What explains the rise of investor-state arbitration? To the extent that investor-state arbitration had founding fathers, what were their motivations, what constraints did they have, what was their thinking? Using documents from the American, British, German, and Swiss archives, this talk will revisit three moments: the initial vision for a standalone arbitration convention (the ICSID Convention), European governments’ decisions to add consent to arbitration into their investment treaties, and America’s late embrace of investor-state arbitration. Revisiting these moments with internal documents suggests a need to rethink conventional narratives about who and what drove the development of investor-state arbitration. Taylor St John is Lecturer in International Relations at the University of St Andrews. She researches the history and politics of investment law. Her monograph, The Rise of Investor-State Arbitration: Politics, Law, and Unintended Consequences, was published by Oxford University Press in 2018. She is currently researching ISDS reform processes, and co-authors the EJIL Talk! blogs on the UNCITRAL negotiations with Professor Anthea Roberts. She was previously Postdoctoral Research Fellow, PluriCourts, University of Oslo and before that, Fellow in International Political Economy, London School of Economics. She received a DPhil and MSc from the University of Oxford.

Investment treaties are often said to have two principal effects for the states that enter into them. First, it is asserted that investment treaties act to increase levels of foreign investment in host states. Second, it is said that investment treaties have a positive effect on national governance. Out of their desire to avoid liability for breaches of investment treaties, the argument is made, states will internalize their international legal obligations, reform their policy-making processes, and thereby improve the quality of national governance, notably, the rule of law (the “rule of law” thesis). Although there is substantial empirical scholarship on the relationship between investment treaties and foreign investment flows (the findings of which have been, at best, ambiguous), there has been little empirical research on the effects of investment treaties on national governance. Further, the rule of law thesis is rooted in a traditional, rational-choice theory of the state as an actor making preference-maximizing decisions on the basis of cost-benefit analyses. Given the benefits of compliance and the costs of violation, a rational choice model predicts that states, on balance, will gain more from compliance, and as such, expects them, for the most part, to internalize their obligations and comply with them. There is, however, reason to be skeptical about these assumptions, especially in the developing world. Drawing on eight qualitative empirical case studies, we uncover whether and to what extent a select group of Asian countries – Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, South Korea, Myanmar, Thailand and India – have internalized their treaty obligations, and what factors have affected this internalization. Furthermore, we assess what impact, if at all, this internalisation has had on national governance. In so doing, our findings shed light on the actual effects of investment treaties, thereby contributing to the emerging field of empirical studies of international investment law (and international law in general), as well as to a growing literature on the significance of international law in Asia. Moreover, building on the public policy literature, we open up the ‘black box’ of the government and public administration and introduce insights regarding how obligations contained in international treaties come to be internalized and diffused within them, and what factors impact whether and the extent to which this happens. Ultimately, compliance with international obligations often rests on the willingness and ability of government officials and public bureaucrats to adhere, yet for the most part, international legal scholarship has had little to say about the intricacies of the internalization and diffusion of international obligations and how international obligations are actually, if at all, incorporated by policy-makers. In this project, we provide reason to believe that the dynamics and complexities of government and public administration, especially in the developing world, makes the diffusion and internalization of investment treaty commitments a far more complex and messy process than proponents of the rule of law thesis have assumed. N Jansen Calamita is the Head of Investment Law and Policy at the Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore, where he is also Research Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law. He was previously Director of the Investment Treaty Forum at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law and has held posts at the University of Birmingham and the University of Oxford. Prior to entering academics, Mr Calamita served in the Office of the Legal Adviser in the US Department of State (International Claims and Investment Disputes Division) and as a member of the UNCITRAL Secretariat. He began his career in private practice in New York. He holds Juris Doctor magna cum laude (Boston) and a Bachelor of Civil Law (Oxford). He continues to advise governments on matters relating to international investment and international dispute resolution. He is co-editor (with L Malintoppi) of International Litigation in Practice (Brill) and a member of the editorial board of the Yearbook of International Law and Policy (Oxford University Press).

This talk will examine the legal nature of due diligence, namely whether it is a free-standing obligation under customary international law or a standard by which compliance with specific obligations may be assessed. It will be shown that there is a significant number of common elements in the analysis of due diligence as it is performed by international courts and tribunals, notwithstanding the specificities of the underlying subject matter. In doing so, this presentation will bring into question the validity of the recurring assumption that the content of due diligence differs fundamentally across various branches of international law. Dr Vladyslav Lanovoy is an Associate Legal Officer at the International Court of Justice. He is also a Lecturer at Lille Catholic University and a Teaching Fellow at Queen Mary University of London. He holds a PhD in international law from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and is the author of Complicity and its Limits in the Law of International Responsibility (Hart 2016), which was awarded the 2017 Paul Guggenheim Prize in International Law. He has previously worked at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. He has also consulted for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Environment Programme. His research interests include the law of international responsibility, dispute settlement, the law of the sea, human rights law and international economic law.

Even though UN Security Council resolutions may have major consequences for the disputes and states concerned, some of the resolutions are ambiguous in their meaning. This raises questions about the appropriate means of interpreting Security Council resolutions. In the process of interpreting Security Council resolutions, explanation of votes may have a role. Explanation of votes are not provided for in Security Council Provisional Rules of Procedure. However, members of the Security Council may make statements in connection with their votes. These remarks are in the Council called "statements before the vote" or "statements after the vote". Dr. Klamberg will discuss the phenomena of explanation of votes and their status, including an analysis of explanation of votes made in relation to selected examples of controversial Security Council resolutions. Dr Mark Klamberg is a research fellow during 2018/2019 at the Institute of European and Comparative Law (IECL) and affiliated with Christ Church College, Oxford. He is an Associate Professor, Senior Lecturer in Public International Law at Stockholm University and a visiting lecturer at Edinburgh University. He is currently the principal investigator of the project "Does International Law Matter? The UN Security Council and State Actions" funded by the Swedish Research Council 2018-2021. He has previously been an Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer in Public International Law at Uppsala University. He is the author of several publications on international criminal law, surveillance, privacy and other fields of international law, including 'Evidence in International Criminal Trials: Confronting Legal Gaps and the Reconstruction of Disputed Events' (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013) and 'Power and Law in the International Society - International Relations as the Sociology of International Law' (Routledge, 2015). He is the chief editor of the 'Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court' (TOAEP, 2017). He has also published articles in International Criminal Law Review, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Nordic Journal of International Law, Georgetown Journal of International Law and book sections published by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and Oxford University.

