In his opening remarks during the 74th ExCom of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in October 2023, the High Commissioner Filipo Grandi outlined that, despite borders and policies restrictions, 108.4 million people have had no choice but to flee their homes due to climate change, persecution, war, violence, human rights violations or instability.[1] This proves a reality, that people will always be on the move, but how they move depends on governments’ policies and procedures. When regular pathways are heavily restricted or closed, forcibly displaced people are prone to exploitation, abuse, and human rights violations by smugglers and traffickers. For example, according to the Missing Migrants Project, to date, 28,189 migrants have gone missing in the Med since 2014, with over 2,500 missing in 2023 only.[2] However, challenges that asylum seekers and refugees experience are not limited to the danger of death or human rights violations. Thousands of asylum seekers in the European Union wait for years to hear about their asylum claims decisions. In the UK for example, in August 2023, the asylum backlog reached record high, with 175,000 waiting for a decision on their asylum claim, living in limbo and uncertainty.[3] Other more depressing and worrying examples are related to forced returns to countries of origin when they are not yet safe, like Denmark’s returning Syrian refugees.[4]  All the above, accompanied with the rise of the right wing in Europe draws a gloomy picture for asylum seekers and refugees who have reached Europe, and those who will be forced to do so.[5] In addition to cruel policies, in many instances, the EU policies also fell short of responding to the emerging and forgotten conflicts and humanitarian crises. EU responses lacked an emergency or early warning system and were taken by shock during certain events like the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 and the following humanitarian crisis. Moreover, the lack of holistic and concentrated approaches to humanitarian disasters made responses short-sighted and exclusive. The above shows systemic failures in the EU to live up to the international obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees, especially because refugees have been excluded from spaces where decisions on their lives have taken place. In addition to the fact that governments should be accountable towards the affected communities, having refugees—regardless of their legal status—absent from designing policies, is a missed opportunity. Refugees have the solutions and the insights and their voice is crucial for a welcoming Europe. Earlier this year, in January 2023, over 100 refugee leaders from all over the EU gathered in a three-day summit to draw a picture of an inclusive and welcoming Europe. Participants crafted a roadmap that holds the key to solutions of the main challenges that refugees face. Listening to them, and transforming the scene in Europe based on their contributions would lead to more inclusive, relevant, and dynamic refugee responses and plans. I—Political Exclusion These challenges are underpinned by a fundamental issue, which is the lack of refugees' meaningful participation in creating policies and making decisions that affect their life in the host countries. The lack of avenues for participation and the tokenistic inclusion of refugees and instrumentalisation of refugee organisations and spaces have been counterproductive, and led to policies that cannot respond to the needs of displaced people, but in most cases put them in danger and limbo. History has shown that social movements most effectively bring change when they are led and organised by affected communities. When looking at the movements for women’s rights, civil rights, LGBTQI+ rights, against apartheid, or for independence, there is a clear pattern: the leaders are representatives from their communities. We, affected communities, are best-placed to inform policy needs and implementation.   Participants in the summit attributed the lack of refugee participation to the lack of access to political participation and the deliberate exclusion from decision making. In cases when refugees and/or migrants are invited to participate, their participation is tokenistic and does not confer changes in the power dynamic or lead to actual changes. The importance of the meaningful refugees participation—and of course the migrants participation—in the different contexts, is the recognition that they are capable active participants and not ‘vulnerable’ people as usually referred to.   The key solutions that participants in the summit came up with are the increase in political engagement of migrants and refugees, and particularly the inclusion of young refugees and migrants in decision-making. Refugee participation should be sustained, ethical and funded. Refugee-led organisations or migrant-led organisations should receive stable, flexible, and long-term core funding. Another main factor in making sure that refugees and migrants are participating effectively and informing policy is to build their capacity. Refugees and migrants participation should never be instrumentalised, and they should be involved on an equal footing as partners in the decision-making process.   The Meaningful Refugee Participation pledge is based on the core belief that solutions to refugee problems should come from refugees themselves, and that policies are only effective when inclusive and allow refugees a say on their issues.[6] Towards the Global Refugee Forum and beyond, meaningful refugee participation is the answer.   We have begun to see a shift already in increasing engagement of refugees, with more refugees on state delegations, on panels, and incorporated into dialogues and consultations on refugee policies. Nevertheless, these shifts have mostly taken place at the behest of certain champion states, NGOs, or other actors: we have yet to see a truly systemic change in the refugee response sector so that refugees like ourselves are routinely participating in all levels of strategising, funding, and implementing programs, policies, and other responses that influence our lives.   II—Financial and Economic Exclusion Asylum seekers and refugees, forced to flee their home countries due to violence, persecution, and instability, embark on a daunting journey towards safety and security. However, the path to socio-economic empowerment is fraught with insurmountable obstacles. To appreciate the gravity of this challenge, one must understand the sheer scale of the number of people forced to flee their homes globally as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, and human rights violations. According to the UNHCR as of December 2022, this number stood at 108.4 million and continues to grow. Refugees are not just statistics but individuals with dreams, skills, and untapped potential. Yet, their aspirations for financial stability and economic self-reliance often encounter systemic and multifaceted barriers. This is also a reality even for those who find themselves fleeing to Europe.   