Does blogging about refugees count as work on my refugee paper?

I know the answer to this is no...but sometimes it's nice to get out of the analytical position and move back into the hmm, here are the thoughts that I have had while wading through, at this point, thousands of pages of ideas that others have already had on the issues I am writing about.

Here is why I am writing this paper:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201569.html

The government telling them to go. GO WHERE? The borders are closed!

So here's the progress to date: the paper has morphed from refugees, border closings, non-refoulement, case studies to refugees, the 1951 convention, non-refoulement, state responsibility for intentional wrongful acts.

I was really frustrated for a while. I mean, how do you write on something that every other person expressing an interest in refugee law has already analyzed? So I forced other people to listen to me while I worked things out that were swimming in my head. And what did I discover? the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Intentional Wrongful Acts! (Anyone still with me?). This was a goldmine, a gem. Sure sure sure--people have written on these since their finalization in 2001, there have been symposiums. But no one, that I can find, has written entirely on their implication regarding refugees. See, the cool thing about the Draft Articles is that they apply to wrongful acts not only against other states, but also individuals. They don't deal with whether the international law or treaty being violated is wrong, but provides tools and guidelines to analyze if a state can be held or should be held accountable for a derogation of a treaty obligation, and when, if ever, a state is NOT held responsible. You will not find a case study dealing with border closings where the state closing the border does not have a reason, excuse, "state necessity", "national security" excuse. And they are normally BULLSHIT reasons. I am actually excited to write about this, because I think it's novel and I think it's a new way for all the people, including myself, who are exasperated by the state of international refugee law to approach these issues.

I applied for the Center for Applied Legal Studies today--a clinic at Georgetown where pairs of students represent an individual who is seeking asylum. They come to the clinic as their left chance, they have already been denied, and clinic students take their case from start to finish. I would really like to be a part of this clinic, not only because it's 12 credits of real life lawyering, but also because I think it would take my experience to a full circle. I know where I want to be in 5 years, and it would be great to have a first hand look at the U.S. refugee laws do to people who arrive here, versus international refugee law.