Oceans are increasingly under pressure; be it for the multiplication and diversification of economic activities performed at sea, for the consequences of climate change, or for the deterioration of their environmental health. Several international bodies and a plethora of international instruments regulate, influence and shape what is happening in the oceans. Moreover, actors at different levels of governance participate in what it is commonly called ocean governance. But what is ocean governance? Which are the different actors and instruments involved? How do they interact in dealing with ocean affairs? Those are some of the questions that the Sustainable Ocean project (ERC grant agreement No 639070) deals with in order to answer the overarching research question: how can the law contribute to the sustainable use of the ocean and strike a balance between competing interests at sea? Regime interaction is here analysed and used as a legal modus operandi, as an existing legal behaviour. We do not engage with the debate whether regime interaction is inherently beneficial or detrimental to the international legal order. Similarly, the research project adopts a concept of ocean governance which is mainly descriptive of processes, instruments and actors involved in oceans affairs and management. In this presentation, I would like to present and discuss the partial results of our research which stem from a workshop we organised in April 2019 on ‘Regime Interaction in Ocean Governance: Problems, theories and methods’. The partial results can be synthesised in the this diagram that identifies three categories of interaction (interactive form; interactive substance; interactive process) and that proposes a lens through which analyse and handle instances of interaction. Seline Trevisanut (PhD, Milan; MA, Paris I) is Professor on International Law and Sustainability at Utrecht University and currently principal investigator of the ERC Starting Grant Project ‘Sustainable Ocean’ (2015-2020). Before joining Utrecht in 2012, she taught courses and conducted research at Columbia University, at the European University Institute, at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, at the National University of Singapore and at UC Berkeley. Her publications include inter alia edited volumes on Foreign Investment, International Law and Common Concerns (Routledge 2014), and on Energy from the Sea: An International Law Perspective on Ocean Energy (Brill 2015), and a forthcoming monograph on The International Law of Offshore Installations: Through Fragmentation Towards Better Governance (Cambridge University Press 2019).

This talk will consider the regulation of corporations for the human rights impacts of their activities. It will include the role of legislation, industry sectors and civil society, as well as courts, in regulation of the actions of corporations that abuse human rights. It will use the framework of developments in the area of responsible business conduct, especially of human rights due diligence. Professor Robert McCorquodale is Professor of International Law and Human Rights at the University of Nottingham, barrister at Brick Court Chambers in London, and Founder and Principal of Inclusive Law, a consultancy on business and human rights. He was the Director of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law for 10 years. He has published widely in all these areas, and engaged closely with governments, corporations, international institutions and civil society in his work.

Following a difficult and protracted process, in 2014 the UNGA adopted Resolution 68/268 which set out to strengthen the UN human rights treaty body system. It mandated a further review in 2020. The proposals which are emerging for that review have the potential to radically change the nature of the UN human rights system - but whether for better or worse is keenly contested. In his talk, Malcolm Evans, who has been a participant in these developments, will outline the background to the proposals and offer a personal assessment, from a treaty body perspective, of their significance for the future of the machinery of international human rights protection. Malcolm Evans is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Bristol, UK where he has taught since 1988. His areas of legal specialism include both international human rights protection and the international law of the sea. In the field of human rights his particular interests concern torture and torture prevention and the protection of religious liberty under international law, on both of which he was written extensively. He became a member of the UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture (the SPT) in 2009 and since 2011 has been serving as its Chair. From 2014-2015 he was the Chairperson of the Meeting of Chairs of UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. From 2002 – 2013 he was a member of the OSCE ODIHR Advisory Council on the Freedom of Religion or Belief. He is also a member of the UK Foreign Secretary’s Human Rights Advisory Group. He has acted as an independent advisor and consultant for numerous international organisations over many years. From 2003-5 he was Head of the School of Law and from 2005-2009 Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law at the University of Bristol. From 2016-2018 he was a member of the Commission on Religious Education established by the Religious Education Council. Since 2015 he has been a Member of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales (IICSA). He is General Editor of the International and Comparative Law Quarterly and Co-Editor in Chief of the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion. Major published works include: Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe (CUP, 1997), Preventing Torture (OUP, 1998), Combating Torture in Europe (Council of Europe, 2002), Manual on the Wearing of Religious Symbols in Public Areas (Council of Europe/Brill, 2009), The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OUP, 2011), The Changing Nature of Religious Rights under International Law (ed) (OUP, 2015), Preventing Torture in Europe (Council of Europe, 2018). He is Editor of International Law (OUP, 5th ed, 2018) and Blackstone’s International Law Documents (OUP, 13th ed, 2017).

War does not escape the transformations global governance has experienced in the past decades. The research presented identifies a move from a binary War-Peace framework to a global security governance, characterized by techno-managerial normative assemblages aiming at taming risk.Core to the project of international law throughout the 20th century, peace has been occupying a central role in the development of international legal regimes aiming at governing armed violence. But the promise of peace is being increasingly sided by an adjacent, concurrent project, one that promises a more secure world, where risks are forecasted and mitigated or are at least measured. Global security aims at preventing violence and conflict together with health, financial and environmental crises that are predicted and mapped to be better managed. Lists, corporate social responsibility instruments, indicators, ratings and algorithmic devices – the instruments that regulate global security – are produced by means of a technical expertise, resting on a mathematical and behaviorist rationality aiming at taming risk. International legal categories and distinctions do not disappear but are transformed. War and peace are being reimagined and placed on a spectrum of measurable violence and insecurity, combatant and civilian categories are fragmented and made increasingly dependent on more contained behavioral patterns. Dr Delphine Dogot’s research is at the intersection of law, philosophy and social sciences in particular in relation to globalization and technology. She is a Research Fellow at the Law Department of HEC Paris where she develops several research projects investigating the transformation of law and regulation when embedded with algorithmic and data-driven technologies. Delphine Dogot holds a Ph.D. in Law from Sciences Po, a Master's and Bachelor’s degree in Law from the Université Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, as well as Master's degree in Sociology and a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy from the Université Paris 4 Paris-Sorbonne. She has previously been Exchange Researcher at Harvard Law School, Fellow at the Perelman Centre for Legal Philosophy (ULB), and OXPO Fellow at Nuffield College, University of Oxford. Delphine writes in transnational legal theory, international and global law, conflict and security law and law and technology. She has taught or is currently teaching courses on company law, contract law, global law, international law, philosophy and theory of human rights, legal theory & methodology and at ULB, Sciences Po, HEC Paris, Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas and Faculté Libre de Droit de Lille.

The presentation will discuss the approaches to writing such reference works (based on the speaker's experience with the Update of the ICRC Commentaries to the 1949 Conventions, and the Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law). The presentation will discuss the approaches to writing such reference works (based on the speaker’s experience with the Update of the ICRC Commentaries to the 1949 Conventions, and the Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law). Then a reflection will follow on how we - as researchers - use these reference works. Are references to reference works allowed in an academic paper? Are they objective, are they pointing us to existing debate, or do they make us all lazy? Reference works are an everyday presence in academic work, but should we reflect more about them? Liesbeth Lijnzaad is judge at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Hamburg) since 2017. She is a former Legal Adviser of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and head of its international law department (2006 - 2017). She is a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and of the San Remo Institute of International Humanitarian Law. Professor dr E.Lijnzaad is also endowed professor Practice of International Law at Maastricht University. She studied law and history, receiving master’s degrees in international law (1985) and Dutch law (1987) from the University of Amsterdam, and holds a PhD in international law from Maastricht University in 1994.

