Violence at sea, without consequences

2015 Venney MarilynBy Marilyn Venney

One of the main focuses at Oceans Beyond Piracy is, of course, piracy. But piracy is itself a symptom of a much wider issue – the lack of effective governance over the high seas. This isn’t a new problem, and although there are a number of international conventions in place aimed at filling the gap, the fact is that people and vessels operating in international waters are not usually subject to a great deal of oversight. And part of the problem is that there isn’t much interest in this lawlessness or motivation to address it.

This lack of interest is something that OBP has struggled with in the past. Last year a cellphone video turned up on the internet depicting the brutal murder of four seafarers, filmed by some unknown sailor on board another ship. To watch the video, which is graphic and disturbing, see the New York Times article Murder at Sea http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/world/middleeast/murder-at-sea-captured-on-video-but-killers-go-free.html. For those who’d rather not watch, the video shows a group of large vessels surrounding four men in the water, who are hanging on to the floating remains of their small vessel. One by one they are shot to death by a person or multiple people on board one of the larger ships.

When the video surfaced, OBP sent it to mainstream news outlets (in addition to the maritime news sources that OBP often deals with), positive that this would be the incident that pushed seafarer issues and the problem of lawlessness at sea to a wider audience. While the video is now a centerpiece of one segment of the New York Times series The Outlaw Ocean, it took over a year to gain the type of attention that OBP hoped it would attract.

It’s possible that the murdered seafarers were a group of pirates whose attack had just been thwarted. Or maybe they were fishermen from a coastal West African town who got too close to a large international vessel, spooking the sailors and armed guards on board. Unfortunately, pirates don’t actually fly a skull and cross-bones flag, and in practice their small boats are not always distinguishable from the fishing vessels used by fishermen from the region. Sailors on board large international vessels and the teams of armed guards hired to protect them are understandably fearful when travelling through the dangerous waters of the Gulf of Guinea. However, that fear, combined with the knowledge that they enjoy relative impunity, can result in a dangerous propensity to assume that seafarers seemingly approaching them are pirates, and to react accordingly. Although it’s impossible to know what happened before the video begins, in the minutes before their murder it was obvious that they did not pose a threat: their boat was destroyed and they were all hanging on to its remains to stay afloat.

Either way the video is proof of a serious problem: even if the murdered seafarers were pirates, killing them when they were clearly incapacitated would not have been legal. And if they weren’t – if they were innocent fishermen who got a little too close for comfort – their murder is indicative of the danger faced by fishermen operating off the coast of West Africa. There is always the possibility that they could be mistaken for pirates, and there isn’t much protecting them. In this case a video of the incident turned up years later after the cellphone was forgotten in a cab in Fiji and its contents were discovered and released. Normally, though, no one would know. So how many innocent fishermen have faced this end?

The recent NY Times series on lawlessness at sea was definitely a welcome change for organizations like OBP pushing for improved governance over the high seas. Hopefully, it will bring the kind of attention that will make it easier to push for positive change. To read the whole series, go to http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/24/world/the-outlaw-ocean.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article.

Pirates and fraternities, Colorado and the high seas

2015 Venney MarilynBy Marilyn Venney

Telling people that I’m spending the summer in Boulder, Colorado while interning at an organization that works to combat piracy usually elicits some surprise. I’ve become used to questions like “Oh, you mean online piracy?” or “…in Colorado?”. And it has been strange in some ways. Boulder is absolutely beautiful, and has a reputation for being a city full of outdoorsy, active hippies. It’s also a place where college students drive shiny new Range Rovers and spend their summers playing beer pong on the lawns of their frats. It’s a place where it took me three weeks to find a store that sold cucumbers for less than 4 dollars apiece. Where, as of the 2011 census, 88 percent of the population were white and only 0.9 percent were black or African American. This is the backdrop for my evenings and weekends here.

My weekdays, on the other hand, are spent in an office full of people who are very passionate about and committed to various development issues. One Earth Future operates with the ultimate mission of preventing armed conflict and promoting peace through better, more effective government. Of the number of different projects within OEF, this summer I’m working with Oceans Beyond Piracy. Despite my background being in international development, before this summer my familiarity with piracy issues was basic at best. That changed quickly though, as I was thrown into the frenzy leading up to the release of OBP’s annual report assessing the economic and human costs of piracy. Everyone in the office was coming in early and leaving late, doing everything they could to make sure the messages were clear and the numbers were adding up. They have good reason to be so diligent: OBP is only a few years old, but in that short time it has become a respected authority on piracy issues. Its State of Piracy reports gather a great deal of attention each year and have solidified the role of OBP as a crucial actor in the maritime community’s efforts to combat piracy.

