LCIL International Law Centre Podcast

Without the ability to mobilise coercive measures, international adjudicators must rely on their authority to influence real-world outcomes. This lecture considers the origin and conceivable uses of the authority of international adjudicators. International courts’ influence relies on their ability to mobilise, through mere authoritative communications, the different internal and external forces that shape state behaviour, influencing the views of individuals within states and shaping mutual expectations of cooperative and sanction-worthy behaviour. For this, international courts have at their disposal a variety of communicative instruments: their judicial remedies. Though all judicial remedies are, at their core, modalities of interpretation and application of norms, their varied focuses allow adjudicators to calibrate the exercise of their authority. The lecture develops on concepts outlined in Dr. Vidigal’s 2026 monograph, Adjudicating over Anarchy: Judicial Remedies, Compliance, and Enforcement in International Law (Cambridge University Press). The book establishes a fourfold typology of international judicial remedies – Mere Adjudication, Declaration of Breach, Consequential Duties, and Permissible Responses – each targeting a specific element of the international normative framework. Through different remedies, adjudicators interpret the normative framework, establish violations, and determine conduct required to restore lawful relations. The fourth category of remedies, often left untapped, encompasses judicial determinations of permissible responses to breach: what measures other actors may take to respond to violations, compelling wrongdoers to comply with their obligations and provide redress for injury. If fully explored, this fourth category might reshape the prevailing understanding of the relationship between international adjudication and coercive enforcement.

Geraldo Vidigal is Associate Professor at the University of Amsterdam, where he coordinates the LL.M. in International Trade and Investment Law. He is Editor-in-Chief of Legal Issues of Economic Integration, sits on the Editorial Boards of the Journal of International Economic Law and the Latin American and Caribbean Journal of International Law, and is a member of the Executive Council of the Society of International Economic Law. He holds a PhD in Law (University of Cambridge), a Master’s in International Law and International Organisations (Sorbonne – Paris 1), and a Bachelor’s in Law (University of São Paulo). He has been a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute in Luxembourg, and a Jean Monnet Fellow at the European University Institute, and a Dispute Settlement Lawyer at the World Trade Organization. Besides Adjudicating over Anarchy, he is co-editor (with Kathleen Claussen) of The Sustainability Revolution in International Trade Agreements (Oxford University Press, 2024).

Chair: Dr Jamie Trinidad

This lecture was delivered on 16 October 2026 as part of the Centre's Friday Lunchtime Lecture series.

The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law. This year's lecture will be given by Professor Dapo Akande, Chichele Professor of Public International Law at the University of Oxford.

A sandwich lunch for lecture attendees will be held from 12.30 pm in the Old Library on all days.

Lecture 1: 1 pm Monday 8 June - 'International Law Immunities - Do we need them?'

Lecture 2: 1 pm Tuesday 9 June - 'Immunities and Prosecutions for International Crimes in Foreign Domestic Courts'

Lecture 3: 1 pm Wednesday 10 June - 'Immunities and International Criminal Tribunals'

The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law. This year's lecture will be given by Professor Dapo Akande, Chichele Professor of Public International Law at the University of Oxford.

A sandwich lunch for lecture attendees will be held from 12.30 pm in the Old Library on all days.

Lecture 1: 1 pm Monday 8 June - 'International Law Immunities - Do we need them?'

Lecture 2: 1 pm Tuesday 9 June - 'Immunities and Prosecutions for International Crimes in Foreign Domestic Courts'

Lecture 3: 1 pm Wednesday 10 June - 'Immunities and International Criminal Tribunals'

The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law. This year's lecture will be given by Professor Dapo Akande, Chichele Professor of Public International Law at the University of Oxford.

A sandwich lunch for lecture attendees will be held from 12.30 pm in the Old Library on all days.

Lecture 1: 1 pm Monday 8 June - 'International Law Immunities - Do we need them?'

Lecture 2: 1 pm Tuesday 9 June - 'Immunities and Prosecutions for International Crimes in Foreign Domestic Courts'

Lecture 3: 1 pm Wednesday 10 June - 'Immunities and International Criminal Tribunals'

In this talk, I’ll focus on multiple dimension of the global housing crisis - affordability, homelessness, loss of homes due to climate crisis, mass destruction of homes or domicide during conflict, migration and the idea of a home, the contestation over land, and the persistence of forced evictions, discrimination and increasing segregation - from an international legal perspective. Drawing on my work as UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to adequate housing, the key focus will be to ask how much international law matters to bring solutions to these aspects of the global housing crisis and how much international law itself is part of the root causes of these dimension of the housing crisis.

Speaker: Balakrishnan Rajagopal is Associate Professor of Law and Development at the Department of Urban Studies and Planning and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing. He founded the Program on Human Rights and Justice at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and the Displacement Research and Action Network. He is recognized as a leading participant in the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) Network of scholars and is one of its founders, and is recognized as a leading global commentator on issues concerning the global South.Prof Rajagopal is visiting the University of Cambridge this term as the Leverhulme Professor.

Chair: Dr Joanna Gomula

This lecture was delivered on 22 May 2026 as part of the Centre's Friday Lunchtime Lecture series.

Lecture summary: President Trump’s decisive attack on foreign aid and USAID, leading to the restructuring of the latter and the closure of ongoing and future development aid work across the world, has left many vulnerable regions of the world in potential crisis. With some of the funds hitherto allocated to development aid in vulnerable Global South countries reallocated to national economic projects or redirected to support programs that deepen U.S. foreign policy objectives of America First abroad, one thing is clear: economic nationalism, power-based relations, and opposition to the rules-based order is back.

Calculated, unfair, and transactional politics is the name of the game for President Trump’s return to office so far. Whether it is in relation to a developed, developing, or least-developed country, the Trump administration has unapologetically proven that it does not care whose ox is gored. Despite the US Supreme Court ruling, the “Reciprocal Tariff Policy” has disrupted and entrenched the uncertainty in the multilateral trading system that was already confronted with crisis about its own existence, especially the World Trade Organization, and the resulting fragmentation in international trade has further exacerbated the socio-economic and fragile status of developing countries.

Olabisi Delebayo Akinkugbe is the Purdy Crawford Chair in Business Law and Associate Professor at the Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University. Prof Akinkugbe obtained a Ph.D. in law from the University of Ottawa, an LL.M. from the University of Toronto, and an LL.B. from the University of Lagos, Nigeria. He previously served as the Viscount Bennett Professor of Law at the Schulich School of Law and was convenor of the annual Viscount Bennett Roundtable on International Economic Law.

In 2024, he was the recipient of the Hannah and Harold Barnett Excellence in Teaching Award.

In this paper, I analyse the multiple implications for developing countries in the African continent.

Chair: Prof Lorand Bartels

This lecture was delivered on 1 May 2026 and is part of the Friday Lunchtime Lecture series.

Based on his experience, but speaking in his personal capacity, Ambassador Tomohiro Mikanagi will discuss the current state of the rules of international law against attempts to acquire territory by force. When powerful States are not satisfied with the territorial status quo and are unwilling to give up their interests for the sake of international peace, there is an inherent difficulty in stopping their attempts to acquire territory by force. In the past 100 years, efforts have been made to stop such attempts. Based on the recognition of the efforts made so far, Ambassador Mikanagi will examine the current state of the rules of international law against such attempts. He will examine the relationship between the prohibition on the use of force and the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and will discuss the scope of these prohibitions. He will also discuss whether States can acquire territory by the use of force in self-defence and examine obligations for third States arising from the violation of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force.

Ambassador Tomohiro Mikanagi is the Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations and was the Japanese Legal Advisor from 2022 to 2024. He also holds the title of Ambassador-at-Large for Cooperation on International Law.

He was a visiting fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre of International Law and is currently an LCIL Partner Fellow. He participated in the proceedings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the Advisory Opinion issued on July 19, 2024. Japan's oral statement in February 2024 was unique as it focused exclusively on the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force.

Chair: Prof Sandesh Sivakumaran

Lecture summary: In 1963, Stanley Hoffmann told the American Society of International Law: “Since every Power wants to turn its interests, ideas and gains into law, a study of the ‘legal strategies’ of the various units, i.e., of what kinds of norms they try to promote, and through what techniques, may be as fruitful for the political scientist as a study of more purely diplomatic, military or economic strategies.” In this lecture, Michael Byers outlines his two-decade long project to expose and explain how a class of highly sophisticated international lawyers, often referred to as ‘legal advisers’, strategically seek to manipulate law-making processes to make or change rules to favour their state.

Michael Byers (PhD Cantab) is Professor of Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. He also co-directs the Outer Space Institute, a global network of space experts united by their commitment to highly innovative, transdisciplinary research that addresses grand challenges facing the continued use and exploration of space. Dr. Byers has been a Junior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University; Professor of Law at Duke University; and a Visiting Professor at the universities of Cape Town, Tel Aviv, Nord (Norway), Novosibirsk (Russia), St Andrews, and the Geneva Graduate Institute. His two most recent books, both published by Cambridge University Press, are International Law and the Arctic and Who Owns Outer Space?

Chair: Prof Lorand Bartels, Centre Fellow

The Friday Lunchtime Lecture series is kindly supported by Cambridge University Press & Assessment.

Lecture summary: Early March 1946 marked a rough midpoint in proceedings before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. The prosecution had closed its case, with France and the USSR just having presented most of the trial’s eyewitnesses – two of them women. The defense opened just as Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech. Elsewhere in Palace of Justice, personnel were going home even as others arrived, to prepare subsequent proceedings. These new ‘Nurembergers’ included more women, more people of colour, and more people who had not served in the world war then on trial. By centring such developments, this talk will offer a less-travelled account of the first international criminal trial.

An expert in international law and its subfields, including legal history and international criminal law, Diane Marie Amann has served as Regents’ Professor, Emily & Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law, and Faculty Co-Director of the Dean Rusk International Law Center at the University of Georgia School of Law, and is an Academic Affiliate at University College London Faculty of Laws. She was Special Adviser to International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda on Children in & affected by Armed Conflict, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and has held leadership posts in the American and European societies of international law. Amann is writing an Oxford University Press book about lawyers and other women professionals at the first Nuremberg trial.

Lecture summary: The regulation of submarines has rarely been an issue of focus in international law. Their military utility has influenced states’ willingness to develop rules that restrict their operations, both historically and in contemporary settings. So much is evident in examining current controversies over navigational rights of warships. Yet the types and uses of submarines are continually evolving and are regulated—to varying extents—by a myriad of international law. With the development of autonomous submarines, we again need to think carefully about the existing rules, their gaps and ambiguities. Have we reached the point that these evasive underwater vehicles cannot and should not elude the reach of international law?

Dr Natalie Klein is Associate Dean (Academic) and a Professor at UNSW Sydney’s Faculty of Law & Justice, Australia. Professor Klein teaches and researches in different areas of international law, focusing on law of the sea. She was a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre in 2008 when she was working on Maritime Security and the Law of the Sea (OUP). She is co-author, with Kate Purcell and Jack McNally, of a forthcoming monograph, Submarines in International Law (CUP).

There is a sandwich lunch at 12.30 pm in the Old Library at the Centre. All lecture attendees welcome.

Chair: Prof Markus Gehring

The Friday Lunchtime Lecture series is kindly supported by Cambridge University Press & Assessment.

Speaker: Prof Tamsin Paige, Deakin Law School

Lecture summary: Stories serve an integral role in society as, among other things, a meaning making tool. As a method of meaning making, stories are relational and allow the storyteller to assist their audience in understanding ideas, concepts, and experiences that lie beyond their lived experiences. Using this understanding and starting point, I ask what happens if we read international law as an iterative archive of stories about global society? I will start by exploring the meaning making function that storytelling serves in society, and then consider how international law, be it treaties, custom, case law or other legal instruments, can be read as official stories of the society that produced them.

Tamsin Phillipa Paige is an Associate Professor with Deakin Law School. Her work is interdisciplinary in nature, using qualitative sociological methods to analyse international law (with a focus on application of law and the impact it has on society). She also does law and literature research using popular fiction to understand social perceptions of the law. Her work has examined (among other things) Somali piracy, UN Security Council decision making, the impact of international law on queer lives, and conflict based sexual violence. In a former life, she was a French trained, fine dining pâtissière.

Chair: Dr Lena Holzer, Centre Fellow

This lecture was delivered on 20 February 2026 and is part of the Friday Lunchtime Lecture series.

Speaker: Dr Penelope Ridings, International Law Commission

Lecture summary: In the last several decades, scholarly views of due diligence in international law have shifted from due diligence as a primary obligation under customary international law, to due diligence as a standard of conduct attached to a primary obligation. Thus, for example, due diligence is required to meet a State’s obligation of protection (of the environment) or of prevention (of genocide). The International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on Climate Change adopted such an articulation and stated that due diligence is a standard of conduct and States have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence. The Court not only reinforced the importance of the customary international law obligation not to cause significant harm to the environment but placed this within the ‘no harm’ principle, as expressed in the Corfu Channel case. However, the Court did not expressly articulate whether there was a broader obligation of due diligence that applies not only to the prevention of environmental harm, but also to the prevention of other harms to the rights and interests of States. Due diligence is thus as a crossroads. Has the ICJ essentially sought to bridge the gap between on the one hand the notion of due diligence as an obligation on a State not to permit activities subject to its jurisdiction or control which causes harm to the rights and interests of other States, and on the other hand the notion of due diligence as a standard of conduct attached to a primary obligation? Has the Court opened the door to finding a general customary international law obligation not to cause harm to the rights and interests of other States? Or has it confined due diligence to its status as a standard of conduct attached to a primary obligation? This lecture will discuss this pivotal point which is central to the elucidation of the foundation and scope of the due diligence obligation under international law.