Since the 24 June 2016, the politics of Brexit – in both the UK and the EU – has driven the negotiations and discussion surrounding the UK's departure from the EU. It is the international legal framework, however, that has framed those negotiations and will shape the UK's future trading relationship with the EU and the rest of the world after March 2019, in whatever form Brexit takes. Andrew Hood will examine some of the structural and practical realities of public international law that have governed – and will continue to govern – the future of the UK and the EU in a post-Brexit world. About the speaker: Andrew has almost 20 years of experience as an EU, trade, regulatory and public international lawyer working in both the public and private sectors. He is currently a partner at the law firm Fieldfisher and has previously spent over 13 years as a lawyer and negotiator for the UK Government, including as a lawyer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a UK negotiator in Brussels, Head of International and EU Law at the Attorney General’s Office and the General Counsel in 10 Downing Street for Prime Minister David Cameron.

An analogy between States and international organizations has characterised the development of the law that applies to intergovernmental institutions on the international plane. That is best illustrated by the work of the International Law Commission on the treaties and responsibility of international organizations, where the Commission for the most part extended to organizations rules that had been originally devised for States. The talk will reflect on the foundations and limits of the assumption that the two main categories of international legal subjects are analogous for certain purposes, and discuss the elusive position that international organizations occupy in the international legal system. About the speaker: Fernando Lusa Bordin is a Thornely Fellow and Lecturer in Law at Sidney Sussex College and an Affiliated Lecturer at the University of Cambridge. His research focuses on topics of public international law, including law-making, international organizations and the intersection between international law and legal theory. He holds an LL.B. from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil), an LL.M. from New York University, and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. He is a recipient of the Yorke Prize (University of Cambridge), Young Scholar Prize (International & Comparative Law Quarterly) and the Diploma of Public International Law (Hague Academy of International Law).

This talk will discuss elements of a research project that explores the evolution of the law of the sea over the course of the 20th century It will focus on the emergence of the seabed as an area of political, economic and technological interest, and trace its subjection to national and international regimes. Calling attention to the legally constructed imaginary of the seabed as a space distinct from the above water, the talk will re-examine views of both the ocean and the law, which are commonly held, and presented as natural and therefore necessary. Suggesting instead a greater focus on the contingencies and false contingencies informing the development of the law, the talk will join a small but growing literature on the unnatural history of the sea. About the Speaker: Surabhi Ranganathan is a University Lecturer in Law and a Fellow of King's College at the University of Cambridge. She is also a fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre and the author of Strategically Created Treaty Conflicts and the Politics of International Law (CUP 2014). With an interest in the history of international law, natural resources and distribution, her current work focuses on the law of the sea and global commons.

The absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is under considerable pressure. This talk will explore how the prohibition is understood, questioned, and flouted, and trace continuities between torture and other dimensions of our securitised and unequal societies. Distilling key challenges for the prohibition, including those often overshadowed by the ubiquitous ‘ticking bomb’ scenario and ther prominent areas of concern, it will consider how those committed to the prohibition can meaningfully respond to them. About the Speaker Dr Natasa Mavronicola is Senior Lecturer in Law at Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham. Prior to joining Birmingham Law School, she was a Lecturer in Law at Queen’s University Belfast (2013-16). Since 2017, she serves as Advisor to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Professor Nils Melzer. She has conducted research for the Council of Europe and the Irish legislature and has published work in journals such as the Human Rights Law Review and the Modern Law Review. Her work on the prohibition of torture includes the recent article ‘Is the Prohibition Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Absolute in International Human Rights Law? A Reply to Steven Greer’ (2017) 17 Human Rights Law Review 479. She completed her PhD in Law at the University of Cambridge, the BCL at the University of Oxford, and the LLB (Hons) at University College London. Her main research focus is human rights law.

Ever since the trial against the major war criminals of World War II before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg the institution of 'punishment' has been an integral part of the international legal system. Nowadays a considerable number of perpetrators of crimes under international law – that is: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes – are being sent to jail by international judges. But why and to what aim do we punish individuals for their involvement in mass atrocities? How can we justify punishment by international criminal courts and tribunals vis-à-vis the affected individual? Or more generally: What are and what should be the rationales for punishment in international law? Among the (few) answers given to these questions one relates to the claim that international prosecutions and punishment would contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace ('peace through punishment'). Some scholars (and Courts) simply want to apply the theoretical concepts from the domestic context, such as retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, norm stabilisation and so forth, to the realm of crimes under international law that ('domestic analogy'). The paper will present some preliminary reflections on these issues. About the speaker Florian Jeßberger is Professor of Law at the Faculty of Law, Universität Hamburg, where he holds the Chair in Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, International Criminal Law, and Modern Legal History and serves as the Associate Dean for Research & International Affairs. Currently (Michaelmas term) he is a Short-Term Visiting Fellow at Jesus College in the University of Oxford. Before joining Universität Hamburg in 2010, Florian was the Lichtenberg Professor of International and Comparative Criminal Law at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. A co-editor of the Journal of International Criminal Justice (Oxford University Press) Florian authored numerous articles and three books, the most recent of which is ‚Principles of International Criminal Law' published by Oxford University Press (4th ed. forthcoming 2019; with G. Werle) and translated into various languages (German, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Italian). He has edited or co-edited four scholarly volumes and four special issues or symposia in peer reviewed journals. Currently, Florian is leading a team of scholars conducting research into the seminal Stammheim-Trial (1974-1977) of the leaders of the German terrorist group Rote Armee Fraktion. In another multi-year project he co-ordinates interdisciplinary research into strategic litigation in the area of gross violations of human rights.

The talk will review the Trump administration’s record in international and national security law over the last 18 months, and will address challenges ahead, including the administration’s counter-terrorism policies and approach to international agreement and international courts, including the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice. John Bellinger heads the public international law practice at Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, and is Adjunct Senior Fellow in International and National Security Law at the Council on Foreign Relations. He previously served as The Legal Adviser to the Department of State from 2005–09, under then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and as Senior Associate Counsel to the president and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council at the White House from 2001–05. He represented the United States in Mexico v. United States (Medellin) before the ICJ. In 2016, he drafted the letter signed by 50 former Republican national security officials that stated Donald Trump ‘lacks the character, values, and experience to be President.

