international law – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Proposed Southeastern Natural Gas Pipeline Raises Concerns

An expansion to a natural gas pipeline is slated to begin construction in the fourth quarter of 2026, a project that the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) has called a “fossil fuel superhighway.” The proposed South System Expansion 4 project is a $3.5 billion pipeline expansion that would span 291 miles across Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. It has been proposed to upgrade the Southeastern United States’ energy grid, providing an additional 1.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas capacity per day. Kinder Morgan, the company presiding over the project, touts the market-driven demand for natural gas and the sustainable growth that the expansion will bring to the region. The SELC cites environmental and economic concerns, urging the federal government to take careful consideration of the adverse impacts that this pipeline expansion could have on the communities through which it passes.

Image One: Aerial view of pipeline. By: MelissaMN. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 221316621

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Process

The project is currently under review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which must issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct any interstate natural gas pipeline. FERC accepted public comments that address potential hazards, externalities, alternatives, and relevant information regarding the project until October 6th. In a joint statement of protest, several organizations, including Alabama Rivers Alliance, Blackbelt Women Rising, and Energy Alabama, pointed out potential issues with the pipeline for FERC’s consideration. NYU Policy Integrity also urged FERC to consider environmental concerns in its decision.

ƒmodiSSE4 Environmental Impact Statement

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) outlining the potential externalities of any project under FERC’s jurisdiction is required. The joint protest issued by Alabama Rivers Alliance, Blackbelt Women Rising, Energy Alabama, and others urges FERC to fully consider the effects of 14 new natural gas pipeline loops on water quality, endangered species, air quality, and marginalized communities in its EIS. In an outline of the project, Kinder Morgan addressed environmental concerns; they claim that the project is “committed to protecting significant cultural sites and environmentally sensitive areas.” The overview explains the environmental considerations they will make before, during, and after the project’s conclusion. It states that the field surveys will be conducted to avoid sensitive areas, environmental inspectors will monitor the project as it progresses, and land will be re-seeded and restored after completion.

The joint protest raises additional concerns. Crossing rivers and streams using open-cut methods can increase the water’s total suspended solids and damage local ecosystems. Horizontal directional drilling causes erosion. The project would require 130 million gallons of water, which would require extraction that can cause “water-shed wide ecological stress.” It also mentions that “[o]ut of the 14 compressor stations being modified as part of this Project, only one compressor unit is slated to be electric.” These non-electric compressor stations produce harmful pollutants like nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds. The pipeline will also run across Alabama’s Blackbelt region, which already deals with toxic coal ash, industrial wastewater, and other environmental injustices.

Aerial shot of Alabama's Coosa River. — Image Two: Aerial shot of Alabama’s Coosa River. By: Donny Bozeman. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 494086723

Environmental Justice and Public Health

As NYU Policy Integrity mentions, under a recent memorandum released by the Council on Environmental Quality, FERC is not required to examine environmental justice issues when considering a project’s potential harm and impact. This memorandum is in accordance with the January 2025 executive order Unleashing American Energy, signed by President Trump, which directs federal agencies to “expedite permitting approvals.” The memorandum adds that agencies “must prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other policy objectives.” However, FERC is still required to examine potential harms to the public, and the effects of the pipeline construction cannot be divorced from the local situation of the pipeline’s immediate impact area. The pipeline will cross through areas with higher concentrations of particulate matter than the national average. According to data collected from County Health Rankings and Roadmaps, the eleven Alabama counties that the project is projected to cross have an average of 8.9 micrograms per cubic meter of fine particulate matter in the air; the US average is 7.3. The prevalence of asthma among adults was also higher than the national average in each of the Alabama counties, according to 2022 CDC PLACES data. NYU Policy Integrity also lists elevated economic indicators of social vulnerability, including higher rates of poverty, near planned compressor stations. Given that the local populations already face health challenges linked to the environment, FERC’s consideration of the potential harms from the pipeline expansion should include the compounding effects of the pipeline’s construction in an area already impacted by environmental degradation.