Dr Penelope Ridings is a Member of the International Law Commission and New Zealand Barrister practising in the field of public international law. In 2025 she was appointed the ILC Special Rapporteur for the topic ‘Due Diligence in International Law’. She was formerly New Zealand’s Chief International Legal Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and a New Zealand diplomat. She was Agent for New Zealand before the International Court of Justice in Whaling in the Antarctic: Australia v Japan, New Zealand Intervening and before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea in the Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission.

After moving to the New Zealand Bar, she has advised governments and international organisations on public international law including law of the sea, fisheries, environmental law, trade and investment, international security and international dispute settlement. She was Chair of the 2025 arbitration under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (UK-Sandeel) and Chair of the WTO appeal arbitration China – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement. She has served on several ICSID ad hoc Annulment Committees, including as Chair, and as an independent panellist in disputes before the WTO. She has lectured in international law and contributed to several books and written articles on various aspects of international law.

This lecture was delivered on 13 February 2026 and is part of the Friday Lunchtime Lecture series.

Speakers: Prof Mads Andenas & Prof Johann Ruben Leiss, University of Oslo

Lecture summary: The lecture explores the systemic function of general principles in international law in light of the ongoing work of the ILC on general principles of law and recent practice of international courts and tribunals, such as the Climate Change Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice from 2025. In its first part, the lecture examines the ILC’s approach to the systemic function of general principles and comments of states on the ILC’s work. In its second and third part, the lecture discusses the two main features of the systemic function of general principles, namely their contribution to inter-norm and inter-systemic coherence in international law. All general principles potentially fulfil a systemic function by their gap-filling role and inter-systemic communication through Article 38(1)(c) ICJ Statute. Several general principles have a systemic pull in inter-norm contexts as interpretative guidelines and inter-norm harmonisers and coordinators. In the relationship between different (sub)orders of international law (including European law and national legal orders applying international law), several principles provide for ‘hinge’ mechanisms and inter-system harmonisers which open legal (sub)orders to one another, and integrate them into (relative) unity, while others serve as inter-system coordinators or mechanisms for conditional closure of legal orders. This means, all general principles have a systemic function, whereas certain principles have more direct systemic function by virtue of their normative content. Through their systemic function, general principles contribute as a central cohesive force furthering international law’s character as a legal and (relative) unitary system. This system is characterized by a complex and dynamic interplay between a plurality of legal norms, orders, and sub-orders, including national legal orders, through systemic principles of openness, coordination, and conditional closure.

Chair: Prof Campbell McLachlan

This lecture was given on 6 February 2026 and is part of the Friday Lunchtime Lecture series at the Lauterpacht Centre.

Lecture summary: Empire is a big theme in international law. At the same time, the historical discussion on imperialism and international law had focussed primarily on the West European Empires. This presentation examines Russian and Soviet historical engagements with international law through imperial ideas and practices. Of the doctrines of international law, the ideas of state identity (continuity) and also termination of treaties via the doctrine of clausula rebus sic stantibus are examined, and how their use has served the imperial construction and practice of international law in Russia. Understanding the history of international law in Russia through the lens of Empire helps us inter alia to situate Russia's war against Ukraine.

Lauri Mälksoo is Professor of International Law at the University of Tartu in Estonia. He is member of the Institut de Droit International, of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. He has published two monographs on the history and theory of international law in Russia and the Soviet Union at the Oxford University Press.

Chair: Prof Marc Weller

This lecture was given on 30 January 2026 and is part of the Friday Lunchtime Lecture series at the Lauterpacht Centre.

Speaker: Prof Antonios Tzanakopoulos, University of Oxford

No lecture summary available.

Chair: Prof Jan Klabbers

This lecture was given on 23 January 2026 and is part of the Friday Lunchtime Lecture series at the Lauterpacht Centre.

The speaker for the Eli Lauterpacht Lecture 2025 was Santiago Villalpando, Legal Advisor and Director of UNESCO.

Lecture summary: Is international law facing a decline of treaties?

In recent years, several authoritative voices have pointed out certain developments which seem to indicate that States are shifting away from treaty law-making for the governance of their international relations.

Taking as a starting point the sociological concept of “liquid modernity” introduced by Zygmunt Bauman, this lecture will explore how treaties, archetypes of solid and stable law-making, have reacted to an unstable global community where norms seem to be eroding and long-term commitments appear to be challenged.

As the lecture will show, there is no doubt that the law and practice of treaties have evolved to adapt to a shifting international environment, but the news about the death of treaties is greatly exaggerated. 

The Eli Lauterpacht Lecture was established after Sir Eli's death in 2017 to celebrate his life and work. This lecture takes place on a Friday at the Centre at the start of the Michaelmas Term in any academic year.

These lectures are kindly supported by Dr and Mrs Ivan Berkowitz who are Principal Benefactors of the Centre.

Lecture summary: Over centuries and across continents, authoritarian governments have demonstrated a large appetite for international cooperation to target political opponents across borders. As the world’s premier body for international police cooperation, Interpol is not supposed to facilitate this kind of transnational repression -- and yet, in recent years, there is growing concern that authoritarian governments are abusing Interpol's tools. Interpol has taken meaningful steps to curb such abuse, but the durability of those protections is in doubt given the rising influence of authoritarian governments in that organization. The looming question is at what point universal multilateral cooperation with respect to law enforcement might cease to be viable.

Kristina Daugirdas is the Francis A. Allen Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School. She teaches and writes primarily in the fields of international law and institutions.

Her scholarship currently focuses on international organizations, accountability mechanisms, and the ongoing evolution of the international legal system. She is a member of the editorial board of the International Organizations Law Review and the State Department’s Advisory Committee on International Law. She also serves as an adviser to the American Law Institute’s Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law.

In 2016–2017, Daugirdas was a visiting fellow at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and served as a consultant on public international law issues for the World Intellectual Property Organization. From 2014 to 2017, she co-authored the Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law: A section of the American Journal of International Law. In 2014, she was awarded the Francis Deák Prize for an outstanding article published in the American Journal of International Law by a younger author.

Daugirdas has taken on significant leadership roles at the law school, including serving as Associate Dean for Academic Programming from 2021 to 2024. She also led a subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on the University of Michigan Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression.

Prior to entering academia, Daugirdas was an attorney-adviser at the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser, receiving multiple honors for her service. As an attorney-adviser, she provided guidance on the negotiation and implementation of UN Security Council sanctions and amicus participation by the US government in lawsuits with foreign policy implications.

Chair: Prof Fernando Lusa Bordin

This lecture was given on 7 November 2025 and is part of the Friday Lunchtime Lecture series at the Lauterpacht Centre.

Lecture summary: Most observers – at least in the West – agree that the twenty-first century has been particularly tumultuous. But while some explain the volatility of our times by reference to historical analogies, e.g. moments of power transition in the twentieth century, others claim that we are in a moment of polycrisis for which there is no precedent. In this talk I split the difference: mainstream International Relations is wrong to assume the twenty-first century will resemble the twentieth century, but there are other historical precedents we can use to better think about our current predicament.

Ayşe Zarakol is Professor of International Relations at the University of Cambridge (Emmanuel College). She is the author of After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West (Cambridge UP, 2011) and Before the West: The Rise and Fall of Eastern World Orders (Cambridge UP, 2022), and the editor of Hierarchies in World Politics (Cambridge UP, 2017). Before the We has won six awards, including the SSHA and ISA annual best book prizes. In 2024, she was elected to fellowship in the British Academy and the Academia Europea. Also in 2024, she received an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Copenhagen. At the moment, Zarakol is overseeing an international research collaboration on Global Disorder funded by a British Academy Knowledge Frontiers Grant. She is also one of the two Associate Editors of International Organization. Her next book, Ozymandias, is a world history of strongmen, aimed at a general audience. This book is under contract with William Collins (UK) and Grove Atlantic (US). 

Chair: Prof Surabhi Ranganathan

This lecture was given on 31 October 2025 and is part of the Friday Lunchtime Lecture series at the Lauterpacht Centre.

Harro van Asselt is the Hatton Professor of Climate Law with the Department of Land Economy, a Fellow and Director of Studies at Hughes Hall, and a Fellow with the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge. He is also Professor of Climate Law and Policy at the University of Eastern Finland Law School, and an Affiliated Researcher with the Stockholm Environment Institute.

The Hatton Chair is the first endowed professorship in climate law in the United Kingdom. The aim of the Chair is to advance research and teaching with a view to strengthening legal responses to the ongoing climate crisis.

The lecture was followed by a panel on 'The Prospects of Global Climate Law'

Co-organised by the University of Cambridge and LUISS.

International organizations law has always revolved around the relationship between the organization and its member states. This has proven to be of some use, but leaves important gaps unaddressed. What, e.g., about purely international affairs (think judicial review, think relations between organs)? And it ignores the existence of a vast external world. By concentrating solely on the relations with member states, it proves difficult, perhaps impossible, to hold international organizations to account for their acts affecting third parties, and equally difficult to make sense of relations between international organizations inter se. By shifting the perspective to relations with the private sector, perhaps it might be possible to come to a better, more comprehensive understanding of international organizations than is currently provided by both law and theory.

Jan Klabbers was educated in international law and political science at the University of Amsterdam, where he also defended his doctoral thesis. In 1996 he was appointed professor of international law at the University of Helsinki, a position he recently left to take up the Whewell Chair in Cambridge. His research focuses mostly on the law of treaties and the law of international organizations – today’s talk taps into his current, ERC-sponsored PRIVIGO project.

Chair: Prof Surabhi Ranganathan, Centre Deputy Director

This lecture was given on 10 October 2025 and part of the Friday Lunchtime Lecture series at the Lauterpacht Centre.

The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law.

We will come together to celebrate the life and scholarship of our colleague and friend, Professor Karen Knop (1960-2022). Karen, until her untimely passing, was the Cecil A Wright Chair at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law. A long-time friend of the Lauterpacht Centre, Karen was to have delivered the Centre’s 2025 Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures.

The 2025 Lectures will take place on 13 and 14 March, over four special sessions, conversing with Karen’s extraordinary body of work across the history and theory of international law, gender and feminism studies, and private and foreign relations law. Four former HLM Lecturers will deliver these lectures in conversation with three discussants, all outstanding scholars mentored by Karen.

Session IV Discussion and Q&A led by Professor Susan Marks

Chair: Professor Antony Anghie

Professor Marks will lead the discussion of the three talks, teasing out cross-cutting themes and the enduring influence of Karen Knop’s scholarship across different fields of international law scholarship.

Susan Marks is Professor of International Law at the LSE.

Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures 2025: Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law: Continuing Conversations with Karen Knop

We will come together to celebrate the life and scholarship of our colleague and friend, Professor Karen Knop (1960-2022). Karen, until her untimely passing, was the Cecil A Wright Chair at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law. A long-time friend of the Lauterpacht Centre, Karen was to have delivered the Centre’s 2025 Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures.

Session III Private and Foreign Relations Law

Professor Anne Peters in conversation with Dr Roxana Banu

Chair: Professor Campbell McLachlan

Professor Peters’s talk, 'Populism, Foreign Relations Law, and global order and justice', will discuss populist foreign relations law, which was Karen Knop’s last project, at the university of Helsinki and as a Max Planck fellow. This talk will make the point that ongoing transformations of the concept of law itself, of legal procedures, and of legal substance cut across the ‘levels’ of governance. And neither identitarian rhetoric, nor trade wars, nor border-fences will bring back an inter-state, Westphalian (or ‘Eastfalian’) order. We are living in conditions of global law (and transnational) law. Populist heads of state both deploy and defy this law (concluding populist treaties or deals such as the German-Turkish refugee agreements; denouncing treaties such as ICSID or the Paris Agreement; using their war powers to escape domestic critique; raising tariffs to please their voter-base, and so on). At the same time, domestic, local and transnational actors (ranging from cities to courts to Indigenous peoples, or philanthro-capitalists) activate all kinds of law to resist populism. Such global lawfare destabilises world order but also has a transformative potential. New legal forms (especially informal agreements), new legal processes (such as public interest litigation before the ICJ) and new legal principles (such as One Health; Rectification/reparation; and the exposure of double standards) are responding to the big challenges for global order and justice: the cultural, the social, and the ecological challenge.

Dr Banu’s talk, 'Foreign Affairs, Self-Determination and Private International Law', begins with the point that foreign affairs questions are often thought to lie at the very edge of private international law, perhaps in the leftover corners of the historical alignment between private and public international law. Similarly, in part on the assumption that private international law settles conflicts of laws between already established states, there wouldn’t appear to be any intuitive connection between nationalist or self-determination movements and the field of private international law.

This talk will show that these assumptions are mistaken. By engaging with the historical development of the field from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, the talk will show that private international law has been deeply enmeshed in major geopolitical events generally, and in nationalist and self-determination movements, in particular. This enmeshment is neither accidental, nor exclusively modern. It is the inevitable result of some of private international law’s main analytical and conceptual building blocks.