The findings from the European Coalition of Migrants and Refugees (EUCOMAR) 2023 report also attest to the intricate web of challenges that impede the financial and economic empowerment and settlement processes of asylum seekers and refugees in their European host societies. Key identified issues included bureaucratic complexities, stereotypes, and systemic barriers such as experiences of intersectional discrimination, prejudice, exclusion, lack of recognition of migrants existing educational achievements and expertise, language barriers, limited financial literacy and lack of information, weak or non-existent social networks, and lack of support for migrant and refugee-led organisations. Systemic Barriers The financial and economic exclusion of refugees and migrants is rooted in systemic oppression which manifests in various forms such as experiences of intersectional discrimination, prejudice and stigma embedded in policies, as well as in the labour market and financial service providers.   For instance, owing to discriminatory practices in the job market, many migrants and refugees are denied equal opportunities for employment and career progression. In many countries, despite their qualifications and skills, refugees are relegated to precarious, low-paid so-called ‘3 D—dirty, demeaning, and dangerous jobs’.[7] According to the European Summit report, this is particularly the case for racialised blacks and people of colour and indigenous migrants, women, undocumented, elderly, and uneducated migrants who might negatively self-select.[8] This type of employment perpetuates instability and precarity in their lives.   Similarly, these systemic barriers and intersectional discrimination have a domino effect and further impact various other aspects such as access to the labour market, financial services and entrepreneurial ventures as well as recognition of previous skills, educational achievements and expertise.   Human Capital and Skills Recognition Another critical aspect of refugees' and migrants' economic exclusion that came up in the findings was the lack of recognition of their skills and qualifications. It was highlighted that delays or non-validation of existing skills and expertise hinder access to suitable job opportunities and also limit access to high-paying jobs as well as career progression prospects.   Language Barriers Language is a fundamental tool for navigating a new host country. Yet many financial institutions use complex and inaccessible language and financial technologies. Thus, refugees' and migrants´ interaction with financial services is often hindered by these language barriers. This unfamiliarity with technical financial jargon is coupled with a general lack of trust in the financial sector due to experiences of discrimination. As a result, many refugees and migrants lack information and awareness about the financial systems and resources available to them. This lack of knowledge and understanding of the terms and features of financial products and services can lead to financial decision-making that does not align with their best interests. It may also lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the terms and features of financial products and services, adding to their exclusion.   Bureaucratic Complexities—Legal Frameworks Access to formal financial services, a fundamental component of financial inclusion, remains a significant obstacle for many refugees. The European Summit report pointed out that refugees and asylum seekers experienced many bureaucratic complexities when accessing banks and financial institutions.   Participants reported experiencing prejudice from financial service providers who questioned their means of income. An OECD report also indicated that banks often assumed refugees and asylum seekers were in the country temporarily hence they classified them as high-risk clients.[9] Thus, financial service providers were hesitant to open bank accounts, lend money to refugees and asylum seekers, or microfinance their entrepreneurial enterprises.[10] Access to basic financial services, such as opening a bank account, is often restricted for asylum seekers and those with undocumented status in some countries. Unlike labour migrants and foreign students who usually possess proper identification documents and residency rights, newly arrived refugees often lack valid identity documents.[11]   Additionally, stringent requirements such as fixed address, identification documentation, and proof of stable income often lead to the rejection of bank account applications, further contributing to financial exclusion. This limitation deprives asylum seekers of financial autonomy and stability, making it difficult to send or receive funds, save money, or access bank loans.[12]   Moreover, the continued tightening of financial regulations, aimed at combating money laundering and terrorist financing, inadvertently works against the economic integration of refugees.[13]   Even when host governments accept alternative forms of identification, international banks and financial institutions owing to a lack of knowledge and awareness of refugee issues and legal frameworks may still have reservations about accepting their applications.[14]   Weak Social Ties and Networks Studies have shown that due to stigma and prejudice, some refugees and migrants may find it difficult to create networks in the host country. Thus, they resolve to stick to their home country communities or ethnic enclaves which can also perpetuate a cycle of exclusion and poverty. Refugees with intersecting social positions such as women, disabled, LGBTQI+, undocumented, and unemployed, often find themselves without a support network to rely on and some might not have social security access as a safety net to fall back on. Consequently, they end up falling between the cracks, especially in times of crisis, as we witnessed during and post COVID-19 and in the current crises of rising inflation, conflicts, and wars. This absence of a robust safety net exacerbates the economic hardships faced by further marginalised refugees such as LGBTQI+ people, Black and People of Colour who may lack the support systems available to other segments of the refugee population.