I work in the West Africa section of OBP, which means that I spend a lot of time sifting through legislation from West African countries, translating them, and pulling out provisions that are relevant to our work. The nature of piracy in West Africa is fundamentally different from that off the coast of Somalia, and therefore requires different solutions. Ships travelling off the coast of Somalia are usually only passing through, and have little reason to stop in Somali ports. As they never enter Somalia’s territorial waters, they are never subject to Somali law. Ships travelling off the coast of West and Central Africa, on the other hand, make frequent stops in ports and must regularly enter territorial waters. As a result, the responses to piracy that have been so effective in Somalia — the use of armed guards has been a key deterrent to pirate activity off the Horn of Africa — are unworkable in West Africa where ships cannot legally bring teams of armed security guards into a state’s territorial waters. Similarly, the prosecution of Somali pirates was delegated to other states in the region, since, as a failed state, Somalia had little capacity or desire to prosecute. West African countries, however, have a more important role in arresting and prosecuting pirates. The problem is that, as far as OBP can tell, there have been no prosecution of pirates in West Africa.

These challenges are the bases for the two projects that I’ve been working on lately. First, I’ve been helping to locate and analyze any legislation relating to a state’s ability to prosecute pirates, either for the crime of piracy or for some other crime, like armed robbery, assault or murder. Second, I’ve been researching private security legislation as part of an effort to help shipping companies and private security companies understand what the actual policies of each West African state are with regard to whether ships can use armed guards.

So that’s how I spend my weekdays: immersed in the legislation of West African countries and discussing the enormous impacts of piracy on seafarers in West Africa. And then I go home, where I spend my evenings and weekends in beautiful Boulder, hiking, camping, and watching a real-life frat movie unfold across the street from my house. It’s weird.

“I came too far, I can’t give up.”

– Pirate in Captain Phillips

2015 Meredith Carly

By: Carly Meredith

It’s starting to feel like I’ve been here forever. I am not saying that the time feels long. In fact, the days have flown by. It’s just that I’ve absorbed so much knowledge and experienced so much change in such a short period of time that seems impossible that only two months have passed since I arrived in Colorado

I have become so engrossed in my work that the weeks are passing in the blink of an eye. I have been  extensively researching piracy’s kidnap for ransom model and, more specifically, the “forgotten hostages”  that it claims as its victims; those whose governments and ship-owners have refused to pay the ransoms that stand in the way of their release. The days, months, and even years pass as the hostages gradually lose faith in ever being rescued, while the pirates desperately cling to the hope that someone will eventually fork up the sums they have demanded.

The most famous incident of kidnap for ransom by pirates is the case of Captain Phillips, who was held hostage following the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama back in 2009. Fortunately, the U.S. navy was able to step in and successfully rescue their Captain.

His ordeal lasted 4 days.

Now, imagine the 26 crew-members of the Naham 3; hijacked on March 26, 2012, they have remained hostages since that day.

Today marks their 1200th day in captivity.

Their ordeal isn’t over. Our work has just begun. If and when they are released, the world will have changed, their jobs will have been replaced, their economic situation will have worsened dramatically, on top of the physical and mental repercussions that they and their families will have endured.

This world can indeed be a cruel place, but Colorado serves as a constant reminder of the tremendous amount of beauty that it also contains.

I have completely immersed myself in the “Boulder culture”. Known for its peculiar ways, Boulder County is characterized by its hippie vibe and outdoor lifestyle. As a result, I have become an inspired yogi, a lover of organic produce and an avid hiker.

DSC00274

Keeping busy with all of these new activities has made the transition to Colorado rather seamless, though there have been a few mishaps along the way –

Like the time the hike to Diamond Lake became a hike into Diamond Lake. Wearing nothing but shorts and a t-shirt, we hadn’t anticipated the mounds of snow and ice that we would encounter along the way. When we finally made it to our destination, it appeared as though the lake was surrounded by firm, snow-covered ground; that’s until I fell through the snow and into the glacial water.

