Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge

On Friday 18 September 2026 Cambridge Women in Law held this panel event as part of the Cambridge Alumni Festival.

AI is shaping all walks of life. This is particularly true in respect of the law. Litigants rely on ChatGPT to submit their complaints and lawyers have access to databases of precedents, search tools and the capacity for AI to manage vast numbers of documents, often better than humans. This raises the question whether there is still a need for lawyers and, for the Faculty of Law at Cambridge, what this means for the law degree.

In this session leading Cambridge academics and practitioners debate the challenges and opportunities for legal education posed by the ever-increasing availability and capacity of AI tools.

Speakers:

For more information and to sign up to the CWIL mailing list to receive information about future news and events, see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/alumni-developmentalumni-events/cambridge-women-law-cwil

Speaker:Dr Luke Dimitrios Spieker, Humboldt University, Berlin

Abstract: The CJEU’s decision in Commission v Malta marks the summit of a long-standing, highly controversial debate in European legal scholarship. Considering the Maltese practice of “golden passports” incompatible with EU law, the Court expanded the reach of EU law and established constraints for the conferral of the Member States’ nationalities. At its heart, the decision developed a shared concept of nationality based on a “special relationship of solidarity and good faith”. To justify this bold step, the Court mobilized EU values: “Union citizenship” – we are told – “is based on the common values contained in Article 2 TEU”. In this talk, we will explore how EU values may require a shared concept of nationality and justify the genuine link-requirement established by the Court. At its centre are the notions of democracy and trust, solidarity and belonging. Ultimately, it seems that the Court embraced a communitarian understanding of citizenship – one that builds on belonging.

Biography:Dr Luke Dimitrios Spieker is a postdoctoral researcher at Humboldt University Berlin and a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. His research explores EU law’s constitutional foundations, including its common values and structural principles as well as Union citizenship and fundamental rights. He has been awarded several prizes, such as the Heinz Meier-Leibnitz-Prize of the German Research Foundation, the UACES Best Book Prize, or the Common Market Law Review Prize for Young Academics.

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

In this episode, Janice chats to Jack, Nicholas and Mira about the realities of being a fresher and making the most of your first year at university.

Jack and Nicholas are third-year Law students, while Mira is a third-year History student, bringing together different perspectives and plenty of hard-earned wisdom.

The conversation covers three key areas:

Academic life: settling into lectures, seminars and independent study, finding what works for you, and managing the transition to university-level work.

Social life: making friends, finding your people, navigating Freshers’ Week, and dealing with the pressure to have the “perfect” university experience.

Extracurriculars and careers: getting involved in societies and events, making the most of opportunities, and starting to think about your career, whatever your degree.

Tune in for practical advice and honest reflections on making the most of your first year.

A special thanks to Jack, Mira, and Nicholas for sharing their thoughts and to Daniel Bates for his excellent pre- and post-podcast bants.

This is the second interview with Professor Philippe Sands. Professor Sands was interviewed for the second time on 25th June 2026 At his home in Hampstead.

For more information, see the Squire Law Library website at:

http://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent-scholars-archive

This is the first interview with Professor Philippe Sands. Professor Sands was interviewed for the first time on 18th May 2026 At his home in Hampstead.

For more information, see the Squire Law Library website at:

http://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent-scholars-archive

When the UK and the EU concluded the Trade and Cooperation Agreement at the end of 2020, Gibraltar was deliberately left outside its scope. After more than four years of negotiation between the UK, the EU and Spain, with the Government of Gibraltar advising the UK team, to agree the yet closest relationship of UK related territory with the EU. The negotiations benefited from a political agreement in June 2025, a finalised legal text in December 2025, and the draft Treaty jointly published by the UK and the EU on 26 February 2026. The Committee of Permanent Representatives unanimously greenlit the texts on 1 April 2026, and the Agreement is now expected to enter provisional application on 15 July 2026, with formal ratification under the UK Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and the parallel EU procedures to follow.

The Treaty is genuinely novel in EU external relations practice. It will remove routine physical checks at the land frontier with Spain, with full Schengen border controls relocated to Gibraltar's airport and port and operated under a tailored, dual-control architecture. Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory that remains outside both the EU and Schengen, will simultaneously join the EU customs union and dynamically align with substantial parts of the EU acquis, including in goods, environment, energy, social and labour standards, transport and indirect taxation.

The CELS seminar examines the draft Treaty across three panels chaired by Professor Catherine Barnard with experts from both the University of Cambridge and beyond:

Panel I – Foundation: UK–EU Agreement in respect of Gibraltar

Panel II – General Regulation: UK–EU Gibraltar Agreement

Panel III – Specific Regulation: UK–EU Gibraltar Agreement

For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/press/events/2026/05/cels-seminar-uk-eu-agreement-respect-gibraltar

In this episode, we explore the third year of the Cambridge Law Tripos.

We discuss the full papers in Competition Law, Conflict of Laws, Intellectual Property Law, Labour Law, Company Law, and Commercial Law, as well as a range of half papers, including Animal Rights Law, Landlord and Tenant Law, and Succession. Along the way, we share general advice on choosing papers, balancing workloads, and making the most of your final year at Cambridge.

Whether you're deciding which options to take or preparing for the year ahead, this episode offers an overview of the academic opportunities available in third year and practical insights to help you navigate them.

Many thanks to Jaysol Doy, Brandon Lim, Vladimir Genkovski, and Lottie Chambers for sharing their insights and experiences, and to Daniel Bates for his continued support.

Follow us on our socials to stay up to date with all things CULS:

📸 Instagram: @cambridgelawsoc

📘 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/camlawsoc/?locale=en_GB

To find out more about CULS or to become a member, visit our website.

In this episode, we take a closer look at the Part IB year of the Cambridge Law Tripos.

We explore the compulsory papers, Contract Law and Land Law, as well as the optional papers of Administrative Law, Human Rights, and International Law. We also discuss the Year Abroad, examining the opportunities it offers for academic development, cultural immersion, and broadening legal perspectives.

The episode provides an overview of the content, structure, and challenges of each paper, offering insights into what students can expect from one of the most significant years of the Cambridge Law degree.

Many thanks to Jack Gower, Lizzie Mann, and Corey Tatum for their insights and friendship, and to Daniel Bates for the coffees that fuelled yours truly, as well as his support and encouragement along the way.

Follow us on our socials to stay up to date with all things CULS:

📸 Instagram: @cambridgelawsoc

📘 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/camlawsoc/?locale=en_GB

To find out more about CULS or to become a member, visit our website.

In this episode, we explore the challenges, expectations, and strategies involved in writing a third-year law dissertation. From choosing a research topic and developing a strong argument to managing sources, this episode looks into what it takes to do a dissertation and whether that might be right for you!

A special thank you to Jaysol Doy, Brandon Lim, for their valuable contributions, insights, and to Daniel Bates for his support in making this happen.

Whether you are just beginning your dissertation journey or putting the finishing touches on your final draft, this episode offers useful guidance to help you approach the process with confidence.

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.

Speaker: Lisa P. Ramsey, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

Professor Lisa P. Ramsey, Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law and an expert on trademark law, will be speaking on her new book, Trademarks and Free Speech: Conflicts and Resolutions(CUP: 2026). This book explores how trademark laws can conflict with the right to freedom of expression and proposes a framework for evaluating free speech challenges to trademark registration and enforcement laws. It also explains why granting trademark rights in informational terms, political messages, widely used phrases, decorative product features, and other language and designs with substantial pre-existing communicative value can harm free expression and fair competition. Lisa Ramsey encourages governments to not register or protect broad trademark rights in these types of inherently valuable expression. She also recommends that trademark statutes explicitly allow certain informational, expressive, and decorative fair uses of another’s trademark, and proposes other speech-protective and pro-competitive reforms of trademark law for consideration by legislatures, courts, and trademark offices in the United States, Europe, and other countries.

You can order a copy of the book from CUP’s website here, using the code RAMSEY25 at checkout for a 20% discount.

Biography: Lisa P. Ramsey is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, where she teaches and writes in the intellectual property law area. She is an expert on trademark law and has given presentations on this topic to attorneys, professors, and students throughout the United States and around the world. Professor Ramsey’s scholarship focuses on potential conflicts between trademark laws and free speech rights, and explains how trademark protection of certain inherently valuable words, symbols, and product features can harm fair competition and freedom of expression. In 2024, she testified at a hearing held by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Intellectual Property Subcommittee about the First Amendment implications of a proposed anti-impersonation law targeted at unauthorized digital replicas called the No FAKES Act. She has also talked about free speech limits on trademark rights on panels at San Diego Comic-Con in 2023 and 2024. Professor Ramsey is an active member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association and worked on the subcommittee that updated the International Trademark Association’s Model Trademark Law Guidelines in 2019. Before joining the USD law faculty in 2004, she was an intellectual property litigator at Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich and a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Rebecca Beach Smith in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In July 2025, she was named a Women of Influence in Law 2025 Honoree by the San Diego Business Journal. Information about her publications is available on her website at www.lisapramsey.com.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

The Centre for European Legal Studies and the Centre for Public Law held a book launch and panel discussion on Dr Mohamed Moussa's recent monograph: Federal Impartiality: Navigating Divisive Rights in the EU and the US (Hart, 2026)

Panel Members

Chair

Professor Catherine Barnard (Cambridge), Chair of European Law

Discussant

Professor Mark Tushnet (Harvard), William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Emeritus

The Cambridge Pro Bono Project (CPP) hosted the annual lecture featuring Saul Lehrfreund MBE on Thursday 7th May 2026.

