no
bad thing and can be positively a good thing. It makes them
at least as interesting as the person who’s done it my way.
Also, there is a big tendency for individuals’ to want to
specialize in a particular area. While there is a lot of external
pressure to specialize, you can resist this. I believe it should
be the case of being a lawyer first and a specialist second.
This way, you give your clients’ better service: they want the
answer first, but don’t really care if you’re a specialist in the
field. Oftentimes, too, if you are a specialist sometimes you run
the risk of your specialism becoming redundant. In that sense
you should also be looking for the next thing you could
specialize in: stay adaptable.
Energy Sector:
5. Your team was recognized as “stand-out” by FT Innovative
Lawyers 2010 for its work on the Round 3 project as “a key
voice in developing the world's biggest renewable energy
project”. Can you please explain this project and how it differed
from Rounds 1+2?
My term is involved with all sorts of energy projects, but I have
gravitated towards renewable energy in some form: on-shore
wind, offshore wind, and solar PV projects. Some of them are
very large projects (in terms of capital expenditure), while
others are not (usually part of a portfolio to balance economies
of scale). Usually, we either act for developers facilitating:
land rights consent, construction (building and engineering
contracts, utility arrangements and maintenance), or advising
on financing options to the project (equity, debit lending).
Round 3 related to UK offshore wind. There had been two
previous rounds, in which we had advised developers/members
bidding on individual wind-based renewables projects around
the UK. In Round 3 we represented the Crown Estate, which
is basically the owner of most of the seabed around the U.K
and also administers most of the area outside our territorial
waters. Here, developers were getting an entire zone of
seabed, some capable of having many projects developed
within them. It was looking in a very long-term way; trying to
set out a roadmap to give the industry a message that it
wasn’t just individual projects but rather going to be several
projects over many years. This gave reassurance to the
market, investors and the suppliers that need to support the
development.
5. Do you that electricity industry deregulation is a sensible
option?
When people talk about regulation in the electricity market
there are two aspects to that. Electricity is a very regulated
activity for sound reasons. Not anybody can sell and generate
electricity; for a transmission or distribution network, there are
physical and safety considerations. It is regulated because it
involves the retail of utility-type services to the public and that
is accepted as part of our consumer market. There are
practical transmission concerns in moving electricity from one
place to another and that’s where the aspects of regulation fit
in. There are different types of regulations in that sense.
Using the UK as an example, lots of countries still have a
national utility (you buy your electricity by the local authority).
In the 1980’s, Thatcher liberalized the electricity market,
putting it into public ownership. Theoretically, I don’t need to
buy my electricity from the local electricity company—electrons
are electrons, I can buy it from anybody. There is a dilemma
there, if you are a national government. If you don’t already
have a liberalized electricity market and you’re looking at a
changing market, in some ways it’s much easier having it
centrally controlled where decisions are made by a small group
of people. That way, if you’re making a big-picture, strategic
policy change, everything can flow from one source. The
market is very good at responding to specific requirements,
and then producing a revenue stream. However, if you are
making wholesale strategic changes to your countries’ set-up,
the market isn’t really prepared for this. Using South Africa as
example: it has a state-utility and the state-utility is a
responsible for running these competitions, it is the one buying
the electricity, and conducting grid operations. Ultimately, it
depends on what the country needs.
6. With an increasing global focus on discovering sustainable
alternative energy sources, how do you see your line of work
evolving over the next decade in relation to environmental
developments? What are the consequences on financing
emerging energy sectors?
Climate change is very important, but there are extremely
sound business reasons for this that stand in their own right,
quite apart from environmental considerations. If this weren’t
good business it wouldn’t happen. If people didn’t believe that
they could make some level of profit from a venture, they just
wouldn’t invest in it. The money would go wherever there is
a sensible investment with a secure revenue stream coming
out of it. In Western Europe we often talk about security of
supply—Europe imports up to 53% of its energy to the
moment. We import our energy from the Middle East or
Russia, which are impacted by political considerations, referred
to generally as security of supply. Inversely, if you are looking
at other places in the world such as developing markets in
large parts of Africa for example, they face a supply issue,
where there just may not be the infrastructure for generation
of electricity, where they would like to use it. One of the
unique features of renewables is that it can be done on quite
a local level; it doesn’t have to be connected to a
national-grid.
The climate change side is real, and it is an issue, but it
doesn’t have to be solely about that. Renewables need to be
looked at in a totally different light. They are not hobby
projects in fields; they are large-scale energy projects that
happen to use renewables. As in Round 3, if you can show
the industry long-term effects over a decade or two, then
people will make the to install these things. You do have to
show it is not going to happen on a one-off basis, but rather
consistently over time—prices then come down.
There are plenty of other reasons to discuss renewables. You
unlock huge potential with obvious economic and social
benefits. You can create and support local jobs. You are
bringing energy to places where they have not had electricity
before. Consider the impact on a local vendor, who was never
able to use a fridge before, being forced to sell the fish he
catches each day, for whatever price the market demands at
that time. It may sound very obvious and basic, but it makes
some fundamental differences to places that need it in the
world. So, in Western Europe it means one thing, while in
developing economies it has a huge role to play in a different
reason. Norton Rose Fulbright does work in both.