Cell Phones in Poland

After writing this response to one student's email (thanks for the question!) I realized that it might be of interest generally for those who really want a cell phone in Poland.

For a cell phone, first call your cell phone provider and find out if your phone can work in Poland. Ask very carefully and make sure you speak to the international services department -- the national sales person I called first said "of course your phone will work, just let me connect you to the international sales rep who can fill you in on plans and rates." The international sales rep ridiculed the national sales rep and informed me that my phone can't ever work in Poland.

If that fails, and you really want one now, you can rent one for about $100 total for the 4 weeks from www.cellhire.com.  The rates are not very cheap, but you will have a working number and phone in your pocket when you leave the U.S. This is the company the MSU OSA recommended to me.

If that fails, you can buy a pay-as-you-go cell phone once you land in Poland. I'll get recommendations on how best to do this when you arrive.

Ex Post Facto Rules and The Rule of Law

Lon Fuller described the Rule of Law in terms of a series of errors made by a fictitious sovereign, King Rex. The eight failures by which Rex failed to conform to the Rule of Law are:

1. Attempting to decide all disputed matters in his kingdom on an ad hoc basis;
2. Failing to publish laws;
3. Using retroactive rules, principles, and legislation to decide legal disputes;
4. Adopting impossibly complex rules and codes;
5. Adopting rules and codes that imposed contradictory obligations upon citizens, thus rendering conformity with the law impossible.
6. Adopting rules that citizens could not possibly satisfy;
7. Making frequent and substantial changes to the law that interfered with its stability; and
8. Failing to administer the law in conformity with its published text.

Over the weekend, I discovered that my own allegiance to the principles of the Rule of Law only goes so far. My youngest daughter, L, is terrible about keeping track of her stuff and picking up after herself. Upon seeing that L had failed to pick up her plate and glass at the table after lunch, I called her down and informed her that there would be a new rule from now on -- every time she failed to pick up her place at the table, I would fine her $1.00. No problem so far, but then I directed her to bring me a dollar from her bank as a fine for the dishes she had left out before I made the rule.

As a parent, I have no problem with punishments laid down after the fact. (Rules are a different matter and we do our best to keep them to a minimum and to keep them simple and clear).

But as a lawyer and a Rule of Law scholar, I experienced this weird pang of guilt at inventing this new punishment on the spot that L could not have anticipated. State-based law does not distinguish between rules and punishment -- creating an ex post facto rule to render previously permissible conduct impermissible is just as bad as increasing the punishment for particular misconduct after the miscreant has engaged in the misconduct.

On the other hand, L picked up her dishes at the next meal, so I must be doing something right.

Travel Advisory Re: OBL

This was sent as an email but it's also worth posting here.  

       Dear Student:

 

You are receiving this message because our records indicate that you are enrolled in a Michigan State University study abroad programthat begins over the summer. Some of you may be leaving this month, others may not leave until June or July. Regardless, we want to make sure that you are all equally informed. Throughout the summer, please remember to check the OSA Homepage for any updates related to this message. Also, as this is the time of year when flights are delayed or cancelled due to severe thunderstorms, makes sure you review our guidelines regarding severe weather delays.

 

By now you are aware that Osama bin Laden was killed on Sunday in Pakistan by U.S. forces. Shortly following this announcement, the U.S. Department of State issued a Worldwide Travel Alert, which references the possibility of terrorist attacks against Americans or American interests abroad to avenge bin Laden’s death. However, at this time there is no specific, credible information about potential targets in the U.S. or abroad. As a result, no program changes for summer semester are anticipated. The Worldwide Travel Alert is scheduled to expire August 1, 2011.

 

As per our usual procedures when such announcements are made by State Department, we have posted the link to our homepage. Once abroad, we strongly encourage you to avoid mass gatherings and demonstrations that may be cause for anti-American violence. And, for the time being, we also ask that you refrain from congregating in bars, restaurants or other establishments known to be frequented by American citizens.