Saul is Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director of The Death Penalty Project, an international legal action charity based at Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP in London.

The Cambridge Pro Bono Project is a research centre that draws on the subject-matter expertise of graduate researchers and Faculty experts to produce reports on a wide range of public interest matters. Every year, we invite distinguished speakers to address our researchers, staff, and students at the University of Cambridge.

For more information about the Cambridge Pro Bono Project, see https://www.cpp.law.cam.ac.uk/ Twitter (https://twitter.com/Cam_ProBono) or Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/CamProBono).

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.

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.

Speaker:Dr Maitena Arakistain Arriola (Assistant Professor in Civil Law, University of the Basque Country; Visiting Fellow CFL; Bye Fellow, Robinson College)

Can the pro-contact culture that prevails in the justice system in child arrangement cases be changed through legislative reform? This is exactly what the Spanish legislator tried to do in 2021 when he amended the Civil Code to introduce a no-contact rule in cases of gendered-based violence. Now the presumption is that there will be no contact unless proven to be in the child’s best interests. Has it worked? The number of cases where unsafe contact is still awarded by the courts suggests that it has not, or, at least, not yet. In this seminar we will look at the position under Spanish Law and we will examine some of the arguments used to avoid the new no-contact rule.

For more information about the Faculty Family Law Centre (CFL), see:

https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/

Professor Anthony Anghie was the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor of Legal Science for the academic years 2024-25. He was interviewed at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law in Cambridge on 16 June 2025.

For more information, see the Squire website at:

http://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent_scholars/

CULS were honoured to host Justice of the Supreme Court, Lord Richards at Cambridge Thursday 5th February.

Lord David Richards is a Justice of the UK Supreme Court and a Cambridge law alumnus. He was called to the Bar in 1974, took Silk in 1992, and practised primarily in company law and corporate insolvency. He served as a High Court Judge (Chancery Division), chaired the Competition Appeal Tribunal, and was a Lord Justice of Appeal from 2015 to 2021. Appointed to the Supreme Court in 2022, Lord Richards has also sat on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and continues to work as an arbitrator and legal expert. He is a Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn and served as its Treasurer in 2020–21.

He discusses his career from the Chancery Bar all the way to the Supreme Court, and he reflects on some of the interesting cases he has worked on.

The lecture begins at 04:02

For more information see the CULS website at: https://culs.org.uk

In this episode, Janice Samuel sits down with Nabil Khabirpour - Fellow and Director of Studies in Law at Lucy Cavendish College, University of Cambridge, and the founder of The Law Corner, a pro bono and public-interest legal advice organisation dedicated to widening access to justice.

We explore how his early experiences shaped his vision of law as a force for social good, the story behind The Law Corner’s founding, and how it has grown into a pro bono hub that now partners with Cambridge Law Faculty to give students real-world legal experience while supporting under-served communities.

Nabil also shares insights from his academic work on access to justice and human rights, including his research on the right to legal advice under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Follow us on our socials to stay up to date with all things CULS:

📸 Instagram: [@cambridgelawsociety]

📘 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/camlawsoc/?locale=en_GB

To find out more about CULS or to become a member, visit our website 📝

In this special anniversary episode of CULSCAST: Beyond Doctrine, we explore how a century-old statute continues to shape the legal landscape of property in profound and surprising ways.

An all‑stars of land law, joined by Lorna Fox‑O’Mahony, Lorren Eldridge, Martin Dixon, and David Sawtell, this episode explores 100 years of the Law of Property Act and its enduring impact.

Since its passage in 1925, the Law of Property Act (LPA) has been one of the cornerstones of English land law — simplifying centuries-old rules, reorganising property interests, and laying the groundwork for modern conveyancing and ownership frameworks. In our discussion, we delve into the Act’s foundational simplification of land ownership, the balance between legal and equitable rights, the evolution of statutory mortgages and formalities, and contemporary debates around leasehold, digital formality, and whether the LPA’s structure remains fit for the 21st century.

Hoping you all had a very merry Christmas and wishing you all a Happy New Year — see you in 2026!

In Beyond Doctrine, Janice speaks to interesting lawyers doing interesting things. Each episode steps outside black-letter law to uncover the ideas, careers, and curiosities shaping the legal world today. From emerging scholarship to unexpected professional paths, Beyond Doctrine explores how law lives, evolves, and influences the world far beyond the page.

In this episode, Janice speaks to Dr Poorna Mysoor on her book Copyright as Personal Property (Oxford University Press, 2025). The book challenges the traditional view of copyright as merely a statutory right and argues instead that it should be understood more like personal property — drawing analogies with land and tangible property to explore how copyright operates, how its boundaries can be better justified, and how its expansion might be meaningfully contained.

Dr Poorna Mysoor is a Fellow in Law at Lucy Cavendish College and an affiliated lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. Her research lies at the intersection of private law and intellectual property, and she was previously a Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellow at the University of Oxford.

Follow us on our socials to stay up to date with all things CULS:

📸 Instagram: [@cambridgelawsociety]

📘 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/camlawsoc/?locale=en_GB

To find out more about CULS or to become a member, visit our website 📝

In the new series, Beyond Doctrine, Janice speaks to interesting lawyers doing interesting things. Each episode steps outside black-letter law to uncover the ideas, careers, and curiosities shaping the legal world today. From emerging scholarship to unexpected professional paths, Beyond Doctrine explores how law lives, evolves, and influences the world far beyond the page. In this episode, Janice speaks to Alistair Mills on the book he recently co-edited (with David Blundell KC and Miranda Butler) ‘The Law and Practice of Human Rights’.

This book is a comprehensive yet practical guide to human rights law in the UK. Rooted in the European Convention on Human Rights but also grounded in the enduring relevance of common law traditions, it brings together a team of 32 practitioners experts (many from Landmark Chambers) to deliver both legal analysis and actionable insight.

Alistair Mills is the Dias College Assistant Professor in Law at Magdalene College, Cambridge. Before joining academia full time, he practised as a barrister at Landmark Chambers. He is a Co-Editor of the journal Judicial Review and an Assistant Editor of the Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice.

Follow us on our socials to stay up to date with all things CULS:

📸 Instagram: [@cambridgelawsociety]

📘 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/camlawsoc/?locale=en_GB

To find out more about CULS or to become a member, visit our website 📝

🎙️ Welcome to CULSCAST, the podcast from the Cambridge University Law Society — one of the world’s oldest and largest student-run societies, founded in 1901.

This is the first episode of our new season of CULSCAST Conversations, where we bring the Cambridge law community closer together through insightful and engaging discussions.

In this episode, we’re introducing the 2024–2025 CULS Committee! Join our new host, Janice, as she speaks with members of the Main Committee, including the heads of Pro Bono, Law Ball, Socials, and Careers, as well as our President, Jiwon. Together, they share their experiences, what inspired them to join CULS, and their vision for the year ahead — from academic opportunities to exciting social events.

This episode offers a behind-the-scenes look at the people who make CULS what it is: a dynamic, collaborative, and welcoming community for Cambridge law students. Whether you’re a fresher, a returning member, or simply curious about life at the Cambridge University Law Society, this conversation is the perfect place to start.

The host for today’s episode is Janice, a second-year undergraduate reading Law at Cambridge, and one of CULS’s newest podcast hosts for 2024–2025.

📍The contents of this episode were recorded at the Cambridge Law Faculty in October 2025.

A huge thank you to everyone who contributed to this episode.

Special thanks to: Shakti Jacota, Jign Hao Liang, Sophie Farr, Rishik Vishwanathan, Chloe Levieux, Cheyanne Owee, Alldon Tan, and Jiwon Heo for appearing in this episode and sharing their insights, experiences, and enthusiasm for the year ahead.

Follow us on our socials to stay up to date with all things CULS:

📸 Instagram: [@cambridgelawsociety]

📘 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/camlawsoc/?locale=en_GB

To find out more about CULS or to become a member, visit our website 📝

Website

Linktree

Lady Rose visited Cambridge on 3rd February 2025 at Newnham College, as a guest on the Cambridge University Law Society (CULS) Speaker programme. She spoke to CULS about her career, the landmark decisions she has contributed to since her appointment to the Supreme Court in 2021, and the functioning and evolving role of the Supreme Court.

Lady Rose was called to the Bar by Gray's Inn in 1984. She practised as a barrister for ten years before joining the Government Legal Service. She served in HM Treasury, the Ministry of Defence and the Office of Counsel to the Speaker of the House of Commons. In 2006 she was appointed to her first judicial role as a fee-paid Chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. She was appointed to further tribunal posts and became a Recorder in the Crown Court, Criminal jurisdiction in 2010. In May 2013 Dame Vivien was sworn in as a High Court Judge in the Chancery Division where she sat for over five years. She was appointed to the Court of Appeal in January 2019 and to the Supreme Court in April 2021.