And, despite my usual aversion to cats, I’ve befriended a cute grey one. Leaving the house in a rush one morning, I found out the hard way that he’d left me a dead mouse offering right by my front door. If he’d only known that if there’s one thing I dislike more than cats, it’s definitely mice.

DSC00222

But, if there’s one place I love, it’s definitely Colorado. If you ever make your way to Colorado, you should know that when you say “sorry” to someone, they won’t say sorry back like Canadians tend to do. Instead, they will kindly tell you “you’re fine” or “you’re okay”.

They’re right. I am okay. More than okay.

Ahoy, Mateys!

2015 Meredith Carly

 By: Carly Meredith

       Knowing that my 24th birthday would be celebrated just hours after my arrival in Colorado and far  from all the people I knew, my mother made an effort to add thoughtful elements to my going-away/early  birthday party. Our kitchen ended up looking very similar to what one would find if they were  to attend  the birthday party of a 6-year-old child. The tablecloth featured a cartoon depiction of pirates,  complete  with the skull head and words such as “arr!” and “ahoy” printed across it.  The serving jugs  were adorned  with eye patches and the cupcakes equally decorated to reflect the pirate theme. The point I am making here has nothing to do with my mother’s talent for throwing themed parties. Rather, it is to show how pirates have been depicted so as to ignite the romantic imagination. Our images of pirates include men with eye patches, pegged legs, and parrots perched on their shoulders. We think of pirates as adventurous and daring seafarers; people from the distant past who braved the harsh waters in search of the infamous “X” that marks the spot…

        It would be untruthful for me to say that modern day pirates lack the brave and  daring  qualities historically associated with them, because they are both of these things  in the boldest  sense. Pop culture has also bestowed on pirates a certain heroic persona.  And, despite the  barbaric and violent nature of pirate attacks, this quality is one that the  pirates of today continue  to lay claim to. Pirates are not heroes, but their motives are  complex. Some pirates have claimed  they are simply protecting their internal waters  from the disastrous effects of illegal fishing, while  others say their criminal activity  allows them to provide necessities for their families whose  survival would otherwise be  threatened. I do believe that modern day piracy grew in part out of  these concerns;  extreme poverty and lack of job opportunity made piracy an attractive option for  many  young men. However, while these justifications for hijacking ships are still cited by many  pirates, piracy has since developed into a multi-model business enterprise.

DSC00100

       The players, targets and locations are always evolving in an effort to secure additional profits, just like any other commercial activity. Incidents of piracy occur in internal and international waters alike. Seafarers traveling in commercial vessels, dhows, local fishing vessels, cruise ships and trawlers are all potential victims. While piracy used to occur mainly off the cost of Somalia, it has now extended its reach across East and West Africa as well as through South East Asia. The buccaneers can be seeking commercial goods, personal property, knowledge or hostages for ransom. Pirates are violent, unpredictable, and innovative. My image of piracy has been completely revolutionized and hopefully yours will be too; there is nothing mythical about them.

       Before I left for Colorado, so many people would ask me: “What does Colorado have to do with piracy?” Well, I’m happy to say I finally have an answer. The impact of piracy is so vast and so widespread in terms of its effects on seafarers and international transit that it qualifies as a global problem that requires a global response. Ocean’s Beyond Piracy may be operating out of the small town of Broomfield, Colorado, far from pirate-infested waters, but it has recognized the devastating potential of pirate activity and the urgent need to respond to it both on location and all away across the world.

Commercial Contract Law as a Counter-Piracy Measure

Kyle Best

1,288 days. This is the unfathomable amount of time that 11 crewmembers of the MV Albedo were held hostage since Somali pirates hijacked their vessel in 2010. News of their release surfaced earlier this month, and is accompanied by footage of the crew going on an African safari, an excursion that they had initially planned in 2010 before they were taken hostage. As they traverse the planes of Africa, the expressions on their faces are ones of excitement and elation, expressions that stand in stark contrast to the enduring pain that these individuals suffered for almost four years prior.