[15] Lack of Support for Migrant-led Organisations Refugee and migrant-led organisations often face numerous hurdles from institutional and political to funding and personal. Administrative, language, and knowledge barriers affect their access to funding. They also compete with established non-community-led NGOs for limited funds, highlighting the need for increased transparency and consideration of refugees' and migrants' specific expertise.   Refugees and migrants often lack the knowledge and understanding required to navigate complex financial systems in host countries. This absence of awareness extends to legal frameworks for establishing organisations, setting up bank accounts, and adhering to tax regulations making it even more challenging to secure funding. The complexity of these systems necessitates seeking legal guidance, which is often costly and inaccessible for underfunded organisations led by migrants and refugees. III—Asylum Reception and Integration Policies When it comes to asylum reception and integration policies, many issues arise. Apart from policy challenges including lack of policy responsiveness, emergency response, and clarity about procedures, structural ones hang on too. In the European summit, refugee leaders reported difficulty for refugees in accessing the information on asylum and procedures, and the unavailability of data, in addition to language barriers, bureaucracy, work and residency rules and travel expenses. Added to that, the imbalanced responsibility-sharing within the EU countries of asylum seekers and refugees. Low quotas of refugee allocation paused an extra challenge.   Participants suggested solutions for the EU governments to uphold the rights of displaced people seeking asylum in Europe and called for trust within the displaced communities. This trust would pave the way to combating discrimination and will preserve the safety, justice, and rights of the displaced people. Access to information and simplified translated information on procedures would save lives. Participants reiterated the need for safe and regular pathways like community sponsorship and family reunification.   Negative narratives around refugees are an added layer to the problem. Participants recommended developing a positive media narrative of sponsored refugees and good practices and developing a refugee-led advocacy and policy dialogue strategy. Despite the fact that the EU abides its own human rights convention,[16] and is signatory to the Geneva Convention, the journey to realise these ideals by asylum seekers and refugees is far from straightforward. The European summit’s report illuminated the intricate challenges encountered by asylum seekers and refugee communities throughout the EU's asylum procedures, detention centres, and integration endeavours. The participants stressed that it is imperative to adopt an intersectional perspective to unveil the numerous layers of human rights transgressions that diverse groups of asylum seekers and refugees experience. Furthermore, it called for the need to conduct a thorough examination of the flaws, constraints, and potential biases inherent in the EU's approach to tackling these issues. The participants discussed that the process of seeking asylum, which is the initial and most pivotal point in the path of asylum seekers, is bound by challenges in the EU and navigating its complexities can be perplexing. As per the right to seek asylum,[17] many asylum seekers often experienc e significant delays in the processing of their applications, resulting in a state of limbo characterised by prolonged uncertainty and heightened vulnerability. Participants noted that the intersectional perspective highlights how specific groups may face additional hurdles during the asylum process. LGBTQI+ asylum seekers, for instance, may fear disclosing their sexual orientation in countries with less progressive attitudes, which can further complicate their claims. Similarly, individuals with disabilities may struggle to access appropriate accommodations or support during the process. Variations in national laws and practices lead to disparities in how asylum seekers are treated. For example, some EU nations have violated the principle of non-refoulement by forcibly returning asylum seekers to perilous situations.[18] Moreover, the right to legal representation is inconsistently applied,[19] with some receiving comprehensive legal aid for a fair process while others have limited access to such crucial services. To create a more cohesive and all-encompassing asylum policy, it is essential to ensure secure and regular pathways for refugees. Participants also discussed the importance of safe access and regular pathways, highlighting the challenges faced at both policy and structural levels. They also referred to community sponsorship and family reunification. The participants of the summit highlighted the need for a more unified and equitable asylum policy in the EU. This includes addressing the challenges of policy responsiveness, transparency, and structural barriers, as well as ensuring secure and regular pathways for refugees. Detention centre conditions have been a subject of concern for the summit’s participants. The detention of asylum seekers—including children—can be prolonged, with overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, and subpar living conditions ,[20] which infringe their right to liberty.[21] This includes issues like overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, and substandard living conditions, all in clear violation of international human rights standards, notably Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which explicitly prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.[22] An intersectional perspective uncovers the varying experiences of detainees, particularly those belonging to vulnerable groups, as outlined in Article 24 of the EU Reception Conditions Directive.