FERC and Procedural Rights

FERC’s upcoming Environmental Impact Statement on the effects of the pipeline expansion represents environmental rights in action. Procedural rights, or the rights of people to participate in processes, are a cornerstone of environmental rights. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) defines procedural rights as “access to information, public participation, and access to justice.” These rights are important for protecting the environment and upholding the rule of law. The UN’s 2019 Environmental Rule of Law report found that civic participation in environmental decisions in the US led to innovative, cost-effective solutions by adding information to analyses and reframing issues. The basis for these rights in international law comes from the 1992 Rio Declaration and the 1998 Aarhus Convention. The US is not a signatory to the Aarhus Convention, but the National Environmental Policy Act enshrines some of the same ideals in US law. The Environmental Impact Statement promotes public access to information, while the Joint Protest statement and NYU Policy Integrity’s report are examples of public participation. Access to justice is upheld when agencies like FERC take into consideration environmental injustices and hold companies to account.

Deregulation

Procedural and environmental rights at large may be in danger, as recent developments in US policy are clearing the path for the oil and gas industry at any cost. President Trump has championed a deregulatory agenda, notably withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and attempting to overturn the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding. The Paris Agreement, adopted by 195 countries in 2015, set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Methane, a greenhouse gas, has a much higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide, and a recent review of scientific literature suggests that natural gas pipelines’ emission impacts have been underestimated. The EPA’s endangerment finding, released in response to the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, found that under the Clean Air Act, the agency is required to place limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The endangerment finding treats greenhouse gases like other harmful chemical pollutants because they also endanger public health, though on a broader scale than localized pollutants.

Natural gas compressor station. — Image Three: Natural gas compressor statement. By: Olga. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 452024190

Conclusion

The Southern Environmental Law Center opposes the South System Expansion 4 project in part because of the immediate effects on the communities located in its path, but also because it expands the reliance on natural gas while increasing energy bills for regular people. Executive director of Energy Alabama Daniel Tait claims, “Alabamians will be stuck with the bill for decades while utilities invest in fossil fuels instead of cheaper, cleaner alternatives.” However, Kinder Morgan’s vice president of public affairs, Allen Fore, argues that Alabama Power and the Southeast will benefit from the additional natural gas capacity.

As with any project on this scale, the South System Expansion 4 pipeline is controversial. It raises questions about sustainable development, corporate responsibility, and the federal regulatory process. Central to all energy developments should be the right of impacted communities to their health and well-being. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines the right to an adequate standard of living, which the SSE4 puts at risk by polluting the surrounding area. FERC should listen to public comments and ensure that the project proceeds with the best interests–and the human rights–of the communities and the environment in mind.

Hungary Leaves the International Criminal Court

Earlier this month, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban declared that the country would withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), becoming the first European Union member state to pull out of the decades-old global institution. This decision came during Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Hungary, where Orban refused to comply with his ICC-mandated responsibility to arrest the Israeli Prime Minister, thus rejecting the legitimacy of the court’s arrest warrants. Though an individual incident, this event is indicative of a global shift away from international institutions, raising concerns regarding the future and authority of the ICC and global organizations as a whole. As numerous countries, the United States included, fight against democratic backsliding, international law is crucial in ensuring democratic standards are upheld, making this withdrawal worth monitoring.

What is the ICC?

The ICC is a permanent international court designed to prosecute political officials and military members following their initiation or continuation of international law violations, specifically targeting perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. Unlike the International Court of Justice, the United Nations’ branch that pursues cases between nations, the ICC functions independently from any pre-existing international organization and focuses solely on individual responsibility and perpetration of crimes.