The 21st century has seen significant progress and recent regression in terms of entrenchment of the rule of law. These developments have occurred not only in the domestic context but also within the international sphere. This presentation by Kimberly Prost will explore some of these ‘rule of law’ changes and challenges within the international legal order. The establishment of the international tribunals and the International Criminal Court represents a landmark advancement in terms of international criminal law and international humanitarian law. It also has contributed to establishing a rule of law culture. The background which led to the creation of these bodies will be explored along with consideration of the fundamental concepts underpinning them and an examination of the current key challenges to maintaining and strengthening these institutions and international criminal justice more broadly. There will also be a brief reflection on ‘law making’ by the Security Council and whether this constitutes an appropriate role for the Council in terms of progressing the rule of law. In particular resolutions 827 (1993) and 955 (1994) which established the ICTY and the ICTR, resolution 1373 (2001) related to measures to counter terrorism and resolutions 2178 (2014) and 2396 (2017) on Foreign Terrorist Fighters will be considered. Finally the presentation will explore the role of the Ombudsperson for the Security Council Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee and consider its successes and failures in terms of enhancing the rule of law in Security Council practice.

Marking the 20th Anniversary of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Twenty years after the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the ICC is thought to be in crisis. Despite the many successes, including completing the institution-building process and the Court's emerging jurisprudence, the ICC is also facing a number of challenges. Universality, independence, effectiveness and efficiency, but also cooperation and the relationship with national courts have challenged the ICC’s operation to date. In light of the 20th anniversary of the Rome Statute, the lecture considers some of the Court’s achievements and reviews the above challenges affecting the fulfilment of the ICC’s mandate to end impunity.

Professor Akhavan will speak about his recent book In Search of a Better World: A Human Rights Odyssey, the 2017 CBC Massey Lectures which became the best-selling non-fiction book in Canada. Professor Akhavan will speak about his recent book In Search of a Better World: A Human Rights Odyssey, the 2017 CBC Massey Lectures which became the best-selling non-fiction book in Canada. Part memoir, part manifesto, it is a "powerful survey of some of the major human rights struggle of our times." More information on the book can be found http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-2017-cbc-massey-lectures-in-search-of-a-better-world-1.4222812 Payam Akhavan is Professor of International Law at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and former Legal Advisor to the Prosecutor's Office of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague.

A presentation of the new principles of shared responsibility in international law The event featured a presentation of the new principles of shared responsibility in international law which supplement as well as amend the 2001 Articles on the Responsibility of States as well as the 2011 Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations. The principles have been prepared by a group of experts of the law of international responsibility and will soon be disseminated.

Arbitrators have many powers – express, implied, and those inherent in the very process of arbitration. Disputes that involve corruption put into question the breadth of those powers.

Arbitrators have many powers – express, implied, and those inherent in the very process of arbitration. Disputes that involve corruption put into question the breadth of those powers. The first tribunals confronted by cases involving corrupt acts were concerned about their taint bringing into disrepute the process of arbitration. A whiff of scandal thus served as a basis for dismissal. Tribunals in later cases have shown a more nuanced approach but often with apprehension about potential suggestions that arbitration could be viewed as helping one party to the corruption profit from, or profit notwithstanding, his bad behaviour. Several recent investment arbitration cases have thrown the problem into sharp relief. Dismissals have rested on several grounds. One approach has been to rely on the language of the investment treaty in question to support dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because a corruptly obtained investment is usually not lawful and thus cannot satisfy treaty requirements that investments be made “in accordance with host state laws.” Another grounding for dismissal of the claim has been the investor’s lack of “clean hands.” Another reason given has been the strong international public policy against corruption as exemplified by the multiple international conventions fighting it and the general international consensus about its insidiously damaging nature. I suggest that none of these bases is a valid ground for depriving a tribunal of the power to hear a case that otherwise falls within its purview. Rather, arbitral tribunals have the inherent authority to ensure that the quasi-adjudicatory process of arbitration is not subverted by allegations of corruption that might or might not prove spurious, but whose early dismissal will tend to hide the problem and potentially exacerbate it. Indeed, suggesting that the international public policy against corruption requires dismissal of a case defies logic, and application of the law of state responsibility requires holding state acts accountable for the acts attributable to the state, which would often (though not always) be the case. Andrea K. Bjorklund is a Full Professor and the L. Yves Fortier Chair in International Arbitration and International Commercial Law at McGill University Faculty of Law. For Hilary Term 2018 she is a Plumer Fellow at St. Anne’s College and a Visiting Fellow in the Faculty of Law at the University of Oxford. In 2017 she was named one of McGill’s Norton Rose Scholars in International Arbitration and International Commercial Law. In addition to serving as an adviser to the American Law Institute’s project on restating the U.S. law of international commercial arbitration, she is a member of the Advisory Board of the Investment Treaty Forum of the British Institute for International and Comparative Law. She is on the panel of arbitrators of the AAA’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution and on the roster of NAFTA Chapter 19 arbitrators. Professor Bjorklund has a J.D. from Yale Law School, an M.A. in French Studies from New York University, and a B.A. (with High Honors) in History and French from the University of Nebraska.

From a law-making perspective 'soft-law' is simply a convenient description for a variety of non-binding, normatively worded instruments used in contemporary international relations by states and international organisations. The paper begins by examining the considerations that have encouraged the use of 'soft' law instruments in UN law-making. The literature identifies at least four reasons. First, it may be easier to reach agreement when the form is non-binding. Secondly, soft law instruments are more flexible. They will normally be easier to supplement, amend or replace than treaties, since all that is required is the adoption of a new resolution by the relevant international institution. Thirdly, it may be easier for some states to adhere to non-binding instruments because they can avoid the domestic treaty ratification process and perhaps escape democratic accountability for the policy to which they have agreed. Last, soft law instruments may provide more immediate evidence of international consensus on an agreed text than a treaty whose impact is qualified by reservations and the need to wait for ratification and entry into force. The bulk of the paper reviews the purposes for which soft law has been employed by the UN: declaratory law-making, codification and progressive development, facilitating treaty negotiation, interpretation of treaties, and subsidiary rules and standards. The paper concludes by observing that soft law is not the paradox portrayed in some of the literature. It is the product of an increasingly sophisticated legal system. It needs to be understood, not simply dismissed as something that is not law. Alan Boyle was Professor of Public International Law at the University of Edinburgh School of Law from 1995 until 2017. He taught international law, international environmental law, and law of the sea. Publications include International Law and the Environment (with Catherine Redgwell) (4th edn, OUP, 2018) and The Making of International Law (with Christine Chinkin) (OUP, 2007). He is a barrister and continues to practise international law from Essex Court Chambers, London. Professor Boyle has appeared as counsel before the ICJ, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and UNCLOS arbitral tribunals.