MV Albedo Crew, following release. source: http://www.marsecreview.com/2014/06/albedo-crew-and-families-aftercare/

Crew of the MV Albedo, following their release. Source:http://www.marsecreview.com/2014/06/albedo-crew-and-families-aftercare/

The plight of these seafarers provides a human face to the problems that arise from maritime piracy, however, this human element is not always sufficient to elicit a timely response. This was true for the crewmembers of the MV Albedo. The owner of the ship, believed to be uninsured, abandoned his efforts to pay for the release of the crew early in the negotiations (link). While this type of abandonment is not uncommon in hostage situations, many ship owners nonetheless prioritize crew safety. However, even under the guardianship of such a responsible owner, ships are often chartered by larger corporate entities with a financial interest in sending that ship through an area at risk of piracy. Thus, seafarers are left in a particularly vulnerable state, and the question remains as to how they can be protected from piracy. One possible solution may reside in an unexpected area: commercial contract law.

Consider for a moment the CONWARTIME 1993 clause, known within the industry as a “piracy clause”. This is a standard contractual clause drafted by the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), and can be applied when a vessel is ordered to travel through an area that threatens the safety of ship and crew. In short, this clause creates a legitimate means by which an owner of a ship can protect his or her crew when commanded to travel through an area at risk of piracy. Indeed, the clause was recently invoked to protect seafarers in the case of Pacific Basin IHX Ltd v Bulkhandling Handymax AS, heard at the Commercial Court of the High Court of Justice in England.

In this case, Pacific Basin IHX Ltd. chartered a vessel from Bulkhandling Handyman AS, and ordered them to sail through the Gulf of Aden, which was the fastest route to its destination. However, Bulkhandling did not wish to sail this route due to the increased reports of piracy in the area, notably one in which a vessel had been hijacked and its crew taken hostage the previous month. Faced with this legitimate concern, the owner of the Bulkhandling ship was forced to choose between putting workers at risk of being attacked, and going against the orders of its charterer. Bulkhandling chose to protect its workers, and sailed instead through the Cape of Good Hope, incurring an extra cost of $462,221.40 USD. Pacific’s claim in court was that Bulkhandling should incur this cost because it acted against Pacific’s orders. These costs are significant and, under such financial pressure, it is conceivable that Bulkhandling might risk traveling through an area of noted piracy. However, Bulkhandling countered Pacific’s claim by invoking the CONWARTIME 1993 clause, demonstrating how commercial contract law stands to protect seafarers.

The Court’s ruling on this matter provides significant guidance as to when an owner can invoke this clause, and reject his or her charterers’ order to travel through an area affected by piracy.

1)    The owner must first judge that there is a real likelihood that the Vessel will be exposed to acts of piracy.

2)    Secondly, the owner must judge that there is a real likelihood the acts of piracy will be “dangerous” to the Vessel, her cargo, crew or other persons on board the Vessel

3)    The owner’s judgment must be “objectively reasonable”, and the owner is required to make all necessary enquiries before deciding to avoid the risk.

While these requirements are abstract and somewhat meaningless in isolation, a closer look at how the Court interprets the term “real likelihood” provides some clarity. A “real likelihood” risk of piracy would include something that has less than 50% chance of occurring, however the chances of it occurring must be greater than a “bare possibility”. This standard is not overly stringent, and in practice it provides owners with considerably greater leeway to invoke piracy clauses than the comparably rigorous standard of “more likely than not” (which requires greater than 50% chance of occurring). Beyond this, it is crucial, when invoking this clause, to prove that the area in question is in fact “dangerous”, a point that has been noted by BIMCO in its 2013 revisions of the piracy clauses.

Most significantly, this case confirms the possibility to invoke piracy clauses as a means to protect seafarers at risk of an attack. Indeed, a recent case heard by the same Court confirmed an owner’s right to invoke a piracy clause, and further removed a debilitating requirement that precluded certain claims. Despite this progression, the legal community has noted that there is likely to be further judicial development on the subject.[1][2] As the courts move forward on this issue, concerns relevant to the plight of the seafarer include:

  • Piracy clauses require owners to make a decision to ignore a charterers’ order, a decision that courts must deem “objectively reasonable.” However, Oceans Beyond Piracy has noted that there are continuing challenges in both reporting and information sharing with regards to piracy. Such an environment obfuscates both the owner’s ability to make this decision, and his or her ability to prove its objective reasonableness in court.
  • Piracy clauses serve as a strictly preventative tool. Providing owners with this discretion may reduce the possibility of an attack, but it does not eliminate the risk.
  • Owners, not seafarers, exercise the discretion granted by piracy clauses. In an industry where the cost of transportation often amounts to significant sums, financial pressures exerted by charterers stand to outweigh some owners’ concern for the safety of their crews.