The idea of establishing a court of global accountability originated after World War I; however, the largest push came after World War II and the global outrage surrounding the Holocaust. While an international court had yet to be established, ad hoc tribunals were created, prosecuting Nazi military and political officials. In between then and the court’s creation, other ad hoc tribunals have been organized, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. These events popularized the establishment of a permanent, global court. In 1998, the UN General Assembly met in Rome, finalizing a treaty that would then become the Rome Statute, the foundational document of the ICC. 120 countries voted to establish the court, and by 2002, the statute was adopted, gaining the necessary 60 ratifications needed for it to enter into law, thus granting the ICC international legitimacy and authority.

Under the Rome Statute, the ICC is given universal jurisdiction, meaning that perpetrators of international law violations can be tried even if the events occurred in another country. This also grants the court the ability to investigate allegations, with claims being brought to the ICC or based on the suspicions of the institution. If the court finds that an individual has likely played a direct role in the initiation or continuation of a crime outlined by the ICC, an arrest warrant will be issued. As part of ratifying the Rome Statute, member states assume the responsibility to comply with these rulings and are expected to detain those who receive arrest warrants if they enter the nation’s territory. After detention, trials are conducted, and a final ruling is eventually made. Since the court lacks an overarching enforcement mechanism, this organization relies heavily on state compliance to maintain legitimacy. Without this, the ICC loses its prosecutorial power and therefore its purpose.

Large meeting at International Criminal Court. Seats in a semicircle around a large screen and panelists — Image 2: ICC Assembly of States. Source: Yahoo Images

Why is Hungary’s Withdrawal Important?

Though Hungary’s absence won’t single-handedly undermine the ICC’s functional capacity, it does signify the country’s shift away from global institutions and further descent into authoritarianism. Since Orban took office in 2010, the country has become an “illiberal state,” a term Orban uses with pride. This reality is demonstrated in his views on international institutions. When discussing his reasons for withdrawing, Orban expressed that “Hungary has always been half-hearted” on its commitment to what he stated was the “political court” of the ICC. Furthermore, under his regime, Hungary has isolated itself from the democratic values of the European Union, with Orban having captured public institutions and the formerly independent media. He has undermined judicial independence, creating a government oversight committee that tracks the domestic courts and placing partisan judges in politically important positions. Orban has also been consistent in his support of Vladimir Putin, criticizing EU-imposed sanctions on Russia and openly condemning support for Ukraine. These actions have ultimately isolated the country from the Union and its foundational values, thus undermining the EU’s efforts to foster a unified Europe.

Hungary’s rejection of the ICC is also representative of the current global climate, as there has been an international decrease in support for global institutions. Since the issuance of Netanyahu’s arrest warrant, several countries, such as Belgium, Germany, and France, have remained unclear as to whether they would comply with ICC orders, disregarding their responsibility as set out under the Rome Statute. Similarly, Europe has seen a rise in Euroscepticism, or a distrust in the authority of the European Union. This perspective has pervaded several powerful political parties throughout Europe, such as the Alternative for Germany Party in Germany, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Law and Justice Party in Poland, and the Georgian Dream Party in Georgia. These parties have openly criticized the authority granted to the EU and the need for sovereign countries to align their policies with an overarching institution. Meanwhile, numerous countries are reverting to conservative, traditional cultural and political norms, further increasing hesitancy toward a liberal international order that advocates for equality and progressive policies.

This shift is not unique to Europe, as the United States has also been open in its rejection of the ICC and other international institutions. Recently, the Trump administration has placed sanctions on ICC officials, signifying distrust in the court. Furthermore, the US has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, and certain branches of the United Nations. With one of the world’s hegemonic powers withdrawing and delegitimizing international institutions, it is understandable why this perspective has been normalized on a global scale.