 

Since OSA registers all study abroad programs with the U.S. Department of State, there is no need for you to complete the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) discussed in the Alert. Instead, we are writing to remind you to take the Alert seriously and once abroad, to follow the security advice of your program leader(s), host institution/organization, or internship provider. It is also very important that throughout the program you stay in regular contact with your loved ones at home, who may experience additional anxiety about your safety due to widespread media reports of the Alert. 

 

Remember that a Travel Alert is not the same as a Travel Warning. Travel Alerts are considered mid-level advisories and are most often issued to describe temporary threats, including potential risks related to elections, major sporting events, civil unrest related to political or economic issues facing the country, outbreaks of widespread disease (such as H1N1), a break-down of infrastructure following a natural disaster, or in this case, a potential terrorist threat. Travel Warnings are the highest level of advisory, noting long-term, systemic, dangerous conditions tied to political, social, economic or environmental conditions.  

 

Should you have any questions or concerns about your safety, please contact your program leaders(s), resident director, or internship supervisor on-site. In an emergency, you may also call our 24/7 hotline at 517-353-3784.

On the Rule of Law, Hobbes, and the Law of Nations

The finals-induced fog has lifted, and I'm back. I'll be uploading a lot of content over the next few days regarding the trip to Krakow, including the itinerary (Leave Friday, June 17, Saturday June 18 in Krakow, including tours of Wawel Castle, the Old Town, and the Jewish Quarter; Sunday morning tour of Auschwitz and return to Bialystok -- 650PLN per person), the trip to Warsaw, updates on housing, etc.

In the meantime, the death of Osama bin Laden provides a teachable moment on the relationship between the rule of law and the law of nations. Despite that the official story on how bin Laden was killed is still changing on a more or less daily basis, critics are already coming forward to complain that the killing was illegal.

Realistically, this claim is absurd on many levels.

Fundamentally, the rule of law is a statement of the relationship between the individual and the state. It represents a consent by the sovereign to restrict the sovereign's activities to those governed by law. For instance, the English Magna Carta represented a compact between the English barons and King John under which King John was forced to promise not to use his sovereign authority in ways that violated the fundamental rights of the barons (and later English (and eventually UK) subjects in general). Likewise, Polish kings were subject to customary law restrictions regarding what they could and could not do vis a vis the Polish nobility. The US and Polish constitutions (I hope the Polish readers of this blog will accept my belated good wishes for Constitution Day) theoretically restricts what the governments may do to control the lives of U.S. and Polish citizens.

But the rule of law cannot apply in every situation. In international relations, for instance, "law" as a restriction on international relations is an absurdity. Nation states have no obligation other than habit or self-interest to respect international customs or agreements. Thomas Hobbes, in fact, described international relations as an example of the state of nature in which all were in a state of war against all.

There is another situation in which, at least according to Hobbesian thought, the rule of law cannot apply in dealings between individuals and the state in which the individual has removed himself or herself from the social compact in which the state is obligated to protect the life of the individual. In this case, the individual has reentered the state of nature as against the state and all members of the state. Similarly, individuals who are not part of the social compact under the sovereign's control are likewise not within the rule of law but rather are subject to the "law" of nations.

In the case of bin Laden, besides that he was a foreign national and therefore already in a state of nature (and an actual state of war) with the US, his mass murder of US non-combatants was the type of act that Hobbes would see as removing a person from the social compact and placing them in a state of nature vis a vis the sovereign. Thus, while international "law" might assert that the killing was illegal because it violated Pakistani sovereignty, the reality is that nation states abide by international law only while it is convenient and in their self interest. In the matter of whether the killing comported with the values of the rule of law, it is difficult to see how bin Laden's death affects those issues at all.

Or maybe not -- can a case be made that the rule of law applies equally between nation states as between individuals and their sovereigns? Discuss.