Anne Peters is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Heidelberg (Germany), and Professor at the universities of Heidelberg, Freie Universität Berlin and Basel (Switzerland).

Roxana Banu is Associate Professor and Tutorial Fellow at the Faculty of Law and Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford.

Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures 2025: Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law: Continuing Conversations with Karen Knop

We will come together to celebrate the life and scholarship of our colleague and friend, Professor Karen Knop (1960-2022). Karen, until her untimely passing, was the Cecil A Wright Chair at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law. A long-time friend of the Lauterpacht Centre, Karen was to have delivered the Centre’s 2025 Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures.

Session II Gender and Feminism

Professor Christine Chinkin in conversation with Dr Mai Taha

Chair: Professor Sandesh Sivakumaran

Professor Chinkin’s talk, 'Self-determination for women through three encounters' will explore three encounters with Karen's Knop's work that illustrate how self-determination remains illusory in many instances for women and their responses that challenge the structures of international law: discriminatory laws with respect to the nationality of married women; the Tokyo Women's Tribunal; and the Greenham Common women's peace camp.

Dr Taha’s talk, ‘Ways of Seeing: On the Gendering Work of Law and Violence’ will provide comments and reflections in engagement with Professor Chinkin’s talk, and Professor Knop’s writings.

Christine Chinkin, FBA, CMG is Emerita Professor of International Law at the LSE, Visiting Professorial Research Fellow at the LSE Centre for Women, Peace and Security and Global Law Professor at the University of Michigan.

Mai Taha is Assistant Professor of Human Rights in the Department of Sociology at the LSE.

Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures 2025: Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law: Continuing Conversations with Karen Knop

We will come together to celebrate the life and scholarship of our colleague and friend, Professor Karen Knop (1960-2022). Karen, until her untimely passing, was the Cecil A Wright Chair at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law. A long-time friend of the Lauterpacht Centre, Karen was to have delivered the Centre’s 2025 Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures.

Session I - History and Theory

Professor Martti Koskenniemi in conversation with Dr Megan Donaldson

Chair: Professor Surabhi Ranganathan

Professor Koskenniemi’ s talk, 'Narrating International Society: Management of Pluralism according to Marcel Gauchet & Karen Knop’, will first address the emergence of the theme of a “law of an international society” in the 19th century, its use in the 20th century to support a managerial view of international institutions. It will then focus on the challenges that cultural and ideological pluralism poses to received ideas about the role of law in the government of domestic and international society.

Dr Donaldson’s talk, ‘Gaze, Agency and International Society’, reads Karen Knop’s early work on self-determination as a repertoire of techniques for thinking collectivities and affiliations against and across states. The multiple and mobile perspectives she brought to bear, and the agency she glimpsed in disparate individuals and communities, pervaded much of her later work too, and remains open to, even generative of, renewed understandings of international society.

Martti Koskenniemi is Professor Emeritus of International law at the University of Helsinki.

Megan Donaldson is Associate Professor of International Law at University College London.

In the mare liberum, seafarers are protected by the age-old maritime duty to rescue anyone in distress at sea. This principle has also been codified in various treaties, including the 1974 Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention. This convention was adopted in response to the Titanic disaster and mainly focuses on safety on board of commercial ships. But the most vulnerable people at sea nowadays clearly are irregular migrants, sailing by rubber boats rather than cruise ships. Formally, these migrants are also protected by the non-refoulement principle under refugee and human rights law. Yet in practice, they are subject to a politics of protection which operates through an intermeshing of different legal regimes. Moreover, the rubber boats play a crucial role in this politics of protection, and ultimately preclude the irregular migrants from the protection of the non-refoulement principle. Through the case of the rubber boat, as a transnational legal encounter of people, rules and objects, I investigate the uneven geographies and temporalities of international law as an everyday practice. Moreover, by paying critical attention to how objects participate in actualising certain sets of relations and potentials over others, the concept of transnational legal encounters enables us to critically re-think the production of meanings, legalities and politics, layering complexities to law’s work in and to the world.

Tanja Aalberts is Professor of Law and Politics at the department of Transnational Legal Studies, VU Amsterdam. She is the author of 'Constructing Sovereignty between Politics and Law' (Routledge, 2012), co-author of 'The Changing Practices of International Law' (CUP, 2018) and co-edited 'The Power of Legality. Practices of International Law and their Politics' (CUP, 2016). Her work on the interplay between politics and law within global governance, misrecognition, colonial treaties and interdisciplinarity has been published in various journals and handbooks in International Law and International Relations. She was a founding board member of the European International Studies Association, and editor of the Leiden Journal of International Law. She currently is series editor for Voices in IR with Oxford University Press and member of the Advisory Council International Affairs for the Dutch government. Her current research focuses on transnational legal encounters and the aesthetics of international law. She is also doing archival research and writing a book on the Peace Palace as the first building of the international community.

https://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/press/events/2025/05/friday-lecture-rubber-boats-transnational-legal-encounters-mediterranean-prof-tanja-aalberts-vu

Lecture summary: This lecture will explore the parameters of State immunity at the international level and as reflected in different national legal systems (including England & Wales, the United States and others). It will include an overview of foundational and more recent jurisprudence in international and domestic courts, and will give particular focus to select aspects of State immunity in the context of enforcement against State assets.

Hussein Haeri KC is a Partner at Withers in London and Head of the firm's Public International Law Group. He is a King's Counsel and was the only Solicitor Advocate to take Silk in 2024. Hussein has extensive experience as counsel and advocate on international dispute resolution matters for almost 20 years in London, Paris and New York, including before the ICJ, ITLOS, under ICSID and UNCITRAL arbitration rules and in national courts. He has been recognised for many years by the major legal directories including Chambers & Partners, which refers to him as an "outstanding lawyer", and Legal 500 which states that "he combines huge intellectual powers with great client handling".

He is a Partner Fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, a Senior Fellow at SOAS in London and has lectured at various other universities including the University of Oxford, Sciences Po in Paris and Roma Tre University in Rome.

Summary: This talk explains Sudan’s descent into a horrific war that is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. The war has displaced over 11 million people, involved the targeting of civilians, including especially women, in mass violence, and precipitated a hunger crisis affecting over 24 million people, with over 630,000 currently facing famine. How, after a momentous civilian uprising in 2018-19 that toppled the dictator Omer el-Bashir after 30 years of authoritarian rule, did Sudan come to this? Unravelling the causes and events that led to tragedy begins with how counter-revolutionary actors within the State benefitted from the priorities of external peacemakers seeking to achieve a democratic transition in order to displace revolutionary forces, before carrying out a coup against that very transition. The war erupted when the counter-revolution itself unravelled, and its two primary bedfellows, the Sudan Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces fell-out violently with each other in a struggle for power. With complex regional geopolitical entanglements and drawing in other armed groups in Sudan, their war to the bitter end has mixed cruel indifference and intentional harm towards civilians in devastating ways. Remarkably, the revolutionary spirit of the Sudanese has not been vanquished, and has found expression in how neighbourhood resistance committees have transformed into ‘emergency response rooms’ to deliver life-saving support. Sudan’s plight and prospects lie precariously within these intersecting trajectories.

Sharath Srinivasan is David and Elaine Potter Professor of International Politics at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. He is also Founding Director, and currently Co-Director, of the University of Cambridge's Centre of Governance and Human Rights (CGHR). Professor Srinivasan is a Fellow and Trustee of the Rift Valley Institute and a Trustee and Vice-President of the British Institute in Eastern Africa.

Professor Srinivasan’s work focuses on contentious politics in Africa in global perspective, from explaining failed peace interventions in civil wars to rethinking democratic politics in a digital age. He is the author of When Peace Kills Politics: International Intervention and Unending Wars in the Sudans (Hurst/Oxford University Press, 2021) and co-editor of Making and Breaking Peace in Sudan and South Sudan: The Comprehensive Peace Agreement and Beyond (British Academy/Oxford University Press, 2020).

Chair: Dr Juliana Santos de Carvalho, Centre Fellow

Lecture summary: Property is a fundamental legal institution governing the use of things: who may own what, how and why. Given that such questions extend to a wide range of natural resources essential to human well-being, such as food, water and shelter, then it is reasonable to assume that human rights should play an important role in shaping property rights discourse and practice. And yet this assumption is somewhat misplaced. The relationship between property and human rights and property remains relatively underdeveloped in both practice and academic literature, and virtually non-existent when we move to the maritime domain. In this paper, I explore and question the role that property and human rights can and should play in the maritime domain. I outline how such rights arise and are protected under human rights instruments, before exploring how they might inform the moral and legal distribution of resources. In particular, I focus on how we might balance individual rights and public interests that arise in respect of property, and how these are informed by the nature of the oceans as a commons.

Richard Barnes is Professor of International Law at the University of Lincoln and Adjunct Professor of Law at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea, the University of Tromsø. His current research focuses on the human right to property, ocean commons, and the BBNJ Agreement. He is widely published in the fields of international law and law of the sea. Property Rights and Natural Resources (2009), won the SLS Birks Book Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship. He has edited several collections of essays including Research Handbook on Plastics Regulation (2024), Frontiers in International Environmental Law. Oceans and Climate (2021), Research Handbook on Climate Change, Oceans and Coasts (2020), and The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Living Instrument (2016). Professor Barnes a member of the ILA Committee on the Protection of People at Sea. He has acted as a consultant for the WWF, Oceana, ClientEarth, the European Parliament, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He has also provided advice to foreign ministries. He has appeared numerous times before Parliamentary select committees on matters related to law of the sea, fisheries and Brexit. He is on the Editorial Board of International and Comparative Law Quarterly, the International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, the New Zealand Yearbook of International Law, the German Yearbook of International Law, and the Portuguese Yearbook of the Law of the Sea. 

Panel: '(Non-)Defining 'Gender' in the Crimes Against Humanity Draft: Possibilities, Alliances, and Strategies'

Feminist activists, country representatives, and other civil society actors have debated how to define “gender” in international criminal law (ICL) for at least three decades. In the Rome Conference that established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its Statute in 1998, defining “gender” was a hotly debated topic of negotiation. More recently, this debate has resurfaced in the steps leading to the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles for a Crimes Against Humanity Treaty, and continues to be discussed in the deliberations at the Sixth Committee on the Draft Articles. The CAH Convention is now expected to be negotiated between 2026-2029, and, more than a mere point of contention, the concept of ‘gender’ in its text can be crucial for prosecuting sexual and gender-based international crimes and thus fundamental to gender justice efforts worldwide. With this in mind, this roundtable gathers scholars and activists studying and working (often simultaneously) on the definition of gender in international criminal law, in an effort to learn from their specific positionalities, perceptions, and experiences about the challenges, strategies, and possibilities for (non-)defining the term.

https://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/press/events/2025/02/panel-queering-gender-crimes-against-humanity-draft-possibilities-alliances-and-strategies

Sovereign debt crises have surged since the end of the Bretton Woods system and currently threaten a lost decade for many countries across the world. Indermit Gill, in the World Bank Group’s 2024 International Debt Report, describes the situation in many of the poorest countries as a ‘metastasising solvency crisis that continues to be misdiagnosed as a liquidity problem’. Despite their severe socioeconomic consequences, no comprehensive legal framework exists to address these crises—arguably the most significant gap in international economic law.

This lecture, based on Dr Karina Patrício Ferreira Lima’s forthcoming book Governing Sovereign Debt Crises: The Case for International Sovereign Insolvency Law (Hart Publishing), makes the case for creating such a mechanism under international law. The book challenges prevailing narratives that attribute sovereign debt crises solely to debtor states’ mismanagement or misfortunes, instead arguing that sovereign insolvency is a systemic feature of the international monetary system. Current solutions—voluntary, ad hoc, and fragmented—fail to equitably allocate losses across an increasingly diversified sovereign creditor base, leaving many creditors worse off. At the same time, debtor states and their populations remain vulnerable to macroeconomic crises and enduring austerity, which often lead to long-term economic stagnation.

The book adopts a legal political economy approach to illustrate how power asymmetries among stakeholders and the absence of enforceable rules perpetuate inefficiencies and inequities in resolving sovereign debt crises. Drawing on the legal theory of finance, insolvency law, and common resource governance theory, it illustrates how these governance failures result in a dual tragedy: a tragedy of the commons and a tragedy of the anticommons. The lecture will also examine the growing complexity of sovereign debt markets, including the diversification of creditor types, the erosion of ‘gentlemen’s agreements,’ and the limitations of initiatives like the Paris Club and the G20’s Common Framework for debt treatments. It concludes by arguing that only international sovereign insolvency rules can resolve the delays, inefficiencies, and inequities that plague sovereign debt restructuring, while exploring avenues for implementing such a proceeding and discussing the role of domestic law in a well-functioning international sovereign debt architecture.

Dr Karina Patrício Ferreira Lima is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Leeds. Her research focuses on the intersection of law, finance, and sovereign debt within the broader context of global economic governance. Her research portfolio covers the legal governance of sovereign debt crises, the law and policy of international financial institutions, and the macroeconomic impact of financial law and regulation.

Dr Patrício advises public entities, NGOs, and leading law firms on various aspects of financial and monetary law, including sovereign debt restructuring, financial regulation, and the governance of international financial institutions. Her work has been recognised with prestigious awards, including the 2022 Society of International Economic Law-Hart Prize and the 2022 John H. Jackson Prize, conferred by the Journal of International Economic Law. She also serves as a peer reviewer for top law and social sciences journals globally.

