Category: Uncategorized

The Pending Impeachment in South Korea

It is May of 1980. It was already the 6th and last day of the Gwangju citizens resisting the military coup of the dictator Chun Doo-hwan. Having faced massacres, executions, military forces, and endless indiscriminate and inhumane firings aimed at them, it was unity and dedication that held them strong. After this 6th day, however, their protest will be put to an end by military tanks and an uncalculated count of casualties.  

It is now March 2025, but just three months ago, on that same massacre site, the largest Gwangju newspapers blocked their newsrooms in a hurry to print copies and throw them out the windows in case paratroopers force in, as they did in 1980. A surviving child of May 1980, now in her 70s, tells others of her generation to risk their lives on the front lines to protect the younger generations on a social media platform, X.  

Details of the Gwangju Uprising tragedies remain unknown to this day; however, the current events of modern-day South Korea are open for the world to see. 

The Day of Chaos  

At 10:30 p.m. (KST) on December 3rd, 2024, Yoon Suk-yeol, the president of South Korea, left a televised address to the public, and for the first time in 44 years, martial law was declared in the country. A decree that suspended freedoms of speech, assembly, and press, as well as all political activities, warranted arrests and rights in the face of military authority and decisions. This decree inevitably challenged and threatened the human rights and freedoms of Korean citizens. According to Yoon, the justifications for this choice are efforts by the opposition party to impeach his cabinet and obstruct the government budget, as well as vague communist threats from North Korea. Justifications that Human Rights Watch refers to as “ludicrous”.  

By 10:42 p.m., an emergency meeting was called by the National Assembly, the only body that could overturn martial law. However, before the entry gates would close at 11:04 p.m., armed military special forces lined up outside in order to arrest political leaders and prevent a majority vote from overturning the decree. In the face of fear, uncertainty, and potential violence, the South Korean population, once again, came together. Many rushed out of their homes in the middle of the cold December night towards the National Assembly to clasp hands, create a barricade against soldiers and large military vehicles, and provide passage to the political officials.  

Image 1: Military special forces at the National Assembly on December 3rd. | Source: Yahoo Images
Image 1: Military special forces at the National Assembly on December 3rd. | Source: Yahoo Images

A 63-year-old, Lee Hyun-gyu, stated, “I experienced martial law in 1979…I spent three and a half hours at the rally to block this from happening again to the next generation”. The night of December 3rd quickly ignited memories of May 1980 in many of the older generation. Memories of violence, pain, grief, and loss aimed to attain pure and blind compliance. Memories of having their well-being, lives, autonomy, and basic rights stolen. Memories they refused to let themselves or others live through again. 

A spokesperson for an opposition party, Ahn Gwi-ryeong, grabbed and pushed away the barrel of a weapon pointed at her and yelled, “Are you not ashamed? Are you not ashamed?”. An act of courage that quickly became a viral video.  

With the support of the general public, 190 lawmakers were able to enter the building in time and overturned martial law under Article 77 of the constitution unanimously, including members of Yoon’s own party. A few days later, the matter was finally addressed. 

Impeachment  

On December 11th, Yoon addressed the night in his speech and denied giving orders to prevent the lifting of martial law. In contradiction, Colonel Kin Hyun-tae, leader of the special forces stationed on the night of the 3rd, states he received orders to stop at least 150 National Assembly members from entering, the exact number needed to overturn martial law, from senior commanders. Cho Ji-ho, the national police force head, states he was asked to locate and detain 15 people, including political leaders, by the armed forces. The former deputy director of the National Intelligence Service states he received an order to arrest several political leaders, broadcasters, a union official, a judge who previously ruled in favor of Yoon’s opponent, and a former chief justice of the Constitutional Court.  

Image 2: Yoon Suk-yeol giving a speech. | Source: Yahoo Images
Image 2: Yoon Suk-yeol giving a speech. | Source: Yahoo Images

On December 14th, a motion for impeachment was passed. Although Yoon continues to preside over the presidential seat, he has lost his powers. The motion was passed with the charges of ordering military and police forces to prevent voting that would overturn martial law, aiming to take over the National Election Committee, and arresting political and judicial leaders. Beginning on the 14th, the Constitutional Court has 180 days to move forward with the impeachment based upon a series of hearings. 

The Trial Begins 

Yoon did not show up for the first hearing on January 14th due to health concerns, according to his lawyer. His absence ended the hearing in four minutes. The following day, Yoon became the first president of the nation to have been detained. After hours of questioning, he was taken directly from his residence by anti-corruption officials under charges of insurrection and abuse of power. 

Since then, the sitting president has been present at the following hearings, and he continues to deny any tampering attempts on the voting of December 3rd despite military witnesses and statements that say otherwise. 

Moving Forward 

As we’ve moved through February, final hearings have been undergone, with a ruling expected in mid- or late March. Impeachment will require the favor of six out of the eight Constitutional Court judges. And if impeachment is the decision, an election must occur within 60 days. We hope that the final decision will lead to the restoration of the nation’s economic, social, and political crisis since the failed martial law.  

December 3rd was a night of fright that ignited feelings of uncertainty and fear. An attempt to compromise the human rights of the South Korean population under vague justifications. Hence, it is important to acknowledge the actions of that night to prevent another. There are various methods of support you can consider. This includes keeping yourself updated on the ongoing events, supporting civic groups such as Global Candlelight Action that have held peaceful rallies, and spreading awareness on the impeachment trials and the role of the Constitutional Court. 

Image 3: A rally held in favor of impeaching of President Yoon Seok-yeol. | Source: Flikr   
Image 3: A rally held in favor of impeaching of President Yoon Seok-yeol. | Source: Flikr

Though these efforts may seem minor, they can showcase tremendous support and concern for the rights of the South Korean population. 

The Loss of a Child in Marriage: U.S. Child Marriage Laws

Children in a classroom.
Image 1: Children in a classroom. Source: Yahoo Images.

Children are the most vulnerable population in the world. Their safety is relevant to the safety and success of the community. Protecting our children’s future and providing a safe and stable environment to grow up in is detrimental to everyone’s future. Typically, when we think about child marriages, we think about different countries, but the United States of America is no exception. If you would like to read about a different country and its struggles with battling child marriages, as well as the effects that child marriage has on the constituents, I will redirect you towards a fellow intern at UAB’s Institute for Human Rights, Catherine Rhodes.

Her blog evaluates the situation of child marriages in Niger and gives an in-depth explanation of the effects child marriages have. If that interests you, check out Child Marriage in Niger: A Deep-Rooted Crisis and the Path Forward. For this article, I will evaluate the state of America’s laws regarding child marriage. 

What They Lose:

School library
Image 2: School library. Source: Yahoo Images.

International human rights activists are advocating for the minimum legal age to enter into a marriage to be set at 18 years old. This age requirement is to protect both girls and boys from entering into marriages as minors. Around the world, each year, 14 million girls are married. The countries most devastated by child marriages include Niger, Chad, Mali, Nepal, and Bangladesh, to name a few. America is not on that list. However, there are loopholes in some laws that allow for minors to be married in a majority of American states. 

So long as American law allows it, children will always face the possibility of entering into a marriage as minors. It is true that America does not struggle with the same amount of child marriages as other countries. However, comparing America to another country in terms of the rate and amount of child brides does nothing to combat the fact that there are still legal ways for a minor to get married in the U.S. One child is a child too many. Laws that legalize marriage of minors are a human rights violation. When there are laws that allow for this abuse to take place, a child can never truly be safe.

Education during a person’s early stages in life is detrimental to their development. It is an opportunity to develop social and mental abilities that will help the success of their future. By entering into marriage at a young age, this development can be stifled. Education has the ability to give people the confidence and empowerment to create their own opinions and thoughts about the world. There is strength in knowledge, and once it is learned, no one can take it away from you. To stunt the growth of children is an atrocity in its own right.

Education is a key way for people, specifically young women, to delay marriage. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that education is a human right. Statistically, a girl is 6% less likely to get married every year she remains in school. In an increasingly more connected and advanced world, education is power. The majority of women who are married young drop out of school. They are expected to take care of their family, children, and home, which in turn leaves little time for personal education.

While it is not impossible for someone who is both young and married to continue their education, it is significantly more likely that their education will end soon after marriage. Child marriages will often lead to young pregnancy, which will have a lasting physical and emotional effect on a young girl. After dropping out of school, being married, and potentially starting a family, the chances of that girl returning to school are low.