[23] During the summit, women participants stressed the need for protecting women and children, as they are especially at risk in detention settings, where they may become victims of gender-based violence and abuse. Disabled participants expressed their fears of encountering obstacles in accessing vital healthcare, intensifying the suffering associated with detention. The Dublin Regulation, responsible for distributing the processing of asylum applications, has led to an unequal distribution of refugees among EU member states. This approach places a disproportionate burden on countries like Greece and Italy, where overcrowded refugee camps often struggle to provide essential services. The participants also highlighted that vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors and survivors of gender-based violence, are at a heightened risk within these challenging conditions. Integration Challenges: A Rocky Road to Inclusion Despite its significance in the asylum process, refugee integration faces obstacles due to inadequate integration policies. These challenges manifest in high unemployment, limited education access, and housing difficulties. An intersectional approach recognises distinct barriers for specific groups, such as specialised mental health support for torture survivors and tailored educational programs for refugee children. Discrimination based on gender, race, or ethnicity further hinders integration. Human rights-based integration policies should ensure equal access to work (the right to work and enjoy fair and favourable conditions of work, enshrined in Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[24] is often violated in the case of refugees the summit participants said), and education (refugee children's right to education, as emphasised in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[25] is often thwarted by language barriers, discrimination, and lack of resources) and, similarly, equal access to housing (discrimination against refugees and migrants in housing and employment were highly mentioned and stressed during the summit by the participants—a clear violation of Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights further hampers integration and jeopardises the right to an adequate standard of living).[26] A critical analysis of the EU's approach to asylum seekers and refugees reveals several weaknesses and limitations. One of the key challenges mentioned in the summit lies in the lack of harmonisation and consistent implementation of asylum and migration policies across member states. This creates disparities in the treatment of asylum seekers, undermining the principle of equal protection under the law. ‘The EU's focus on border control and deterrence, rather than a primary emphasis on human rights protection, often leads to policies that prioritise security over individual rights’, said one of the participants. As a result, asylum seekers can face criminalisation, detention, and deportation, particularly when seeking entry. Comprehensive data collection and analysis that consider the intersecting identities and vulnerabilities of asylum seekers and refugees are often lacking. This oversight hampers the development of policies and interventions that address the specific needs of different groups. Conclusion In view of the above discussion, it is patently clear that the challenges surrounding the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees within the European Union are undeniably complex, deeply ingrained, and demand urgent attention. The complex and interconnected nature of these issues was vividly explored across three pivotal domains: policy and political participation, economic exclusion and marginalisation, and asylum policies and regular pathways. The voices of summit participants resounded with a unified call for comprehensive, systemic changes to uphold the EU's commitment to human rights and solidarity. With regard to the issue of policy and political participation, the clarion call is for a harmonised asylum policy. Participants emphasised the critical need for a unified approach, consistent implementation, and inclusive policies. They stressed the importance of recognising and responding to the unique vulnerabilities of refugees, underlining the imperative role of independent monitoring mechanisms to ensure that detention centres align with human rights standards. The plea for immediate action and systemic changes to address human rights violations echoes a key recommendation for a more compassionate and rights-centric asylum system. Turning to economic exclusion and marginalisation, participants illuminated the financial and economic obstacles faced by asylum seekers and refugees. The recommendations presented a roadmap toward economic empowerment and inclusion. This includes a push for inclusive banking systems, cross-sectoral collaborations, and the development of fit-for-purpose funding programs. Establishing a dedicated European banking institution, support for entrepreneurship, and specialised micro-credit systems were pinpointed as crucial elements. The overarching message is clear: economic empowerment is a linchpin in the holistic inclusion of refugees, requiring concerted efforts across sectors and robust support structures. In the sphere of asylum policies and regular pathways, summit participants underscored the necessity of a nuanced understanding of refugees and a challenge to negative stereotypes. The recommendations spanned from demanding accountability and transparency from member states to addressing economic challenges and fostering social inclusion. A comprehensive approach prioritising human rights in all policy decisions emerged as the central theme. The participants emphasised the importance of awareness, equal access to the labour market, training, language learning programs, special quota arrangements, and tax relief. The creation of support networks was highlighted as a pivotal step in enhancing the social capital, financial autonomy, and overall inclusion of refugees during their settlement process. The consequences of inaction are enormous given the overwhelming surge of challenges faced by refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants in Europe. The times demand a united front, where policies are not just documents but living embodiments of empathy and where economic empowerment is not just a goal but a means to human dignity. Immediate and collective efforts are needed to ensure the EU is a living embodiment of its values and guiding principles centering on human rights, solidarity, and compassion. This call to action is not only a moral imperative but a commitment to the very principles that undergird the EU. Maysa Ismael, Shaza Al Rihawi, and Miles Tanhira Maysa Is mael is a programme coordinator with the Global Refugee-led Network. She has worked on refugees’ issues since 2010. In Damascus, Syria, she worked with the United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Organization for Migration. In London, she worked in the field of freedom of expression, protecting civilians in conflict and women, peace and security. She is also a fellow with Beyond Borders' 1325 Women in Conflict fellowship, and a member of the steering group of the Refugee Journalism Project.   From co-founding influential refugee initiatives like Global Refugee-Led Network, the European Coalition of Migrants and Refugees, and Global Independent Refugee Women Leaders to shaping global dialogues on displacement, Shaza Al Rihawi is a passionate advocate for human rights and climate justice. A champion for refugees and displaced people, Shaza's voice resonates through prestigious platforms like Oxford University, COP28, and SDGs, calling for a more just and inclusive world.   