In her role as a Justice of the Supreme Court, Lady Rose has been involved in a number of important cases across the range of the Court’s work from public law challenges concerning human rights and Scottish devolution issues, to tax cases and common law contract and tort cases.

Our introductory speakers in this episode are Joyce Mau (CULS President 2024-2025) and Kai Zhen Tek (CULS Speakers Secretary 2024-2025), who also organised the event.

The following cases are mentioned in this talk:

This episode was edited by Jiwon Heo (CULS Publicity Secretary 2024-2025).

Welcome to CULSCAST 🎙️, the new Podcast from the Cambridge University Law Society, one of the world’s oldest and largest student-run societies, founded in 1901.

This is Episode 3 of our ‘CULSCAST Conversations’ series, which aims to bring the Cambridge law community closer together through conversation. This episode covers studying, revision, and exam tips from top-performing Cambridge law students. Give our socials a follow to get regular updates on the wonderful CULS events happening throughout term!

To find out more about CULS or become a CULS member, visit our ⁠⁠website ⁠⁠📝.

About this episode:

The following is a list of our guests on this episode:

·      Ewan O’Mahony, a final-year undergraduate reading law at Queen’s College and Per Incuriam Editor-in-Chief 2024-2025;

·      Ben Mays, a final-year undergraduate reading law at Trinity College;

·      Qinglan Du, a final-year undergraduate reading law at Christ’s College; and

·      Brendan Mark, a second-year undergraduate reading law at Magdalene College.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this episode. Special thanks toDaniel Bates, Legal Research Training and Communications Specialist at the Cambridge Law Faculty, for his technical support and assistance in audio editing and production. Also special thanks to Per Incuriam deputy editor, Chloe Levieux, and Jessica Wong, CULS’s Publicity Freshers’ Representative for 2024-2025, who helped us analyse what questions our members had around the topics in this episode.

Professor Alison Young (Robinson College, Cambridge) tells us about a day in her life as newly appointed Law Commissioner and what the Law Commission does.

Dr Peter Candy (St Catharine's College, Cambridge) tells us about his love story with Roman Law - going from a Literature & History undergraduate degree to a PhD in Roman Law. He shares about his research on Roman Maritime Law, how that compares with modern maritime law, about Roman slavery and society before and after the rise of Christianity.

He also shares why he would not recommend swimming in the River Cam, about his favourite Roman jurist(s?), and a favourite bench in Cambridge.

Professor Findlay Stark (Jesus College, Cambridge) talks everything criminal law, from the substantive to the procedural. He shares what took him from a Scottish solicitors’ firm to going into academia.

Dr Raffael Fasel (Jesus College, Cambridge) speaks about his passion in conceptualising animal rights law, a rapidly evolving field. He also shares about his exciting journey studying the law, spanning Switzerland, the US and the UK.

Welcome to CULSCAST 🎙️ the new Podcast from the Cambridge University Law Society, one of the world’s oldest and largest student-run societies, founded in 1901.

Our Publicity team 📢 is very pleased to be debuting this new initiative, our ‘CULSCAST Conversations’ series, which aims to bring the Cambridge law community closer together through conversation. In addition to posting new content through our ‘CULSCAST Conversations’ and ‘Speakers Select’ series, we have made a collection of 2012-2023 CULS lectures and debates from our archives easily accessible. This collection covers a myriad of highly relevant discussion by leading academics and practitioners. For example: Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rwanda policy; Information Law in the Digital Revolution; Life at the Bar; and Litigating International Law.

Our Publicity team also runs CULS's socials. Give us a follow to get regular updates on the wonderful CULS events happening throughout term!

To find out more about CULS or become a CULS member, visit our ⁠⁠website⁠⁠📝

About this episode:

The following is a list of our guests on this episode:

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this episode. Special thanks toDaniel Bates, Legal Research Training and Communications Specialist at the Cambridge Law Faculty, for his technical support and assistance in audio editing and production.

 Disclaimer: The insights provided by our guests in this episode were drawn from their experiences of Assessment Centres/Vacation schemes at various firms, and are not specific to any particular firm.

Welcome to CULSCAST 🎙️ the new Podcast from the Cambridge University Law Society, one of the world’s oldest and largest student-run societies, founded in 1901.

Our Publicity team 📢 is very pleased to be debuting this new initiative, our ‘CULSCAST Conversations’ series, which aims to bring the Cambridge law community closer together through conversation. In addition to posting new content through our ‘CULSCAST Conversations’ and ‘Speakers Select’ series, we have made a collection of 2012-2023 CULS lectures and debates from our archives easily accessible. This collection covers a myriad of highly relevant discussion by leading academics and practitioners. For example: Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rwanda policy; Information Law in the Digital Revolution; Life at the Bar; and Litigating International Law.

Our Publicity team also runs CULS's socials. Give us a follow to get regular updates on the wonderful CULS events happening throughout term!

To find out more about CULS or become a CULS member, visit our ⁠⁠website⁠⁠ 📝

About this episode:

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this episode. The following is a list of our interviewees from our 2024-2025 CULS Committee:

Executive Team:

The Sixth Annual Wolfson Sir David Williams Law Society Event was held on 7 March 2026.

This Wolfson College Cambridge event featured two insightful panel discussions with distinguished law professionals; an afternoon tea and a formal dinner to conclude the day.

The event was primarily aimed at Wolfson Law and Criminology alumni, current students, and individuals working in the legal field.

Panel One: Environmental Regulation in the Era of Climate Change

Panel Two: Is the Architecture of International Justice under threat?

For more information see: https://www.wolfson.cam.ac.uk/about/events/sixth-annual-wolfson-sir-david-williams-law-society-event

The Sixth Annual Wolfson Sir David Williams Law Society Event was held on 7 March 2026.

This Wolfson College Cambridge event featured two insightful panel discussions with distinguished law professionals; an afternoon tea and a formal dinner to conclude the day.

The event was primarily aimed at Wolfson Law and Criminology alumni, current students, and individuals working in the legal field.

Panel One: Environmental Regulation in the Era of Climate Change

Panel Two: Is the Architecture of International Justice under threat?

For more information see: https://www.wolfson.cam.ac.uk/about/events/sixth-annual-wolfson-sir-david-williams-law-society-event

In this lecture, delivered at the 51st iteration of the Exploring Law Conference (ELC) at Cambridge, Lord Lloyd-Jones provides an expert overview of the United Kingdom's highest appellate bodies: the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Key themes from the address include:

Lord Lloyd-Jones concludes by encouraging the next generation of "high fliers" to pursue careers in the law, promising a rewarding and intellectually stimulating path.

For more information about the Conference, see:

https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/access-outreach/exploring-law-conference

On 28 March 2026 CELS held a seminar event on 'The Rule of Law as a (dis)unifying Value in the European Legal Order?'.

Among the rule of law's many virtues is its capacity to provide a framework for deliberating competing ideas of justice, fairness and equality. Yet a value once widely shared is now increasingly contested in both status and meaning. The Centre held this event to explore these and related questions.

The seminar was structured around four core sub-themes. Each of these will begin with a 20-minute presentation followed by a facilitated discussion:

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/activities-archive

On 28 March 2026 CELS held a seminar event on 'The Rule of Law as a (dis)unifying Value in the European Legal Order?'.

Among the rule of law's many virtues is its capacity to provide a framework for deliberating competing ideas of justice, fairness and equality. Yet a value once widely shared is now increasingly contested in both status and meaning. The Centre held this event to explore these and related questions.

The seminar was structured around four core sub-themes. Each of these will begin with a 20-minute presentation followed by a facilitated discussion:

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/activities-archive

On 28 March 2026 CELS held a seminar event on 'The Rule of Law as a (dis)unifying Value in the European Legal Order?'.

Among the rule of law's many virtues is its capacity to provide a framework for deliberating competing ideas of justice, fairness and equality. Yet a value once widely shared is now increasingly contested in both status and meaning. The Centre held this event to explore these and related questions.

The seminar was structured around four core sub-themes. Each of these will begin with a 20-minute presentation followed by a facilitated discussion:

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/activities-archive

On 28 March 2026 CELS held a seminar event on 'The Rule of Law as a (dis)unifying Value in the European Legal Order?'.

Among the rule of law's many virtues is its capacity to provide a framework for deliberating competing ideas of justice, fairness and equality. Yet a value once widely shared is now increasingly contested in both status and meaning. The Centre held this event to explore these and related questions.

The seminar was structured around four core sub-themes. Each of these will begin with a 20-minute presentation followed by a facilitated discussion:

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/activities-archive

Speaker: Professor Leah Grinwald (Dean and Richard J. Morgan Professor of Law, University of Nevada)

Session 3: Comparative Experience and Potential Reform

On Saturday 21 March 2026, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights'

In Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch), [63], Mellor J. observed

“IP rights, being monopolies of various sorts, are … justified in that their net benefit is in the public interest, with a view to fostering creativity and innovation. By corollary, where IP rights are abused to stifle creativity and innovation, the legal system ought to have the means to respond effectively.”