The International Law Commission is a subsidiary organ of the United Nations General Assembly entrusted with the progressive development of international law and its codification. This talk argues that the Commission interprets international law, as part of its function, in numerous topics of its work, and that the Commission’s interpretative activity serves its long-lasting vision to reinforce international law by providing clarity and predictability as to its content thus convincing states to continue to use international law as a medium by which they regulate their affairs. Dr. Danae Azaria is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Laws at University College London (UCL). She is the author of numerous publications on public international law, including the monograph, 'Treaties on Transit of Energy via Pipelines and Countermeasures' (OUP, OMIL, 2015), which received the Paul Guggenheim Prize in Public International Law (2016). Her research interests lie in general public international law, the law of treaties, state responsibility, international economic law and the law of the sea. Her recent research focuses on the work of International Law Commission, and the Sixth Committee. She frequently advises governments, international organisations and companies on issues of public international law.

International criminal tribunals face an enormous task when they seek to analyse the thousands of pages of evidence that are presented in the course of their trials... Abstract International criminal tribunals face an enormous task when they seek to analyse the thousands of pages of evidence that are presented in the course of their trials, and to draw conclusions on the guilt or innocence of accused persons based on that evidence. Yet, whilst rules of admissibility have been subjected to a great deal of academic commentary, many key debates relating to proof in international criminal trials have remained under-theorised to date. This paper discusses the evaluation of evidence in international criminal trials. It argues that, despite over two decades of practice in contemporary international criminal tribunals, no consistent approach as to how judges should weigh evidence and use it for fact-finding has emerged. The quality of evidence required to meet the standard of proof at different stages of proceedings in the International Criminal Court remains uncertain. Furthermore, it shall be argued that the structure of international criminal judgments can detract from the clarity of their findings, and this in turn has an impact on their legal and sociological legitimacy. Bio: Yvonne McDermott Rees is Associate Professor of Law at the Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law, Swansea University. She is the author of Fairness in International Criminal Trials (Oxford University Press, 2016) and over 50 journal articles and book chapters on international criminal procedure, human rights, and the law of evidence in international criminal trials. She is an Academic Fellow of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, and a Door Tenant at Invictus Chambers, London.

The provision of life-saving assistance to people affected by armed conflict lies at the heart of humanitarian actors’ operations... and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 lay down rules regulating humanitarian relief operations. Despite this, until recently, this area of international humanitarian law has received limited attention, possibly because challenges in implementing relief operations tend to be operational rather than legal in nature. In 2013, in response to the refusal of some belligerents to allow relief to reach people in extreme need, the United Nations Secretary-General requested the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) to examine the relevant rules and consider options for guidance. In turn, OCHA commissioned the Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict at the University of Oxford to convene a series of consultation of legal experts. These led to the elaboration of the Oxford Guidelines on the Law Regulating Humanitarian Relief Operations in Situations of Armed Conflict: a document that restates existing law, and clarifies areas of uncertainty. It considers key elements of this area of law, including the question of whose consent is required to conduct relief operations; the circumstances in which withholding consent would be arbitrary; the rules on the implementation of relief operations; and the consequences of unlawful impeding of relief operations. The Guidance can be assessed at the following link: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/content/oxford-guidance-law-relating-humanitarian-relief-operations-situations-armed-conflict

This paper examines issues related to the question of 'planetary defence', in the sense of responding to an asteroid - or any other type of Near-Earth Object (NEO) - were such a body to be detected as being on a collision-course with the Earth and predict The first part of the paper will be 'non-legal' in nature. It aims to set the context by outlining: 1) what risks NEOs actually pose, 2) the unprecedented global political and institutional shifts towards NEO preparedness that have occurred in the last five years, 3) the recent increased scientific and political support for the 'nuclear option' in particular, and 4) the parallel developments in the nuclear disarmament and anti-space weaponisation movements that point in a very different direction. The second part of the paper will then turn to the legal implications of using nuclear weapons against an NEO, focusing on the apparent prohibition of such action under both the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1963 Partial Test-Ban Treaty. Further, possible 'defences' to illegality will be discussed. Bio James A. Green is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Reading, where he has been a member of staff since 2006. Currently he is also a visiting scholar at the University of Oxford, Faculty of Law (until January 2018), and previously has been a visiting scholar at the University of Michigan. James is the winner of the European Society of International Law Book Prize 2017 for The Persistent Objector Rule and International Law (OUP, 2016) and the American Society of International Law's Francis Lieber Prize 2010 for The International Court of Justice and Self-Defence in International Law (Hart, 2009). His primary research interests include the use of force (jus as bellum) and the nature of customary international law. He has published widely in leading international law journals around the world, as well as editing various book collections and contributing to others. James is the co-editor-in-chief of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law (Routledge) and has been a member of the International Law Association's Use of Force Committee since 2010.

Corruption has become a hot topic in Public International Law in recent years. In particular, its prevention has been the subject of numerous treaties and soft law instruments, and it has been wielded as a defence to both investment treaty claims and commercial contract claims (which in turn raises questions of private international law). Yet the source and theoretical underpinnings of a supposed international norm prohibiting corruption remains opaque. Tribunals and commentators make reference to “international public policy,” but the question remains whether the supposed prohibition of corruption is a rule of international law, and where it features in the hierarchy of norms. We propose to examine (i) the current “state of play” (i.e., the various ways in which international law addresses and reprimands corruption), (ii) whether Public International Law prohibits corruption and, if so, the source and status of that norm; and (iii) what the future of international anti-corruption efforts might look like. Bio: Samantha Rowe is International Counsel, and Ciara Murphy is an associate, in Debevoise & Plimpton LLP’s international dispute resolution group. Their practice focuses on international arbitration and public international law. They represent both sovereign states and companies in international investment and commercial arbitrations across a range of sectors. Ms. Rowe received her B.A. (Hons.) with First Class Honors in English Law and French Law from the University of Oxford, Wadham College, a Certificat Supérieur de Droit Français from the Université de Paris II Panthéon-Assas, and an LL.M. in International Legal Studies from New York University. Prior to joining Debevoise, Ms Murphy was a law clerk to Judge Greenwood and Judge Yusuf at the International Court of Justice. She holds an LLB from Trinity College Dublin, an LLM in EU Law from the College of Europe and an LLM in international and comparative legal practice from the University of Michigan.

From the early 17th to the mid-20th century (the Grotian Era), the oceans were regarded as a minimally regulated ‘free’ space. Abstract: The norms/laws that developed in that time were essentially restricted to those considered necessary to protect the notion of Mare Liberum and the free use of the oceans. Since the Second World War, however, the various dimensions of the ocean environment have been experiencing significant - even profound - change. As a consequence, we are certainly now in a process of transition from one era of ocean governance into another, the eventual characteristics of which are not easily predicted. One feature of the contemporary social and normative dimensions of the ocean environment is to do with the treatment of people and the protection of their human rights. How is this achieved in an area covering well over half the Earth’s surface not subject to the territorial jurisdiction of any state? Indeed, is this achievable at all? Bio: Steven Haines is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Greenwich, with specialist interests in law at sea (in both peace and war) and ocean governance in general. A former Royal Navy officer with over thirty years service, including sea-service worldwide, he took early retirement from the Ministry of Defence Central Policy Staff in 2003 to found and head the Department of Politics and International Relations at Royal Holloway College, University of London. In 2008 he moved to Geneva to join the Management Board of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and to head its Security and Law Programme. He was appointed to his Chair in Greenwich in 2012. He is a former Hudson Visiting Fellow at St Antony’s College (2001) and Visiting Fellow on Oxford’s Changing Character of War Programme (2012-13), and is currently a Senior Research Fellow in the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Rising Powers. He is a Trustee of the NGO Human Rights at Sea.