Miles Rutendo Tanhira is a Zimbabwean-Swedish International Migration researcher and Founder of Queerstion Media. He is a peace and LGBTQI+ rights activist and a core team member of the European Coalition of Migrants and Refugees. His achievements include being one of the recipients of the European Parliament´s Intergroup on LGBTQI+ rights' Go Visible Award and being selected as one of the Human Rights Campaign´s Global Innovators. He has served on several voluntary boards, including the War Resisters International (WRI) from 2010- 2019 where he contributed to the Handbook for Non-Violent Campaigns 2nd edition. [1] UNHCR, ‘What is the difference between population statistics for forcibly displaced and the population that UNHCR protects and/or assists?’ ( UNHCR)  < https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/insights/explainers/forcibly-displaced-pocs.html#:~:text=The%20total%20number%20of%20forcibly%20displaced%20people%20(108.4%20million)%20encompasses,protection%20and%20internally%20displaced%20people > accessed 1 December 2023. [2] Missing Migrants Project, ‘Migration within the Mediterranean’ ( Missing Migrants Project)  < https://missingmigrants.iom.int/region/mediterranean > accessed 2 December 2023. [3] Callum May, James Gregory, and Mark Easton, ‘‘I struggle not knowing what the future holds’ - Asylum backlog reaches record high’ ( BBC News , 24 August 2023) <   https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66603767 > accessed 2 December 2023. [4] Martha Bernild, ‘Syrian Refugees in Denmark at Risk of Forced Return’ ( Human Rights Watch , 13 March 2023) < https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/13/syrian-refugees-denmark-risk-forced-return > accessed 2 December 2023. [5] Eline Schaart, Pieter Haeck, and Jakob Hanke Vela, ‘Far-right leader Geert Wilders wins Dutch election’ ( Politico , 22 November 2023) < https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-leader-geert-wilders-wins-dutch-election-exit-poll/ > accessed 1 December 2023. [6] Global Refugee-led Network, ‘Refugee Participation Pledge’ ( Global Refugee-led Network ) < https://www.globalrefugeenetwork.org/refugee-participation-pledge > accessed 1 December 2023. [7] Sara A Quandt et al, ‘Illnesses and injuries reported by Latino poultry workers in western North Carolina’ (2006) 49(5) American Journal of Industrial Medicine 343. [8] Jaffer L Najar and Anila Noor, ‘New Voices for an Inclusive Europe’ (Second European Summit of Refugees and Migrants, 2023). [9] OECD, ‘Responses to the refugee crisis: Financial education and the long-term integration of refugees and migrants’ (2016) < https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/financial-education/Financial-education-long-term-integration-refugees-migrants.pdf > accessed 8 November 2023. [10] ibid. [11] UNHCR, ‘Financial Inclusion’ ( UNHCR ) < https://www.unhcr.org/what-we-do/build-better-futures/livelihoods-and-economic-inclusion/financial-inclusion > accessed 8 November 2023. [12] Adèle Atkinson and Flore-Anne Messy, ‘Promoting Financial Inclusion through Financial Education: OECD/INFE Evidence, Policies and Practice’ (2013) < https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/dafaad/34-en.html > accessed 6 November 2023. [13] OECD, 34 OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions (2014) [14] UNHCR (n 11) [15] Miles Tanhira, ‘The Invisible Outsiders Within: An Intersectional Analysis of the Lived Experiences of Transgender African Migrants’ Integration Process in Sweden’ (Malmö University Publications 2022). [16]  European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953. [17]  Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 Article 14. [18] The Refugee Convention 1951 Article 33. [19] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2009, Article 16. [20] UNHCR, ‘UNHCR stresses urgent need for States to end unlawful detention of refugees and asylum-seekers, amidst COVID-19 pandemic' ( UNHCR , 24 July 2020) < https://www.unhcr.org/news/news-releases/unhcr-stresses-urgent-need-states-end-unlawful-detention-refugees-and-asylum > accessed 3 December 2023. [21] European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 Article 5. [22] ibid Article 3. [23] Directive 2013/33/Eu of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) 2013 Article 24. [24] Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 Article 15. [25] ibid Article 26. [26] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2009, Article 21.

I am honoured to be asked to write a short Foreword to this Issue of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art . I was an enthusiastic contributor to the first Issue.   If you read that Issue, I welcome you back and feel sure that you will be pleased with the varied content of this Issue too.   If you are a new reader, you may already know why you have taken up this Issue. If not, I would like to explain in brief why I think its subject matter is important, and why it might be important to you.   It seems to me that the Journal is likely to expand our horizons because it brings together three subjects which often sit in splendid isolation from each other, namely the Law, Politics, and Art. We tend to think about issues and debate them only within their separate silos. The combination can give us new insights for many reasons.   It can shed new light on the strengths and weaknesses of each of those subjects. Literature and art, in particular, can be used to expose deficiencies in the law which are open to criticism and debate. The combination of law and literature is also an effective way of explaining the law. In addition, the combination of all three topics can be used to advocate change in the law. An obvious example of these points is the work of Charles Dickens.   By like token, the law itself can be used to uncover the boundaries of our unwritten constitution. It is sometimes used by litigants for exactly that purpose. In turn, politics must make judgments on matters which are in general beyond legal expertise, but it is often beneficial for there to be a rich discussion outside politics as well.   