Child Marriages in the U.S.:

Statue of justice outside of a U.S. Court.
Image 3: Statue of justice outside of U.S. Court. Source: Yahoo Images.

As of 2024, 13 states in the U.S. have banned child marriages. Each state that has put restrictions on the legal age of marriage has had to fight tirelessly to get them passed. Minors cannot file for divorce without the assistance of an adult, which has left legal restraints on young people and trapped them within their marriages.

The U.S. Department of State has been pushing for gender equality and stands behind the fact that the marriage of a person under the age of 18 is a human rights abuse. Nevertheless, laws supporting child marriages seem to be set in an uncrushable stone in most states. Even New Hampshire, which recently raised the minimum age of marriage to 18 years old, had to fight for 7 years to demolish the loopholes that allowed for child marriages in the state.

Out of the 50 States of America, only 22 states require proof of age for all marriage applicants. There are lax laws of proof of residency in some states, meaning that someone in a state that implements strict marriage laws could simply travel to a different state. Alabama has the 9th highest number of child marriages since 2000. From the years of 2000 to 2018, 9,166 children were allowed to marry. Around 7% of those cases would have counted as a sexual crime. In 2019, Alabama got rid of the requirement that marriage licenses have to be issued by a probate judge. There is no requirement that persons getting married must show proof of age. The legal age of marriage with the consent of a parent in Alabama ranges from 15 to 16 years old.

Some of the states with the worst child marriage restriction laws are California and Mississippi. From 2000 to 2018, 23,588 children were married in California. Close to 9,000 of those children were under 16 years old, 1,253 children were under the age of 14, 78 children were 13, and 5 children were 10 years old. State Senator Jerry Hill introduced a bill in 2018 that would abolish marriage for any minors, which went into effect in 2019. However, a minor is still allowed to get married with the consent of only one parent and a judge, and California does not require proof of age. A new bill was proposed to prohibit the marriage of minors with no exceptions in 2023, but it had to be altered to allow for underage marriage with a court order and the consent of a parent. The bill ultimately failed in the committee.

In Mississippi, from 2000 to 2018, 5,360 minors were married. Under Mississippi state law, statutory rape is not applicable in a marriage, no matter the age of the persons involved in the marriage. So long as there is parental consent, a minor can get married in Mississippi; there is no minimum age for marriage. Essentially, any male or female, no matter their age, can get married with the consent of their parents and the approval of a judge. An attempt to amend the marriage law was made in 2021 but ultimately failed, and the bill died in the legislature.

Conclusion:

All around the world, there are children lost to the shackles of marriage. They are the most vulnerable members of society and the most worthy of our protection. According to Child USA: The Think Tank For Child Protection, setting the minimum age of marriage to 18 years old, eliminating the requirement of judicial and parental consent, as well as requiring proof of residency and age can further protect children from being married as a minor. For more resources, Child USA gives reports on the state of children’s rights within the U.S. Another website to look at is Girls Not Brides, which is an organization that is dedicated to ending child marriage globally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thailand’s Uyghur Crisis: A Decade of Detention and Desperation 

Forty-eight Uyghur men have been held in detention facilities throughout Thailand for more than ten years. Trapped in a diplomatic limbo that perfectly captures the clash of international politics, human rights violations, and the suffering of an oppressed minority. These men, who are members of a Muslim ethnic group from China’s Xinjiang province that speaks Turkic, left their country in search of safety from systemic persecution. But rather than escaping to safety, they now risk being forcibly deported back to a government notorious for its cruel treatment of Uyghurs. 

150 Uyghurs and supporters protested in Berlin after July 2009 Ürümqi riots.
Image 1: 150 Uyghurs and supporters protested in Berlin after July 2009 Ürümqi riots. Source: Claudia Himmelreich, Creative Commons

Who Are the Uyghurs? 

The northwest Chinese province of Xinjiang is home to the Uyghurs, who are an ethnic minority whose population is predominately Muslim. International human rights organizations have repeatedly reported serious violations in Xinjiang, such as forced labor, mass detentions, cultural erasure, and even accusations of genocide. The so-called “re-education camps” in China have imprisoned more than a million Uyghurs and subjected them to psychological abuse, forced sterilization, and indoctrination. 

Many Uyghurs have left China in search of safety, often going across Southeast Asia in dangerous conditions. Thailand’s close proximity has made it a popular transit country. However, many Uyghurs have been held in overcrowded facilities indefinitely instead of being granted refuge. 

Thailand’s Role: A Decade of Detention 

Nearly 350 Uyghurs, including women and children, were detained by Thai police in 2014 under the pretense of being “illegal immigrants.” Some, most notably the forty-eight men, were left behind in Thailand. Others were later sent to Turkey, a country that shares cultural and theological similarities with the Uyghurs. The individuals detained in Thailand have suffered horrendous conditions in prison over the years, with no access to healthcare, sunlight, or legal protection. 

When Thai authorities forced the captives to sign “voluntary return” forms in January 2025, their situation worsened. In a desperate protest against their protracted incarceration and impending deportation, the Uyghurs refused to comply and on January 10 began a hunger strike. 

Fears of Refoulement 

Human rights organizations are incensed by the idea of sending these men to China. The cornerstone of international refugee law, the principle of non-refoulement, would be broken by such acts, according to Human Rights Watch and other groups. Countries are not allowed to send people back to places where they risk threats of torture, cruel treatment, or persecution under the principle of non-refoulement. 

There is little uncertainty on the fate of deported Uyghurs given China’s history in Xinjiang. Prior examples have shown that repatriated individuals are subject to substantial prison sentences, forced confessions, and immediate detention. “Deporting these men to China would be a death sentence. Thailand must resist political pressure and prioritize human rights.” said Elaine Pearson, Asia Director for Human Rights Watch, urging Thailand to honor its international obligations. 

Thailand’s Political Calculations 

A larger battle to achieve a balance between national policies, international commitments, and geopolitical influences is seen in Thailand’s treatment of the Uyghur captives. Thailand has historically refrained from ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention due to worries about illegal immigration and sovereignty, and the nation’s dependence on Chinese commerce and investment makes it more difficult for it to stand firmly against Beijing. 

Despite widespread outrage, Thailand deported 109 Uyghurs to China in 2015. Chinese state media aired videos of deportees arriving in shackles and clearly distressed. The incident showed the impact of China’s global reach while also drawing harsh criticism from the UN and other international organizations. 

Uyghur children in old town Kashgar, China.
Image 2: Child’s play – Uyghur children in old town Kashgar, China. Source: Sherpas 428, Creative Commons

Hunger Strike 

The severe physical and psychological effects of indefinite incarceration are brought to light by the ongoing hunger strike. Hunger strikes, which represent the captives’ desperation, have long been used as a nonviolent protest tactic. Prolonged hunger strikes can cause organ failure, permanent health problems, and even death, according to medical professionals. However, for many Uyghurs, the risks of being detained or deported forcibly are greater than the risks of protesting. 

The detainees’ relatives have pleaded with Thai authorities to step in. In an impassioned appeal, a relative of one detained stated, “They are not criminals; they are victims… Sending them back to China is the same as signing their death warrants.” 

International Responses 

The plight of Thailand’s Uyghur prisoners has drawn attention from throughout the world. Foreign governments and advocacy organizations have called on Thailand to free the inmates and give them safe transportation to third countries that are prepared to take them in. Turkey is still a possible destination because of its sizable Uyghur diaspora. These attempts are complicated, however, given political tensions between Beijing and Ankara.  

International human rights standards are being broken by Thailand’s ongoing detention of the Uyghurs. Even though Thailand is not a member to the Refugee Convention, the UNHCR has reminded it of its duties under customary international law to prevent refoulement. 

Broader Implications 

Thailand’s Uyghur crisis is not an isolated event; rather, it is a part of a wider trend of Southeast Asian nations facing refugee challenges. Regarding their handling of Uyghur asylum seekers, Malaysia and Indonesia have also come under fire, frequently pointing to Chinese diplomatic pressure and domestic security concerns. 

Furthermore, Thailand’s actions established a concerning precedent. Global human rights frameworks are weakened if strong countries like China can apply enough pressure to compel weaker states to violate international rules. It also calls into question how international organizations hold nations responsible. 