The statement raises three questions which are the subject of this conference: (i) when are IP rights to be regarded as “abused”? (ii) What mechanisms exist to respond to such abuses? And (iii) Does the legal system have sufficient mechanisms by which to “respond effectively”?

Programme:

Abuses (This session not recorded)

- Abuses of Trade Marks – Stuart Baran (3 New Square)

- Abuses of Designs – David Stone (White & Case)

- Abuse in FRAND Patent Litigation – Daniel Alexander KC (8 New Square)

Current Disinventives and Remedies

- Remedies for Abuses: Actions for Threats – Trevor Cook (Bird and Bird)

- Preventing Misuse of interim injunctions: The Cross-Undertaking - Dr Katarina Foss-Solbrekk (University of Copenhagen)

- Remedies for Abuses: The Role and Limits of Competition Law to Prevent Enforcement of Invalid IPRs– Dr Quentin Schaefer (11 South Square)

- Preventing Abuses: Ethical Obligations of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys – Phil Barnes (BarnesIP)

Comparative Experience and Potential Reform

- Does the UK Need a Distinct Doctrine of Abuse of Right? – Lessons from the Civil Law – Dr Amandine Leonard (University of Edinburgh)

- Abuse of IP Rights. Lessons from the United States? Professor Leah Grinwald (Dean and Richard J. Morgan Professor of Law, University of Nevada)

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Trevor Cook (Bird and Bird)

Full title: 'Does the UK Need a Distinct Doctrine of Abuse of Right? – Lessons from the Civil Law'

Session 3: Comparative Experience and Potential Reform

On Saturday 21 March 2026, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights'

In Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch), [63], Mellor J. observed

“IP rights, being monopolies of various sorts, are … justified in that their net benefit is in the public interest, with a view to fostering creativity and innovation. By corollary, where IP rights are abused to stifle creativity and innovation, the legal system ought to have the means to respond effectively.”

The statement raises three questions which are the subject of this conference: (i) when are IP rights to be regarded as “abused”? (ii) What mechanisms exist to respond to such abuses? And (iii) Does the legal system have sufficient mechanisms by which to “respond effectively”?

Programme:

Abuses (This session not recorded)

- Abuses of Trade Marks – Stuart Baran (3 New Square)

- Abuses of Designs – David Stone (White & Case)

- Abuse in FRAND Patent Litigation – Daniel Alexander KC (8 New Square)

Current Disinventives and Remedies

- Remedies for Abuses: Actions for Threats – Trevor Cook (Bird and Bird)

- Preventing Misuse of interim injunctions: The Cross-Undertaking - Dr Katarina Foss-Solbrekk (University of Copenhagen)

- Remedies for Abuses: The Role and Limits of Competition Law to Prevent Enforcement of Invalid IPRs– Dr Quentin Schaefer (11 South Square)

- Preventing Abuses: Ethical Obligations of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys – Phil Barnes (BarnesIP)

Comparative Experience and Potential Reform

- Does the UK Need a Distinct Doctrine of Abuse of Right? – Lessons from the Civil Law – Dr Amandine Leonard (University of Edinburgh)

- Abuse of IP Rights. Lessons from the United States? Professor Leah Grinwald (Dean and Richard J. Morgan Professor of Law, University of Nevada)

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Phil Barnes (BarnesIP)

Session 2: Current Disincentives and Remedies

On Saturday 21 March 2026, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights'

In Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch), [63], Mellor J. observed

“IP rights, being monopolies of various sorts, are … justified in that their net benefit is in the public interest, with a view to fostering creativity and innovation. By corollary, where IP rights are abused to stifle creativity and innovation, the legal system ought to have the means to respond effectively.”

The statement raises three questions which are the subject of this conference: (i) when are IP rights to be regarded as “abused”? (ii) What mechanisms exist to respond to such abuses? And (iii) Does the legal system have sufficient mechanisms by which to “respond effectively”?

Programme:

Abuses (This session not recorded)

- Abuses of Trade Marks – Stuart Baran (3 New Square)

- Abuses of Designs – David Stone (White & Case)

- Abuse in FRAND Patent Litigation – Daniel Alexander KC (8 New Square)

Current Disinventives and Remedies

- Remedies for Abuses: Actions for Threats – Trevor Cook (Bird and Bird)

- Preventing Misuse of interim injunctions: The Cross-Undertaking - Dr Katarina Foss-Solbrekk (University of Copenhagen)

- Remedies for Abuses: The Role and Limits of Competition Law to Prevent Enforcement of Invalid IPRs– Dr Quentin Schaefer (11 South Square)

- Preventing Abuses: Ethical Obligations of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys – Phil Barnes (BarnesIP)

Comparative Experience and Potential Reform

- Does the UK Need a Distinct Doctrine of Abuse of Right? – Lessons from the Civil Law – Dr Amandine Leonard (University of Edinburgh)

- Abuse of IP Rights. Lessons from the United States? Professor Leah Grinwald (Dean and Richard J. Morgan Professor of Law, University of Nevada)

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Trevor Cook (Bird and Bird)

Session 2: Current Disincentives and Remedies

On Saturday 21 March 2026, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights'

In Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch), [63], Mellor J. observed

“IP rights, being monopolies of various sorts, are … justified in that their net benefit is in the public interest, with a view to fostering creativity and innovation. By corollary, where IP rights are abused to stifle creativity and innovation, the legal system ought to have the means to respond effectively.”

The statement raises three questions which are the subject of this conference: (i) when are IP rights to be regarded as “abused”? (ii) What mechanisms exist to respond to such abuses? And (iii) Does the legal system have sufficient mechanisms by which to “respond effectively”?

Programme:

Abuses (This session not recorded)

- Abuses of Trade Marks – Stuart Baran (3 New Square)

- Abuses of Designs – David Stone (White & Case)

- Abuse in FRAND Patent Litigation – Daniel Alexander KC (8 New Square)

Current Disinventives and Remedies

- Remedies for Abuses: Actions for Threats – Trevor Cook (Bird and Bird)

- Preventing Misuse of interim injunctions: The Cross-Undertaking - Dr Katarina Foss-Solbrekk (University of Copenhagen)

- Remedies for Abuses: The Role and Limits of Competition Law to Prevent Enforcement of Invalid IPRs– Dr Quentin Schaefer (11 South Square)

- Preventing Abuses: Ethical Obligations of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys – Phil Barnes (BarnesIP)

Comparative Experience and Potential Reform

- Does the UK Need a Distinct Doctrine of Abuse of Right? – Lessons from the Civil Law – Dr Amandine Leonard (University of Edinburgh)

- Abuse of IP Rights. Lessons from the United States? Professor Leah Grinwald (Dean and Richard J. Morgan Professor of Law, University of Nevada)

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Dr Katarina Foss-Solbrekk (University of Copenhagen)

Session 2: Current Disincentives and Remedies

On Saturday 21 March 2026, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights'

In Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch), [63], Mellor J. observed

“IP rights, being monopolies of various sorts, are … justified in that their net benefit is in the public interest, with a view to fostering creativity and innovation. By corollary, where IP rights are abused to stifle creativity and innovation, the legal system ought to have the means to respond effectively.”

The statement raises three questions which are the subject of this conference: (i) when are IP rights to be regarded as “abused”? (ii) What mechanisms exist to respond to such abuses? And (iii) Does the legal system have sufficient mechanisms by which to “respond effectively”?

Programme:

Abuses (This session not recorded)

- Abuses of Trade Marks – Stuart Baran (3 New Square)

- Abuses of Designs – David Stone (White & Case)

- Abuse in FRAND Patent Litigation – Daniel Alexander KC (8 New Square)

Current Disinventives and Remedies

- Remedies for Abuses: Actions for Threats – Trevor Cook (Bird and Bird)

- Preventing Misuse of interim injunctions: The Cross-Undertaking - Dr Katarina Foss-Solbrekk (University of Copenhagen)

- Remedies for Abuses: The Role and Limits of Competition Law to Prevent Enforcement of Invalid IPRs– Dr Quentin Schaefer (11 South Square)

- Preventing Abuses: Ethical Obligations of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys – Phil Barnes (BarnesIP)

Comparative Experience and Potential Reform

- Does the UK Need a Distinct Doctrine of Abuse of Right? – Lessons from the Civil Law – Dr Amandine Leonard (University of Edinburgh)

- Abuse of IP Rights. Lessons from the United States? Professor Leah Grinwald (Dean and Richard J. Morgan Professor of Law, University of Nevada)

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

Speaker: Dr Quentin Schaefer (11 South Square)

Session 2: Current Disincentives and Remedies

On Saturday 21 March 2026, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights'

In Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch), [63], Mellor J. observed

“IP rights, being monopolies of various sorts, are … justified in that their net benefit is in the public interest, with a view to fostering creativity and innovation. By corollary, where IP rights are abused to stifle creativity and innovation, the legal system ought to have the means to respond effectively.”