The UN Conference on Sustainable Development - or Rio+20 - took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on 20-22 June 2012 States decided to launch a process to develop a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which built upon the Millennium Development Goals and was designed to converge with the post 2015 development agenda. By 2015, these SDGs had been adopted in the United Nations. In the United Nations General Assembly Resolution Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the UN and its Member States agreed on 17 SDGs and 169 related time-bound targets and specific means of implementation.[1] Relying on joint UNEP/CISDL research, this presentation argues that SDGs and their targets can be found in the object and purpose of many important international treaties in the field of sustainable development.[2] While many SDGs in principle and many targets in concrete terms already form part of international legal obligations of states, the SDGs have been received by legal practitioners as much more than a simple policy document. The SDGs are shaping the application and interpretation of sustainable development as a concept and perhaps interstitial norm, arguably more than even the Rio Declaration Principles. Although designed as a set of country-level goals, the SDGs are already shaping the rules for our common future at the international level. Bio: Markus Gehring is the Arthur Watts Senior Research Fellow in Public International Law. His main areas of research are international trade law, international sustainable development law, including climate change and the legal implications of Brexit and EU external relations law. He is also a Senior Fellow with the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow in Law of Hughes Hall and serves as Lead Counsel for the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL). Markus started his academic career at the University of Oxford, then joined the University of Cambridge where he served as lecturer in law at the Department of Politics and International Studies, as tutor in Sustainable Development Law and as deputy director in the Centre for European Legal Studies in the Faculty of Law. He has also served as vice-dean of Research and Jean Monnet Research Chair ad personam in Sustainable Development Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Civil Law Section. Markus studied as an Erasmus student at the Universidad de Deusto in Bilbao, Spain. He holds a professional law degree from the Faculty of Law at the University of Hamburg, Germany, an LL.M. from Yale Law School, an M.A. from the University of Cambridge, a Dr. iur. from the Faculty of Law at the University of Hamburg, and a second doctorate with his J.S.D. from Yale Law School. He is a barrister and solicitor of the Law Society of Upper Canada and a Rechtsanwalt (German lawyer) in the Frankfurt/Main Bar in Germany. He is also an affiliate member of Landmark Chambers in London.

Dr Ziv Bohrer, assistant professor at Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law, gives a talk for the Public International Law Discussion Group. Please note, the recording for this podcast ended before the end, we apologise for the inconvenience. What international law corpus applies to border-crossing fights between non-State and State forces (transnational conflicts): peacetime-general international law, the Law of International Armed Conflict, the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict, or a new wartime international law altogether? This issue is widely disputed, because transnational conflicts fail to neatly fit into any recognised legal category of collective violence. The 'goofiness' of transnational conflicts is commonly attributed to their novelty. But, nearly two decades already passed since 9/11 (the event marking their rise) without reaching an accepted classification. This classification dispute is not alone. Since the early 2000s, international lawyers have been perpetually debating numerous war-related classifications. Transnational conflicts are considered a primary cause for the present classification crisis: wars of a new kind that is eroding the longstanding distinctions of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The talk questions the historical accuracy of the accepted assumption that the attributes of transnational conflicts are novel and of the related premise that IHL regulation of transnational conflicts is novel. The talk suggests an alternative explanation for the current strong sense of a classification crisis. Bio Dr. Ziv Bohrer is an assistant professor at Bar-Ilan University, Faculty of Law. His main areas of interest are International Criminal Law and International Humanitarian Law. He is currently researching the long (forgotten) pre-WWII history of International Criminal Law. Prior to that he was a Fulbright fellow and a Visiting Research Scholar at the University of Michigan (2011-12), and a Research Fellow at the Sacher Institute Sacher Institute for Legislative Research and Comparative Law (2012-13). Ziv received his Ph.D. (2011) and LL.M. (2007) from Tel-Aviv University-Faculty of Law, magna cum laude and his LL.B and B.A. (in psychology) from Haifa University. Ziv teaches: Public International Law, International Criminal Law, International Humanitarian law (Law of Armed Conflict), Justification for Punishment in International Criminal Law (seminar). Co-organised with the Oxford Institute for Ethics Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC)

David Freestone gives a talk for the public international law seminar series. Please note, the recording of this podcast ended before the end. We apologise for the inconvenience. As the oceans warm and ice melts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) now predicts a global average sea-level rise of up to one metre by 2100. AR5 also emphasizes that sea-level rise will have “a strong regional pattern, with some places experiencing significant deviations of local and regional sea level change from the global mean change.” These predictions pose serious and possibly existential threats to the inhabitants of low lying islands and coastal areas, and pose challenges for the international legal system to respond in an orderly and humane way to these novel situations. In 2012, the International Law Association (ILA) established a new Committee to look specifically at these issues. This presentation will look at the work undertaken by the Committee to date regarding the law of the sea aspects of its mandate and identify some considerations for its future work.

Recent years have seen numerous attempts to seize State assets held outside a State's national territory to satisfy debts owed by the State to private persons. Assets targeted have included military and cultural goods (from visiting naval vessels to paintings on loan to foreign museums). But such attempts have generally been unsuccessful, even when debtors have relied on widely-worded waivers of immunity. This presentation will examine why. Matthew Happold is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Luxembourg, having previous taught at several universities in the United Kingdom. He is a member of the Commission consultative des droits de l'homme, Luxembourg's national human rights institution, and practices as a barrister from 3 Hare Court, London. He is presently a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Institute for International law at Cambridge University.

Professor van Aaken's main research areas are international law with a special focus on international economic law and its interaction with other areas of international law, (international) legal theory, (behavioural) law and economics.

Advocacy is the art of persuasion on behalf of a person or cause. In this presentation, the way in which lawyers advocate before the International Court of Justice, throughout each phase of a proceeding, is examined, from the different perspectives of civil (francophone) and common (anglophone) lawyers. The presentation will cover all aspects of presenting and handling a case: issues of strategy and procedure, written and oral pleadings, and the compiling and presentation of evidence, including by fact witnesses and experts. It will also consider ways in which the Court is modernizing, and is likely to further change its approach, in our generation. The presentation will draw upon the speakers’ extensive experience as junior counsel before the ICJ, in more than 10 recent and pending cases.