Footnotes:


[1] http://www.steamshipmutual.com/publications/Articles/conwartime-1993.htm

[2] http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/59912/the-threat-of-piracy-deviation-and-conwartime-1993-war-risk-ruling-to-be-reassessed

Piracy, Universal Jurisdiction, and Domestic Law in the United States

Andrew Higdon, One Earth Future Foundation. Broomfield, Colorado, USA.

2013 Andrew Hidgon 100x150On November 7, 2008 the Bahamian flagged cargo ship CEC Future was attacked by Somali pirates on the high seas in the Gulf of Aden. The attackers, armed with AK-47s and rocket propelled grenades, fired shots and boarded the ship. The ship and her crew (eleven Russians, one Georgian and one Estonian) were released a month later when the Dutch ship owners paid a $1.7 million USD ransom. In order to negotiate with the outside world, the pirates employed Ali Muhammad Ali who acted as a facilitator and interpreter onboard the ship.  Ali made $16 500 USD from his cut of the ransom, and negotiated an additional $75 000 USD from the ship owners for coordinating the release – all without leaving Somali territorial waters for any significant length of time.

In addition to being a pirate negotiator, Ali also served as the Director General of the Ministry of Education of Somaliland – a fact that neatly conveys at the scale of the problems facing Somalia. US prosecutors used his position to lure him into the US by inviting him to a fake education conference in Raleigh, North Carolina. Upon arrival he was immediately arrested and charged under US piracy and hostage taking laws. How could the US claim jurisdiction over a non-national who committed a crime in another country against a ship sailed and owned by foreign nationals?

Under international law, states must have jurisdiction over the person and the offence in order to affect a legitimate prosecution. In the case of piracy, nations rely on customary international law and the UN Convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982) to ground their jurisdiction. Unique among crimes, piracy has long been treated as an offense that any nation can prosecute. Unlike other theories of jurisdiction (such as “the territoriality principle” which gives states jurisdiction over events that take place within their territory,  or “the nationality principle” with gives states jurisdiction over actions committed by a their nationals) piracy is a crime that requires no nexus for a state to properly assert jurisdiction. Basically, any state that finds a pirate on the high seas can prosecute him. Traditionally, this unique jurisdictional aspect of piracy has been viewed as a consequence of the fact that pirates committed their crimes on the high seas, outside of anyone’s jurisdiction, and against the international community at large.

But Ali hadn’t operated on the high seas; he had helped facilitate piracy from Somali territory. The prosecutors charged Ali under 18 U.S.C. § 1651 – the US law that prohibits piracy – which states that individuals commit an offence where they commit piracy as defined by international law. This meant that the court had to examine the provisions of UNCLOS. Despite a long history of academics and law makers articulating the belief that piracy was something that could only occur on the high seas, the court took the opposite view. Brown J. ruled that since the sub article criminalizing the facilitation of piracy did not explicitly mention a high seas requirement (while other articles did) this indicated that no high seas requirement existed. While the position is defensible, it does suggest a challenge to the accepted order of jurisdiction.

It is highly unusual for a state to claim jurisdiction over the actions of a foreign national who committed a crime within the territory of his own nation, and where there is no other nexus with the prosecuting state. This is predicated on the understanding in international law that states will not interfere with the internal affairs of others. With this ruling, the US appears to be signalling its willingness to do so in certain situations. Perhaps the court decided as it did because of the fact that in Somalia there is little chance that men like Ali will ever see a courtroom. It seems unlikely that they would have decided the same way in a case that concerned a more developed nation. In any event, it illustrates the seriousness with which US prosecutors regard international crime and their comfort with dealing with it domestically. It is something that I think we should watch carefully.