Space does not permit me to take more than a sample of the contributions to this Issue. Some articles focus on one of the three subjects or leave the possibilities for cross-fertilisation between them unspoken. Others confront the combination of some or all the subjects directly. A striking example of this is Alejandro Posada Téllez’s thought-provoking contribution, ‘Is Peace Merely about the Attainment of Justice?’, on transitional justice. When conflict ends, war criminals may be made accountable by being prosecuted in domestic courts or (post the Second World War) in international courts and tribunals. Another solution is an official reconciliation process aimed at allowing the society to heal. Téllez points out that a reconciliation process may bring about justice for the individual and accountability, which is highly valuable in itself, but it will not necessarily produce a permanent political solution or lasting peace for the society. With the war in Ukraine, these questions are timely and apposite.   Another example is the topic of individual identity and autonomy, which arises in more than one contribution. If we truly believe in the importance of individual expression and personality, we should, I think, be very concerned to know about society’s failings in this regard. These failings may be because politics and the law, operating within their respective domains, have not kept up with social change and expectations. We need to know more about what makes us different from one another and how to adjust for those differences. Contributions in this Issue are helpful to that end.   This is a new journal which is probably unique in making its focus the combination of the three separate subjects of the Law, Politics and Art. I congratulate the Founder, the editors, and the contributors on the excellence of their respective contributions.   Happy reading!

The role of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art  in current public discourse   I am often asked what I am trying to do  with this journal. The expectation is that in a world full of action, the role of any consequential organisation is to be doing something , to be making a point, to constantly rationalise, to assert control in some way over circumstances or concepts that are within no one’s control. This is in my view one of the great problems with the art world today, and also with the fields of law and politics.   In the art world, we feel a need to turn works of beauty, soul, and craftsmanship into objects whose meaning can be extracted, boiled down, and comprehensively explained. Art History courses today teach students to rationalise the artist’s intention and explain a colour scheme or a brushstroke by reference to a political event or other circumstance. We leave nothing to mystery any more. We do not allow ourselves to be haunted by the blurred, rufescent, august scene of JMW Turner’s Rain, Steam and Speed (below). Instead, we conclude that this is a painting 'about' the Industrial Revolution and its mechanical destruction of natural beauty. Perhaps it is that too, but I suggest that we lose Turner’s genius and the spiritual power of this object through attempts to demonstrate our own intellectual capacity for interpretation. We inappropriately confront mystery with logic. Rain, Steam and Speed (J.M.W. Turner 1844, oil on canvas 91 x 122 cm). © The National Gallery, London. In the law, the growing recourse to the judiciary for the resolution of essentially political questions is a different disease with the same cause. The law operates—or is meant to operate—in binaries, giving narrow answers to specific questions by reference to strict tests which adhere to clear and established principles. The law is essentially logical. Asking a judge to rule on whether it is in a child’s 'best interests' to continue living, or to interfere with an unpopular government policy, not only demonstrates a failure of the political system and creates an unhealthy constitutional reliance (as Lord Sumption argued so well in his contribution to our last issue), but also pits hard logic against questions of humanity and morality, which are inherently fluid.   Similarly, the increased politicisation of the arts, visible in everything from Fine Arts courses to Arts Council funding criteria, is a similarly dangerous phenomenon. The Arts Council now chiefly awards funding to projects with a political dimension: either the background of the artist or the nature of the work must appeal to a political objective, such as the overturning of colonial legacies. Many Fine Arts courses now require coursework to meet similar criteria. Besides the appropriateness of officials deciding on what is ‘worthy’ art (dare I say, think of the Nazis’ ‘Degenerate Art’), there is also a tragic opportunity cost. Think of the many struggling ‘non-political’ artists that are not supported; of the wealth of artwork born not out of politics but out of soul and personal meaning, that is not created, or ever seen. That is the true cost to our culture and it is the product of this inappropriate interaction.   The three domains of human pursuit that this journal covers—law, politics, and art—of course interact and overlap in fascinating ways. They add new dimensions and important perspectives to one another. However, the corresponding danger is that sometimes those interactions are inappropriate and in fact damaging to the individual integrity and nuances of those fields. Sometimes a work of art need not be more than an object of individual human meaning and power. Sometimes a legal ruling need not be more than a specific, anodyne conclusion on a point of law. Sometimes an artist-in-training or an arts awards body need not look to ticking political boxes but to valuing art that comes from a place of subjective struggle and truth.   Turning back to the original question of what this journal is about: this journal is aware of the opportunities and risks that come with placing these three fields in such close proximity. This journal is also aware of the risks of agendas, particularly political agendas. As such, as an institution the role of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art is to be nothing but a neutral vessel for the free expression of ideas and thoughts: a place of stillness and reflection at a time of constant motion and little self-awareness. Our editorial processes are rigorous and our activities around the world teeming with ambition. But this journal has no ambition or agenda other than to allow others to express themselves truly freely, constrained only by the limitless bounds of the English language.   I set up this journal because I was exasperated with censorship, at home and abroad. Censorship, however labelled, however well-intentioned, however (seemingly) morally-driven, is still a muzzle on free expression and ultimately free thinking, and is the necessary ingredient for the decline of any culture. We are defined by the quality of our thoughts and the quality of our thoughts is often determined by our ability to express them. This journal will never be bullied into taking a view. Nor will it ever tell anyone else to take or not to take a view. An antidote to today’s problems is not to stymie debate but to improve the quality of public discourse and educate everyone, God forbid! , to be able to think for themselves. I want this publication to be the freest and purest forum in the world for the exposure of new,   brilliant, daring thought.   