The statement raises three questions which are the subject of this conference: (i) when are IP rights to be regarded as “abused”? (ii) What mechanisms exist to respond to such abuses? And (iii) Does the legal system have sufficient mechanisms by which to “respond effectively”?

Programme:

Abuses (This session not recorded)

- Abuses of Trade Marks – Stuart Baran (3 New Square)

- Abuses of Designs – David Stone (White & Case)

- Abuse in FRAND Patent Litigation – Daniel Alexander KC (8 New Square)

Current Disinventives and Remedies

- Remedies for Abuses: Actions for Threats – Trevor Cook (Bird and Bird)

- Preventing Misuse of interim injunctions: The Cross-Undertaking - Dr Katarina Foss-Solbrekk (University of Copenhagen)

- Remedies for Abuses: The Role and Limits of Competition Law to Prevent Enforcement of Invalid IPRs– Dr Quentin Schaefer (11 South Square)

- Preventing Abuses: Ethical Obligations of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys – Phil Barnes (BarnesIP)

Comparative Experience and Potential Reform

- Does the UK Need a Distinct Doctrine of Abuse of Right? – Lessons from the Civil Law – Dr Amandine Leonard (University of Edinburgh)

- Abuse of IP Rights. Lessons from the United States? Professor Leah Grinwald (Dean and Richard J. Morgan Professor of Law, University of Nevada)

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference

The nineteenth Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture was delivered by Professor Ruth Okediji, Jeremiah Smith. Jr, Professor of Law; Faculty Co-Director, Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University on Tuesday 17 March 2026.

The lecture entitled 'Thirty Plus One: TRIPS, Innovation, and the Political Future of Minimum IP Standards' took place at Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/

Speaker:Professor William J. Magnuson (Professor of Law, Texas A&M University School of Law)

Abstract:A remarkable transformation is taking place in our financial markets. The rise of machine learning algorithms and other artificial intelligence models has rapidly overtaken older methods of financial decisionmaking, and the consequences of the revolution are beginning to be felt across the capital markets ecosystem, from stock exchanges to derivatives markets to currency trading. These new technologies offer great promise, including more accurate prices, faster transactions and more efficient trading. But they also create risks. From flash crashes to insider trading algorithms to adversarial attacks, artificial intelligence presents a range of unique vulnerabilities that could lead to significant and wide-ranging harm to our financial system. Legal frameworks devised to structure and constrain financial institutions, in turn, are ill-equipped to deal with these harms because they were designed based on outdated assumptions about the structure of markets, as well as the nature of its primary actors. This Article offers the first comprehensive account of the economic, political and legal consequences of the rise of artificially intelligent markets. It demonstrates how the major driver of this shift has been the hedge fund industry, an opaque and lightly regulated sector of the financial ecosystem that has long been an early-adopter of financial technology. It concludes by proposing a series of escalating regulatory reforms that might better fit financial regulation to our new artificially intelligent markets.

William Magnuson is a professor at Texas A&M Law School, where he teaches corporate law. Prior to joining Texas A&M, he taught law at Harvard, worked as an associate in the mergers and acquisitions group of Sullivan & Cromwell, and served as a journalist in the Rome bureau of the Washington Post. He is the author of For Profit: A History of Corporations (Basic Books, 2022) and Blockchain Democracy: Technology, Law and the Rule of the Crowd (Cambridge University Press, 2020). His work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, the L.A. Times, and Bloomberg. He holds a B.A. from Princeton University, a J.D. from Harvard Law School, and an M.A. from the University of Padua.

3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.

For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:

http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

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

Speaker: Associate Professor David A. Simon, Northeastern University School of Law

Biography: David A. Simon, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Law, where he teaches courses on tort law, administrative law, and drug & device regulation. Professor Simon’s research focuses on innovation in healthcare, with an emphasis on drugs and devices. His work has appeared or will appear in a variety of publications, including the Texas Law Review, the Boston College Law Review, the Emory Law Journal, the Georgia Law Review, the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, the Journal of Law & the Biosciences, JAMA, Nature Biotechnology and the Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics. A complete list of Dr. Simon’s publications is available on his CV . Professor Simon is the Principal Investigator on the Project on Medical Device Safety and co-director of the Amy J. Reed Collaborative for Medical Device Safety, funded by Arnold Ventures. He is also a member of the UIUC CLASSICA research team, a project funded by the European Union. He has previously served on the faculties of Harvard Law School, George Washington University Law School, and the University of Kansas School of Law. During histime at Harvard Law School, he led a three-year project at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics dubbed Diagnosing in the Home: The Ethical, Legal, and Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities of Digital Home Health, and funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Professor Simon is also a founder of two nonprofits—Harmed Americans for Reform in Medical-Device Safety and Project TCF20—and a practicing member of the Illinois and Massachusetts Bars.

Abstract: Copyright law grants authors special non-economic “moral rights” to prevent others from using their works in certain ways. In their strongest “solipsistic” form, moral rights give the author the absolute power to prevent any use that offends her sensibilities. While the solipsistic view of moral rights exists in only a few countries, the sentiment underlying it is pervasive in moral rights theory: an author’s claims are superior to all others because only the author knows when harm occurs, regardless of others’ views. In other words, certain uses of works result in the author experiencing harm that no one else can experience and that does not depend on what others think. This Article asks and evaluates the following question: can harm based only on the author’s subjective experience justify solipsistic moral rights?

It argues that the answer is probably not—and that, if supported, solipsistic moral rights will be tightly limited. Drawing on literature in science fiction and philosophy, this Article. contends that the best justification for the monastic view is also the most implausible: authors have moral rights only when another’s use causes the author to experience an inconsistency between her perceived use of the work and her memories of creating the work. In short, an author’s rights are contingent on her ability to remember creating her work. This is the best justification because the author’s memories of creating the work satisfy all the requirements for authorial harm: it identifies discrete psychological states that are tied directly and only to the author’s acts of creation, independent of others’ perceptions. It is the least plausible, however, because it conditions important rights on one’s ability to remember past actions. Despite its seeming implausibility, the author’s memories of creation provide the best support for grounding monastic moral rights. As a consequence, the case for monastic moral rights, if it can be made, is tightly limited to cases where another’s use of an author’s work causes a negative psychological response directly tied to the author’s memories of creating the work.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

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.

Speaker: Professor Niamh Dunne, LSE

Biography: Niamh Dunne is a professor at the Law School of the London School of Economics, where she teaches and researches in competition law.

Abstract: Is it possible to reconcile the competing visions of what constitutes ‘effective’ abuse of dominance enforcement that emerge from the contemporary jurisprudence of the Commission and the Court of Justice? Article 102 has been a focal point for efforts both to modernise but also to render more effective the application of EU competition law, with different strands of recent case law emphasising the pursuit of market efficiency, the protection of equality of market access, and the prevention of exploitation by dominant undertakings. This presentation will explore the coherence of these developments, and consider whether this question matters in light of the Commission’s stated objective of achieving ‘a robust enforcement’ of Article 102.

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

On 6 March 2026 Professor Susan Bright (University of Oxford) delivered the 2026 XXIV Old Buildings Lecture entitled "New Housing, Old Rules: Can Land Law Keep up?".

In recent years, more than 80% of new housing estates developed by large housebuilders include amenities that are not adopted by the relevant statutory bodies. As a result, roads, public play areas, drainage systems, and other shared facilities are maintained by private management companies, with the costs passed on to homeowners. Yet, as Lord Templeman famously observed in Rhone v Stephens (1994), every student of real property law learns at an early stage that positive covenants affecting freehold land do not run with the land and are enforceable only against the original covenantor. How, then, are successive homeowners made to contribute to these ongoing obligations?

This lecture examines the 'ways and means' employed by conveyancers to ensure that such covenants bind successors in title and evaluates whether these mechanisms achieve satisfactory outcomes, both in terms of legal effectiveness and their broader implications for contemporary notions of homeownership.

Timings:

Professor Graham Virgo - Introduction: 00:00Professor Susan Bright: 01:31

The XXIV Old Buildings Lecture is an annual address delivered by a guest of the Cambridge Private Law Centre, and the event is sponsored by XXIV Old Buildings.

More information about this lecture is available from the Private Law Centre website:

https://www.privatelaw.law.cam.ac.uk/events

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.

Speaker: Dr Christopher Stothers, Partner at Freshfields in London and Dublin

Biography: Christopher Stothers is a partner at Freshfields in London and Dublin and an experienced patent litigator, managing strategic, cross-border disputes around Europe and beyond for over 20 years. He has acted as a legal practitioner in many oppositions and appeals before the European Patent Office and as a UPC Representative in several local divisions and the Court of Appeal. He supervised IP students at Downing and St Catharine’s between 2004-2007, and since then has taught part-time at UCL where he is an Honorary Professor of Practice.