Speaker: Arman Sarvarian, University of Surrey

Date: Friday Lunchtime Lecture: Friday 31 January 2025

Dr Arman Sarvarian will speak about his forthcoming monograph The Law of State Succession: Principles and Practice to be published by Oxford University Press in April. The product of seven years’ labour of approximately 170,000 words, the work includes a foreword by Professor August Reinisch of the University of Vienna and International Law Commission. The following is the summary of Oxford University Press:

'The Law of State Succession: Principles and Practice provides a comprehensive, practical, and empirical overview of the topic, establishing State succession as a distinct field with a cohesive set of rules.

From the secession of the United States of America in 1784 to that of South Sudan in 2011, the book digests and analyses State practice spanning more than two centuries. It is based on research into a wide and diverse range of case studies, including archival and previously unpublished data. Reconstructing the intellectual foundation of the field, the book offers a vision for its progressive development - one that is rooted in an interpretation of State practice that transcends the politics of the codification projects in the decolonization and desovietization eras.

The book examines international law on State succession with respect to territorial rights and obligations, State property (including archives) and debt, treaties, international claims and responsibility, as well as nationality and private property (including concessions and investments). Its central focus is identifying the general rules of international law in order to guide States in the negotiation of succession agreements, the interpretation of ambiguous or incomplete provisions, and the regulation of succession in default of specific agreement.

A highly relevant work, The Law of State Succession offers governments, judges, legal practitioners, and scholars an authoritative account of the current law. It enables negotiators to identify different legal paths within succession and assists adjudicators in interpreting provisions of succession agreements and regulating questions omitted from such agreements.' The book is available for pre-order at the OUP website.

Dr Arman Sarvarian a public international lawyer in academia and private practice. A Reader in Public International Law at the University of Surrey, he regularly acts as legal adviser and counsel to States, companies and individuals. He is counsel to the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire in the pending Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change advisory proceedings of the International Court of Justice and counsel in two pending investor-State arbitrations. Since 2019, he has served as legal adviser to the Republic of Armenia at the Legal Committee of the UN General Assembly for the annual reports of the International Law Commission and International Court of Justice as well as multilateral negotiations on reform of investor-State arbitration in Working Group III of the UN Commission on International Trade Law. He served as judge ad hoc in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in 2020.

A generalist of broad interests and expertise, his first monograph Professional Ethics at the International Bar (Oxford University Press, International Courts and Tribunals Series, 19 September 2013) was the first comprehensive work on the subject and has been widely cited, including in proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, investment arbitrations and the International Court of Justice. His second monograph The Law of State Succession: Principles and Practice will be published by Oxford University Press in April 2025. He is a Humboldt Research Fellow in Climate Change Law at the University of Kiel from 2024 to 2026.

Chair: Dr Jamie Trinidad, Centre Fellow

Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State University

Date: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025

Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.

Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions.

Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal.

Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts.

Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.

Lecture summary: Many political economists, economic historians, and historical sociologists understand the transition from the 1970s to the 1980s as involving a shift from debates about inflation, oil shocks, floating currencies, and the New International Economic Order to neoliberalism's political and ideological breakthrough, first in the industrialized states of the North Atlantic and shortly thereafter in much of the global South. By contrast, among most scholars of international law, the 1980s are remembered chiefly for signalling the effective close of the decolonization era, and with it the struggle to transform and reconstruct international law to meet the demands of 'economic' in addition to 'political' sovereignty. This talk puts these two perspectives into conversation. Drawing mainly from the work of Simon Clarke and Nicos Poulantzas, core figures in the Marxist state-theoretical debates of the 1970s and 1980s, the talk examines changes to prevailing conceptions of economic development and international human rights at the end of the decolonization era in light of broader structural changes in the juridicopolitical architecture of capitalist states.

Umut Özsu is Professor of Law and Legal Studies at Carleton University. His research interests lie mainly in public international law, the history and theory of international law, and Marxist critiques of law, rights, and the state. He is the author of Formalizing Displacement: International Law and Population Transfers (OUP, 2015) and Completing Humanity: The International Law of Decolonization, 1960–82 (CUP, 2023). He is also co-editor of the Research Handbook on Law and Marxism (Elgar, 2021) and The Extraterritoriality of Law: History, Theory, Politics (Routledge, 2019), as well as several journal symposia.

Lecture summary: In this talk Sharifah Sekalala examines this critical moment in the making of Global Health Law, with two treaty making processes: the newly finalised revisions of the International Health Regulations and ongoing negotiations by the Intergovernmental Negotiation Body for a possible pandemic Accord or Instrument, as we well as soft-law proposals for the World Health Organization proposal for a medical countermeasures platform.

The lecture will illustrate that despite the laudable objectives of creating a new system of international law that attempts to redress previous inequalities in accessing vaccines and countermeasures, they are unlikely to meet these broader objectives. The lecture will argue that this is because, despite being a public good, Global Health Law has always been underpinned by capitalist and post-colonial rationales which privilege trade. In order to make lasting changes, the current system of Global Health Law must focus on broader questions of ‘reparations’ that will achieve greater equity.

Sharifah is a Professor of Global Health Law at the University of Warwick and the Director of the Warwick Global Health Centre. She is an interdisciplinary researcher whose work is at the intersection of international law, public policy and global health. Professor Sekalala is particularly focused on the role of human rights frameworks in addressing global health inequalities. Her research has focused on health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, international financing institutions and the rise of non-communicable diseases and she has published in leading legal, international relations and public health journals.

Prof Sekalala is currently the PI on a Wellcome-Trust-funded project on digital health apps in Sub-Saharan Africa. Professor Sekalala is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FaSS) and she has consulted on human rights and health in many developing countries and worked for international organisations such as UNAIDS, the WHO and the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Her research has also been funded by the Wellcome Trust, GCRF, ESRC, Open Society Foundation and international organisations including the International Labour Organisation and the WHO. Sharifah also sits on the Strategic Advisory Network of the ESRC.

Sharifah holds a PhD in Law (Warwick, 2012), an LLM in Public International Law (Distinction in research, Nottingham, 2006) and an LLB Honours (Makerere University, Uganda 2004). She was called to the Ugandan Bar in 2005.

Lecture summary: The United Nations Charter order (UNCO) and the co-evolved liberal international order (LIO) are contested with a heretofore unknown force. The steep rise in contestations in the realm of public politics rather than the courtroom demonstrates a shift from normal contestation as a source of legitimacy and ordering towards deep contestation as a political challenge of foundational elements of liberal order. Today, not only in the Global South but also across Europe and North America, sceptics of globalization on the political left and nationalist-populists on the political right are challenging the fundamental pillars of the LIO (i.e., democracy, economic openness, and multilateralism). The process is paired by growing contestations of international law that is codified in the UN Charter including contestation of core norms of the UNCO (i.e., non-intervention, human rights, and sovereignty). While the effect of deep contestation is unknowable, we do know however that normal contestation is the essence of everyday politics. The clash of interests, norms, and ideas is entirely normal. Yet, contestation can also be degenerative, moving political outcomes away from desired ends through ad hoc and perhaps inconsistent compromises. As core norms of the LIO and UNCO have become deeply contested, we require a better understanding about the expected effects. Access to contestation as the right to speak and participate in political decisions is a necessary condition for normative legitimacy and mutual recognition of the norms that govern us. Achieving this condition involves struggles about norm(ative) meaning-in-use which take place on distinct sites of global order. This raises a question about time, substance, and norm(ative) change in global order more generally and, more specifically, which elements of international order ought to be retained. The lecture posits that the observed qualitative shift from constitutive everyday contestations towards potentially degenerative political contestation calls for a methodological stocktake of how contestations work with regard to global re/ordering, i.e. whose practices count and whose norms ought to count in that process?

Professor Antje Wiener FAcSS, MAE, holds the Chair of Political Science, especially Global Governance at the University of Hamburg where she is a member of the Faculty of Business and Social Sciences as well as the Law Faculty. She is an elected By-Fellow of Hughes Hall University of Cambridge, a Fellow of the UK’s Academy of Social Sciences, and a Member of the Academia Europea. Her research and teaching centres on International Relations theory, especially norms research and contestation theory. Previously she held Chairs in International Studies at Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Bath and taught at the Universities of Stanford, Carleton, Sussex and Hannover. Current research projects include ‘Contested Climate Justice in Sensitive Regions’ at the Cluster of Excellence Climate, Climatic Change and Society (CLICCS) as well as ‘Doing Theory – From Where and What For? A Backpackers’ Guide to Knowledge Production’ at the Centre for Sustainable Society Research (CSS) among others. With James Tully, she is co-founding editor of Global Constitutionalism (CUP, since 2012 ). And she also edits the Norm Research in International Relations Series (Springer). She serves on several Committees of the Academy of Social Sciences . In 2021, she concluded her second three-year term as elected member of the Executive Committee of the German Political Science Association (DVPW). Her book ‘Contestation and Constitution of Norms in Global International Relations’ (CUP 2018) was awarded the International Law Section’s Book Prize in 2020. And her most recent book ‘Contesting the World: Norm Research in Theory and Practice’ co-edited with Phil Orchard was published with CUP in 2024.

Lecture summary: Grand corruption – the abuse of public office for private gain by a nation's leaders (kleptocrats) - has devastating consequences. As then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said, the amount lost to corruption each year is enough to feed the world's hungry 80 times over. Grand corruption contributes to climate change and is a major impediment to ameliorating it. The refugees creating humanitarian and political crises around the world are largely fleeing failed states ruled by kleptocrats. Grand corruption is antithetical to democracy. Indignation at grand corruption has prompted uprisings in many countries and created grave dangers for international peace and security.

Grand corruption does not thrive and endure in many countries because of a lack of laws. 186 UN member states are parties to the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). Virtually all of them have the laws required by the UNCAC criminalizing corrupt conduct, and international obligations to enforce them against their corrupt leaders. However, kleptocrats have impunity in the countries they rule because they control the police, the prosecutors, and the courts.

Therefore, the proposed International Anti-Corruption Court (IACC) is urgently needed. It will be a court of last resort, to prosecute kleptocrats and their private conspirators, for violating treaty counterparts of the laws of countries that are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. Successful prosecutions, and civil suits, in the IACC will result in the recovery and repatriation of stolen assets. The imprisonment of kleptocrats, who are among the worst abusers of human rights, will create opportunities for the democratic process to replace them with leaders dedicated to serving their citizens rather than enriching themselves. It will also deter others tempted to emulate their example.

The effort to establish the IACC is rapidly progressing. It has been publicly endorsed by: more than 350 world leaders, including 55 former Presidents and Prime Ministers; the European Parliament; the Netherlands, Canada, Ecuador, Nigeria, Moldova, and the UK Labour Party before it recently took office. Many other countries have privately expressed support for the IACC or strong interest in seriously considering the treaty being drafted to establish it that will be ready to be reviewed in early 2025.

Speaker: Mark L. Wolf is a Senior United States District Judge and Chair of the Integrity Initiatives International (III), which has catalyzed and is coordinating the campaign to create the IACC. Prior to his appointment in 1985, Judge Wolf served as a Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the US after Watergate and as the chief federal corruption prosecutor in Massachusetts. He has taught a course on combatting corruption internationally at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He has spoken on the role of a judge in a democracy, human rights issues, and combatting corruption in many countries, including Russia, China, Ukraine, Turkey, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Hungary, Egypt, Cyprus, Panama, Colombia, Mexico, Norway, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, and at the Vatican.

Lecture summary: Part 1 of the Lecture focuses on the development of the right to self-determination as a rule of customary international law and its application to the Chagos Archipelago, Africa and the Commonwealth Caribbean. The adoption of Resolution 1514 by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1960 was a decisive element in the development of the customary character of the right to self-determination. After that transformational development it was colonial peoples, not colonial powers, who determined their independence and its form e.g. whether based on a republican system or a UK parliamentary system. Thus, after that time the colonial powers were under an obligation to respect the right of colonial peoples to ‘freely determine their political status’, and any breach of that obligation would entail their international responsibility. Part 11 addresses the status of the right to self-determination as a norm of jus cogens, and concludes that on the basis of the relevant evidentiary material, the right to self-determination is a peremptory norm of general international law. Part 111 focuses on the right to self-determination in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Disappointment is expressed at the lack of clarity in the ICJ’s treatment in its recent Advisory Opinion of the jus cogens character of the right to self-determination in cases of foreign occupation. Speaker: Judge Patrick Robinson 1. In 1964 graduated from the University College of the West Indies -London with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English, Latin and Economics. 2. In 1968, called to the Bar at Middle Temple, in which year also completed the LLB degree from London University. In 1972, completed the LLM degree in International Law at Kings College, London University. 3. Jamaica’s representative to the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the UN General Assembly from 1972 to 1998. Led treaty -making negotiations on behalf of Jamaica in several areas, including extradition, mutual legal assistance and investment promotion and protection. 4. From 1988 to 1995, served as a member of the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, including as the President in 1991. From 1991 to 1996, member of the International Law Commission. From 1995 to 1996, member of the Haiti Truth and Justice Commission. 5. In 1998 elected a Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and served as the Tribunal’s President from 2008 to 2011; presided over the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. 6. In 2020 appointed Honorary President of the American Society of International Law (ASIL); in that capacity, in collaboration with ASIL and the University of the West Indies, organized two International Symposia which led to the launch on June 8, 2023 of the historic Report on Reparations for Transatlantic Chattel Slavery (TCS) in the Americas and the Caribbean, which quantified for the first time the reparations due from the practice of TCS in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and North America. 7. Elected a Judge of the International Court of Justice in 2014 and demitted office on February 5, 2024. The Eli Lauterpacht Lecture was established after Sir Eli's death in 2017 to celebrate his life and work. This lecture takes place on a Friday at the Centre at the start of the Michaelmas Term in any academic year. These lectures are kindly supported by Dr and Mrs Ivan Berkowitz who are Principal Benefactors of the Centre.