A Path Forward 

The ongoing crisis calls for immediate action to protect the rights and lives of the detained Uyghurs. Here are some thoughts on how they should proceed: 

Release and Resettlement: Thailand should release the detainees and work with international organizations to facilitate their resettlement in third countries willing to accept them, such as Turkey or Canada. 

Strengthened Legal Protections: Thailand should consider ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, thereby aligning its policies with international human rights standards. 

Increased International Pressure: The global community, particularly Western nations, should intensify diplomatic efforts to prevent deportations and ensure the detainees’ safety. 

Monitoring and Transparency: Independent observers should be granted access to monitor the conditions of Uyghur detainees in Thailand to ensure compliance with human rights norms. 

Addressing Root Causes: The international community needs to hold China accountable for its actions in Xinjiang, addressing the root causes that force Uyghurs to flee their homeland. 

Looking Ahead 

The situation of the forty-eight Uyghur men who are being held captive in Thailand serves as an alarming example of the human cost of international indifference and geopolitical scheming. Unless Thailand and the international world step in, these people, who escaped unspeakable oppression, now face a bleak future. Respecting the values of refugee protection and human rights is not only a moral obligation but also a test of our shared humanity. 

There is, nevertheless, hope for a solution that puts human rights and international collaboration first, even though the situation is still grave. Thailand can establish a standard for treating refugees humanely and solidify its standing as a responsible global actor if it takes the appropriate actions. The future of the Uyghur captives is in jeopardy, but a fair resolution is hopefully achievable with enough advocacy. 

Greenland is Melting! Temperatures are Sweltering!

Greenland, home to the world’s second-largest ice sheet, is rapidly losing its ice. This isn’t just a faraway problem for scientists to worry about—it’s a global issue that affects all of us. But why is this happening, and what does it mean? Let’s break it down.

An image of greenland with no snow
Image 1: The snowless, changing landscape of Greenland. Source: Yahoo Images.

Why Is Greenland’s Ice Melting?

Greenland’s ice sheet covers about 80% of the country. It’s so big that if it melted completely, sea levels around the world would rise by about 7.4 meters (24 feet). Over the last few decades, temperatures in the Arctic have been rising twice as fast as the global average. Warmer air melts the ice from above, while warmer ocean water melts it from below. These processes are speeding up, causing Greenland to lose billions of tons of ice yearly.

One key concept in understanding the melting ice is albedo. Albedo is a measure of how much sunlight a surface reflects. Think about it this way:

  • Ice and snow are bright and white, reflecting most sunlight back into space and cooling the planet.
  • Darker surfaces like ocean water or bare ground absorb more sunlight, causing them to heat up.

As Greenland’s ice melts, it exposes darker surfaces, which absorb more heat. This causes even more ice to melt—a dangerous feedback loop. To be specific, Greenland is losing, on average, 269 billion metric tons of ice annually.

The merciless albedo feedback loop. The loop proceeds as follows: "Melting of sea ice" --> "Lowered albedo" --> "Increase in absorbed sunlight" --> "Melting of sea ice"
Image 2: The merciless albedo feedback loop. Source: Yahoo Images.

The formation of an ice sheet isn’t random; it depends on Earth’s geography and climate. The movement of Earth’s continents, known as continental drift, plays a key role in ice sheet formation. Continents near the poles (like Greenland and Antarctica) are ideal because they receive less sunlight, creating cooler conditions. The most essential requirement for an ice sheet to grow is cool summer temperatures. Snow that falls during winter must not melt entirely during the summer. Instead, it compacts and builds up over thousands of years, forming thick layers of ice.

How Does This Affect Climate Change?

The melting ice in Greenland contributes to climate change in several ways:

Rising Sea Levels. When ice sheets melt, water flows into the ocean, significantly elevating sea levels. This poses a direct threat to coastal communities worldwide, putting them at risk of flooding and erosion.

Disrupted Ocean Currents. Melting ice adds massive amounts of freshwater to the salty ocean, disrupting critical ocean currents like the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which helps regulate the Earth’s climate. If these currents slow down, they could lead to more extreme weather patterns, such as harsher winters in some places and stronger hurricanes in others.

More Greenhouse Gases. Melting ice can release trapped greenhouse gases, like methane, from the frozen ground beneath it (called permafrost). These gases contribute to further warming, making the problem even worse.

Oceans are Rising! How are people surviving?

While Greenland may seem far away, its melting ice affects everyone. Rising sea levels threaten millions of people living in coastal cities, from Miami to Mumbai. Disrupted weather patterns can lead to more severe storms, droughts, and heatwaves, which impact food supplies and economies. We are all part of this global community, and we all share the consequences of climate change.

The melting of Greenland’s ice sheet is not just an environmental issue—it’s a human rights issue. Climate change, driven by the loss of ice sheets and rising global temperatures, threatens people’s right to life, health, food, water, and security. Communities around the world, particularly those in coastal and marginalized areas, are already experiencing the devastating consequences.

The United Nations recognizes climate change as a human rights issue because it disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. As the ice melts, coastal communities are being swallowed by the sea. Small island nations like Tuvalu and the Maldives are at risk of disappearing. Millions of people in low-lying regions (Bangladesh, Florida, Louisiana) could be displaced, creating climate refugees who have nowhere to go.

Even with ambitious climate change policies like the Paris Agreement, sea levels are projected to rise between 20 to 60 cm (7.8 to 23.6 inches) by 2100. This rise poses a significant threat to coastal communities, as up to 216 million people (2.6% of the earth’s population) currently live on land that will be below sea level or experience regular flooding by the end of the century.

A person holding up a sign that says "Climate Change = More Climate Refugees"
Image 3: Climate change advocates. Source: Yahoo Images.

 

Greenhouse gases trap heat and keep the planet warm. The most common are carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Ozone (O3), and water. Without them, Earth would be too cold for humans and most life to survive, but with too much, we are slowly roasting the planet. This raises an ethical dilemma: Are we morally obligated to rehome climate refugees? If giving up air conditioning could save thousands of lives, should people’s basic needs for food and shelter outweigh our desire for convenience?

Wealthy countries and corporations have contributed the most to climate change, yet poorer nations are more likely to bear the brunt of the damage. Those with fewer resources—marginalized communities, Indigenous groups, and low-income families—struggle the most to adapt and recover. 

The biggest contributors to global emissions are China, the United States, and India, together responsible for 42.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. alone accounts for 13.5% of global emissions, making it the world’s second-largest carbon emitter. If the U.S. is responsible for 13.5% of lost islander homes, should we also be 13.5% responsible for their survival? Should we take action even if no other country accepts accountability? Even if it requires more than what we are “technically” obligated to do?

An image of the ice caps melting
Image 4: The melting ice caps. Source: Yahoo Images.

What Can We Do?

The good news is that there are solutions. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the most essential step. This means using cleaner energy sources like wind and solar, improving energy efficiency, and protecting forests. On an individual level, even small actions make a difference—using less energy, advocating for climate policies, and spreading awareness. One of the most powerful things you can do is start a conversation. Simply talking about climate change can introduce new ideas and inspire action.

Greenland’s melting ice may seem far away, but its impact is a stark reminder that we are all connected. If we act now, we can protect our planet and future generations. The question is not whether we can make a difference but whether we will.

Griefbots: Blurring the Reality of Death and the Illusion of Life

Griefbots are an emerging technological phenomenon designed to mimic deceased individuals’ speech, behaviors, and even personalities. These digital entities are often powered by artificial intelligence, trained on data such as text messages, social media posts, and recorded conversations of the deceased. The concept of griefbots gained traction in the popular imagination through portrayals in television and film, such as the episode “Be Right Back” from the TV series Black Mirror. As advancements in AI continue to accelerate, griefbots have shifted from speculative fiction to a budding reality, raising profound ethical and human rights questions.

Griefbots are marketed as tools to comfort the grieving, offering an opportunity to maintain a sense of connection with lost loved ones. However, their implementation brings complex challenges that transcend technology and delve into the realms of morality, autonomy, and exploitation. While the intentions behind griefbots might seem compassionate, their broader implications require careful consideration. With the rising intricacy of the morality of AI, I want to explore some of the ethical aspects of griefbots and ask questions to push the conversation along. My goal is not to strongly advocate for or against their usage but to engage in philosophical debate.