Hungarian PM Orban talks at a European Union podium, with EU flags behind him — Image 2: Orban talks at the EU. Source: Yahoo Images

The Case for International Law and the ICC

While many argue that international law and institutions violate a country’s sovereignty, the reality is that this relinquishment can be viewed as necessary to ensure long-term stability. Historically, nations have been seen as fully autonomous, lacking international institutions to follow; however, this autonomy allows countries to encroach on the rights of others, whether domestically or internationally, thus creating instability that jeopardizes the rights and safety of individuals. By surrendering some control over an independent nation to an international body, sovereignty can be enhanced. For example, by allowing international policy to dictate environmental policy, sovereignty could be strengthened by enabling countries to live without fear of climate-related destruction. In the case of the ICC, by granting a global court the authority to enforce international law, egregious behavior can face punishment, hopefully deterring these actions and thus providing greater long-term stability. In other words, relinquishing some domestic power to an international agency can enhance aspects of sovereignty as countries can live without fear of external encroachment on their rights. So, while international law might not yet be perfect, there is an argument to be made that it is worth attempting to fix rather than rejecting it altogether.

Conclusion

Hungary’s withdrawal from the ICC is representative of a broader shift away from the modern-age liberal order. Though its absence won’t directly interfere with the court’s ability to try violators of international law, it does bring into question the future of the ICC and other international institutions, as numerous countries, both within the EU and beyond, see a decline in their support of democratic values and global organizations. However, not all hope is lost; if current member states can uphold their commitments to the Rome Statute, the ICC can remain a powerful authority and deterrent against committing egregious crimes. In doing so, trust in the ICC can be consolidated, ensuring it and other global organizations play a role in the future of international politics. Because of this potential, international law remains a cause worth advocating for, as it can help ensure long-term stability during a time of global uncertainty.

Biden’s Human Rights Agenda – An Event Recap

On Tuesday, February 2, the Institute for Human Rights at UAB welcomed Dr. Robert Blanton, Professor and Chair of the Political Science and Public Administration Department at UAB, to our second Social Justice Café of the semester. Dr. Blanton facilitated a discussion entitled “Biden’s Human Rights Agenda.”

Dr. Blanton initiated the conversation by stating that the 2020 election of Joe Biden is a “welcomed return to hypocrisy [as it pertains to human rights in the United States].” The return to hypocrisy represents the reality of political figures making promises, and then failing to turn those promises into human rights policy. The very notion that President Biden has presented a Human Rights Agenda is a staunch contrast when compared to his predecessor’s lack of clear and defined Human Rights protective goals. Dr. Blanton suggested that President Donald Trump was not a hypocrite in regard to his approach to Human Rights. President Trump simply didn’t make attempts to address Human Rights violations domestically or internationally.

In an interview with the New York Times, then former Vice-President Joe Biden stated, “When I am president human rights will at the core of US foreign policy”. Dr. Blanton finds the President’s continued foreign policy rhetoric surrounding international and domestic issues to be interesting, and he cautioned participants to pay close attention to how human rights violations will be addressed within President Biden’s first one hundred days in office. Following this statement participants began discussing specific Executive Orders signed by President Biden that are innately Human Rights focused. Participants discussed the outcome of the Bostock Case and how President Biden’s decision to reinforce this Supreme Court decision with an Executive Order is a promising sign of the President’s commitment to preserving Human and Civil Rights. The Bostock Case prohibited employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Participants then suggested other topics they felt needed further attention from the Biden Administration, such as systemic racism, xenophobia, and COVID-19 response.

Moving forward, one participant was curious if “legislation would be passed in relation to women’s rights to reproductive health?” This discussion centered around how we classify issues within the United States and how this classification affects the seriousness and legitimacy of an issue. The participants came to the conclusion that women’s reproductive rights could potentially receive more congressional and national support if it is framed as a domestic and international health issue rather than a human rights issue. Dr. Blanton was adamant that the manner in which we categorize issues is a major factor in whether or not those issues receive solutions.