Lecture summary: At a time where questions abound about the state and future of international cooperation and compliance across the international legal system, this lecture will consider the new partnership of countries established in 2019 to promote and protect media freedom globally – the Media Freedom Coalition of States. The Coalition offers a new paradigm that seeks to answer some of the systemic challenges to State cooperation and compliance today, here in the area of freedom of expression, and one that puts independent experts in international law at the very centre of its institutional and operational framework.

The lecture will chart the establishment and work of the Coalition, through the perspective of its independent panel of legal experts, the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom, and the Panel’s work advising States and international organisations across a broad panoply of media freedom issues, and answering requests by international courts and tribunals to intervene in cases of public importance engaging Article 19 of the ICCPR and UDHR. It will focus on examples of areas where specific recommendations by legal experts have already been turned into State policy and practice (for instance, with the creation and implementation of an emergency visa for journalists at risk), and areas where the progress towards implementation has been altogether more challenging.

Five years on from its establishment, the Media Freedom Coalition finds itself at a crossroads, while its tri-partite structure of States, legal experts, and civil society is already being replicated by States in other areas of international legal cooperation and compliance.

Speaker Biography: Can Yeğinsu is a barrister practising from 3 Verulam Buildings in London where he practises in commercial litigation, international commercial and investment arbitration, public law and human rights, and public international law.

Prof Yeğinsu is also a long-standing member of the Law Faculties of Georgetown Law, Columbia Law, and Koç University Law School where he teaches courses on public international law, including courses on international dispute settlement, international human rights, and international investment law. He is a Senior Fellow at Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute, and serves on the Executive Council of the American Society of International Law.

In 2022, Prof Yeğinsu was appointed by the Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, with Catherine Amirfar, to succeed Amal Clooney as the Deputy Chair of the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom, having served as a member of the Panel since its established in 2019.

Professor Daniel Bodansky’s seminal and widely acclaimed book The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law was first published in 2010. In contrast to other general works on international environmental law, the book focused on the processes of developing, implementing, and enforcing international environmental law rather than on legal doctrine. In order to comprehensively analyse these processes, the book is highly interdisciplinary, relying not only on the legal toolkit but integrating perspectives and lenses of political science and economics, as well as philosophy, sociology, and anthropology.

This year, Oxford University Press published the second edition of The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law, co-authored by Prof Daniel Bodansky and LCIL Centre Fellow, Prof Harro van Asselt. Aside from the co-authorship, this second edition differs in several important aspects from the previous edition, in order to adequately reflect the important developments that international environmental law has witnessed during the last decade.

At this event, Professors Bodansky and van Asselt will provide an overview of the approach to international environmental law taken in this second edition, highlighting the ways in which it differs from the first. This presentation is intended to subsequently lead to a discussion on developments specifically in the international climate change regime, including prospects for the Paris Agreement and the recent request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on climate change.

Lecture summary: A growing body of interdisciplinary scholarship explores overlaps and interactions among different normative and institutional branches of international law. This lecture contributes to this scholarship through a case study of relations among international organizations in the mid-1960s, when several emerging political fault lines – between East and West, between ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries, and between the established specialized agencies and newer institutions – brought the coherence of the international legal order into doubt. Drawing on original archival research, the lecture focusses on a single inter-agency meeting, held in Geneva in early July 1966, where these fault lines were exposed and debated at length.

Through this case study, the lecture aims to expand our understanding of the impact of international organizations championed by actors in the Global South in this period, the reactions they provoked from others, and the potential and limits of international legal reform through such institutional means. As a technology for representing, knowing, and managing inter-organizational relations, the study of inter-agency meetings offers insights into both micro- and macro-level processes in international law, and the links between them. To this end, the lecture develops a concept of ‘staging’ to analyze the work of assembling and choreographing heterogeneous elements with the aim of producing a particular performance of international legal ordering. As a multilayered concept, ‘staging’ invokes and enables the study of international law’s material, spatial, and temporal dimensions. The lecture shows that, as much as staging international law implies scripting, direction, and rehearsal, it also inevitably entails improvisation, accident, and error.

Guy Fiti Sinclair is an Associate Professor and the Associate Dean (Pacific) at Auckland Law School, The University of Auckland. He holds first degrees in law and history, and a Doctor of Juridical Science (JSD) from New York University School of Law. His research and teaching focusses on the doctrine, theory, and practice of international law, often in historical perspective and with particular focuses on international organisations law, international economic law, and law and global governance. His first book, To Reform the World: International Organizations and the Making of Modern States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), was awarded the European Society of International Law Book Prize in 2018. Guy’s current research includes a project on institutional interactions in the construction and contestation of international economic law, funded by a Marsden Fast Start Grant from Te Apārangi | Royal Society of New Zealand. In 2023, he began work on a major research project on international legal ordering in Oceania/the Pacific, supported by a Rutherford Discovery Fellowship from the Royal Society of New Zealand.

Lecture summary: In 2015, the United States military dropped a bomb on a hospital in Afghanistan run by Médecins Sans Frontières, killing forty-two staff and patients. Testifying afterwards before a Senate Committee, General John F. Campbell explained that “[t]he hospital was mistakenly struck.” In 2019, while providing air support to partner forces under attack by ISIS, the U.S. military killed dozens of women and children. Central Command concluded that any civilian deaths “were accidental.” In August 2021, during a rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. military executed a drone strike in Kabul that killed ten civilians, including an aid worker for a U.S. charity and seven children in his family. The Pentagon later admitted it was a “tragic mistake.” In these cases and others like them, no one set out to kill the civilians who died. Such events are usually chalked up as sad but inevitable consequences of war - as regrettable “mistakes.”

In this lecture, based on a forthcoming co-authored article, Professor Oona Hathaway will examine the law on “mistakes” in war. She will consider whether and when the law holds individuals and states responsible for “mistakes.” To see how the law works, or fails to work, in practice, she will examine the US military’s own assessments of civilian casualties. She will show that “mistakes” are far more common than generally acknowledged. Some errors are, moreover, the predictable - and avoidable - result of a system that does too little to learn from its mistakes. She will focus her remarks on the United States, both because of its global military operations and because of the power of its example to shape global practices. The United States is far from alone, however. Thus, lessons learned from its failures can be instructive for other states as well.

Lecture summary: This lecture examines the treatment of marine genetic resources (MGR) in the negotiations and the text of the new Treaty on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). The Treaty provides a coherent governance framework for MGR including an unexpected techno-fix to the most longstanding problem of biodiversity governance, some normative novelty on principles, and a trendsetting approach to valuation of aggregate usage of genetic resources. Yet, this painstakingly formed framework continues to be buffeted by self-interested attempts to redefine and relitigate the value of genetic resources; particularly around decoupling use from access to genetic resources, dematerialisation from physical resources and dis-enclosure under legal frameworks, all of which are now stable features in this and other Treaty-making contexts. How can we better characterise the success of the BBNJ Treaty in a way that helps resist de facto erosion following ratification?

Relevant papers:

S Thambisetty ‘The Unfree Commons: Freedom of Marine Scientific Research and the Status of Genetic Resources Beyond National Jurisdiction (Dec 4, 2023) LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 24/2023 87 Modern Law Review (2024) Forthcoming

S Thambisetty, P Oldham, C Chiarolla, The Expert Briefing Document: A Developing Country Perspective on the Making of The BBNJ Treaty (September 21, 2023). LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 30/2023, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4580046 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4580046

P Oldham, Paul C Chiarolla, S Thambisetty, Digital Sequence Information in the UN High Seas Treaty: Insights from the Global Biodiversity Framework-related Decisions (January 30, 2023). LSE Law - Policy Briefing Paper No. 53, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4343130 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4343130

Lecture summary: From European colonialism to the ‘post’colonial constellation, modern international law has developed in parallel with the changing legal forms of industrialised countries’ access to the natural resources of the global South. Following this development, we can see how imperial environmentalism was translated to the transnational law of natural resources. The historic perspective also highlights that the specific ambivalence of colonial and postcolonial environmental protection (exploitation vs. protection) is an ambivalence built into international law itself. In accordance with its colonial origins, international law has institutionalised a specific path to economic growth and development that presupposes and stabilises a world order supported by the industrialised countries of the North. At the same time, with the principle of equal sovereignty and self-determination, it recognises difference from the dominant economic and industrial culture as a political principle.

Analysing international law’s approach to natural resources also directs our attention to changing ideas of nature and to the heart of international law's anthropocentrism, questioning its efficacy in tackling the ecological crisis. What we see here is an extractivist rationality that is intrinsically linked to the commodification of natural resources and green economy approaches in international environmental law. Last not least, a natural resource perspective highlights the fact that the legal concepts devised to determine how we share the world’s resources entail distributive processes among humans themselves.

Sigrid Boysen is Professor of International Law at Helmut Schmidt University in Hamburg and a Judge at the Hamburg State Constitutional Court. She serves as editor-in-chief of the international law review ‘Archiv des Völkerrechts’, has held positions as Visiting Research Fellow at Princeton University (2014), the Institute for Global Law & Policy at Harvard Law School (2021/22) and is currently Fernand Braudel Fellow at the Law Department of the European University Institute in Florence. Her research focuses on international law with a particular focus on the theory of international law, the law of natural resources, environmental justice, international environmental and economic law, and constitutional law. Recent publications include Die postkoloniale Konstellation. Natürliche Ressourcen und das Völkerrecht der Moderne, Mohr Siebeck 2021; ‘Postcolonial Global Constitutionalism’, in: Lang and Wiener (eds.), Handbook on Global Constitutionalism, 2nd ed. 2023, 166-184.

The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law. This year's lecture was given by Prof Beth Simmons, University of Pennsylvania.

Summary: The Golden Age of globalization has reached an end in the popular and political imagination. In its place has arisen growing anxiety about state borders. What is the evidence of such a shift? What are the causes and consequences? What answers does international law have for how international borders should be governed, especially as human mobility intensifies? Traditional international law defining and settling borders will not suffice to answer these questions. Instead, the lectures explore a different approach that views international borders as institutions that obligate states to manage the tensions that territorial governance implies in an interdependent world.

6 pm Thursday 14 March 2024

Lecture 3: Where Cooperative Border Governance (Should) Lead: Interstate Borders as Though People Mattered

The lecture culminates by addressing ways forward in the light of Lectures 1 and 2. First, it explores the ways that border unilateralism has had some results that are inconsistent with international human rights. Second, it suggests possibilities for addressing rights violations committed in the name of “border sovereignty.” While international law is not equipped to address all of the injustices and anxieties associated with international borders, it does offer cooperative levers and lenses that can help address and arrest some of its worst consequences.

Chair: Eyal Benvenisti

The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law. This year's lecture was given by Prof Beth Simmons, University of Pennsylvania.

Summary: The Golden Age of globalization has reached an end in the popular and political imagination. In its place has arisen growing anxiety about state borders. What is the evidence of such a shift? What are the causes and consequences? What answers does international law have for how international borders should be governed, especially as human mobility intensifies? Traditional international law defining and settling borders will not suffice to answer these questions. Instead, the lectures explore a different approach that views international borders as institutions that obligate states to manage the tensions that territorial governance implies in an interdependent world.

6 pm Wednesday 13 March 2024

Lecture 2: Treaties and Neighbors: Recovering the Cooperative Roots of International Bordering

Territorializing political authority was a violent affair. Borders are implicated in that violence. But this lecture foregrounds their cooperative international legal roots as well. In theory, borders divide by agreement. That is their purpose. Any border worth its salt impacts relationships between states, communities and individuals. The obligation, then, is to address that impact. This lecture explores international legal resources for cooperative border management, which is subject, as always, to international legal obligations.

Chair: Surabhi Ranganathan

The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law. This year's lecture was given by Prof Beth Simmons, University of Pennsylvania.

Summary: The Golden Age of globalization has reached an end in the popular and political imagination. In its place has arisen growing anxiety about state borders. What is the evidence of such a shift? What are the causes and consequences? What answers does international law have for how international borders should be governed, especially as human mobility intensifies? Traditional international law defining and settling borders will not suffice to answer these questions. Instead, the lectures explore a different approach that views international borders as institutions that obligate states to manage the tensions that territorial governance implies in an interdependent world.

6 pm Tuesday 12 March 2024

Lecture I: Setting the stage: Border Anxiety in an Interdependent World

Even as interstate territorial aggrandizement has waned over the decades, border anxiety around the world is on the rise. A rich array of physical and rhetorical evidence from satellite imagery to discourse analysis supports this point. International borders have become a flashpoint for political demands and policies that insist on unilateralism. Yet “sovereign borders” misconstrue the very purposes – and consequences – of bordering. Can an International Law of borders move from its traditional focus on border fixity to border management? That will be the focus of Lecture 2.