In 2011, the ICRC embarked on a multi-year project aimed at updating its commentaries on the Geneva Conventions (the “Pictet Commentaries”) and their Additional Protocols I and II. The initial Commentaries are referred to by military lawyers, jurists, judges and scholars around the world as an authoritative source of interpretation of the Conventions and Protocols. However, they were based primarily on the negotiating history of the treaties and on prior practice. While they remain largely valid in these respects, they are lacking the insight of 60 years (40 years for the APs commentaries) of legal/operational developments. The updated Commentaries aim at capturing such developments by drawing on a number of sources reflecting State practice, but also case-law from international courts and tribunals which has greatly expanded since the 1990s, scholarly writings and the ICRC archives. On the occasion of the publication of the updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention Jean-Marie Henckaerts will present the Commentaries update project, its interpretation methodology, as well as highlight some key developments and novelties in particular on common Articles 1–3. Bio Jean-Marie Henckaerts is head of the ICRC project to update the Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977. The first milestone of this project was reached on 22 March when the updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention was released on line. Prior to this, he was the head of the ICRC’s project on customary international humanitarian law; he is a co-author of the ICRC study on the subject. He holds the degrees of Doctor of Juridical Science from The George Washington University Law School, Master of Laws from the University of Georgia School of Law and Bachelor of Laws from the University of Brussels. He has published eight books and numerous articles on international law, international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Historic titles and historic rights have been a complicated issue in the law of the sea both conceptually and practically. The contemporary relevance of historic titles and historic rights in the law of the sea has been questioned following the adoption of the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC), the endorsement of a significant expansion of the jurisdiction of coastal states, and the consolidation of the jurisdictional regime of maritime zones. Historic titles and historic rights have been a complicated issue in the law of the sea both conceptually and practically. These concepts have attracted attention in academic literature mainly in papers discussing the validity of specific claims, and more recently concerning China’s historic claim in the South China Sea. Historic claims have not been addressed comprehensively by international courts and tribunals. They have been invoked by litigants within the framework of maritime delimitation, and courts and tribunals have examined their validity and relevance to the maritime boundary. A number of issues remain uncertain: the definition and scope of historic waters, titles and rights, the contemporary relevance of such claims in the light of the Law of the Sea Convention, and the conditions and requirements for their establishment. The South China Sea arbitration between the Philippines and China raised important issues regarding the contemporary relevance and validity of historic claims, and the Tribunal made some interesting pronouncements with respect to a crucial aspect concerning the relationship between the Law of the Sea Convention and historic rights. This is the first time that a Tribunal contributes with such clarity to the issue of historic rights. This talk will examine historic rights and historic titles in the law of the sea in the light of the South China Sea arbitration and evaluate the contribution of the awards to the clarification of these concepts. It will assess the approach of the Tribunal concerning the relationship between the Law of the Sea Convention and historic claims in general, and then identify certain types of historic rights and evaluate their contemporary relevance with reference to the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals. It will further examine the requirements for the establishment of historic rights with a focus on China’s historic claim as discussed by the Tribunal, and finally assess the scope and content of the optional exception to compulsory jurisdiction in article 298 (1) (a) (i) LOSC regarding disputes involving historic titles and the decision of the Tribunal on jurisdiction. Short bio Dr Sophia Kopela is a lecturer in law at Lancaster University Law School. She holds an LLB from the University of Athens (Greece), an LLM in Public International Law from the University of Nottingham (UK) and a PhD in International Law of the Sea from Bristol University (UK). Her specialisation lies in law of the sea, international environmental law and public international law, and she has published articles in international journals and presented papers in international conferences in these fields. Her article ‘2007 Archipelagic Legislation of the Dominican Republic: An Assessment’ was awarded the Gerard Mangone Prize for the best article in the International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law in 2009. She is the author of a monograph titled ‘Dependent archipelagos in the law of the sea’ published by Martinus Nijhoff/BRILL in 2013. She is also the book review editor of the International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law.

This article critically assesses the increasing cross-fertilization between international environmental law and international human rights law... Abstract .. with regard to fair and equitable benefit-sharing, as an inherent component of the human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities related to natural resources. The article aims to explore the extent to which a fully-fledged mutually supportive interpretation of benefit-sharing may contribute to a progressive shift away from international law’s historically western-centric understanding of sovereignty towards the recognition and integration of different worldviews in nature resource use and conservation. The article thus examines the increasing references to benefit-sharing in international human rights processes with regard to the negative impacts of development and conservation of natural resources traditionally used by indigenous and tribal peoples (Part I). It then contrasts these developments with the evolution of fair and equitable benefit-sharing from the use of natural resources traditionally used by indigenous peoples and local communities under international biodiversity law (Part II). This preliminary juxtaposition serves to illuminate the degree of reciprocal influences of the areas of law, as well as respective blindspots. The central section of this paper (Part III) explores the full potential for a mutually supportive interpretation between international biodiversity and human rights law. It does so by piecing together existing sources of authoritative interpretation that are implicitly compatible and originate from these two areas of international law with a view to advancing understanding of how they contribute to address the respective blindspots in international environmental and human rights law. The combined reading of these international legal materials leads – it will be argued – to three normative clarifications. First, benefit-sharing should be understood as having a substantive dimension (right-holding communities’ choice and capabilities), as well as a procedural one (right-holding communities’ agency as part of a concerted, culturally appropriate and iterative dialogue). Second, benefit-sharing should expand dramatically the scope and approach of impact assessments and consultation/consent practices, moving from a defensive approach to ensure respect and protection of human rights towards a more proactive approach supporting also their full realization. In other words, benefit-sharing should not only be seen as a procedural “safeguard” to the substantive human rights related to natural resources, but rather as an integral component of these rights that should be realized. Third, benefit-sharing should be seen as part of a general, self-standing obligation to respect, protect and realize human rights related to natural resources. It should thus be distinguished from compensation as a secondary obligation of reparations that is dependent upon a violation of the right. The extent to which such interpretation has been applied, and should be applicable, to the creation and management of conservation measures, in addition to extractives, is also explored, as questions of negative impacts on human rights of conservation initiatives have only recently received more sustained attention. Accordingly, a reflection is offered on the relevance of these and related international law developments on benefit-sharing for better understanding business responsibility to respect human rights related to natural resources in the extractive sector, as well as for non-State actors in the conservation sector. Bio Elisa Morgera is Professor of Global Environmental Law at Strathclyde Law School in Glasgow and Director of the Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance. She is leading the ERC-funded BENELEX project on fair and equitable benefit-sharing at the crossroads of international human rights law, international environmental law (biodiversity, climate change, watercourses, land and agriculture) and the law of the sea. Elisa has served as a consultant for the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO), IUCN, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the European Commission and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In addition, Elisa has participated as an observer in international environmental negotiations, including under the CBD and on marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, since 2005. Prior to joining academia, Elisa served as a legal officer for FAO, advising over fifty countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the South Pacific on improving domestic legislation on natural resources; and as an environmental management officer for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in the Eastern Caribbean.