An image of a human face-to-face with an AI robot
Image 1: An image of a human face-to-face with an AI robot. Source: Yahoo Images

Ethical and Human Rights Ramifications of Grief Bots

Commercial Exploitation of Grief

The commercialization of griefbots raises significant concerns about exploitation. Grieving individuals, in their emotional vulnerability, may be susceptible to expensive services marketed as tools for solace. This commodification of mourning could be seen as taking advantage of grief for profit. Additionally, if griefbots are exploitative, it prompts us to reconsider the ethicality of other death-related industries, such as funeral services and memorialization practices, which also operate within a profit-driven framework. 

However, the difference between how companies currently capitalize on griefbots and how the death industry generates profit is easier to tackle than the other implications of this service. Most companies producing and selling griefbots charge for their services through subscriptions or minute-by-minute payments, distinguishing them from other death-related industries. Companies may have financial incentives to keep grieving individuals engaged with their services. To achieve this, algorithms could be designed to optimize interactions, maximizing the time a grieving person spends with the chatbot and ensuring long-term subscriptions. These algorithms might even subtly adjust the bot’s personality to make it more appealing over time, creating a pleasing caricature rather than an accurate reflection of the deceased.

As these interactions become increasingly tailored to highlight what users most liked about their loved ones, the griefbot may unintentionally alter or oversimplify memories of the deceased, fostering emotional dependency. This optimization could transform genuine mourning into a form of addiction. In contrast, if companies opted to charge a one-time activation fee rather than ongoing payments, would this shift the ethical implications? In such a case, could griefbots be equated to services like cremation—a one-time fee for closure—or would the potential for misuse still pose moral concerns?

Posthumous Harm and Dignity

Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher, famously argued that death is not harmful to the deceased because, once dead, they no longer exist to experience harm. Griefbots challenge the assumption that deceased individuals are beyond harm. From Epicurus’s perspective, griefbots would not harm the dead, as there is no conscious subject to be wronged. However, the contemporary philosopher Joel Feinberg contests this view by suggesting that posthumous harm is possible when an individual’s reputation, wishes, or legacy are violated. Misrepresentation or misuse of a griefbot could distort a person’s memory or values, altering how loved ones and society remember them. These distortions may result from incomplete or biased data, creating an inaccurate portrayal of the deceased. Such inaccuracies could harm the deceased’s dignity and legacy, raising concerns about how we ethically represent and honor the dead.

a version of Michelangelo's famous painting "The Creation of Adam" but with a robot hand instead of Adam's
Image 2: A robot version of Michelangelo’s painting “the Creation of Adam” Source: Yahoo Images

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Because griefbots are supposed to represent a deceased person, they have the potential to disrespect people’s dignity by falsifying that person’s reason and consciousness. By creating an artificial version of someone’s reasoning or personality that may not align with their true self, griefbots risk distorting their essence and reducing the person’s memory to a fabrication. 

But imagine a case in which an expert programmer develops a chatbot to represent himself. He perfectly understands every line of coding and can predict how the griefbot will honor his legacy. If there is no risk to the harm of his dignity, is there still an ethical issue at hand?

Consent and Autonomy

Various companies allow people to commission an AI ghost before their death by answering a set of questions and uploading their information. If individuals consent to create a griefbot during their lifetime, it might seem to address questions of autonomy. However, consent provided before death cannot account for unforeseen uses or misuse of the technology. How informed can consent truly be when the long-term implications and potential misuse of the technology are not fully understood when consent is given? Someone agreeing to create a griefbot may envision it as a comforting tool for loved ones. Yet, they cannot anticipate future technological advancements that could repurpose their digital likeness in ways they never intended.

This issue also intersects with questions of autonomy after death. While living individuals are afforded the right to make decisions about their posthumous digital presence, their inability to adapt or revoke these decisions as circumstances change raises ethical concerns. In HI-PHI Nation’s Podcast, The Wishes of the Dead, they explore how the wishes of deceased individuals, particularly wealthy ones, continue to shape the world long after their death. The episode uses Milton Hershey, founder of Hershey Chocolate, as a case study. Hershey created a charitable trust to fund a school for orphaned boys and endowed it with his company’s profits. Despite changes in societal norms and the needs of the community, the trust still operates according to Hershey’s original stipulations. Critics questioned whether continuing to operate according to Hershey’s 20th-century ideals was still relevant in the modern era, where gender equality and broader educational access have become more central concerns.

Chatbots do not have the ability to evolve and grow the way that humans do. Barry explains the foundation of this concept by saying, “One problem with executing deeds in perpetuity is that dead people are products of their own times. They don’t change what they want when the world changes.” And even if growth was implemented into the algorithm, there is no guarantee it would be reflective of how a person changes. Griefbots might preserve a deceased person’s digital presence in ways that could become problematic or irrelevant over time. Although griefbots do not have the legal status of an estate or will, they still preserve a person’s legacy in a similar fashion. If Hershey was alive today, would he modify his estate to reflect his legacy?

It could be argued that the difference between Hershey’s case and Chatbots is that wills and estates are designed to execute a person’s final wishes, but they are inherently limited in scope and duration. Griefbots, by contrast, have the potential to persist indefinitely, amplifying the damage to one’s reputation. Does this difference encompass the true scope of the issue at hand, or would it be viable to argue that if chatbots are unethical, then persisting estates would be equally unethical as well? 

A picture of someone having a conversation with a chatbot
Image 3: A person having a conversation with a chatbot. Source: Yahoo Images

Impact on Mourning and Healing

Griefbots have the potential to fundamentally alter the mourning process by offering an illusion of continued presence. Traditionally, grieving involves accepting the absence of a loved one, allowing individuals to process their emotions and move toward healing. However, interacting with a griefbot may disrupt or delay this natural progression. By creating a sense of ongoing connection with the deceased, these digital avatars could prevent individuals from fully confronting the reality of the loss, potentially prolonging the pain of bereavement.

At the same time, griefbots could serve as a therapeutic tool for some individuals, providing comfort during difficult times. Grief is a deeply personal experience and for certain people, using chatbots as a means of processing loss might offer a temporary coping mechanism. In some cases, they might help people navigate the early, overwhelming stages of grief by allowing them to “speak” with a version of their loved one, helping them feel less isolated. Given the personal nature of mourning, it is essential to acknowledge that each individual has the right to determine the most effective way for them to manage their grief, including whether or not they choose to use this technology.

However, the decision to engage with griefbots is not always straightforward. It is unclear whether individuals in the throes of grief can make fully autonomous decisions, as emotions can cloud judgment during such a vulnerable time. Grief may impair an individual’s ability to think clearly, and thus, the use of griefbots might not always be a conscious, rational choice but rather one driven by overwhelming emotion.

Nora Freya Lindemann, a doctoral student researching the ethics of AI, proposes that griefbots could be classified as medical devices designed to assist in managing prolonged grief disorder (PGD). PGD is characterized by intense, persistent sorrow and difficulty accepting the death of a loved one. Symptoms of this disorder could potentially be alleviated with the use of griefbots, provided they are carefully regulated. Lindemann suggests that in this context, griefbots would require stringent guidelines to ensure their safety and effectiveness. This would involve rigorous testing to prove that these digital companions are genuinely beneficial and do not cause harm. Moreover, they should only be made available to individuals diagnosed with PGD rather than to anyone newly bereaved to prevent unhealthy attachments and over-reliance.

Despite the potential benefits, the psychological impact of griefbots remains largely unexplored. It is crucial to consider how these technologies affect emotional healing in the long term. While they may offer short-term comfort, the risk remains that they could hinder the natural grieving process, leading individuals to avoid the painful yet necessary work of acceptance and moving forward. As the technology develops, further research will be essential to determine the full implications of griefbots on the grieving process and to ensure that they are used responsibly and effectively.

Conclusion

Griefbots are at the intersection of cutting-edge technology and age-old human concerns about mortality, memory, and ethics. While they hold potential for comfort and connection, their implementation poses significant ethical and human rights challenges. The concepts I explored only scratch the surface of the iceberg. As society navigates this uncharted territory, we must critically examine its implications and find ways to use AI responsibly. The questions it raises are complex, but they offer an opportunity to redefine how we approach death and the digital legacies we leave behind.

