We Have Failed The Rohingya

A family of displaced Rohingya people
A family of displaced Rohingya people. Credit to United to End Genocide under CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Not since the atrocities of Rwanda has the world seen widespread ethnic cleansing equal to that of the Rohingya in Burma. And just like Rwanda, the international community has failed to intervene as a widespread genocide continues.

The persecution of the Rohingya has been ongoing since the military takeover of Burma in 1962. While not on the current scale of violence, the Rohingya have always been subjugated in Burma whether through their assets and homes being seized by the Burmese government or their lack of political recognition by the Burmese government. Due to their Bengali heritage and Muslim faith, the Rohingya have long remained on the outskirts of Burmese society, alienated.

Only recently has this structural violence evolved into the current ethnic cleansing of Rohingya. Attacks on Burmese border guards in October of 2016 by unidentified insurgents were blamed on the Rohingya, despite the insurgents being unknown. These border attacks were utilised by the Burmese government to portray the stateless Rohingya as being “violent Muslim terrorists” that have no right to reside in Burma. The border attacks helped the Burmese military establishment consolidate its power by rallying the majority Buddhist population against Muslim Rohingya.

The genocide of the Rohingya by Burmese nationalists is on a scale unlike any in modern history. Encouraged by the government, local police in the Rakhine region have jailed hundreds of Rohingya, some as young as ten years old, accused of “terrorism.” According to Médecins Sans Frontières, over 6,700 Rohingya have been killed in August alone (730 of which were children). Hundreds of homes have been burned down by the Burmese military. The government recently admitted to using helicopters to attack Rohingya villages accused of being armed. Hundreds of women have been reportedly raped by Burmese soldiers. Over 3,000 children are currently suffering from malnutrition. In total, more than 640,000 Rohingya have been forced to flee Burma.

What is most concerning is that the mistreatment of the Rohingya has been known by the international community for years. The first indications of mass ethnic cleansing began in 2012 when fears of the Rohingya developing into a demographic majority triggered mass rapes and killings of Rohingya by Buddhist extremists, with government endorsement. A suppressed internal UN report revealed that the UN had failed to adequately respond to the violence against the Rohingya beginning in 2012. Another BBC report revealed that the head of the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) in Burma, Renata Lok-Dessallien, had reprimanded and isolated staff who warned of mass ethnic cleansing. The damning BBC report also exposed the UNCT for blocking human rights activists from investigating the claims of the Rohingya.

It increasingly appears that in the case of the Rohingya, just like that of the Rwandan massacre, the UN failed to properly warn of and condemn the persecution of the Rohingya. While the UN is now openly defending the Rohingya, it is too little too late. The responsibility to intervene has now shifted from the UN to the international community. Despite the UN publicising the Burmese government’s direct involvement in the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya, no governments have actively implemented economic sanctions against Burma.

If we want to end to the abuse of the Rohingya, the international community must act against the Burmese government. With no economic sanctions, and the US State Department refusing to classify the persecution as genocide, the Burmese government continues to face no consequences for its actions. The international community has a moral responsibility to not only condemn instances of ethnic cleansing but to actively punish state actors that participate in such atrocities.

We, the international community, have failed the Rohingya. We failed the Rohingya by not acting following the 2012 riots against the Rohingya. We failed by not acting when numerous human rights activists warned of a possible genocide. And we continue to fail the Rohingya every day that the Burmese government and those responsible face absolutely no consequences for their horrific actions.


Why Stellar Is the Future of Payment Services

The Stellar network is an open-source protocol that allows for the transfer of credit between different ‘gateways’ located on a public ledger. Gateways on the Stellar network are institutions that hold credits of a specific currency. One example of this is a bank that holds Australian dollars or US dollars. These gateways can then transfer credits between each other, allowing for instantaneous remittances and currency exchange (i.e. An Australian bank exchanging AUD for USD).

What makes the Stellar network distinct is its use of an internal currency, its cheap fees and its extremely fast speed. Unlike networks such as VISA or SWIFT, the Stellar network is able to process transactions, in real time, with little to no fees. It’s both the fastest and cheapest payment network using blockchain technology.

The Stellar network also comes with its own internal cryptocurrency (Lumens). The Lumen currency is useful as it provides liquidity and trust between gateways. For example, instead of an Australian bank having to trust that an American bank will credit it with USD in exchange of AUD, both banks can use Lumens without having to trust each other. The use of Lumens also means that banks and exchanges do not have to hold numerous volatile currencies to ensure that they are always liquid and able to process transactions.

Stellar is looking to become the most popular blockchain payment network ever. Recently Stellar announced a partnership with IBM, becoming IBM’s primary payment gateway. Through this partnership, Stellar will become the new payment gateway for international remittances between banks. It will be used for transfers between the Australian dollar, New Zealand dollar, British pound and numerous other currencies. Stellar is also being adopted by the auditing giant Delloite.

Stellar is not only a platform for large financial institutions but also for consumers and developers. The public nature of the Stellar network will allow developers to build applications (and smart contracts) that interact directly with banks and exchanges. The network and currency will also allow consumers to perform peer to peer currency exchanges on the network itself, avoiding the middlemen of banks and exchanges.

Stellar and its Lumens currency will not be leaving anytime soon. As its adoption continues to grow and banks being to see the potential of Stellar, Stellar may take over as the number one payment gateway and with it, Lumens will become the first transnational currency.

An Introduction to Smart Contracts and the Law

What are smart contracts?

There is no one definitive answer to the question “What is a smart contract?” Depending on who you ask a smart contract could be either considered lines of executable code existing on a blockchain or an autonomous agreement. In the context of the legal industry, a smart contract is defined as an agreement between two or more parties to the exchange of information or assets; based on one or more conditions being met; which is self-enforcing, autonomous and operates as a computer program.