In many ways the West is in decline. But if there is anything special left that we can offer the world, let it at least be that feeling of freedom and autonomy that leads to the greatest moments of genius and creativity; that rush of innovation and ideas that comes with feeling like there is nothing in your way, no moral-arbitering-Sword of Damocles hanging over you, waiting for you to make a mistake. That is why our editorial guidelines welcome everything from scientific research to black-letter law to creative writing. That is why the contributors to this journal include everyone from Sixth Formers to Supreme Court Judges, painters to politicians, archaeologists to advocates. That is why this journal has even developed its own technology to safely process sensitive information from political dissidents around the world.   Look once again at Turner’s Rain, Steam and Speed . A mechanised train uncompromisingly steams forward against a mystical, classical background where a rowboat moves slowly by human effort across a quiet body of water. Metallic logical and (perhaps moral) self-assuredness pierce a warm and hazy stillness that used to leave room for the unknown and for a slower, more contemplative pace. This was an atmosphere where truth, subtle thinking, and honest feeling did not have to battle against so much noise to be heard. This new journal is one of the last, determined remnants of that old, if romanticised, atmosphere. We will not stifle certain ways of thinking because we think better. We will observe, ponder, and respect what we see. We will publish all  reasoned thinking because we believe that if we have moral courage and genuine openness to difference, then we can nurture and stimulate an improved quality of public discourse.   This second issue of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art  is another important step in that direction, and dare I say, another work of cultural significance. A very special team   The staff of this journal are formidable. This journal started as an idea; then a one-man-band; then a team of six core editors who met in a dusty corner of a Cambridge restaurant; then a group of 36 editors and sub-editors across our three thematic departments; and now an international organisation of editors, designers, business developers, events managers, global ambassadors, and coordinators, only the core of whom can be acknowledged here and overleaf. This group of people, drawn not only from the University of Cambridge but from around the world, share an unreasonable ambition to turn an idea into a major international publication known for its academic rigour, prestige of contributors, and strength of character.   It is humbling to have worked with this remarkable group of people. Every single member of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art  has worked hard, shown great skill, and above all has demonstrated enormous creativity and vision in bringing this journal forward.   Some special thanks are due.   Uma-Johanna Shah has stood in the gap during this journal’s most testing periods. As Design Editor, Uma is responsible for the beauty, quality, and structure of this journal.   Stella Maria Sendas Mendes has had the unenviable but vital task of coordinating all of the journal’s operations. As Managing Editor, Stella has energised and organised this journal, showing great leadership, humour, and panache in the process.   Jack Graveney is the intellectual force behind this journal. As Content Editor, Jack has led the Editors—a team that has ensured this journal has an almost unmatched rigour and precision in its editorial processes and the quality of publication we put out.   As her homeland came under attack by Russian forces and refugees fled to her beautiful home in leafy St Albans, Constance Uzywshyn did not flinch. In her capacity as Executive Editor, Constance continued to bring in the breadth and calibre of contributions that allows this journal to call itself world-class. She has also played a valued role in leading this journal’s many talented staff.   William Fulp is the business brain behind this journal. A former New York stockbroker with a special talent for rearing funds and raising horses (or is it the other way around?), William has not only ensured the financial stability of the journal but has also provided and is implementing a vision for long-term growth and international distribution that, I hope, will make this journal a feasible global publication.   I can state with confidence that you would not be holding this journal in your hand had it not been for the extraordinary efforts, through thick and thin, of the five individuals named above. As much as I have been responsible for the birth of this journal, so too have I at times been its greatest liability. The personal friendship, understanding, and integrity of those mentioned above have ensured the life and growth of this journal in spite of that.   I must also warmly thank Michael Sandle RA for his sincerity, warmth, and humour. Sandle is one of the most important artists of our time. It is this journal’s honour to have his work on our front cover.   Additional thanks are due to those who, in an advisory capacity, have influenced the direction of this journal.   Martin Wilson has brought unique insights from industry and art law that will guide the direction for years to come. Sergiu Sall Simmel has provided applied and highly useful advice for the organisational effectiveness of this journal, as well as its future expansion to North America. Eduarda Gasparini’s superb creative ability, inquisitiveness, and moral support have played an important role in bringing this journal to its final stage. Peter Dixon is one of the most remarkable men I will ever meet and this journal is lucky to have his generosity and creative input. Nathalie Edwardes-Ker’s incredible intellect, strength, and warmth have given me the courage and inspiration to push through with this journal during its toughest times, and I will always be grateful to her for this: I owe her far more than can could ever be expressed here.   Lord Sumption, Lady Arden, Professor John Finnis, and Professor Matthew Kramer—some of the greatest legal minds of our time—have played an important role in ensuring this journal retains its moral courage to uphold freedom of reasoned expression, now and into the future. Alexander (Sami) Kardos-Nyheim Alexander (Sami) Kardos-Nyheim is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of CJLPA .