Democratic Backsliding in Georgia

In recent months, the country of Georiga has seen an increase in anti-democratic policies and government behavior, distancing the nation from Western states and institutions and further aligning itself with Russia and its allies. While political tension has been building within the country over the past decade, the passage of new policies, such as the Foreign Agent Bill and the LGBT Propaganda Bill, has taken this to new heights, receiving domestic and global condemnation as these programs fall in line with authoritarian initiatives taken in other countries. This prefaces the October 2024 parliamentary elections, where the incumbent Georgian Dream Party received a majority of the votes. However, due to the alleged use of voter intimidation and fraud, this result has been widely contested. These events have triggered mass demonstrations throughout the nation as citizens question the state of democracy within Georgia. Due to their longstanding history with Russia and the undemocratic nature of new policies, the events in Georiga warrant monitoring to ensure democracy remains. 

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze speaks in front of Georgian and European Union flags
Image 1: Georgian Dream Party chairman and Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze speaks at an event. Source: Yahoo Images

History of the Georgian Dream Party

The policy platform and support of the Georgian Dream Party have seen a notable shift throughout its time in office. The party was founded in 2012 and quickly rose to prominence, receiving enough votes to oust the former administration later that year. During its conception, the party’s primary objectives were to improve relations with Western states and to join international organizations such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, while also opening up friendly communications with Russia. Popularity for these policies led to the party gaining an absolute majority in parliament in 2016, however; support dwindled following corruption scandals. Later in this administration, a Russian lawmaker was invited to join a Georgian parliamentary meeting, a decision that was met with great upset. Largescale demonstrations erupted as citizens protested the encroachment of Russian influence in their national institutions, rejecting the potential for future Russian involvement. Regardless, the Georgian Dream party won again in 2020 as it promised to take the necessary steps to join the EU. However, this commitment was halted in 2022, when the relationship between Russia-Georgian relations has seemingly strengthened since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While numerous countries enacted economic sanctions on Russia, Georiga did not follow suit. Similarly, trade and travel have grown between the countries since 2022. 

Not only has the Georgian Dream Party strayed away from its original policy promises, but officials have also begun to spread harmful rhetoric and enact undemocratic policies. In the leadup to the October 2024 elections, the administration promoted that a “Global War Party” was the reason behind the invasion of Ukraine. This theory suggests that Western states are purposefully trying to prolong the war to weaken the Georgian state. The party has also recently passed the Foreign Agent Bill and the LGBT Propaganda Bill, both of which undermine core democratic principles. Though the Georgian Dream Party has not been free of problems, it is clear that, within the past few years, drastic changes have brought the country further away from democracy. 

Democratic Backsliding

Foreign Agent Bill

On August 1st, 2024, the Foreign Agent Bill was passed. This piece of legislation requires that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive 20% or more of their total funding from international sources must label themselves as companies “pursuing the interest of a foreign power.” Georgia is home to thousands of NGOs, with many monitoring compliance to democratic standards and ensuring there is no return to its communist past. It is estimated that 90% of NGOs would fall under this category, thus undermining the validity of countless institutions and organizations. Furthermore, this bill primarily targets civil society and media organizations. Businesses are exempt from receiving this label, regardless of the percentage of foreign funding. While the Georgian government claims that this policy promotes transparency, the rhetoric that officials use when talking about NGOs suggests otherwise. In a speech given in April 2024, a prominent political figure explained how NGOs “do not love their country or their people because they do not really consider them to be their own”. Between the language used when discussing NGOs and the timing of the bill, many speculate that the purpose of this legislation is to undermine the credibility of opposition and pro-democracy groups, being enacted only 3 months before the 2024 elections. 

LGBTQ+ advocates protest for their rights, with one woman wearing a pride flag, and a man holding a poster saying how he wants his country back
Image 2: LGBTQ+ advocates protest against Georgian policies. Source: Yahoo Images

LGBT Propaganda Law

Passed into law only one month after the foreign agent bill, the LGBT Propaganda Law seeks extreme measures to ensure the protection of heterosexuality. Not only does it codify marriage between men and women, but it also bans LGBTQ+ members from adopting children, limits their representation in media, and monitors community events. Furthermore, it overrides anti-discrimination hiring policies and prohibits gender reassignment surgery. The implementation of this bill faced local and international condemnation. Within Georgia, opposition parties criticized the inherent discrimination at the core of the legislation. Similarly, the European Union warns that this legislation threatens the nation’s chances of becoming a member state. The combination of both these bills has raised questions regarding Georgia’s alliances, with many pointing out how these laws signal alignment with Russia over Western powers. 

October 2024 Parliamentary Elections 

On October 26, 2024, Georgia held its parliamentary elections, where Georgian Dream, the long-standing incumbent party, won a majority. However, these results have been widely contested, with the nation’s own president, Salome Zurabishvili, refusing to recognize the validity of the results. One reason backing these claims is the alleged use of voter intimidation tactics by the Georgian Dream party. Voters discuss cameras monitoring polling booths and the display of a Georgian Dream politician presenting a speech being aired directly outside polling stations. The passing of the Foreign Agent Bill has also warranted concerns as this legislation impacted the credibility of election monitoring organizations and groups ensuring democratic compliance. Furthermore, many changes were made to the electoral system in the months before the election, with this being the first election where parties must receive 5% of the vote to have representation in the parliament, and the first election using an electric ballot counting system. Regardless of these questions surrounding the validity of the election, domestic courts have refused to annul the results or to initiate a recount. Despite its alleged election rigging, the Georgian Dream Party still declares itself victorious. It has also declared a halt to its efforts to join the European Union, causing even more discontent amongst the population. 

A European Union, a Georgian, and a Ukrainian flag are held up in front of a Georgian government building among a large group of protesters
Image 3: Georgians protest and fight for their inclusion into the European Union. Source: Yahoo Images

Protests and Government Responses

These unaddressed concerns triggered a nationwide uproar, with protests fighting for democracy throughout the country. Beginning in early November, these protests demanded that new elections be held in compliance with democratic standards. President Zurabishvili has supported these efforts, protesting alongside Georgian citizens. These protests have continued since the election. Georgian police have reacted with force, unleashing tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets on peaceful protestors. Arrested over 20 individuals. The government has also enacted legislation that imposes restrictions on protestors, such as fining those caught hanging posters and stickers in public areas. These acts have also granted Georgian police the ability to proactively detain individuals they suspect will violate these limitations. While Georgian citizens continue to fight for and protect their democracy, it is clear that the current administration is taking steps to silence these voices.  

Conclusion

Georgia is experiencing a period of democratic backsliding as the current administration passes authoritarian-leaning legislation and distances itself from Western powers. Though it has never been void of issues, Georgian democracy has drastically weakened in the past few months, resulting in a contested election that reinstated power in the hands of the Georgian Dream Party. Legislation enacted throughout 2024 has also reduced the likelihood that Georgia will be able to join the EU. This backsliding follows a similar trend toward authoritarianism throughout Europe, seen in countries such as Hungary, Romania, Austria, and Poland, and raises concerns over a regional and global weakening of democracy. Similarly, Georgia’s previous relations with Russia make this issue more pressing and in demand of attention. 

 

Behind the Ballot: Corruption, Repression, and Hope in the 2024 Venezuelan Elections

This year, a handful of elections were scheduled. At least 27 countries, including Algeria, Senegal, Pakistan, and Venezuela, held their presidential elections. Because of the varying political climates, let’s visit the most recent Venezuelan elections, which illustrate human rights violations in the form of voter intimidation and political persecution. The development of the events raises questions about the validity of the results and the corruption of the powers of the state. Amid widespread despair, NGOs like Foro Penal, a Venezuelan group offering legal aid to victims of state repression, and international bodies such as Human Rights Watch and the Carter Center are investigating irregularities and violations.

Challenges to Maduro’s Presidency and Popularity

Facing crippling inflation, electricity blackouts, and water and food scarcity, the Venezuelan people had been waiting for a leadership change. Although still appealing to the love people had for former president Hugo Chavez, President Maduro Moros had been increasingly losing popular support.

At the beginning of his term, Chavez gained public trust through social programs addressing inequality, such as adult literacy, health care, and infrastructure. The programs were meant to address the gap between the rich and the poor, a hot issue among voters. His “revolution“ of the old system set up by the administration of Carlos Perez Jimenez was mildly disrupted by a Human Rights Watch report exposing corruption. Nevertheless, his charisma and the benefits he provided kept his supporters loyal.