Chair: Sandesh Sivakumaran

Lecture summary: This lecture considers what Josef Kunz termed “swings of the pendulum” in international monetary and financial law and the formal and informal institutions in these related fields. International monetary law exploded in importance after the Second World War with the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a global system of managed exchange rates. With the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971 and a decline in capital controls, the IMF evolved from a dominant institution into a peer of central banks and private markets, providing surveillance of the “non-system” of floating exchange rates and assisting in responses to financial crises.

By contrast, international financial law, which was of limited importance during the Bretton Woods era, has become a major soft law force in the global financial sector since the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision was created in 1974. The dichotomy between profit maximization and systemic risk at the core of global finance today is overseen and guided by the technocrats of the Basel Committee, the Financial Stability Board and other institutions of international financial law.

Today, the pendulums of international monetary and financial law may be reversing again. Armed conflict, rising authoritarianism, growing fragmentation of the global financial system, and a revival of capital controls and other restrictions on capital flows could reinvigorate international monetary law and the IMF. This institution has reimagined itself multiple times already while staying true to its original mandate of safeguarding monetary stability.

Michael Waibel is a professor of international law at the University of Vienna. His teaching and writing focus on international law, international economic law, sovereign debt and international dispute settlement. He received the Deák Prize of the American Society of International Law, the Book Prize of the European Society of International Law and a Leverhulme Prize for his research. He is Co-General Editor of the ICSID Reports (with Jorge Viñuales) and Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of International Economic Law (with Kathleen Claussen and Sergio Puig).

Lecture summary: This paper looks at the political purchase of International Conflict Feminism (ICF) in helping constitute the normative framework guiding and legitimizing laws and policies advanced under the rubric of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). It attends to how these have intersected with the work of the international criminal court (ICC) in new modalities of lawfare that have taken place against the backdrop of Security Council action, including its military interventions in Muslim majority countries. These intertwined projects – ICF, CVE and International Criminal Law – can be situated in the dominant structures of global governance that have rendered their driving logics the thinkable default option, and their legitimacy the dominant common sense for diverse groups, from feminist lawyers to military strategists. This analysis comes together in reading the Al Hassan case at the ICC as the grain of sand through which we examine the universe at the crossroads of sharia panic, sex panic and security panic.

Vasuki Nesiah teaches human rights, legal and social theory at NYU Gallatin where she is also faculty director of the Gallatin Global Fellowship in Human Rights. She has published on the history and politics of human rights, humanitarianism, international criminal law, reparations, global feminisims, and decolonization. Nesiah was awarded the Jacob Javits Professorship (2022), Gallatin Distinguished Teacher Award in 2021 and the NYU Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Faculty Award in 2020. Her current book projects include International Conflict Feminism (forthcoming from University of Pennsylvania Press) and Reading the Ruins: Colonialism, Slavery, and International Law. A founding member of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), she is also co-editing TWAIL: A Handbook with Anthony Anghie, Bhupinder Chimni, Michael Fakhri, and Karin Mickelson (forthcoming from Elgar).

Lecture summary: This research examines international law’s longstanding entanglement with communications infrastructure. There is increasing concern regarding the rise of private global power in the form of global digital platforms and their model of information capitalism. This paper responds by focusing on historical connections between international law and infrastructure as a means of examining their relationship in the global communications context. This reveals a longer trajectory to current interest in information capitalism’s effects on international life.

Current concerns focus on the power of private digital platforms and the networked communicative infrastructure they maintain for the global economy. Introducing an historical perspective to such debates highlights infrastructure’s ongoing connections to violence and exploitation. This points to the wider and constitutive role of infrastructure in international life and underscores the need to address the blending of public and private forms of power in global governance.

While the technologies driving change and re-appraisal within the contemporary international legal imagination are clearly distinct, viewing infrastructure as regulation in the current day requires us to confront continuing patterns of inequality and discrimination, which in turn can be connected with a longer international legal history. Such a focus can also help to explain how the traditional form of international law as a limited system of positive rules and of managerial ordering came to dominate the legal imagination and entrench a state-centrism which now appears anachronistic in light of the reality of private power and its concentration on the international plane.

Dr Daniel Joyce is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney. He specialises in international law, media law and human rights. Daniel is an Affiliated Research Fellow at the Erik Castrén Institute at the University of Helsinki, an Associate of the Australian Human Rights Institute and a member of the Allens Hub for Technology, Law & Innovation. His monograph Informed Publics, Media and International Law was published by Hart in 2020. He is a visiting fellow at LSE Law School from September 2023 until March 2024.

Lecture summary: In this talk, Lucas Lixinski examines the erasure of Indigenous perspectives from the literature on the turn to history in international law. Considering the turn to history’s promise to offer alternative imaginations by recovering history, it is somewhat surprising and disappointing that so much of this turn is narrated from the perspective of colonisers. Lixinski unpacks the implications of this turn to Indigenous agency and victimhood, and leverages alternative retellings of Indigenous peoples’ engagement with European international law that focus on Indigenous agency, diplomacy, and power. The talk fundamentally challenges what we take for granted in emancipatory international legal projects, and offers possibilities for rethinking how we do international legal history.

Dr Lucas Lixinski is Professor at the Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney. His research interests main centre on international human rights adjudication and international cultural heritage law, and sometimes international legal history especially in relation to rights. His latest monograph is Legalized Identities: Cultural Heritage Law and the Shaping of Transitional Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2021), which he started developing while a visitor at the Lauterpacht Centre in 2018.

Lecture summary: After the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the entry into force of its Article 108, the subject of maritime crimes has experienced many important developments. Indeed, at present, States have to deal with criminal actions which did not exist in the classical International Law of the Sea. Relevant examples include kidnapping and hostage-taking at sea, maritime terrorism offences, the smuggling of migrants by sea, illicit oil and fuel illicit activities in the maritime domain and the maritime crime of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances by sea.

The issue of jurisdiction to fight this type of maritime crimes may be complex, especially when the flag State does not respect its duties under the International Law of the Sea. Practice has shown that difficulties in acting can be particularly stormy when dealing with the fight against the maritime crime of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances by sea.

In these terms, the starting point for a contemporary analysis of the issue of interdicting ships without nationality in relation to maritime crimes can be a question of a general nature: when fighting against illicit drug trafficking must the principle of the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state really be considered untouchable?

Professor Fernando Loureiro Bastos is Associate Professor of Public Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Lisbon. He is Head of the Research Group on International and European Law of the Lisbon Public Law Research Centre and President of the Portuguese Society of International Law (Portuguese Branch of the International Law Association) and a member of the ILA Committee on International Law and Sea Level Rise. He has served as Co-Agent and Counsel of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Case 19 – M/V “Virginia G”, ITLOS (2011-2014).

Commentator: Dr Tor Krever, ‘Piracy as a maritime crime’.

Chair: Mr Stratis Georgilas (G-H Law Chambers, Athens)

The LCIL and Cambridge International Law Journal (CILJ) are pleased to invite you to the LCIL-CILJ Annual Lecture

Lecture summary: Recent pathbreaking trade agreements empower trade policymakers to target foreign companies in novel ways and to police corporate due diligence in global supply chains rather than seek to change foreign government behavior as used to be their purview. This repurposing of our trade enforcement system has the power to transform dramatically the global commercial system, the bargains it manages, the procedures applicable to it, and the rights and obligations of all involved.

This research project maps the institutional ascent of this revealed practice, which it maintains was the product of disillusionment with the intellectual pedigrees of conventional trade law. The project evaluates our trade policing in light of the progressive aims policymakers have set for it, taking into account the many constituencies on whom the burdens fall unevenly. This excavation exposes how our trade police do not operate like other widely accepted forms of law enforcement or of international law bureaucracy. Tactics like those in the new arsenal bear close resemblance to the practices of authoritarian governments that seek to provoke acquiescence without process. The project’s assessment prescribes lessons for the several disciplines trade policing touches, including for the way scholars and lawmakers conceive of what bodies of law, tools, and actors are best suited to manage transnational corporate behavior and for concepts of compliance in international law. Finally, this project demonstrates that, as a corporate accountability system, trade policing has leapfrogged efforts by fields with similar aims like business and human rights, and the policing tools we have so far are just the tip of the iceberg.

Kathleen Claussen is a leader in international economic law and procedure and has served as arbitrator, counsel, expert, public servant, and teacher. Her expertise covers several topics of international law, especially trade, investment, international business and labor; dispute settlement and international dispute bodies; national security and cybersecurity law; and, administrative law issues surrounding U.S. foreign relations and transnational agreements.

Professor Claussen has served as a visiting faculty member or invited researcher at numerous institutions around the world, including Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, the University of Cambridge Lauterpacht Centre for International Law where she was a Brandon Fellow, the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, the iCourts Center of Excellence at the University of Copenhagen, the George C. Marshall Center for Security Studies, the University of Zurich and Collegium Helveticum, and the World Trade Institute. Prior to joining the Georgetown faculty in 2023, she was a member of the faculty at the University of Miami School of Law for five years.

Lecture summary: For better or for worse, the ‘English school’ or ‘British tradition’ of international law has eluded systematization or definition. The lecture pursues the argument that it is possible to identify clear synergies in the mainstream legal method of British international lawyers, focusing on British approaches to the doctrine of self-defence. It should not be surprising that this method follows in the common law tradition, displaying the tradition's three key hallmarks of (1) connection to social practice, (2) focus on courts and (3) an anti-theoretical tendency. Identity and analysis of these characteristics helps us to understand the distinctive contribution of British approaches to international law and the work this 'common law method' has done in strengthening and shaping international law. Identifying these characteristics is also important in order to understand the more problematic implications of their application in the international legal context. The common law method has consequences for the structure and direction of the international legal system, including the parameters of its community, the site of its authority and the role of theory in its development. Reflection on these strengths and weaknesses helps us better understand British contributions to international law. Paradoxically, the route to a more universal international law requires us first to understand the ways in which it is plural.

Devika Hovell is an Associate Professor in Public International Law at the London School of Economics. She holds a doctorate from the University of Oxford, a Master of Laws from New York University and an Arts/Law degree from the University of Western Australia. She served as Associate to Justice Kenneth Hayne at the High Court of Australia, and as judicial clerk at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, before starting her academic career at the University of New South Wales. She joined the London School of Economics in 2012. She is author of The Power of Process (edited by Oxford University Press) and has published articles in a range of journals, including the American Journal of International Law, the European Journal of International Law, the Leiden Journal of International Law and the Modern Law Review. The article the subject of this lecture will be published in the centennial volume of the British Yearbook of International Law. She is on the Editorial Board of the European Journal of International Law and is one of four editors of the international law blog, EJIL Talk!.

Lecture summary: The Energy Charter Treaty was concluded in 1994 on the assumption that fossil fuels could continue to be used for the foreseeable future. This article examines how ECT contracting parties can now withdraw from this treaty for climate change reasons without being subject to its 'sunset' clause, which protects existing investments for 20 years. It evaluates several strategies, including amendment and inter se agreements, and withdrawal on the basis of a fundamental change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus). That fundamental change is not climate change itself, which was foreseen in 1994. It is the fact that, as recently stated by the IPCC, fossil fuels now need urgently to be abandoned, resulting in significant stranded assets. This was then unforeseen and radically transforms the extent of the ECT’s obligation to continue to protect existing fossil fuel investments for another 20 years. The article finally considers the implications of such a withdrawal for remaining contracting parties under Article 70 VCLT.

Dr Tibisay Morgandi is a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in International Energy and Natural Resources Law at Queen Mary University of London, School of Law.

Professor Lorand Bartels is Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge.

Lecture Summary: This lecture will discuss recent developments in the UN Climate Regime, focusing in particular on the mismatch between the increasing emphasis on temperature goals and target-setting under the Paris Agreement and its treatment of equity and fairness in delivering these goals and targets.

Lavanya Rajamani is a Professor of International Environmental Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, and Yamani Fellow in Public International Law, St Peter's College, Oxford. Lavanya writes, teaches and advises on international climate change law. She has been closely involved in the climate change negotiations in various capacities for two decades, including as advisor to Chairs, Presidencies, and the Secretariat. She was part of the core UNFCCC drafting and advisory group for the Paris Agreement. And a Coordinating Lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report. She is also currently involved in providing the evidence base for ongoing climate change litigation in national, regional and international courts.

Lecture summary: Just over a year ago, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought public comments on a bold and thoughtfully framed rule proposal for the enhancement and standardization of climate-related disclosure. It was a move that signaled to many that the US was finally responding to the global shift amongst investors and asset managers toward the integration of ESG data into fundamental value analysis. Today, however, as ESG issues in the US have become politically polarized and as litigation challenges loom large, the possibility of meaningful change appears more remote.

Now is therefore an ideal time to spotlight the new ESG disclosure requirements in the UK and EU and, against this backdrop, to refute the claim that ESG disclosure involves “major questions” that transcend the SEC’s longstanding and clear authority to impose new reporting requirements on publicly traded companies. The UK and EU experiences likewise provide valuable perspectives in connection with other hot-button issues in the US, including: closing the public-private disclosure gap, broadening the traditional concept of materiality, and imposing mandates that require real-time disclosure as opposed to disclosure primarily at periodic intervals.

