By Muhammad Tanvir Hashem Munim

For the last few days, Bangladesh has seceded from the outside world. The government has imposed a communication blackout amid its crackdown on the student protestors demanding quota reforms. It has enforced a nationwide curfew and deployed military forces.

The student protests in Bangladesh demanding quota reforms began in early 2018. The movement was sparked by growing frustration among university students over the existing public sector job quota system, which they felt disproportionately favoured certain groups at the expense of merit-based selection. The quota system in the country reserves 56% of government first-class and second-class jobs for some specific groups. In some job sectors, this quota reservation may reach as many as 96% of the jobs. Such a system caused discontent among the university students.

The discontent led to organised demonstrations, initially gaining momentum at Dhaka University and quickly spreading to other universities across the country. The students’ primary demand was to significantly reduce the quotas and allocate more jobs based on merit, ensuring equal opportunities for all candidates. The movement gained widespread support, highlighting broader issues of fairness and transparency in government recruitment processes.

Over the last week, these protests reignited following the Bangladesh Supreme Court’s (High Court Division) decision to reinstate the controversial quota system, which reserves a significant portion of public sector jobs for certain groups. According to reports, 174 people have been killed nationwide (Source: The Independent, 23.07.2024). Local sources indicate that the actual number of deaths may be significantly higher, but the ongoing communication blackout has obstructed the flow of information from the conflict-ridden country (Source: The Independent, 23.07.2024). The demonstrations have escalated into violent clashes, with thousands of students, journalists, and police officers injured. These demonstrations, initially peaceful, saw an increase in violence after those in power made inflammatory comments comparing the protesters to historical collaborators with Pakistan, prompting hundreds of thousands of students to take to the streets. The government’s response has included, amongst others, educational institutions closures and an internet blackout in an attempt to quell the unrest.

Article 37 of the Bangladesh Constitution guarantees the right to assemble and participate in peaceful demonstrations, while Article 39 guarantees freedom of speech, subject to ‘reasonable’ restrictions imposed by law. While the spectrum of ‘reasonable’ is debated it can never extend to such an extent that leads to the deaths of the protestors. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, which serves as a significant milestone in the promotion and protection of human rights globally, declares freedom of speech (Article 19 of UDHR) and freedom of assembly (Article 20 of UDHR) as inalienable rights of all human being. It is extremely sad to see how these inalienable rights of Bangladeshi Citizens have been violated in this quota protest, leading to the violation of superior rights like the right to life and liberty guaranteed in the Bangladesh Constitution (Article 32 of the Bangladesh Constitution).

The legality of quota reform in Bangladesh is undoubtedly a matter open to debate, involving complex legal, social, and political considerations. However, the tragic deaths of protesters of the quota system transcend legal arguments and touch on fundamental human rights and ethical principles. Regardless of one’s stance on the reform, the loss of life during such protests is unequivocally unacceptable and cannot be justified or supported under any legal framework. The focus must be on ensuring that the rights to peaceful protest and freedom of speech are upheld and that such tragic events are addressed with accountability and respect for human dignity rather than being overshadowed by contentious legal and political debates.

Bangladeshi students at City, University of London express their profound concern and anguish over the deaths during the ongoing protests. Demonstrating solidarity with their peers protesting in Bangladesh, they strongly condemn the violence and call for an immediate end to the repression. They urge the government to halt the ongoing atrocities. They want to see that those responsible for these tragic losses are held accountable. They stand united with the protestors in safeguarding their democratic rights, emphasising that no cause justifies the loss of life or the suppression of voices calling for change.

Caption: Abu Sayed, a student from English Department of Begum Rokeya University, Rangpur, Bangladesh, standing with his arms wide open and chest out in front of the police force during the protests, moments before his tragic death.

By: Sahar T. Sadoughi

“Europe will be forged in crisis and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises”— Jean Monnet.

The last decade has seen great geopolitical challenges, from ‘Brexit’ to the COVID-19 Pandemic to the wholescale Russian invasion of Ukraine and beyond. With these arguably seismic events, the role of states, transnational bodies, and the international order takes centre stage. It is these questions that grounded the City Law School  Institute for the Study of European Law (ISEL) Annual lecture on 10 July entitled ‘The EU and the Current Geopolitical Challenges’. Featuring a lecture by two-term former President of the European Commission and former Portuguese Prime Minister José Manuel Barroso, followed by a panel with Professors Panos Koutrakos and Elaine Fahey, chaired by Christopher Vajda KC, former Judge at the European Court of Justice; the Event aimed to provide insight into the unique role the European Union currently occupies vis-à-vis these ongoing geopolitical challenges and its potential role in a rapidly changing international order.

Barroso’s lecture used insight from his previous role as president of the European Commission and his current role as chair of Global Vaccine alliance ‘GAVI’ to highlight the challenges currently facing the international order and the place that the EU operates and the strength of unity arising from its response to these crises. He presented his thesis behind the lecture, stating that he believes the EU is going to make more progress in its identity insofar is the EU is moving from “geopolitical adolescence” to becoming a “geopolitical adult”.  He began by positing that the power behind the international order was based in the US and Europe after the Second World War, but that this international order is in the process of changing. Barroso cited the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in March 2022 as a historic moment that has turned the tide for the EU, claiming that it is unlikely the world will come to a status quo ante.

Continue reading

By Enrico Bonadio (City, University of London) – Tanvi Agarwal (West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences)

The ‘right to repair’ movement is currently gaining momentum, as also confirmed by a directive recently approved by the European Council. Broadly speaking, such a right aims at giving consumers the liberty to enjoy products efficiently for a longer period of time. Every product has indeed a period for which it functions effectively, beyond which it starts becoming obsolete. Here, the divide in the ideology between the manufacturers and the consumers becomes stark.

Manufacturers of products such as consumers’ electronics (e.g. smartphones) often, either directly or indirectly, tend to prevent consumers from repairing or modifying these products on their own. They may deploy strategies like restricting access to the information available to the public regarding the basic blueprint or manuals of the product along with denying access to necessary instruments, tools of repair and essential elements of the product.

But consumers often want the right and freedom to modify and repair these products on their own without which they are forced to endure expenses in buying a new product. While this debate is burgeoning advocating for a change in legislation to allow this right to be made available for consumers, the manufacturers are rigorously trying to stall the process by claiming how the ‘right to repair’ impinges on their intellectual property (IP) rights.

Indeed, such IP rights, especially copyright, can be invoked to control who can repair these goods. For examples, complex products such as those within the information and communication technology sector often incorporate software or other technological device which are protected by IP rights. And pieces of legislation like the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the EU Info-Society Directive explicitly prohibit the circumvention of technological protection measures embedded into such copyright-protected products. These rules can be enforced against third parties who are involved in repairing services.

Continue reading