As I read the insightful, entertaining, scholarly, and diverse articles in this issue of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art , I wonder to myself how these three elements have become so intertwined. Perhaps it is not surprising as art has always been an expression of power, human identity, perceived truth, and aspiration—qualities also shared by politics and law. This link is therefore certainly not new, but it is perhaps only in recent years that we have become so conscious of it.   25 years ago I answered an advertisement in The Times  for the position of in-house lawyer at Christie’s auction house. At that time, the concept of an art lawyer did not exist. There was, after all, no great need for lawyers in a discreet world based upon gentlemen’s agreements, which functioned very smoothly on the basis of reputations, influence, and relationships. It was, in short, a world apparently untouched by the concerns of law and politics.   Over the following 25 years of my career as an art lawyer, all of that was to change dramatically. The catalyst for that change was not, as one might imagine, the evolving complexity of business in general. Rather, it was a series of historical, political, and technological events which catapulted art and the sale of art into the centre of wider discussions around justice, power, and identity.   The first such event was a belated realisation, in the late 1990s, that the war from 1933 to 1945 in Europe had been an assault not only upon nations and upon people, but upon culture and identity. That attack, which was accompanied by so many personal tragedies, had remained largely unaddressed in the immediate aftermath of the war, allowing artworks stolen by the Nazi regime to continue to circulate in the art market. By the late 1990s, prompted by the opening of European archives, museums, collectors, and the art market were hit with a wave of restitution claims by descendants of the victims of spoliation. Law, ethics, and commercial reality were all brought into play in resolving the resulting disputes.   On the heels of the wartime restitution claims came a focus upon ancient cultural heritage looted from conflict zones. While the 1970 UNESCO Convention had prepared the ground, the signatory ‘art market’ countries were very slow to introduce the national legislation necessary to put into practice the aims of the convention. As a consequence, cultural heritage in conflict zones all over the world continued to be the target of looting. Events in the Middle East would, however, challenge that inaction. Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, unprotected archaeological sites and museums in Iraq were subjected to widespread looting. Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya suffered similar looting as law and order broke down amid their respective conflicts. Because this looting was widely reported in the West, the outcry was such that the art market was compelled to demonstrate that it had in place measures to ensure that looted antiquities from conflict zones were not finding their way into the salerooms. Politicians followed, albeit in the slipstream, introducing national legislation requiring the art market to carry out due diligence regarding the provenance of antiquities. None of these measures will stop the destruction and looting which are inherent to conflict, but they will perhaps help to prevent the fruits of that destruction appearing in the art market. Once again, progress was not achieved by any single measure but by the application of a combination of law, ethics, and commercial reality.   The third catalyst was the question of transparency and compliance. Discretion and confidentiality have always been central to the operation of the art world—and usually for good reason. Sellers understandably prefer not to advertise the circumstances which necessitate the sale of artworks, such as divorce and death. Buyers are also often keen not to advertise their wealth for reasons of personal security. Agents introduce a further layer of opacity, trying to preserve their commercial relationships by keeping confidential the identity of their principals. But in the modern art world, where huge sums are being transacted, a balance needs to be found between transparency and discretion. This need has been met by the passing of laws and regulations in many countries imposing onerous obligations on art market participants to carry out detailed due diligence on their clients and make disclosures to other art market participants. The art market is coming to terms with these critically important new obligations and, in doing so, having to acclimatise to a new environment of legal and compliance rigour—as well as a greater level of transparency, which is to be welcomed.   More recently, there has been a reappraisal of the display and ownership of art which was acquired—not in modern day conflict zones— but from colonies during colonial times or as a result of ancient conflicts. Many countries have, over time, been denuded of their artistic heritage and are understandably upset to see that heritage on display in the collections and museums of the world. This matters because, as the countries who have endured colonisation and invasion know all too well, art is closely linked to history and cultural identity. Politicians, collectors, and the art market are beginning to grapple with the question of ‘who owns history?’. As a result, we are also hopefully progressing towards reconciling the role of the global museum with efforts to recover heritage which was lost in the context of power imbalances.   Even now law, politics, and art are moving into a new phase with the growth of cryptocurrency, non-fungible tokens, digital art, and online sales. In doing so, lawyers, politicians, and artists will test new boundaries and challenge our perception of authenticity, originality, ownership, and value.   As a result of these events, art law is now a recognised discipline, rich not only in legal questions, but also in the consideration of wider political, artistic, and ethical questions. This journal is a wonderful reflection of that, and illustrates, for me, why this is such a fascinating area in which to work and about which to write. It is a privilege for me to have been asked to write this foreword and I hope that you will enjoy diving into this collection as much as I have. Martin Wilson Martin Wilson is Chief Executive Officer and former Chief General Counsel at Phillips auction house. He is a leading art lawyer and the author of Art Law and the Business of Art .