Abstract: International patent law has undergone piecemeal harmonisation over many years, from WIPO’s Paris Convention of 1883 through the Strasbourg Convention of 1963, the Patent Cooperation Treaty of 1970, the European Patent Convention of 1973, the (never ratified) Community Patent Conventions of 1975 and 1989, the TRIPS Agreement of 1994, the London Agreement of 2000 and the UPC Agreement of 2013. Despite these efforts, patent porfolios are typically still maintained and enforced on a strategic territorial basis, which in bigger cases often leads to cross-border disputes, particularly over standard essential patents and important pharmaceutical patents. The last decade has seen the re-emergence of cross-border enforcement by courts, including retaliatory anti-suit, anti-anti-suit, anti-enforcement and now anti-interim licence injunctions. Christopher has been involved in cross-border patent enforcement for over 20 years and will talk about the changes he has seen (and what is coming in the future).

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Luca Sicignano (Lecturer in Business Law at the University of Naples L’Orientale)

Abstract: The effectiveness of corporate restructuring plans largely relies on solutions shared as widely as possible among relevant stakeholders. This explains the worldwide spread of procedures that presuppose a negotiation phase and the attainment of genuine agreements among all stakeholders involved, or at least among the majority of them. However, following Directive (EU) 2019/1023, the widespread introduction of cross-class cram-down mechanisms and more flexible value-allocation rules (the Relative Priority Rule), has profoundly altered the incentives that structure these negotiations. Through a comparative analysis of the main European systems, the paper shows that these tools - originally conceived to prevent opportunistic holdouts - often weaken the search for genuinely consensual solutions and encourage the formation of narrow negotiating coalitions that ultimately impose their preferred outcomes on dissenting creditors. This paper seeks to highlight the modern paradox (the so-called “imposed bargain”) represented by the spread of imposed plans and to investigate the motivations that are likely driving the growing reliance on non-consensual tools for resolving corporate distress.

Luca Sicignano is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Business Law at the University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” and a Lecturer in Business Law at the University of Naples “L’Orientale”. He graduated from Luiss “Guido Carli” University in Rome in 2017, where he currently serves as a Teaching Assistant. In 2022, he obtained a Ph.D. in Business Law and was admitted to the Italian Bar following a judicial clerkship at the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Appeal of Rome. He has held visiting research positions at the University of Cambridge, the University of Vienna, and the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, and has undertaken repeated research stays at the Institute for Comparative Law of Heidelberg University. During the academic year 2023–2024, he served as a Lecturer at Heidelberg University, teaching Introduction to Italian Company Law. His research focuses on Business Law, with particular emphasis on corporate, financial and insolvency law. He has authored over 25 publications in Italian and international journals and has presented his research at conferences in Dublin and Dubrovnik. He serves on the editorial board of Banca, Borsa e Titoli di Credito and is a member of the European Law Institute (ELI) and the Young Scholars section of the European Society for Banking and Financial Law (AEDBF).

3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.

For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:

http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

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: Professor Morten Rasmussen, University of Copenhagen

Biography: Morten Rasmussen is Associate Professor at the SAXO Institute, University of Copenhagen and a leading expert on the legal histories of European integration and the League of Nations. He has published numerous articles and book chapters on these topics. The most recent publication is a general history of early period of European Union Law from 1950 to 1993. He is currently co-editing a Cambridge Handbook of the League of Nations and international law.

Abstract: Professor Rasmussen will present on his forthcoming publication 'The History of European Union Law - Constitutional Practice, 1950 to 1993'. The formative period of EU law witnessed an intense struggle over the emergence of a constitutional practice. While the supranational institutions, including the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament, as well as EU law academics helped to develop and promote the constitutional practice, member state governments and judiciaries were generally reluctant to embrace it. The struggle resulted in an uneasy stalemate in which the constitutional practice was allowed to influence the doctrines, shape and functioning of the European legal order that now underpins the EU, but a majority of member state governments rejected European constitutionalism as the legitimating principle of the new EU formed on basis of the Treaty of Maastricht (1992). The lecture traces the struggle and accounts for eventual stalemate over the constitutional practice and the fragile and partial system of rule of law that exists in the EU today.

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker:Professor Dirk Andreas Zetzsche (Professor of Financial Law, University of Luxembourg)

Abstract:Sustainability-oriented investors want to pay for impact, not compliance. We analyse the regulatory challenges and opportunities of impact investing. We find that advancing impact investing requires a departure from the EU Sustainable Finance Framework's (EUSFF) prevailing input-orientation and an adjustment of EU asset-management law towards an EU Impact Finance Framework.

In its current form, the EUSFF over-emphasises exclusion, using rule-based ex ante definitions of sustainable business (herein termed input). If a large share of global capital follows these rules, unsustainable firms’ capital costs will increase, furthering innovation of sustainable alternatives. However, the EUSFF alone cannot prevent global capital flows into unsustainable investments, and non-EU countries follow different approaches. Although the EUSFF encourages, in effect, the sale of unsustainable EU businesses to non-EU firms, its input orientation has not helped the planet: the same activities continue elsewhere, often under weaker environmental and social standards, leaving the planet worse off. Further, the EUSFF’s disregard for proven ex post impacts risks large-scale capital misallocation and “impact washing”. Worse, the input focus comes at the cost of investments paired with audited evidence of positive ESG impacts ex post.

We argue for shifting EU financial regulation from input to (proven) impact. Yet, rather than adding a new product category, we propose recognising positive impacts through five fine-tuned steps that simplify EU financial regulation, taking into account regulatory developments in the United Kingdom and Switzerland. These include abolishing the link between “do no significant harm” under the Taxonomy Regulation and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, simplified reporting aligned with product materials and the emerging IFRS Disclosure Standards, introducing a new proportionality threshold for mid-sized AIFMs, and revising ESMA’s rules on fund names.

Professor Zetzsche is Professor of Financial Law at the University of Luxembourg where he has held the ADA Chair in Financial Law (inclusive finance) since March 2016 and functions as the Head of the Department of Law since 2024. He is also coordinator of the Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance's House of Sustainable Governance & Markets and Co-PI of the Future FinTech National Centre of Excellence in Research and Innovation.

Professor Zetzsche has published more than 400 publications on inclusive and sustainable finance, corporate governance, FinTech and RegTech, and collective investment schemes. He has spoken at most of the leading universities globally and has advised many of the major regulators, eg the FSB, the BIS, the Basel Committee, the European Commission, the European Parliament, ESMA, EBA, the ESRB and the US SEC. In February 2023, he made the case for financial inclusion at the United Nations Social Commission, and spoke on inclusive and sustainable finance at COP27, 28, 29 and 30.

Professor Zetzsche's paper Towards an EU Impact Investing Framework is available on SSRN.

3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.

For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:

http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

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: Professor Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen, UIB, Norway

Biography: Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen is professor of European law at the University of Bergen, Norway. Besides his Norwegian law degree, he holds the degrees of Mag.Jur. and Dr.Jur. from the University of Göttingen (Germany) as well as a PhD from the University of Bergen. Member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. Co-Director of the Bergen Centre of the Europeanization of Norwegian law. Editor-in-chief of the Norwegian Law Journal. Member of the 2022-2024 ‘EEA Review Committee’ that assed Norway’s current affiliation to the European Union.

Abstract: For more than three decades, the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) has integrated Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway into the better part of the EU internal market. Over the years, the Agreement has been supplemented by numerous other agreements between Norway and the EU, creating a complex patchwork of agreements commonly referred to as ‘the Norway model’. Notwithstanding the model’s democratic problems, the general view in Norway is that it has worked well as a compromise between those in favour of membership of the Union and those very much opposed to this idea. However, the EU’s strive for ‘strategic autonomy’ in the current geopolitical situation makes it more complicated to remain part of the internal market without being part of the customs union and the common commercial policy. The seminar will discuss the legal challenges confronting ‘the Norway model’ as well as possible remedies.

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-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.

Speaker: Dr Svitlana Lebedenko, Assistant Professor at the University of Warwick and part-time Assistant Professor at the European University Institute.

Biography: Dr Svitlana Lebedenko specialises in innovation and industrial policy, law and technology, and intellectual property law. She is currently an Assistant Professor in the School of Law at the University of Warwick and a part-time Assistant Professor at the European University Institute, contributing to the Global Governance Programme of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. Previously, she was a Hauser Global Fellow at New York University School of Law's Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy, a Max Weber Fellow at the European University Institute, a Research Fellow at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, and a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Copenhagen's Center for Advanced Studies in Bioscience Innovation Law. Her first book, Russian Innovation and Intellectual Property: From Communism to Capitalism, is forthcoming with Cambridge University Press in 2026.