Oceans Beyond Piracy and the Somali Situation

2013 Andrew Hidgon 100x150Andrew Higdon, Oceans Beyond Piracy, Colorado USA.

Far from an 18th or 19th Century problem, maritime piracy continues to exact a humanitarian toll on seafarers and an economic toll on the global economy. While dangers exist in the vicinity of the Malacca Strait and the Gulf of Guinea, the waters near Somalia form the seas most well known for their pirates. Somali piracy has achieved greater notoriety than piracy elsewhere largely as a result of a massive spike in activity that began in 2008 – 2009. Several large vessels were taken hostage by pirates, and the world media began to pay attention.

Somalia is unfortunately an ideal environment for pirates. As a failed state, there is little law enforcement capacity or interest in establishing rule of law. Further, the crushing poverty in Somalia drives some to crime. Finally, Somalia is located by the Gulf of Aden, through which the vast majority of European trade with Asia passes. The confluence of factors makes a career as a pirate all too tempting for some Somali men. The problem began to escalate quickly. In 2011 more than 3,500 seafarers suffered attacks by pirates, and more than 500 were taken hostage.

Since it is difficult to acquire sophisticated equipment in Somalia, pirates use small boats with outboard motors to attack. Pirates attempt to manoeuver alongside “deep-sea” ships unnoticed and then scale ropes or ladders to get on deck. Once aboard, they seize the bridge of the ship, take the crew hostage, and re-route the ship to an anchorage near the shores of Somalia. Since these pirate anchorages lack the facilities to unload large ships, the pirates do not steal cargo. Instead, they ransom the ship and the seafarers back to the shipping company and owners. This attack-and-ransom profile is different from pirate attacks elsewhere in the world and puts additional stress on seafarers, who are often held for long periods of time while they wait to be ransomed. Some of these mariners do not survive, and some are very clearly tortured during their captivity. Since the crews of merchant ships are disproportionately chosen from the poorer nations of the world and are paid only modestly, it seems an additional affront that they must endure the greatest share of the burden.

Fortunately the international community has responded. Many countries sent naval forces to protect World Food Program vessels and merchant traffic. The Royal Canadian Navy continues to participate in Operation Ocean Shield, the NATO contribution. International organizations set up “sharing centres” where merchant ships could share their planned route and coordinate with available military assets.  Perhaps most significantly, sharing centres began to promulgate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to merchant ships to help teach mariners ways to decrease the likelihood of attack. Some of these practices are as simple as speeding up through High Risk Areas (HRAs). Pirates in small boats have a tremendously difficult time boarding fast moving targets. However, the shipping industry runs on razor thin profit margins, and increasing the speed of ships is inefficient and very costly. In 2012, shipping companies paid more than $1.5 billion in extra fuel costs associated with the faster speeds recommended in BMPs.

Thankfully, these measures have made a difference. It has been more than a year since a ship was reported to be successfully hijacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia. However, shipping companies continue to spend billions of dollars re-routing ships away from the HRA and buying additional fuel to achieve faster speeds. The international community also expends billions of dollars keeping a naval presence in the area. Another major expense is the placement of Private Military Security Company (PMSC) personnel aboard merchant ships. These armed guards used to be hired from among retired Special Forces personnel from Western militaries, but increasingly are being chosen from less reputable armed forces at more affordable rates. While PMSC personnel generate a very effective deterrent (no ship has been successfully hijacked off the coast of Somalia with PMSC personnel embarked) they potentially add a new facet to the problem. On the high seas, where criminal jurisdiction is hard to enforce, there is little to restrain a “shoot first, ask questions later” fire policy. Unfortunately, there are already cases where PMSC personnel appear to have misidentified fishermen with fatal consequences. These cases will prove to be exceptionally difficult to prosecute.

Oceans Beyond Piracy (OBP), where I am doing my internship, is part of a larger project called the One Earth Future Foundation (OEF). OBP pursues long-term solutions to the many issues surrounding piracy worldwide. In Somalia, this means bringing shareholders from industry, government and third parties together with sound research and analysis. So far I have been asked to conduct research on points of international law, especially questions about criminal jurisdiction at sea. The people who work here are knowledgeable and dedicated, and it’s been very exciting to work with them. I’m looking forward to the next few months immensely!

Blog authors are solely responsible for the content of the blogs listed in the directory. Neither the content of these blogs, nor the links to other web sites, are screened, approved, reviewed or endorsed by McGill University. The text and other material on these blogs are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or information of McGill.