Can we reliably predict whether the populations affected by mass atrocities will believe in the accounts of the facts and criminal responsibility that are produced by international criminal tribunals? Drawing on research in social psychology and on a seri In that regard, a negative reaction by dominant local political, media and intellectual elites becomes more likely if there is a significant degree of continuity with the elites that were dominant in the particular group when the atrocities took place, the more authoritarian the relevant society is, and the greater the perception of the threat that the tribunal’s work poses to the dominant position of these elites. That means that some tribunals, like the Yugoslav one, but not necessarily all tribunals, are from the outset doomed to fail as vehicles of transitional justice, since they would in most instances be powerless to overcome determined local opposition. Dr Marko Milanovic is associate professor at the University of Nottingham School of Law. He obtained his first degree in law from the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, his LL.M from the University of Michigan Law School, and his PhD in international law from the University of Cambridge. He is Vice-President and member of the Executive Board of the European Society of International Law, an Associate of the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, and co-editor of EJIL: Talk!, the blog of the European Journal of International Law, as well as a member of the EJIL’s Editorial Board. He was Law Clerk to Judge Thomas Buergenthal of the International Court of Justice in 2006/2007. He has published in leading academic journals, including the European Journal of International Law and the American Journal of International Law; his work has been cited, inter alia, by the UK Supreme Court and by the International Law Commission. He was counsel or advisor in cases before the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Constitutional Court of Serbia.

In this talk, we will attempt to discuss points of interest, taking also into consideration the role offshore installations may or may not play in the determination of judicial proceedings before international courts and tribunals. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (“UNCLOS”) includes provisions for at least three categories of energy installations: offshore platforms used for oil and gas exploration and exploitation; offshore platforms used for the generation of energy from renewable sources; and submarine cables and pipelines. The regulatory framework for each one of these should cover each stage of their deployment, from the initial determination of coastal State jurisdiction to placement and operational responsibility. It should also cover potential liability for any damage caused by their presence in the marine environment. There is a wide variety of rules applicable, some of them of long provenance, others newly-minted; some of them specific to the task, others offering simply the general parameters of a regulation. As energy operations at sea expand, the multitude of applicable rules adds to the challenges we face for the future.

Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji, Judge of the International Criminal Court and President of the Trial Division Discussion on the proper role of the ICC judges in the interpretation of the Rome Statute – especially in those circumstances where it is felt or evident that the words of the Statute offer no ready guidance.

Dr Gleider Hernandez, Reader in Public International Law, University of Durham, October 2016 Dr Gleider I Hernández is Reader in Public International Law at Durham Law School and Deputy Director of the Durham Global Policy Institute. Originally from Canada, Gleider took a D.Phil from Wadham College, Oxford, an LL.M degree from Leiden, and BCL & LL.B degrees from McGill. His DPhil, The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function, was published by the OUP in 2014, and was shortlisted for the Peter Birks Prize. His second book, International Law, will be published in 2017, also by the OUP. Gleider is currently an AHRC Research Leadership Fellow on a project entitled 'Constructing Authority in International Law'. Besides his academic position at Durham, Gleider serves as Junior Faculty with the Harvard Institute for Global Law and Policy and is a Visiting Senior Fellow at the TMC Asser Institute in The Hague. He has previously has been Visiting Fellow at McGill and Amsterdam universities. In terms of practice and consultancy work, Gleider currently serves as Expert on the group of experts drafting the NATO/CCDCOE Tallinn Manual on Cyber Operations in International Law, and has just completed a mandate as Special Assistant to an ICSID investment tribunal. He also served from 2008-2010 as Associate Legal Officer to Judges Peter Tomka and Bruno Simma at the International Court of Justice. He is also a Member of the Legal Action Committee of GLANLaw.org, a non-governmental organisation dedicated to challenging injustice through innovative legal strategy. Finally, nearly a decade ago, he served as the Convenor of the Public International Law Discussion Group of the Oxford Law Faculty, to which he returns with fond memories. Abstract: This paper attempts to understand the authority asserted by certain norm-applying institutions (‘law-applying authorities’ or officials) as part of their practice of responding to situations of indeterminacy in the law. Indeterminacy is explored as but a temporary gap, one which can be resolved through mechanisms of determinability within the legal system. The authority of norm-applying institutions is purportedly defended as necessary for the existence of law and the legal system, but is in fact rooted in social practices that legitimate the exercise of authority through recognition. Such a claim to authority is specifically with respect to content-independent authority, to the extent that it relies on the identity of the law-applying actor, rather than on the substance of the reasoning invoked. There is a circularity in identifying law-applying authorities through reference to the rules of the legal system, yet presuming their existence as a necessary condition for the existence of the legal system. Instead, the answer is partly also to be found in the existence of common discourse rules between various international actors, who together constitute an epistemic community and whose canons, forms of discourse and methods serve to define the practice of international law. It is through this combination of social recognition and adherence to socially-constructed canons and discourse rules that authority in law-application, law-creation and development privilege, over all other priorities, the coherence and authority of the system as a whole.

Rob McLaughlin, Australian National University - October 2015

Professor Eyal Benvenisti, Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge The rising tide of nationalism (aka localism, nativism) has reached new peaks in 2016. According to several observers, the rise of the national reflects voters’ resentment towards neoliberal globalization served by multilateral institutions. Middle-income voters, in both developed and developing countries, regard global institutions such as the WTO, NAFTA and the EU, as responsible for diverting resources and opportunities to the few, while depriving them of voice, of jobs, and depleting national social safety nets. Is it possible for multilateral institutions to regain the trust of the diffuse voters by becoming more accountable to them, provide them with opportunities to convey their concerns and assert their demands? In my talk, I will first explore the causes and consequences of the diminishing voice of key constituencies as a result of multilateralism, and then reflect on possible legal and other responses that might make global governance institutions more inclusive and consequently more egalitarian.

Professor Jane McAdam, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee, University of New South Wales & Asad Rehman, Friends of the Earth Climate Campaign - June 2016

Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, University of Oxford & Blackstone Chambers - May 2016

Dr Markos Karavias, University of Amsterdam - May 2016

Dr Federica Padeu, University of Cambridge - April 2016

Professor Sarah Williams, University of New South Wales - March 2016

Dr Panos Merkouris, University of Groningen - January 2016

Dan Joyner, University of Alabama School of Law - November 2015

Tom Dannenbaum, University College London, November 2015

Yaraslau Kryvoi, University of West London - 5 February 2015

Paul Stephen, University of Virginia - October 2015

Miguel de Serpa Soares, Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel