ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��

Money is not a neutral medium of exchange, but a highly political artifact. The Global North has taken advantage of this – and built legal infrastructures that perpetuate inequality and asymmetries across the globe. Here’s why international legal scholars must question the constitutive role of law over the world’s economic organization and develop counter-proposals.

Vladimir Putin may have been  , but as a substitute, it seems he has already found  to emulate and is trying his hand as a grandmaster at chess. At least, that is the appearance of the economic power-games with which he challenges the West.

He had  when starting his atrocious war – probably the –, but by freezing Russian Euro-denominated central bank assets, , the West thought it could checkmate Russia’s imports, as they rely on foreign currency. Wrong thinking. Putin surprised his opponents with a terrific move: Payments for energy exports will only be accepted in Rubles – which the West must obtain from the Russian central bank by exchanging Euros and Dollars and thus .

What we are observing is the clearest manifestation of a fact that various economic approaches have addressed: Money is an intrinsically political matter. This is also true for the legal infrastructure governing its creation, distribution, and exchange. As early as 1905, Georg Friedrich Knapp described money as a “” without any material countervalue – the monetary system only works because we believe that it works.

Recently, (MMT) has demonstrated how far-reaching the scope of political action is for economies with strong, widely accepted currencies: As long as they borrow in their own currency, they can never become insolvent; moreover, the literal productionof money can be used as a political tool to finance major social projects. And at the latest during the Global North’s economic reactions to the Covid-19 pandemic, . Even  to make sure that Russia can withstand the sanctions.

In the global periphery, however, . Developing and emerging economies cannot pursue an expansionary monetary policy because they do not have stable currencies; they rely heavily on imports and are therefore  indebted in foreign currency, and their dependence on the US-Dollar, the currency in which international commerce is conducted, makes them .

This global periphery debt crisis is fundamentally induced by , thereby causing poverty, hindering human development and . It runs counter to everything that the , to which UN members have committed themselves, are actually trying to solve.

It would be ridiculous if the improvement of millions of human lives were dependent on a flawed legal construct.

Critical scholars of international law therefore have an obligation not only to consider issues of capital flows and finance, but to challenge the very architecture governing money. This is not illusionary thinking. The current international monetary order , and sporadically,  have been brought forward (an international unit of account, for instance, that might overcome currency hierarchies). Such reforms are indispensable – yet widely neglected by lawyers.

Earlier this year, the European Committee of Social Rights made public its decision on the  regarding the collective complaint raised by European Youth Forum against Belgium. The Committee found a violation of the right to a fair remuneration together with the right of non-discrimination. Although this decision lacks direct enforceability, the outcome was welcomed with hope among many students and young professionals, particularly among those specializing in international affairs.

Despite the scarcity of comprehensive data, it is well-known that unpaid internships have increasingly become a permanent feature of this field. The  conducted by the Joint Inspection Unit on the UN Internships Programmes revealed that 81% – in numbers 30,957 – of UN internships during the period 2009-2017 were unpaid. Youth precariousness has only been exacerbated during the pandemic as the subsequent increase of online or remote internships further demands interns to make use of their own physical resources, such electronic devices.

Although this policy of not paying interns is not exclusive to international organizations and NGOs, normalizing this practice within a field fundamentally based on the promotion of equality and protection of human rights does raise higher concerns. Unpaid internships are not only unethical for the most obvious reason of not receiving a remuneration. They also reinforce structural inequalities and hinder socio-economic and geographical diversity. While some universities may offer some financial aid, the  has reported that 83.5% of unpaid UN interns would have been unable to afford the internship without their family’s economic support, and that more than half of the respondents came from high-income countries. Moreover, the disproportionate impact of unpaid internships on  and its symbolic implications cannot be overlooked.

Societies have constantly relied on unpaid labour, which tends to be related to caregiving and housekeeping duties, a type of work frequently undertaken by women. Exclusion from the social and political sphere have played a key role in ignoring women’s reality. Even though we enjoy greater freedom and participation than our predecessors, silence remains a constant feature in our lives. Placing UN interns under the category of Gratis Personnel ‘Type I’ perpetuates the devaluation of women, not only monetarily, but in every sense. We are not regarded as investments, but as cheap and replaceable labour, excluded from any kind of organizational protection. We are silenced.

Therefore, by not paying their interns, the United Nations actively feeds this system of oppression and contributes to perpetuate gender inequality. It is true that the UN is not the only one following this policy. Yet, as the world’s preeminent international organization, it holds a major responsibility to end unpaid internships. Its visibility and size confer it a critical role in the promotion of good practices in this regard. Hopefully, the recent decision of the European Committee of Social Rights serves as a first step towards de-normalizing unpaid internships and eventually pushes the UN to implement the recommendations made by the Joint Inspection in 2018. The UN Charter is the primary point of reference for public international lawyers, and should be followed in the UN’s internal policies as well.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine trigged  Europe has witnessed since World War II. Throughout Europe, the public and politicians mobilized to show solidarity and support for those fleeing Ukraine. Within days of the invasion, Europe simplified its . Ukrainians arriving in Europe, welcomed by the Ukraine flag waving on the streets, were provided with food and shelter. Currently,  Ukraine refugees have found a safe haven in Europe.

The response of the European people to the Ukraine stream of refugees is heart-warming. However, it is in stark contrast to the European reaction to the  who sought a safe place in 2015 fleeing the brutal civil war. The Syrian refugees experienced .

This double standard is not limited to policy and politics. European media and journalists used a racist discourse, framing Ukraine refugees as , unlike the refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, who have been stigmatized as terrorists and uncivilized.

The official and media European position towards the Ukraine crisis exposes a deep-rooted racist European policy that excludes and discriminates against other non-European ethnicities. This also explains why some of those fleeing in Ukraine,  as citizens of Ukraine. Students and residents with black skin were prevented from crossing and remained stuck at the border.

The refugees in 2015 and 2022 have similar experiences with war; but the receiving countries make a painful distinction.

This raises the uncomfortable question: is one person worth more protection than another? While the social sciences might provide justifications for the different reactions – explanations related to  and  – this is not how an ethical international protection regime should operate.

The war in Ukraine showed us again that a free and safe country can turn into a warzone in one day. We should not form our response to refugees from our secure and privileged positions. Instead, following philosophy, our action should be determined freely and rationally in a situation of initial equality. If we were ignorant of our social position and ethnic origin, we would execute an international protection regime that treats all those seeking fleeing conflict and seeking safety alike.

Europeans should point each other to this obligation and embrace the universalist spirit of the 1951 Refugee Convention. European States should live up to  of the Convention, which holds that 'all member states shall apply to provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.'

The compassion and solidarity of the Europeans towards the Ukraine refugees should be praised. However, their human response should be extended further and not restricted by discrimination based on race, religion or ethnicity. Europeans have to learn to open their arms to everyone.