Donna M. Nagy is the C. Ben Dutton Professor of Law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law in Bloomington, Indiana, USA. She teaches and writes in the areas of securities litigation, securities regulation, and corporations, and has served for eight years as the law school’s Executive Associate Dean. Her scholarship includes two co-authored books, one on the law of insider trading and a casebook on Securities Litigation, Enforcement, and Compliance. She has published extensively in distinguished law journals on matters including insider trading and fiduciary principles; securities disclosure and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) information; government officials and financial conflicts of interest; and securities enforcement remedies. She is also a frequent speaker on securities regulation and litigation topics at law schools and professional conferences. Professor Nagy is a member of the American Law Institute and served as a member of the National Adjudicatory Council of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and as an appointed member to the ABA Corporate Laws Committee. She began her teaching career in 1994, and prior to that, was an associate with Debevoise & Plimpton in Washington, D.C. She earned her law degree in 1989 from New York University School of Law and her BA in Political Science in 1986 from Vassar College.

Lecture 3: 'Reframing Doctrines'

A series of three lectures by Dr. B.S.Chimni, Distinguished Professor of International Law, O.P. Jindal Global University. Previously, he was for over three decades Professor of International Law, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Between 2004-2006 he was the Vice Chancellor of the W.B. National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. He has been a Visiting Professor at Brown and Tokyo universities, the Graduate Institute, Geneva and the American University of Cairo, and has been visiting fellow at Harvard, Minnesota, and York (Canada) universities and the Institute of Advanced Studies, Nantes. He is an associate member of Institut de Droit International, and Member, Academic Council, Institute for Global Law and Policy (IGLP), Harvard Law School. He is former Vice-President Asian Society of International law and at present Member of its Advisory Council. He is a member of the editorial board of American Journal of International Law and also the former Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Journal of International Law. In 2022 he was honored by the American Society of International Law with its Honorary Membership. The University of London has instituted a scholarship in his name for the MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies by distance-learning. He has also received an honorary doctorate from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. He is the author of International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches. He is closely associated with the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) movement.

Lecture 2: 'Exploring Nexus'

A series of three lectures by Dr. B.S.Chimni, Distinguished Professor of International Law, O.P. Jindal Global University. Previously, he was for over three decades Professor of International Law, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Between 2004-2006 he was the Vice Chancellor of the W.B. National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. He has been a Visiting Professor at Brown and Tokyo universities, the Graduate Institute, Geneva and the American University of Cairo, and has been visiting fellow at Harvard, Minnesota, and York (Canada) universities and the Institute of Advanced Studies, Nantes. He is an associate member of Institut de Droit International, and Member, Academic Council, Institute for Global Law and Policy (IGLP), Harvard Law School. He is former Vice-President Asian Society of International law and at present Member of its Advisory Council. He is a member of the editorial board of American Journal of International Law and also the former Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Journal of International Law. In 2022 he was honored by the American Society of International Law with its Honorary Membership. The University of London has instituted a scholarship in his name for the MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies by distance-learning. He has also received an honorary doctorate from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. He is the author of International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches. He is closely associated with the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) movement.

Lecture 1: 'Mapping the Terrain'

A series of three lectures by Dr. B.S.Chimni, Distinguished Professor of International Law, O.P. Jindal Global University. Previously, he was for over three decades Professor of International Law, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Between 2004-2006 he was the Vice Chancellor of the W.B. National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. He has been a Visiting Professor at Brown and Tokyo universities, the Graduate Institute, Geneva and the American University of Cairo, and has been visiting fellow at Harvard, Minnesota, and York (Canada) universities and the Institute of Advanced Studies, Nantes. He is an associate member of Institut de Droit International, and Member, Academic Council, Institute for Global Law and Policy (IGLP), Harvard Law School. He is former Vice-President Asian Society of International law and at present Member of its Advisory Council. He is a member of the editorial board of American Journal of International Law and also the former Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Journal of International Law. In 2022 he was honored by the American Society of International Law with its Honorary Membership. The University of London has instituted a scholarship in his name for the MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies by distance-learning. He has also received an honorary doctorate from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. He is the author of International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches. He is closely associated with the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) movement.

Lecture summary: International economic law binds the state in relation to markets – most prominently with respect to cross-border trade in goods and services (trade) and the cross-border flow of capital (investment). The core tension to be managed in treaty design involves the balance between economic disciplines and the sovereign’s reserved regulatory authority – between liberalization and policy space. The trade regime has been fairly successful in striking this balance, while the investment regime has been less so. As a result, a natural tendency among reformers has been to look to trade for lessons and solutions to the challenges of investment treaties. This lecture considers why mechanisms that have worked in the former context have proven unworkable in the latter, and what that means for design going forward.

Both the trade and investment regimes preserve policy space through a process of justification at the dispute settlement stage. Policy justification is built into most trade agreements (and some investment treaties) through formal exceptions clauses. Even in the absence of such clauses, exceptions-style justification has informally penetrated both regimes through adjudicative reasoning and borrowing. This "exceptions paradigm" of justification has worked well in trade treaties, where it has been especially key to securing a workable balance in the WTO/GATT context – in a coherent way, on which actors can plan ex ante. But, where tried, the exceptions paradigm has not worked out in the investment regime. I argue that the difference lies in the institutions within which trade and investment rules and exceptions are embedded. This lecture compares the trade and investment regimes across three institutional nodes: (1) the nature of the right of action (public vs private); (2) the degree of judicial centralization (court system vs ad hoc arbitration); and (3) the available remedies (prospective injunctive relief vs retrospective damages). I suggest that it is trade law's public-oriented institutions that have made the exceptions clause workable – not the other way around. By contrast, investment law's private-oriented institutions make that system particularly inhospitable to exceptions-style justification.

Julian Arato is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. His scholarly expertise spans the areas of public international law, international economic law, and private law. Arato serves as a member of the board of editors of the American Journal of International Law. He is active in the governance of the American Society of International Law, having recently served on the executive council and as co-chair of the international economic law interest group. He also serves as chair of the Academic Forum on Investor-State Dispute Settlement and as a member of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration Academic Council. Since 2018, Arato has served as an observer delegate to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (ISDS Reform).

Lecture Summary: The survival of our planet requires swift and targeted climate policies to adapt, mitigate and repair. Scientists and political elites acknowledge the urgency to reduce our reliance on coal and fossil fuels to achieve the necessary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Academics have been studying the impacts of investment treaty protections on climate action and argued that investment treaties raise the cost of climate action, financially and via regulatory chill and limit their ability to combat climate change. There also have been instances where investment treaties protected investors in the renewable energy sector leading to the argument that international investment law can support transition to renewable energy. This lecture will reflect on the compatibility of states’ existing investment treaty obligations with their climate obligations. It will consider the consequences of investment law’s distaste of local politics, stakeholder participation and public protest, which are essential to the realization of the right to a healthy environment, climate policy-making, and more broadly to democratic governance.

Anil is a Senior Lecturer at Essex Law School and a co-director of the Essex Business and Human Rights Project. Her research interests are in the fields of international investment law and business and human rights. Her research bridges the gap between corporate law, international investment law, human rights law, and tort law, examining how these areas can and should interact to operationalise human rights standards in the modern business context. She has published works on parent-subsidiary relationships in the business and human rights context, non-financial reporting, duty of care in supply chain relationships, human rights in investment contracts and the embedded inequalities in the investment treaty regime. She is the author of The Nationality of Corporate Investors under International Investment Law (2020, Hart Publishing), a member of the IEL Collective’s steering committee and a member of Teaching Business and Human Rights Forum’s governance committee.

Lecture summary: United Nations (UN) and several UN Agencies have started to use behavioural sciences in order to achieve their policy goals, including for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). While it is to be appreciated that insights on actual behavior inform policy making of international actors, they raise scientific and normative considerations warranting caution. First, for those considerations it matters, who the acting and the targeted actors are, that is, where and for what behavioral sciences are used (inter-state or targeting citizens). Behavioural interventions come in many facets and warrant a differentiated view – a finely built roadmap is thus desirable. Second, there are concerns about the internal and external validity of experimental research on which behavioural sciences largely, but not solely, draws. Third, taking a differentiated view on behavioral sciences also allows for a more finely grained view on normative concerns underlying the operations of the United Nations. This contribution spells out those considerations while still advocating for the approach as such.

Reading material: https://www.uninnovation.network/assets/BeSci/UN_Behavioural_Science_Report_2021.pdf

Anne van Aaken (Dr. iur. and MA Economics) is Alexander von Humboldt Professor for Law and Economics, Legal Theory, Public International Law and European Law and Director of the Institute of Law and Economics, University of Hamburg. She was Vice-President of the European Society of International Law and is Chair of the European University Institute Research Council. She is a general editor of Journal of International Dispute Settlement and a member of the editorial boards of AJIL, the Journal of International Economic Law, International Theory, and EJIL (until 2021). She was a guest professor in Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America and the USA (Global Law Professor at NYU and Columbia). She has been expert consultant for the IBRD, UNCTAD, GIZ, OECD and the UN High Level Advisory Board of Effective Multilateralism. Her research focuses on international (economic) law, international governance, behavioral economics/psychology and international legal theory. She has published widely on those topics.

Lecture summary: It is alleged that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) embodied the victory of Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice’s preference to interpret treaties based on the “ordinary meaning of the words” over Sir Hersh Lauterpacht’s view that one instead should seek to ascertain the treaty parties’ “actual intentions.” But is that so? If, as VCLT Article 31(1) provides, the focus is to be on “the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose,” and if that “ordinary meaning” is not, as per Article 32, “ambiguous,” “obscure,” “manifestly absurd or unreasonable,” then why should resort to “Supplementary Means of Interpretation” be appropriate at all “in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31”? If, as many believe, the VCLT is hierarchical, shouldn’t interpretation be complete when an “ordinary meaning” is established that is “unambiguous,” not “obscure,” and “neither manifestly absurd or unreasonable”? Did those preferring to determine the treaty parties “actual intentions” in fact sneak into the VLCT’s text that provision for supplementary “confirmation” of a clear “ordinary meaning”? Is to that extent the VCLT in fact, as is said of treaties generally, “an agreement to disagree”? In reality, given the sequential submissions in international arbitrations, as well as before international courts and tribunals, each party, beginning with the Applicant’s or Claimant’s Memorial, followed by Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, the Reply Memorial etc., from the start places before the adjudicator all of its arguments under Section 3. of the VCLT (Articles 31-33).

The fact that Article 31’s “General Rule Of Interpretation” and Article 32’s “Supplementary Means Of Interpretation” are presented to the adjudicator as a unit, and not seriatim, has resulted in some arbitral tribunals not treating those two articles of the VCLT as being hierarchical, and instead applying what has become known as the “crucible approach,” i.e., stirring the two in the pot of deliberations as though they were a regulatory potpourri rather than distinct rules, the later to be applied only if the first did not produce an unchallengable “ordinary meaning.” Thus separate approaches to the VCLT have arisen that have raised the question posed by former ICJ President Schwebel: “May Preparatory Work Be Used to Correct Rather Than Confirm the ‘Clear’ Meaning of a Treaty Provision?”

Judge Charles N Brower’s career has been divided between private law practice, first with White & Case LLP in New York City and Washington, D.C., since 2001 as an Arbitrator Member of Twenty Essex Chambers in London, and public service, first with the Office of The Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State (1969-73)(successively as Assistant Legal Adviser for European Affairs, Deputy Legal Adviser and Acting Legal Adviser), as Judge of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (1983-present), as sub-Cabinet rank Deputy Special Counsellor to the President of the United States dealing with the Iran-Contra affair (1987), as Judge ad hoc of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1999-2002)(appointed by Bolivia), and the most -appointed of the only five Americans ever to be appointed Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice (2014-2022) (appointed by Colombia (1 case) and the United States (2 cases)).

Judge Brower's book: 'Judging Iran: A Memoir of The Hague, The White House, and Life on the Front Line of International Justice' is available now to pre-order and will be released on 11 April 2023.

Lecture summary: After 1945, the United Nations – and international organizations (IOs) more generally – were widely embraced as the ideal, democratic means to resolve international conflicts and promote global welfare. Sharing this almost feverish enthusiasm, a Western-controlled International Court of Justice adopted a deferential attitude toward IOs. The law it developed exuded confidence in the impartiality of IOs, premised on an unquestioning assumption that their subjection to legal discipline and judicial review would be unnecessary and even counterproductive. I propose that the time has come to concede that the utopian premises upon which the international law relating to IOs is based are flawed and outline a new course for the international law on IOs, one that addresses the inherent flaws of collective decision-making and can assist IOs to achieve their stated goals.

Professor Eyal Benvenisti is Samuel Rubin Visiting Professor of Law, Columbia Law School (2022). He is the Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge, CC Ng Fellow in Law at Jesus College, and the Director of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law. He is also a Visiting Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and a member of the Global Visiting Faculty of New York University School of Law. He is Member of the Institut de droit international and of the Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities. A Co-Editor of the British Yearbook of International Law, he served on the Editorial Board of the American Journal of International Law (2009-18). He was Project Director of the “GlobalTrust – Sovereigns as Trustees of Humanity” research project, funded by an ERC Advanced Grant (2013-18). He previously was a Visiting Professor at the law schools at Harvard, Columbia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Toronto and Yale. He gave special courses at The Hague Academy of International Law (2013) and the Xiamen Academy of International Law (2017). Benvenisti will deliver the General Course in International Law at The Hague Academy of International Law in 2024.