When further discussing how policy is enacted within the United States, one participant noted that “local cities and NGO’s often make larger impacts in the fight for social justice. How important is it that we [American citizens] have a Presidential administration?” A large majority of participants appreciated this question; however, they agreed that within the confines of the United States Constitution the continued election of an executive president is necessary to the maintenance of the country as a whole. Some felt the issue of private prison regulation would be best handled by the executive office. In response Dr. Blanton stated, “Private prisons exhibit overt violations of human rights” and that he did not disagree that private prison regulation should have a place within President Biden’s Human Rights Agenda.

In his final remarks, Dr. Blanton offered this quote: “Presidents are victims of events.” His point was that Joe Biden’s presidency will be governed according to the trials and complications his administration will unquestionably face within the next four years. President Biden’s administration will have to make a conscious effort to not allow the events of the world to overshadow their Human Rights Agenda.

Thank you, Dr. Blanton, and thank you everyone who participated in this stimulating discussion.

To see more upcoming events hosted by the Institute for Human Rights at UAB, please visit our events page here.

The Syrian Refugee Crisis Rages On

by Mariana Orozco, UAB student

In March 2016, The European Union and Turkey made an agreement stating Turkey would keep all asylum seekers who arrived on the Greece border in return for billions of dollars. This deal has put many asylum seekers at risk due to the dangerous environment in Turkey. However, this continues to be accepted and there are no signs of change in the future due to Greece’s incomplete assessment of Turkey as a safe third country. In February 2020, Turkey retracted their statement, saying they would not stop refugees going into Europe. Turkey is the country with the most refugees – 3.6 million Syrian refugees. Since the Syrian government started bombarding their citizens with air strikes, no other European country has tried to host Syrian citizens. When Turkey finally opened its borders into other European countries, the asylum seekers were met by armed Greek border guards, tear gas, rubber bullets, and razor wires. Turkey opened its borders to force the European nations to stop ignoring the crisis in Syria. If the international community does not step in more unarmed civilians will continue to face violence in Syria, and the situation in Turkey will worsen.

What is the status in Turkey?

Turkey has been home to over 3.7 million refugees, providing them with free public services, health care, and gainful employment; there are many obstacles Syrian refugees have to go through to get these. For example, Turkey adopted a work permit in 2016, but they must be requested by employers, who are often unwilling to cover the costs and face the administrative hurdles of hiring a refugee. As a result, most refugees work in low-paying jobs, such as jobs in small textile workshops and construction.

Furthermore, Turkey does not sign off on international refugee law. Therefore, they do not allow many refugees to obtain legal status. Many Turkish authorities also force the refugees to go back to Syria, leading them to want to flee to a safer place regardless of the conditions, such as Greece.

Greece’s Response to Turkey Opening Borders

Greece has broken European Union and international law. The government is suspending the registration of any asylum claims and deporting anyone for any reason something that goes against Geneva’s Convention on Refugees. The core principle states that a “refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.” Close to 40,0000 migrants are being held in camps with short food supply, poor sanitation, and tensions with locals. Although the United Nations Refugee Agency did urge Greece to address its overcrowding and precarious conditions, not much has improved. Once refugees arrive, they are not allowed to leave until their asylum requests are processed, leading to the 90,000 cases backlog.

Image of a refugee camp in turkey; dozens of makeshifts tents on a field — “Syrian refugees’ camp in Cappadocia, Turkey” by Fabio Sola Penna; Source: Creative Commons

What about the rest of the European Union?

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned NATO allies and European allies that if they “do not share the burned with us, we will open the gates” . President of the European Commission described Greece as Europe’s shield in migrant crisis. They also proposed financial and material support to prevent people from entering Greece, because once they do they will continue to spread in Europe.

What should Happen next?

Europe should take a new approach to safeguarding the human rights of refugees and start sharing the responsibility for allowing them to live in dignity and peace. Many of the people leaving their countries do it out of desperation, and European governments need to ensure asylum seekers have fair procedures. Also, they must control border control and unlawful acts by authorities. Instead of hoping that the problem goes away by having migrants go to different places, the European Union needs to address the reasons why people are fleeing Syria.