In 2013, Chavez appointed Maduro as his successor. Disguised as a blessing, Maduro had inherited institutions that were corrupted and allowed him to enrich himself and stay in power. However, years of inflation and poverty eroded Maduro’s connection to the Chavez revolution. As a result, many pro-Chavez supporters have lost confidence in Maduro and continue to mourn the late president, as AP reported.

While his popularity decreased, a new leader had been working to gain the people’s support. Maria Corina Machado, a former member of the national assembly, won a primary election in 2023. Appealing to free the country and grabbing onto the growing dislike for Maduro, Machado became the face of the Democratic Unitary Platform (DUP), an alliance of trade unions, political parties, and former officials.

However, in January 2024, the highest court in Venezuela banned opposition leader Machado from running for the presidency. The ban keeps Machado from participating in any elections for 15 years. The Supreme Court made the decision based on financial irregularities claimed to have happened while Machado served in the legislature. This obstacle is among many presented to political figures who pose a threat to Maduro’s regime. After failing to appoint a replacement for a while, a new candidate was put in the front of the opposition campaign. Edmundo Gonzalez, a former diplomat, became the new candidate of the DUP.

Months Leading to Election Day

Venezuelans outside the country went out to register, uncertain of what turn the elections would take; however, they encountered significant obstacles.

The New York Times reports that Venezuelans living abroad were affected by long waiting times, rejection, and confusing instructions across several countries, including Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Spain. People arrived at consulates as early as 4 a.m., only to face rejection due to suspended registrations.

In addition to the unexplained delays, voters were met with unexpected registration requirements. Before, only a Venezuelan identification, expired or not, was valid for registration. However, as part of the new requirements being enforced, a Venezuelan passport and proof of residency or legal permanence in the host country were needed. This created obstacles, as many Venezuelans in countries like Colombia or the U.S. lack permanent residency despite having other legal documents, such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

National filling out an applications with his passport
Image 1: National filling out a form with his passport at hand. Source: Yahoo Images

What’s more, the government only allowed a 29-day registration period, which differs greatly from the year-round period allowed in the past. However, in countries where diplomatic relations are broken, and embassies and consulates are closed (like the U.S.) Venezuelans can’t register to vote.

As a result of these events, millions of Venezuelans couldn’t vote. Between 3.5 million and 5.5 million Venezuelans who live abroad were eligible to vote, but only about 69,000 were registered.

Election Day – July 28th, 2024

Venezuelans inside the country went to cast their votes at their designated stations. Throughout the morning, locals and the Carter Center mission—sent on June 29th—observed several violations.

Violence and Voter Intimidation

According to electoral rules, a witness is allowed to observe the tally count. People loyal to the ruling party intimidated witnesses and forced them to stay at home or leave their posts halfway through the election.

New York Times (NYT) reported that, in the capital, Caracas, a journalist observed men blocking access to one of the voting centers. Adding to the tension, voters were not allowed entry until over an hour after the poll was supposed to open. Similarly, in the city of Cumaná, about 50 armed police and National Guard officers stood outside with their helmets and armor in what seemed to be a show of power. Over in the city of Maturín, a woman was shot when men on motorcycles drove by a line of voters.

Changing Voting Locations

The NYT also disclosed that constituents’ voting locations were changed without a previous announcement. A worker of the Venezuelan Electoral Observatory, Carlos Medina, stated that the voting stations for 17,000 Venezuelans changed at the last minute. This is the case for Sonia Gomez, a voter who went to vote after verifying her polling site on the electoral council website. However, upon arrival, the workers told her she was registered elsewhere.

National casting their paper vote. Source: Yahoo Images
Image 2: National casting their paper vote. Source: Yahoo Images

Aftermath

Refusal to Disclose Paper Tallies

In Venezuela, votes are counted digitally by the Consejo Nacional Electoral (National Electoral Council) or CNE and verified using paper tallies collected at each voting station. Some officials in certain locations refused to disclose their paper tallies.

With the digital count, Maduro’s administration celebrated their victory, claiming 51% of votes. On the other hand, the opposition released data showing that Edmundo Gonzalez had received 67% of the vote. According to Machado, the opposition’s numbers came from voting machine tallies that were scanned and calculated.

In response to the allegations made by the opposition on corrupt and ridged elections, Maduro requested the Supreme Court give its expert opinion on the results. It is important to mention that the Supreme Court, closely tied to Maduro’s administration, had previously upheld Machado’s ban. Although the court backed him up, Maduro promised to release the tallies on the CNE website. However, the website has remained inaccessible since the events of July 28th.

Politically Driven Detentions

After the CNE announced Maduro’s victory, Venezuelan protested in the streets. However, they were met with brutal repression by state authorities. Videos circulating on social media showed police and military brutality directed at protesters. Human Rights Watch analyzed these videos, corroborating reports of detentions and deaths. While about 2,400 people were detained during protests, Foro Penal—a Venezuelan NGO that provides legal support for victims of arbitrary detention—claims that the police arrested electoral witnesses at their homes. These events have fueled arguments for election fraud. Most of the detainees are being charged with terrorism and incitement of hatred. Other irregularities include a lack of legal assistance and transfer to maximum security prisons.

Adding to the political persecution, a court issued an arrest warrant against Edmundo Gonzalez for conspiracy and usurping power. This prompted him to flee to Spain. Similarly, other figures, like diplomats, have been targeted, too, as Maduro ordered diplomats who opposed his victory to leave the country.

Protests in Venezuela on May 1st, 2019. Source: Wikimedia Commons archive; originally published by Voice of America.
Image 3: Protests in Venezuela on May 1st, 2019. Source: Wikimedia Commons archive; originally published by Voice of America.

Future Implications

After the return of the Carter Center’s technical election observation mission, the center stated that the elections did not meet the integrity standards. The Organization of American States and several countries, including Argentina and Costa Rica, recognized Edmundo Gonzalez as the president-elect and called for transparency. Nevertheless, as Gonzalez has now fled to Spain, it is unclear what the next steps the international community will take to address the democratic crisis.

Since the elections, Venezuelans have felt both hope and fear. Despite a great number of protests and social media posts, fear of government retaliation has reached a higher level than ever. Some believe it is impossible for Maduro to resign, but only time will tell if democracy can still be restored.

Russia-Ukraine War Update and Interview with Ukrainian UAB Student

Two women holding the Ukrainian flag and shouting.
Image 1: Two women holding the Ukrainian flag and shouting. Source: Yahoo Images.

Recently, North Korea has promised closer ties with Russia and to further its aid in the Russia-Ukraine war. Throughout the war, many civilian structures have been destroyed, as Russia has continued to target educational facilities, homes, and hospitals. For many Ukrainians, their country has been something they’ve constantly had to fight for. 

UAB (The University of Alabama at Birmingham) student, Kate Tkach, was nine years old when she left Ukraine to move to the U.S. For her privacy, I will use an alias to protect her identity. Tkach’s father and his family were in Kyiv when Russia invaded Ukraine in February of 2022. Since then, her grandparents have visited Ukraine during the summer of 2024. Their experiences give an idea of what life was like when the invasion occurred and what nights in Kyiv were like over the summer. 

Brief History of Ukraine-Russia Conflicts and the Start of the War

Destroyed civilian building in Ukraine.
Image 2: Destroyed civilian buildings in Ukraine. Source: Yahoo Images.

Ukraine was previously an area of conflict in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. This was one of the first times since WWII that a state in Europe was annexed by another territory. In the fighting between 2014-2021, at least 14,000 civilian people died. Russia and Ukraine have been strongly connected economically, politically, and culturally. However, after the Soviet Union fell in 1991, Ukraine and Russia parted ways. This was considered a substantial loss for Russia’s international standing. 

Putin began the invasion of Ukraine to combat Western powers that he claimed had the intention to destroy Russia. Ukraine had begun trading with other countries, much to the displeasure of Russia, who only wanted Ukraine to trade with them. Sources of energy have been a connecting factor between Russia and Ukraine. 

President Putin has said that NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the U.S. have violated promises they made not to grow alliances in the former Soviet States. A relationship between Ukraine and the U.S. would be seen as an act of aggression to Russia. Nonetheless, Ukraine was growing ties with NATO, leading to the invasion in 2022. Kyiv has since then backed the idea of fully joining NATO. For more information about the history of Ukraine and Russia, as well as a report from when the invasion first occurred, visit Dr. Reuter’s IHR Blog.