Lecture summary: It is widely recognised that there is a dearth of women judges sitting on international courts and tribunals. In this lecture, particular attention will be paid to the question of why the lack of judicial parity matters. It will be argued that the dearth of women judges is both symptom and cause of the highly gendered way in which international law and international institutions operate. The idea of the totemic judge of international law whose male gender is rendered invisible and unremarked and who functions to enrobe the gendered norms and institutions of international law will be called forth. The female judge, conversely, is presented as a disruptive force whose very presence serves to place gender in the frame. Drawing on accounts from international courts and from the Feminist Judgments in International Law project, it will be concluded that an approach to judging that acknowledges and challenges structures of power – including gender – contains considerable transformative potential.

Dr Loveday Hodson is Associate Professor at the University of Leicester.

I joined Leicester Law School in 2004, since which time I have had a number of teaching and administrative roles. For the past few years I have taught on the International Law undergraduate module as well as convening the Feminist Perspectives on International Law and Legal Responses to Global Injustice postgraduate modules. During my time at Leicester I also contribute to the teaching of Constitutional and Administrative Law. I am currently the School's Deputy PRG Tutor (admissions) and Research Ethics Officer.

Lecture summary: The lecture will explore the extent to which key normative and institutional responses to the challenges raised by the digital age are compatible with, or interact with, changes in key features of the existing international human rights law (IHRL) framework. Furthermore, it will be claimed that the IHRL framework is already changing, partly due to its interaction with digital human rights. This moving normative landscape creates new opportunities for promoting human rights in the digital age, but might also raise new concerns about the political acceptability of IHRL.

Professor Yuval Shany is the Hersch Lauterpacht Chair in International Law and former Dean of the Law Faculty of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He was a member of the UN Human Rights Committee from 2013 to 2020 and served for one year during that time as Chair of the Committee. He serves, at present, as a senior research fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, and as the head of the CyberLaw program of the Hebrew University CyberSecurity Research Center. He is also serving this years as the co-director of the Center for Transnational Legal Studies at King’s College, London.

The Eli Lauterpacht Lecture was established after Sir Eli's death in 2017 to celebrate his life and work. This lecture takes place on the first Friday lecture of the Centre at the start of the Michaelmas Term in any academic year. The Eli Lauterpacht Lecture for 2022 will be delivered by Professor Noah Feldman.

Noah Feldman is Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Chairman of the Society of Fellows, and founding director of the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law, all at Harvard University. He specializes in constitutional studies, with particular emphasis on power and ethics, design of innovative governance solutions, law and religion, and the history of legal ideas.

A policy & public affairs columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, Feldman also writes for The New York Review of Books and was a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine for nearly a decade. He hosts the Deep Background podcast, an interview show that explores the historical, scientific, legal and cultural context behind the biggest stories in the news.

Through his consultancy, Ethical Compass, Feldman advises clients like Facebook & eBay on how to improve ethical decision-making by creating and implementing new governance solutions. In this capacity, he conceived and architected the Facebook Oversight Board, and continues to advise the company on ethics and governance issues.

Further information: https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/noah-r-feldman/

Judge Christopher Greenwood KC lectures on' The Future of International Law' at the celebratory event of the Dr Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Seminar Room Opening on Thursday 6 October 2022.

For more about the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, see: https://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/

This lecture is is part of the Art, Architecture and International Law seminar series which is being launched this academic year. The series is designed to bridge the worlds of art, architecture and international law. It explores the different ways in which art and architecture and international law intersect. It also demonstrates that international law exists well beyond the written word.

Lecture summary: In this talk I am inviting you on a sightseeing tour in The Hague, the ‘International City of Peace and Justice’. But it is not a tour from A to B and back. It is a tour in the form of a collage, assembled from artworks, texts, and objects from or about institutions of international law. Through a cacophony of shifting perspectives and modalities, I try to (un)make sense of international institutional sites as a spaces of encounter and exclusion.

Dr Sofia Stolk is a researcher in international law at the Asser Institute in The Hague and the University of Amsterdam. Her research project 'Imagining Justice' focuses on the use of visual means by international courts and tribunals and explores how different audiences engage with international law through its representation in visual media. She has published about the intersection of international law and art, architecture, theater, and film. Her monograph ‘The Opening Statement of the Prosecution in International Criminal Trials: A Solemn Tale of Horror’ was published by Routledge in 2021. Sofia coordinates the Camera Justitia programme on law and social justice at the annual Movies that Matter Festival is co-founder of the Legal Sightseeing platform (www.legalsightseeing.org) together with Dr. Renske Vos (VU Amsterdam).

Friday, 18 March 2022 - 2.00pm

This event, divided into two panels, showcases recent scholarship in international criminal law and international humanitarian law. Transcending disciplinary boundaries and theoretical traditions whilst harnessing extensive archival research and deeper empirical data, these scholars’ work reimagines two venerable legal fields anew through more robust historicizing and bolder critiques.

This lecture is is part of the Art, Architecture and International Law seminar series which is being launched this academic year. The series is designed to bridge the worlds of art, architecture and international law. It explores the different ways in which art and architecture and international law intersect. It also demonstrates that international law exists well beyond the written word.

Lecture summary: At the heart of this lecture is the question of how music could serve as an effective instrumental tool for rethinking the theoretical and processual dimensions of international law in Africa. This lecture argues that socially conscious songs provide a beneficial lens/gateway to the popular understanding of the problematics of international law. As Daniel Newman rightly noted, “the use of popular music offers a writer a valuable device to render what could be quite dry and, otherwise dull, argument suddenly more interesting and thus engaging to the reader”. Such knowledge further engenders the possibility of repurposing the applicative dimensions of international law on the continent.

Babatunde Fagbayibo is a Professor in Law at the University of South Africa. He graduated with a doctoral degree in Public Law, with specialisation in regional integration law, from the University of Pretoria, South Africa. His research interests include supranational regionalism, transnational policy analysis, critical approaches to international law, and governance and democratisation in Africa. His writings have been published in several academic journals, as chapters in books, and on other online platforms. In 2014, he was recognised by the Young People in International Affairs (YPIA) as one of the top 35 Africans under the age of 35 for his research in the field of supranational regionalism in Africa. He currently serves as the Editor-in-Chief of the Southern African Public Law Journal (SAPL) and is on the editorial boards of the African Journal of Democracy and Governance (RADG) and the Nigerian Yearbook of International Law (NYIL).

This conversation will explore the relevance that analytical philosophy has played in contemporary international legal scholarship and the distinct contributions that it has and could offer — focusing on analytical moral and political philosophy. We will explore whether and why philosophical approaches from the analytical tradition have been displaced in recent decades (including in relation with ‘Continental’ approaches), the relationship between legal and normative (i.e., moral) considerations, and specific debates that might benefit from analytical philosophy perspectives. Focus will be placed on the role of philosophical argument in illuminating fundamental notions of international life such as self-determination and human rights, through to the key principles regulating whole regimes, such as the laws of armed conflict and the use of force, and the fair distribution of goods.

Alejandro Chehtman is Professor of Law at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (Argentina) and a Fellow at the Argentine National Research Council (CONICET). He specializes in International Criminal Law, International Humanitarian Law, and on empirical work on courts and tribunals. His work has been published in the European Journal of International Law, Legal Theory, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Leiden Journal of International Law, Law & Philosophy, and the Journal of Law & Courts, among others. He published The Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment (Oxford University Press), and is currently finishing a monograph on A Theory of Asymmetrical Conflicts (forthcoming with Oxford University Press).

A series of conversations on international legal scholarship, political engagement and the transformative potential of academia. Each conversation will be chaired by Francisco José Quintana and Marina Veličković and will centre around a theme, concept or a method and their relationship to political movements, struggles and margins from which they have emerged and within (and for) which they have emancipatory potential.

The conversation will focus on the role that critical approaches to international law have played and should play in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. We will look beyond the dominant disciplinary responses to COVID-19 and explore if and how international law can be employed strategically in this context. The relationship between international law and political economy will serve as our starting point, and from there we will explore the potential of international law to be used as a tool of politics of resistance and transformation. We will also discuss challenges and responsibilities of teaching international law at a time of crisis. Marina and Francisco will lead the conversation for ~45 minutes after which they will pass the responsibility on to the audience. This session will be hosted online via Zoom Webinar. Pre-registration is required and, in order to preserve the intimacy and informality that define the series, places are limited. Priority will be given to LCIL fellows and Cambridge students.

Speakers:

Ntina Tzouvala is an ARC Laureate Postdoctoral Fellow in International Law at Melbourne Law School. Her work focuses on the history and theory of international law, with a particular emphasis on international law and global capitalism. Her first monograph, Capitalism as Civilisation: A History of International Law, will be published by Cambridge University Press in late 2020.

Robert Knox is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Liverpool and an Editor of Historical Materialism and The London Review of International Law. He works primarily in the Marxist and critical legal traditions. His research touches on the relationship between international law, capitalism and imperialism (with a particular focus on questions of racialisation), on law’s key role in the birth and consolidation of neoliberalism and on the relationship between law and social change.

Held in memory of Earl Snyder, the Snyder Lectures take place annually and are held at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge and the University of Indiana's Bloomington School of Law on alternate years. Speakers are faculty members or prominent international law scholars or practitioners chosen by the universities to deliver the lectures, which are subsequently published in the Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies (IJGLS).

Professor Fred H. Cate, Distinguished Professor and C. Ben Dutton Professor of Law, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University delivered the 2011 Snyder Lecture on Monday 14th November 2011.

Increasingly we live in a world of ubiquitous data and widely distributed power to collect, use, store, and share personal information. Data protection takes on new importance in an environment in which our activities, communications, transactions, and preferences are captured electronically and used to define our existence. Yet data protection laws, with their focus on transparency, consent, and regulatory oversight of every aspect of data processing are proving increasingly unworkable in the face of the deluge of digital data. The situation is exacerbated by the wide divergence among regional and national (and even local and provincial) laws used to regulate inherently global data flows. As reality and law grow further apart, individuals are left unprotected, industry and governments operate without meaningful oversight or certainty, and society lacks shared norms about the appropriate limits of data collection and use. This lecture addresses the scope of the problem and some practical steps for doing better.

Lecture summary: The legal regime for deep seabed mining in the international seabed Area is a rare example of the international community joining forces to regulate a potential new industry in the interests of humankind as a whole. As set forth under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the international seabed Area and its mineral resources are the “common heritage of mankind”, on whose behalf the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an autonomous organization established under UNCLOS, is to act. The mandate comes with concomitant obligations for the equitable sharing of financial and other economic benefits and adoption of the necessary measures to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from the harmful effects of deep-sea mining.

Despite this historic legal framework based on visions of equity, common interest, environmental health and prosperity for all, tensions are rising. In late June 2021, the Government of the Republic of Nauru called for the ISA to accelerate its work on regulations for exploitation of deep seabed minerals so that NORI, its sponsored entity, could submit an application for authorization to mine as soon as 2023. Just prior to that, hundreds of marine scientists and policy experts issued a Call for a Pause to Deep-Sea Mining, expressing concern that deep-sea mining could result “in the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning that would be irreversible on multi-generational timescales.” In September 2021, members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) adopted a resolution calling upon IUCN Member States to support and implement a moratorium on deep seabed mining until specific conditions have been satisfied, including improved scientific understanding, independent review, application of precaution and institutional reforms (IUCN, 2021 WCC Motion 069).

Despite recognizing the need for rigorous and binding environmental safeguards, the Secretary General of the ISA has described the rising calls for a moratorium on deep seabed mining in the Area as “anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-development and anti-international law.” All this is happening at the same time the United Nations is developing a new agreement under UNCLOS for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national boundaries, and the UN Ocean Envoy, Peter Thomson has called on the global community to recognize the importance of ensuring “synergy between the forthcoming global conferences addressing climate change, biodiversity loss and the well-being of the ocean.” (Open letter by Peter Thomson, UN Special Envoy for the Ocean, to Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC). The Open Letter further stresses that “the days are gone when any one of these existential challenges can be meaningfully negotiated without bringing the other two to the table.”

This presentation will explore these issues in light of the legal regime established under UNCLOS and its 1994 Implementation Agreement, modern environmental norms, procedural principles and current scientific understanding about deep sea ecosystems and the potential impacts of deep seabed mining. It will further describe prior examples of internationally declared “moratoria” or conditional pauses on specific activities. Finally, it will explore some pathways ahead for addressing the potential contradictions between deep sea mining and protection of marine biodiversity beyond national boundaries.

(With many thanks to Pradeep Singh, LLM, Researcher, University of Bremen, who co-authored and assisted with this presentation)

Kristina M. Gjerde, J.D., is Senior High Seas Advisor to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Global Marine and Polar Programme. Kristina received her Juris Doctor from New York University School of Law with a focus on comparative and international law, and practiced admiralty law for several years in a New York City law firm. For the past 30+ years, Kristina has focused on the nexus of law, science, and policy relevant to sustaining marine biodiversity. Kristina has co-founded four science-policy partnerships: the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative, The Sargasso Sea Project, the High Seas Alliance and the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative (DOSI). In addition to advancing a new UN treaty for marine life beyond boundaries, she has authored or co-authored more than 150 publications. Kristina is an Honorary Fellow of the University of Edinburgh School of Geosciences, an adjunct professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, California, and lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.