Abstract: Intellectual property has mainly been studied from the institutional and systems perspectives. While both have produced useful insights, neither really explains the spread of intellectual property, which, despite its numerous institutional failures, has never been rolled back. The talk introduces a technology perspective on intellectual property to provide a macro-level explanation of this phenomenon of resilience. Two propositions arise from conceptualising intellectual property as a technology. First, the efficiency and neutrality theses of technology serve as intellectual property anchors. Second, the evolutionary nature of technology means that changes to the tools of knowledge governance that may occur are likely to be bound by the limits of the dominant technological (intellectual property) paradigm. The talk will conclude by considering the descriptive and normative value of this technology perspective.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker:Dr Clara Martins Pereira (Associate Professor of Financial Law, University of Durham)

Abstract:The increasing use of AI in finance is predicted to have mixed impact on financial stability: while AI can be used to help financial institutions and supervisors identify, manage, and monitor systemic risk, it can also increase the frequency and severity of crises by exacerbating existing vulnerability channels. Under the UK’s technology-agnostic approach to AI, algorithmic technologies are primarily governed through existing sectoral frameworks rather than bespoke regulation. I argue that this approach might be insufficient to mitigate their negative impact on financial stability. The features that separate AI from other technologies—opacity, autonomy, and adaptability—make existing regulatory frameworks and architectures a poor fit for tackling the financial systemic risk created by AI. Disclosure rules are undermined by ‘black box’ opacity and the unpredictability of autonomous algorithm-algorithm interactions, while ex-ante testing struggles to predict endogenous risks arising from those interactions and their systemic impact. Crucially, model risk management and operational resilience frameworks, often calibrated for acute disruptions and focused on individual firms, are ill-equipped to ensure systemic resilience when AI models drift in similar ways. The article concludes that mitigating the risks of AI for financial stability calls for a purposeful change towards specialised algorithmic governance rules, and a review of supervision and enforcement practices.

Dr Clara Martins Pereira is Associate Professor of Financial Law and Director for International Development at Durham Law School, Invited Professor at Católica Lisbon School of Law, and Global Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame. Her research focuses on financial law and regulation, technological innovation, and sustainable development. Clara holds a DPhil, MPhil, and Magister Juris from the University of Oxford, as well as an MSc in Law and Business and an LLB from Católica Lisbon. She has held academic roles at King’s College London, the University of Oxford, and the LSE, and served as a Visiting Scholar at Columbia Law School, Sapienza University of Rome, and the Max Planck Institute, among others. Formerly a capital markets lawyer at PLMJ, she has also acted as a consultant for organisations such as the World Bank and ICF.

3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.

For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:

http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

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.

Speaker: Dr Poorna Mysoor, CIPIL, University of Cambridge

Biography: Dr Poorna Mysoor is a Fellow in Law at Lucy Cavendish College, University of Cambridge. She was a Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellow at Oxford Law Faculty. She is the author of two books, Copyright as Personal Property (2025) and Implied Licences in Copyright Law (2021), both published with Oxford University Press, and of other peer reviewed journals articles. Poorna obtained her undergraduate law degree at NLSIU, Bangalore, LLM from SOAS, University of London and DPhil from Oxford Law Faculty. Before embarking on her doctorate, Poorna practised intellectual property law for several years in Hong Kong and was a litigator in India.

Abstract: Many scholars argue that recognising copyright as a property right leads to expansion. The argument is that property rights empower the owners disproportionately with little regard to the interests of other stakeholders. In this presentation the speaker seeks not only to debunk this argument to show instead the limiting role played by property rights and its impact on copyright. Drawing from her recently published monograph, ‘Copyright as Personal Property’ the speaker will put forward relevant analogies from land law and personal property law in support of her arguments. She seeks to demonstrate tat copyright expansion can indeed be reined in by adopting, and not disregarding, the property framework in the characterisation of copyright.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker:Professor Jon Penney (Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto)

In this talk, Jon Penney explores key themes from his new book Chilling Effects: Repression, Conformity, and Power in the Digital Age (Cambridge University Press, 2025), which examines the increasing weaponization of surveillance, censorship, and new technology to repress and control us. With corporations, governments, and extremists employing big data, artificial intelligence, FRT, cyber-mobs, and other technological threats to limit our rights and freedoms, concerns about chilling effects—or how these activities deter us from exercising our rights—have become urgent. Penney draws on law, privacy theory, and social science to present a new conformity theory that highlights the dangers of chilling effects and their potential to erode democracy and enable a more illiberal future. Following the book’s urgent and timely message, he sheds light on the repressive and conforming effects of technology, state, and corporate power and offers a roadmap of how to respond to their weaponization today and tomorrow.

Biography:Jon Penney is a legal scholar and social scientist at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, where he is an Associate Professor and holds the York Research Chair in Artificial Intelligence, Data Governance, and the Law. He is also a Faculty Associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab. His award-winning research on privacy, technology, and human rights has received national and international attention, including coverage in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Reuters International, The Guardian, and Le Monde, among others, and has been profiled in WIRED and Harvard Magazine.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

https://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/

Speaker: Tim Pitt-Payne KC, 11 Kings Bench Walk

Biography: Timothy Pitt-Payne KC is a leading information law silk based at 11KBW where he has practiced since 1990. He was appointed QC/KC in 2010. His information law practice involves both litigation and advisory work in data protection, freedom of information, access to environmental information, RIPA, human rights issues, privacy, and breach of confidence. His clients have included commercial organisations, the Information Commissioner, numerous regulators, NHS bodies, local authorities, Universities, and private individuals. He has extensive advocacy experience in information law, at all levels from the First-tier Tribunal to the Supreme Court. In addition to information law, he is also active in both public law and employment law.

Abstract: Article 22 of the UK GDPR prohibits certain forms of decision-making based solely on automated processing of personal data. This presentation considers the significance, scope, meaning and justification of Article 22 (as recently amended by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025). It argues that the provision should remain as part of the UK GDPR, although its scope may require modification. The provision is an outlier within the UK GDPR, in that it is focused specifically on decision-making, rather than on the full range of ways in which personal data can be processed. It applies to decision-makers in both the public and private sector. Much of the debate about the implications of automated decision-making has been focused on decision-making by judges or by public authorities; Article 22 is much wider in scope, with extensive impact on the private sector. I address some of the interpretative difficulties raised by Article 22. For instance, what minimum level of human involvement is required by Article 22? To what extent are any interpretative difficulties resolved by the recent amendments? In relation to the justification for Article 22, I assess possible arguments based on transparency, bias, responsiveness to individual circumstances, and risks of error. I argue that the most convincing justification is based on non-consequentialist arguments broadly relating to human dignity, founded on claims about inherent differences between human and machine capabilities.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS), The Centre for Public Law (CPL) and the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law (LCIL) held a roundtable event on 'The Future of the European Convention on Human Rights in the United Kingdom' on 21 February 2026.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) remains one of the most significant instruments of human rights protection in Europe. Yet in the United Kingdom, its place in the constitutional order is increasingly contested. Political debate has raised questions about the appropriateness of the ECHR's reach, its domestic incorporation through the Human Rights Act 1998, and the proper balance between parliamentary sovereignty and Strasbourg supervision.

The aim of this roundtable was to bring together Cambridge academics to consider possible trajectories for reform and the mechanisms to achieve this. The discussion provided a space not only for doctrinal and legal analysis but also for assessing political realities and potential path. The roundtable started from the perspective that there is a perception, very strong in some quarters, that the ECHR is not fit for purpose.

Chair: Catherine Barnard

Nabil KhabirpourJan KlabbersMarcus Gehring

Chair: Sandesh Sivakumaran

Darren PetersonStevie Martin

For further information:

CELS: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/

CPL: https://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/

LCIL: https://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/

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.

Convenors: Professor Louise Gullifer (University of Cambridge) and Associate Professor Dora Neo (National University of Singapore)

Speakers:

The edited volume of essays Secured Transactions Law in Asia: Principles, Perspectives and Reform(Hart Publishing, 2021) provided an in-depth exploration of secured transactions law in thirteen civil law and common law jurisdictions in Asia. A varied picture emerged. While the law in some jurisdictions had already been reformed to conform largely with the principles reflected in modern personal property security statutes and international codifications such as the UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions, there were jurisdictions that were in the process of undergoing secured transactions law reform, as well as those in which no particular attention was being paid to reforming the law.

In this webinar, the editors of the volume, Professor Louise Gullifer and Associate Professor Dora Neo, bring together some of its contributors for an update of significant developments in secured transactions law that have taken place since its publication. Jurisdictions that are discussed include China, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh and India.

3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.

For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:

http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

A panel discussion on the Employment Rights Bill held at the Faculty of Law on 4 December 2025.

Lord (John) Hendy KC and Councillor Nick Denys from the Law Society shared their insights on the parliamentary process, the merits (and weaknesses) of the ERB, and its (practical) future once it is voted into law.

The development of this rather complex piece of legislation has been complicated and the interaction between the Lords and the Commons intense.

Professor Catherine Barnard chaired the session, with an additional contribution from Dr Fotis Vergis.

Case C-181/23 Commission v Malta (investor citizenship) is one of the most important decisions the Court has handed down on EU citizenship. It is of significant interest not just because of the issues raised, but because of the reasoning of the Court and the Court’s view of citizenship in the EU legal order. This seminar provides the opportunity to hear from both those closest to the decision and academic commentators on their assessment of this momentous decision.