The cultural ties between Ukraine and Russia have given Putin justification for reunification. Over the years, President Putin has described Russians and Ukrainians as “one people.” Regardless of that statement, Russia has continued to target civilian infrastructure in cities like Kyiv. Over 100,000 Ukrainian civilians have been wounded or killed since 2022. Around 8 million refugees have been forced to flee to surrounding countries. One of those refugees was Kate Tkach’s father, who fled to a surrounding country. The roads had been so crowded that it took her father 24 hours to escape to Moldova.  

Tkach’s hope for the future is that more awareness will be spread about Ukraine and Russia. While in the U.S., she’s experienced people expressing their confusion over what would be so bad about Russia taking over Ukraine.

“Ukrainian people have died for the independence of our country. Likening Russians to Ukrainians would be like saying, You’re from America? That must mean you’re Canadian. Our languages and cultures are different. We are not Russian; we are Ukrainian” — Kate Tkach.

While President Putin has pushed the agenda that Ukrainians are Russian, that is undoubtedly not the way Ukrainians feel.  

North Korea’s Support and Aid to Russia

Regional map of Ukraine.
Image 3: Regional map of Ukraine. Source: Yahoo Images.

In June of 2024, President Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed the Russia-North Korea joint comprehensive partnership agreement. The partnership highlights a mutual agreement to help each other in times of aggression. On October 23, 2024, North Korean troops were deployed to Kurkoblast, Russia which borders Ukraine. Reports say that North Korean personnel have been gathering in Russia throughout all of October. Simultaneously, over the past two years, North Korea has sent military equipment and ammunition to Russia as a means to strengthen ties. 

Ukrainian intelligence sources stated that six North Korean officers were killed in a strike near Donetsk City. Donetsk City is located near the east side of Ukraine and is around 140 miles away from Russia’s border. President Zelenskyy said that reports suggest Russia is training two brigades that each contain 6,000 North Korean personnel. Recently, King Jong Un met with Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov in November of 2024 to discuss North Korea’s support of Russia. During the meeting, Kim criticized the U.S. for supplying Ukraine with weapons. 

When asked about her thoughts on North Korea’s increased support of Russia’s war against Ukraine, Tkach said, “I wasn’t surprised. Atrocity after atrocity keeps happening in Ukraine. At a certain point, all of the bad things have plateaued in my mind. My first thought was, ‘Oh, what’s one more bad thing?’ It hasn’t affected my viewpoint so much.” 

Russia’s War Crimes in Ukraine 2024

A destroyed maternity ward and children hospital in Mariupol, Ukraine after a Russian attack.
Image 4: A destroyed maternity ward and children’s hospital in Mariupol, Ukraine, after a Russian attack. Source: Yahoo Images.

According to Amnesty International, war crimes include attacks on civilian and/or civilian infrastructure, killings of civilians, torture, crimes of sexual violence, murder or bad treatment of prisoners of war, and the use of illegal weapons. These are all violations of the International Humanitarian Law. This law is meant to limit the effects of armed conflicts on surrounding communities. It protects civilians, which includes medical personnel and humanitarian workers, as well as refugees and the wounded and sick.

On July 8, 2024, Russia attacked civilian infrastructures in Ukraine. Human Rights Watch reports that 42 civilians were killed, 5 of whom were children. Along with that, the largest children’s hospital in Ukraine, Okhamtdyt, was hit by Russian bombs over the summer of 2024. The intensive care unit, oncology, and surgical unit were severely damaged, while other units, such as the toxicology and traumatology, were completely destroyed. 

The first strike had hit the hospital before it could be completely evacuated. The strike occurred when three patients were in heart surgeries. Additionally, one of the children who was evacuated before the strike was in critical condition. After being moved to a different hospital, the child died. Since June 2024, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reported that 9,560 civilians have been killed and 21,450 were injured. At least 594 children have been killed since the summer, and 1,207 have been injured. 

During the interview with Kate Tkach, I asked her what experience her grandparents had during the summer when visiting Ukraine. In the summer of 2024, Tkach’s grandparents visited both Kyiv and Ternopil. Kyiv is the capital of Ukraine and is located near central north Ukraine. Ternopil is located near the far west of Ukraine. 

Tkach said that there is no airfare going across the borders of Ukraine. Because of this, her grandparents had to fly to Moldova and then take a bus all the way to Ukraine. This bus was not allowed to stop the entire way to Ukraine. In addition, every night, the water and electricity would be shut off, so Kyiv looked abandoned. This caused the already hot summer to become even worse. Her grandfather is 86 years old, and her grandmother is 88 years old. 

Tkach stated, “I cannot even imagine what it is like now in the winter. Our winters are harsh and having no heat in the buildings at night is a death sentence.”

 Looking towards Ukraine’s Future

Ripped Ukrainian flag that's still standing amongst a crumbled building.
Image 5: Ripped Ukrainian flag that’s still standing amongst a crumbled building. Source: Yahoo Images.

At the time that Kate Tkach lived in Ukraine, she was a child. She reflects on her time spent there and her fondest memories. One of those was when the first snow would fall. Every year, all the kids would go up to a hill near their apartments and slide down it. No one knew each other, but everyone was together, and at that moment, they could enjoy spending time with one another. Tkach had lived in an apartment near a school in Kyiv. She is unaware whether or not the place she grew up in is still standing or not.

“I grew up in a very beautiful Ukraine, with beautiful Orthodox churches and green fields [that were] not yet touched by civilization. To think of all of that getting destroyed and left in rubble because Ukraine doesn’t want to surrender to a different country is hard to process. My people wanted an independent country and fought to gain their freedom, [which] is something I take pride in.” — Kate Tkach.

To help, one of the best things you can do is to spread verified news. It is imperative that awareness continues to be spread about the war crimes that are committed in Ukraine. For ways to support, donations can be made to humanitarian relief organizations like The UN Refugee Agency, which helps refugees, and the Ukrainian Red Cross Society, which has continuously sent humanitarian aid to places in Ukraine that most need it. 

The Death Penalty in the US: Legalized Murder?

On September 24, 2024, the state of Missouri executed an innocent Black man. Why did they kill him? 

Marcellus Williams was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering Felicia Gayle. There was no physical evidence linking Williams to her murder: fingerprints, footprints, hair, and DNA found at the crime scene did not match Williams. The only evidence against Williams was testimony from two witnesses whose accounts were inconsistent and unverifiable. Gayle’s family favored life imprisonment. The county prosecutor favored life imprisonment. Only Missouri’s Attorney General wanted Williams executed – and he got his wish. 

Williams was innocent of the crime for which he was executed. He never had a fair trial. The prosecution struck 6 of 7 Black jurors, one of whom was rejected “because he looked too much like Williams.” Missouri knew they were executing an innocent man – and they did it anyway. 

History of the Death Penalty in America 

Capital punishment has been a part of the American legal system since before the United States was a country. The first person executed in the British colonies was George Kendall, who was executed by firing squad for mutiny in 1608. By the early 1900s, public support for the death penalty was beginning to wane, and some states abolished the practice. 

Utilizing capital punishment was briefly illegal nationwide. The 1972 Supreme Court Decision Furman v. Georgia ruled that existing death penalty statutes were discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. That lasted until 1976, when the Court ruled in Gregg v. Georgia that Georgia’s updated death penalty statute was constitutional, and executions resumed. Since 1976, 1,601 people have been executed. Today, only 21 states still have the death penalty, and only ten have executed people in the last decade. 

Methods for capital punishment have varied greatly over the last two centuries. Early in American history, the most common were firing squad and hanging. Over time, hangings have become associated with lynchings. Despite that history, in 2023, a Tennessee lawmaker proposed that “hanging by a tree” be used as an alternative method of execution in the state. In 1890, the first person was executed with the electric chair, which was the most common method for several decades until lethal injection became more popular after its first use in 1982.

A white room with a gurney with several thick straps used for restraining prisoners.
Image 1: A white room with a gurney and several thick straps was used to restrain prisoners. Source: Yahoo Images.