Such smart contracts are not written or oral contracts but are instead programs executed and stored, most commonly, on a trusted and independent blockchain (a decentralized public ledger). Smart contracts do not necessarily have to be executed on the blockchain (such as a simple transaction processed by a vending machine), however, the use of secure blockchain technology ensures that both parties are able to trust that their smart contract cannot be changed or reversed by any party. The use of blockchain technology ensures that both parties are able to view and access the code of a smart contract and also allows for smart contracts much more complex than simple automated transactions.

The purpose of smart contracts is to prevent parties, to a contract, from failing or refusing to fulfill their agreements. Since smart contracts are written into code and executed independent of both parties, it is impossible for any party to renege on their agreement. Essentially smart contracts create trustless environments where parties to a contract do not have to rely on each other nor fallible and centralized institutions (such as law firms or the government) to enforce contracts.

How can smart contracts be used?

There are numerous practical applications of smart contracts. One common application of a smart contract is for betting. Parties to a betting agreement will all send their assets to a smart contract which then waits for a condition to the bet to be fulfilled (for example whether or not a winner has been declared for the Mayweather v. McGregor fight) and then based upon the result, the assets of the losing parties are redistributing to the winning parties. In this example, while the smart contract still relies on a third party to decide the winners, it is impossible for the parties to the contract to renege on their agreements by refusing to pay the winners.

A more complex application of smart contracts is insurance policy. Smart contracts are now being used to autonomously execute insurance payouts, without the policyholder having to make a claim. Instead, payouts can be automated if verifiable and public information (such as if the policyholder had died, or if a natural disaster had affected their home) is found by the contract. Such an application would significantly reduce the possibility of insurance fraud, as well as saving the time of both policyholders and insurers in making and verifying claims.

The possible applications of smart contracts are extensive and varying from simple transfers of assets to complex financial operations. The trustless, self-enforcing and public nature of smart contracts has also opened up the possibility of their use by governments and the legal industry. In many countries and in the US, governments are considering using smart contracts in elections. This fact demonstrates the increased importance of both blockchain technology and smart contracts and, in the context of the law, the need for definitive legislation and research on smart contracts.

Are smart contracts legal?

Smart contracts are not inherently legally binding and recognized contracts, however, that does not mean smart contracts cannot be legal. The legality of a smart contract is dependent upon the nature of the agreement, the conditions of the agreement and whether parties to the contract are consenting. It is also dependent on a legal system’s definition of what is and is not a contract.

The primary issue with the legality of smart contracts is that unlike traditional contracts, smart contracts are neither written text nor oral communication (which is a requirement of contracts in most legal systems). Smart contracts are solely code and while the code of a smart contract is supposed to be accessible to both parties, code is not a natural language or even a language for that matter.

One notable case that demonstrates the risks of recognizing code as a legal contract is the DAO incident. In the DAO case, a smart contract known as the Decentralized Autonomous Organization was supposed to raise money from investors who would then use the smart contract to fund other blockchain projects that they liked. It was essentially a democratic Kickstarter for blockchain projects. The DAO eventually raised over $150 million USD, however, due to a bug in the code of the DAO smart contract, hackers were able to steal over $50 million dollars. Although to the code of the smart contract this was a completely legitimate transaction, the intended and implicit agreement between the participants of the smart contract wouldn’t have allowed for such an action. This case demonstrates the problem with treating code as the rule of law in smart contracts.

One solution offered to this problem is that smart contracts, if intended to have the protection and recognition of the law, should be accompanied by written agreements that would supersede any faults in the code of smart contracts. In such cases, the legality and rules of the smart contract would be clear to both participants and to the law. Outside of cases where smart contracts are not accompanied by written contracts, there exists a large legal gray area. In certain US states such as Arizona, Nevada, and Vermont, legislation has been introduced that legally recognizes smart contracts. However, in other states and countries, there is no definitive legal position on whether code alone is considered legally binding. 

While there are very obvious cases where smart contracts would not be recognized by the law, such as an assassination smart contract or smart contract that trades state secrets for fiat, in more innocuous cases such as betting there are questions over just how much participants are protected by the law. Such questions over the legality of smart contracts will likely depend on future state legislation and an increase in use-cases for which the legal industry can begin to evaluate.

What is the future of smart contracts and the law?

As the use of smart contracts for financial operations increases, so will the desire for definitive legislation on smart contracts. Despite some proponents of smart contracts arguing that they will remove the need for contract lawyers, cases such as the DAO demonstrate that for now, code is not law. Smart contracts do make many common operations and contracts much cheaper and efficient and this may limit the responsibilities of many lawyers, but such contracts will still require the protection of the law.

While the self-enforcement of smart contracts seemingly eradicates the need for contract law enforcement, the DAO shows that when smart contracts fail to enforce their intended agreements, that failure can have significantly detrimental and sometimes irreversible consequences that can only be prevented and reversed by the human element of the law. The legal industry will also play a significant role in assessing the legality of different smart contracts and possibly attempting to supersede the self-enforcement of such contracts when they circumvent laws and regulations (i.e. tax law, gambling laws). Smart contracts are a tool that when used in accordance with the law and with the protection of the law, can provide a great deal of value to its users. However, when such contracts fail to act as intended or attempt to circumvent the law, contract law will definitely be required to overrule smart contracts.

In conclusion, smart contracts will not in the near future be replacing contract law enforcement. There is no doubt that smart contracts will not only require legal oversight to protect consumers but will likely increase the role of law in contracts. The law will be needed to prevent the misuse of smart contracts and the exploitation of smart contract code, for the protection of both consumers and the law.