Chair: Professor Catherine Barnard, University of Cambridge 

Discussants: 

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Associate Professor Aurelio Gurrea-Martínez (Singapore Management University)

Abstract: Despite the influence of the Global North in many insolvency laws and practices in the Global South, this article shows that the Global South has innovated in many aspects of insolvency law. In some cases, these innovations consist of solutions that, with certain adjustments, have been imported from the Global North. In others, they are really ‘autochthonous innovations’ from the Global South. This article identifies both types of innovations, providing examples from jurisdictions such as Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Myanmar, Peru, Philippines, Thailand and Uruguay. More importantly, it will be shown how those innovations from the Global South can help mitigate certain problems existing in many insolvency systems in the Global North, such as the excessive power of DIP lenders often observed in the United States, the lengthy and inefficient insolvency proceedings found in many European countries, the unattractive insolvency regime for debtors existing in countries like Australia and New Zealand, and the stigma of insolvency still observed in most jurisdictions around the world, including advanced economies with sophisticated insolvency frameworks such as Singapore. Therefore, whether it is for the much-needed purpose of improving the design of insolvency law in the Global South, or at least for expanding the universe of ideas that can help improve many insolvency systems in the Global North, the Global South – and the Global South beyond India and China – needs to be more actively included in the study of insolvency law. Otherwise, we will be missing the opportunity to learn from many ideas and innovative solutions that can contribute to the improvement and understanding of insolvency systems around the world.

3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.

For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:

http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

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.

On Friday 28 November 2025, The Professor Trevor Allan FBA delivered the 202 Sir David Williams Lecture entitled "Neither Parliamentary Sovereignty nor Judicial Supremacy: The Rule of Law as the Rule of Common Right and Reason".

The lecture begins at: 07:27

The Sir David Williams Lecture is an annual address delivered by a guest lecturer in honour of Sir David Williams, Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of English Law and Emeritus Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University.

More information about this lecture, including photographs from the event, is available from the Centre for Public Law website at:

https://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/sir-david-williams-lectures

Speaker: Professor Daniele Gallo, Luiss University, Italy

Abstract: The seminar, building upon Professor Gallo’s book, Direct Effect in EU Law (EU Law Library Series, OUP, 2025), will explore the uneasy trajectories of a transformative doctrine such as direct effect. By reassessing both the present and future of this legal and political construct, it will argue that such chameleon-like principle has evolved into a broader legal category than it was at the outset of the European integration process and that this development has been only partially captured by the CJEU. In doing so, Professor Gallo will revisit the no horizontal direct effect rule of contemporary directives and argue for its overcoming in light of the text, scope, and objectives of legal acts that are substantially different from those envisaged by Article 288 TFEU.

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Is modern left-wing progressive politics to blame for the current rise of the far-right?

This event was held by the Cambridge University Human Rights Law Society (CUHRLS) and Clare Politics Society, who hosted renowned human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, best known for his decades-long work with LGBTQ+ and other global social justice movements which has shaped contemporary activism. Peter discussed the rising tide of the far right and why progressive politics has struggled to stem this tide and safeguard human rights in response.

Peter Tatchell is one of the UK’s best-known human rights campaigners, with more than fifty years of work across LGBTQ+ rights, anti-racism, democracy, and social justice. Throughout his career he has taken on governments and institutions around the world, often using bold direct action to highlight abuses and push for reform: he helped found ‘OutRage!' in the 1990s and most recently leads the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

For more on Clare Politics Society see their Instgram page. For CUHRLS see their Instagram page.

On 25 November 2025 Dr Susanne Brand delivered the CELH annual lecture on the topic 'Outlawry and its Consequences in Later Medieval English Law and Practice'.

The Centre for English Legal History (CELH) was formally established in 2016 to provide a hub for researchers working in legal history across the University of Cambridge. The Centre holds regular seminars during academic terms, and an annual centrepiece lecture.

To find out more, and download the accompanying presentation, please refer to:

http://www.celh.law.cam.ac.uk/lectures

Speaker: Professor Catherine Malecki (University of Rennes)

Even in the context of the future EU Omnibus Package and the EU Directive n°2025/794 of 14 April 2025 'Stop-the-Clock', Companies and there directors must face an increasing climate litigation and this change cannot go back 20 years of progress in Sustainable Corporate Governance which is on the way on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean and in Asia. Indeed, the European Commission has been releasing innovative and often complex regulations at a breakneck speed since 2018 (CSRD, CS3D, Taxonomy, to name a few) and it would be inconceivable to come back to 2001 at the time of the first European Recommendation on CSR and to ignore the EU Green Deal of 2019.

Directors have to take into account negatives externalities and stringent obligations such as the Transition Plans. Even if the the next generation of sustainable board directors is well aware of Climate risks, several questions may arise : is there a need to reshape the board despite the EU Directive WoB Women in board of 23 November 2022? What about the pressure of the Stakeholders and the pressure of the Sustainable Strategy ? In France, in the wake of the Due Diligence Law of 27 March 2017, climate litigation is also increasing (for example TotalEnergies, CA Paris, 18 June 2024) and France was the first State Member for having implemented the CSRD in December 2023. Didn't all this happen too quickly ? Can we stop European time when tackling Climate change is rather a race against time? La Fontaine famous fable " the Hare and the Tortoise" is full of wisdom.

Biography: Catherine Malecki is Professor of Private Law Rennes 2 University France and Member of the IUF (Institut universitaire de France) Fundamental Chair.

For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:

http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

Speaker: Professor Lilian Edwards, Emeritus Professor of Law, Innovation & Society, Newcastle Law School 

Biography: Lilian Edwards is a leading academic in the field of Internet law. She has taught information technology law, e-commerce law, privacy law and Internet law at undergraduate and postgraduate level since 1996 and been involved with law and artificial intelligence (AI) since 1985. She is now Emerita Professor at Newcastle and Honorary Professor at CREAte, University of Glasgow, which she helped co-found. She is the editor and major author of Law, Policy and the Internet, one of the leading textbooks in the field of Internet law (Hart, 2018, new edition forthcoming with Urquhart and Goanta, 2026). She won the Future of Privacy Forum award in 2019 for best paper ("Slave to the Algorithm" with Michael Veale) and the award for best non-technical paper at FAccT in 2020, on automated hiring. In 2004 she won the Barbara Wellberry Memorial Prize in 2004 for work on online privacy where she invented the notion of data trusts, a concept which ten years later has been proposed in EU legislation. She is a former fellow of the Alan Turing Institute on Law and AI, and the Institute for the Future of Work. Edwards has consulted for inter alia the EU Commission, the OECD, and WIPO.

Abstract: The right to an explanation is having another moment. Well after the heyday of 2016-2018 when scholars tussled over whether the GDPR ( in either art 22 or arts 13-15) conferred a right to explanation, the CJEU case of Dun and Bradstreet has finally confirmed its existence, and the Platform Work Directive has wholesale revamped art 22 in its Algorithmic Management chapter. Most recently the EU AI Act added its own Frankenstein-like right to an explanation (art 86) of AI systems .

None of these provisions however pin down what the essence of the explanation should be, given many notions can be invoked here ; a faithful description of source code or training data; an account that enables challenge or contestation; a “plausible” description that may be appealing in a behaviouralist sense but might be actually misleading when operationalised eg to generate a medical course of treatment. Agarwal et al argue that the tendency of UI designers, and regulators and judges alike to lean towards the plausibility end, may be unsuited to large language models which represent far more of a black box in size and optimisation than conventional machine learning, and which are trained to present encouraging but not always accurate accounts of their workings. Yet this is also the direction of travel taken by CJEU Dun & Bradstreet , above. This paper argues that explanations of large model outputs may present novel challenges needing thoughtful legal mandates.

For more information (and to download slides) see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

On Wednesday 12 November 2025 Professor Dame Sarah Worthington DBE, KC (Hon), FBA, FRSA delivered the second of three 2025 Hamlyn Lectures at the Faculty.

The Hamlyn Lectures are normally delivered in the autumn and the annual Hamlyn Seminar, which marks the publication of the lecture, is usually held in London in the following spring.

The lecture was on the title: 'The Paradoxes of Property: What do we Own and What can we Own?'

For more about the Hamlyn Lectures see: https://law.exeter.ac.uk/about/thehamlyntrust/lectures/

Speaker: Dr Raphaële Xenidis, Sciences Po Law School, France

Abstract: EU anti-discrimination law has been a subject of choice for critiques from various disciplines. One influential motif that has durably structured the critical analysis of EU anti-discrimination law is the distinction between formal and substantive equality. Substantive approaches seek to diagnose and remedy the disjunctions between formal equality frameworks and social realities. Yet, such critiques often remain implicit in their engagement with social theory, leaving the very notion and construction of ’social realities’ largely unexamined. This paper thus asks: How does the principle of non-discrimination mediate and produce specific forms of individual subjectivity, interpersonal relationships, institutional arrangements, material and spatial organisation and ultimately social order? How does it authorise the existence of certain subjects and groups while excluding and rendering others invisible? What 'forms of life' does EU anti-discrimination and its jurisprudential construction by the Court enable or preclude?

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Ernest Lim (National University of Singapore)

This presentation explores the external dimension of directors’ duties—whether directors can and should address climate impacts and other externalities even absent financial benefits to the company’s shareholders—in contrast to the shareholder value maximisation focus. Its significance stems from universal investors, the EU due diligence regime, and high emitting SOEs. I examine three arguments: UK nature clauses are constrained by shareholder primacy; US shareholder preference claims are undermined by financially driven activism; and SOE directors’ duties can align with state ownership (as shown in China).

3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.

For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:

http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

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.