Lethal injection has faced challenges in recent years for a few reasons. Drug manufacturers do not want to be associated with homicide – and thus refuse to sell the required drugs to state governments – and medical professionals refuse to administer the medicines. Instead of medical professionals, correctional workers struggle to find veins and sometimes fail entirely, causing delayed executions. Roughly 3% of executions are botched, and people subjected to botched executions are disproportionately Black – 1/3 of executions nationwide are of Black prisoners, while 1/2 of botched executions are of Black prisoners. Even when not botched, lethal injections have been shown to be less humane than originally believed. The drugs used are painful and cause the lungs to fill with fluid – typically without proper anesthesia. 

Black prisoners are also treated differently immediately before they are executed. Jeff Hood, who has witnessed six executions – three of Black prisoners, three of white – told NPR, “I can definitely tell you that the restraints that I have seen on Black folk have been unquestionably tighter than the restraints that I have seen on white folk.” 

More recently, there has been controversy over a new execution method: nitrogen hypoxia. The state of Alabama has executed two people – Kenneth Smith and Alan Eugene Miller – by nitrogen hypoxia in the last year. The state had previously attempted to execute both Smith and Miller by lethal injection, but correctional workers were unable to place IV lines in either man over the course of several hours. There is another Institute of Human Rights blog post, published in the fall of 2023, that extensively details execution methods. 

Problems of the Death Penalty

Two of the most common reasons given for keeping the death penalty are deterrence and justice. Justice argues an eye for an eye – that, for some crimes, the only possible form of justice is death. That is a philosophical debate, and one I will not discuss today. Instead, I will focus on the effect of the death penalty on homicide rates – deterrence. Deterrence is the idea that the existence of the death penalty deters crime – it reasons that prospective murderers are logical people who will be less likely to kill others if it will result in their death. 

In 2012, the National Research Council conducted a literature review on studies examining any deterring effects executions – and the general presence of the death penalty – have on homicide rates. They concluded that studies had not yet demonstrated any effect capital punishment has on homicide rates and recommended that the “research… should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment.” 

One of the most powerful arguments used by death penalty abolitionists is about wrongful convictions. Someone who is sentenced to life in prison can be released if they are found innocent; that is not so with someone who is dead, such as Marcellus Williams. Wrongful convictions are common; for every eight executions in the United States since 1977, one person sentenced to death was exonerated. 82% of death penalty exonerations are due to official misconduct and 36% of death penalty sentences are overturned. 

Glynn Simmons was exonerated in December 2023 for a crime he did not commit. He spent 48 years in prison. The state knew when he was convicted in 1975 that Simmons was innocent; he was in Louisiana when the crime was committed in Oklahoma. Despite that, it took almost 50 years – 2/3 of Simmons’ life – for him to finally be exonerated. Imprisonment is reversible. Death is not.

A broken chain.
Image 2: A large broken chain. Source: Yahoo Images

What Can Be Changed? 

Activists have worked for decades to reform or eliminate the death penalty. Two organizations that have been involved in numerous exonerations are the Innocence Project and the Equal Justice Initiative. Both organizations provide legal aid to innocent prisoners. Other ways to support change include petitioning state and federal legislators to end or reform the death penalty.

The Wine Industry: Years of Exploitation and Human Trafficking

by Caitlin Cerillo

Have you ever had a glass of wine and wondered how it’s made? Or, pondered what it comes from and how long the wine-making process takes? Who is responsible for making it? Surely, the wine industry has been modernized, where mechanical inventions can do most of the handiwork when creating a delicious bottle of wine used for birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, and other milestone celebrations.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. The wine industry has had a history of exploiting its workers by forcing them to work in extremely poor conditions and grueling hours. Wine-making follows an intricate process, starting with the harvesting of grapes in vineyards. Mechanical harvesting does exist and is generally quicker than doing so by hand, as the average human can harvest 1-2 tons a day, while a machine can harvest 80-200 tons. However, human harvesting is still favored because it offers a more precise selection and lessens the severity of oxidation getting to the grapes due to damaged skins.

A person picking grapes to harvest for wine.
A worker manually harvesting grapes for wine. Source: Yahoo Images

The amount of grapes needed to produce a standard-size bottle of wine varies depending on the style of wine. However, a general number given by experts is an average of 1.25 to 1.50 kilograms, or 2.75 to 3.3 pounds. With the amount of wine that is produced worldwide within just a year, this adds up to a huge demand for grape pickers to supply the lucrative wine business. In the world, there are two primary countries responsible for the largest number of wine production: Italy and France. Both countries have come under fire for unethical practices in their wine production and human rights violations that include human trafficking, exploitation, and extremely poor working/living conditions for workers.

What is Human Trafficking and Exploitation?

Human trafficking is a huge issue across the world. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) defines human trafficking as the “recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of people through force, fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them for profit.” Human trafficking can come in many different forms, like sex trafficking, forced labor, and child sex trafficking. Victims of human trafficking can come from any kind of age group, gender, and background.

However, specific groups may be more vulnerable than others. These groups include people separated from their families or other support systems, refugees or migrant workers, sexual and gender minorities, people with disabilities, and members of lower socio-economic groups. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), human traffickers will use manipulation tactics and exploit the vulnerabilities of their victims, which is why these specific groups are at heightened risk.

Italy

In September 2021, a humanitarian organization by the name of Oxfam released a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) on the Italian wine supply chain to assess their impact on human rights. The HRIA is titled “The Workers Behind Sweden’s Italian Wine” and focuses on the primary Italian wine supply chain in Sweden, Systembolaget. The HRIA’s objectives were to perform a context analysis on Systembolaget in order to “build an understanding of the nature of the Systembolaget supply chains” and then to “identify the actual and potential human rights impacts in Systembolaget supply chains in practice.”

Oxfam’s HRIA does a great job at going more in-depth with the current human rights violations occurring in the Italian wine industry, along with the potential human rights violations that are at high risk of coming to fruition. To summarize, Oxfam found several serious violations: forced labor, low wages, excessive working hours, health and safety risks in vineyards and wineries, lack of access to remedy, restrictions to freedom of association, sexual harassment and gender discrimination, and unsanitary housing. To read more about Oxfam’s findings, follow this link.

France

France’s primary region for wine production is called the Champagne region, located roughly to the east of Paris. In late 2023, a large portion of the region was shut down by French authorities and put under investigation for human rights violations. Wine-makers in the Champagne region are migrants primarily from West African countries. It was discovered that the lodgings that provided housing to the migrant workers were of poor quality, with makeshift beds surrounded by electrical cables and extremely unsanitary bathroom facilities.

Workers picking grapes in a French vineyard.
Workers picking grapes in a French vineyard. Source: Yahoo Images

The investigation also found that the contractors responsible for hiring the migrant workers exploited their vulnerabilities, as they were willing to work, even without proper contracts and for extremely low wages. At the end of the 2023 harvest season, another trafficking investigation was opened by authorities, which involved 160 laborers from Ukraine living in poor conditions in another area of the Champagne region.

South Africa

Although South Africa isn’t at the very top of the list of wine-producing countries, it has been accused of violating several human rights for years. In 2011, Human Rights Watch released a report titled “Ripe with Abuse: Human Rights Conditions in South Africa’s Fruit and Wine Industries,” detailing the problems surrounding the country’s industries. For over a decade, numerous attempts have been made to improve them, as well as conditions on farms. For instance, the Wine Industry Ethical Trade Association was created in 2002. Unfortunately, significant improvements have yet to be made to rectify the issues at hand.

South African farmworkers who supply the grapes needed for wine are vulnerable to some of the following human rights violations: exposure to pesticides and harmful chemicals, working long hours, and being forced to work in extreme weather conditions. Many farmworkers don’t even have access to safe drinking water, toilets, or livable housing. They face difficulty in forming a union to bring attention to the injustices they face. Like Italy and France, South African farmworkers receive low wages and little to no protection from the government.

The Future of the Wine Industry

There are many possible routes that can be taken to improve the working conditions for wine-makers. One of the most productive ways includes wineries turning to certifications that can help lay a groundwork for better standards, like environmental sustainability and safe working conditions. These certifications can help ensure that wineries are being held to their promises. Several wineries across the world have turned to certification efforts, like Chile’s Emiliana Organic Vineyards, which is certified under B Corp. B Corp was established in 2006, with the initiative of encouraging accountability, transparency, and environmental performance in business. Similarly, Italy has founded the Equalitas standard in 2015, which is specifically aimed at the wine industry.