Lecture summary: This lecture examines the treatment of marine genetic resources (MGR) in the negotiations and the text of the new Treaty on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). The Treaty provides a coherent governance framework for MGR including an unexpected techno-fix to the most longstanding problem of biodiversity governance, some normative novelty on principles, and a trendsetting approach to valuation of aggregate usage of genetic resources. Yet, this painstakingly formed framework continues to be buffeted by self-interested attempts to redefine and relitigate the value of genetic resources; particularly around decoupling use from access to genetic resources, dematerialisation from physical resources and dis-enclosure under legal frameworks, all of which are now stable features in this and other Treaty-making contexts. How can we better characterise the success of the BBNJ Treaty in a way that helps resist de facto erosion following ratification? Relevant papers S Thambisetty ‘The Unfree Commons: Freedom of Marine Scientific Research and the Status of Genetic Resources Beyond National Jurisdiction (Dec 4, 2023) LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 24/2023 87 Modern Law Review (2024) Forthcoming S Thambisetty, P Oldham, C Chiarolla, The Expert Briefing Document: A Developing Country Perspective on the Making of The BBNJ Treaty (September 21, 2023). LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 30/2023, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4580046 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4580046 P Oldham, Paul C Chiarolla, S Thambisetty, Digital Sequence Information in the UN High Seas Treaty: Insights from the Global Biodiversity Framework-related Decisions (January 30, 2023). LSE Law - Policy Briefing Paper No. 53, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4343130 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4343130

Lecture summary: From European colonialism to the ‘post’colonial constellation, modern international law has developed in parallel with the changing legal forms of industrialised countries’ access to the natural resources of the global South. Following this development, we can see how imperial environmentalism was translated to the transnational law of natural resources. The historic perspective also highlights that the specific ambivalence of colonial and postcolonial environmental protection (exploitation vs. protection) is an ambivalence built into international law itself. In accordance with its colonial origins, international law has institutionalised a specific path to economic growth and development that presupposes and stabilises a world order supported by the industrialised countries of the North. At the same time, with the principle of equal sovereignty and self-determination, it recognises difference from the dominant economic and industrial culture as a political principle. Analysing international law’s approach to natural resources also directs our attention to changing ideas of nature and to the heart of international law's anthropocentrism, questioning its efficacy in tackling the ecological crisis. What we see here is an extractivist rationality that is intrinsically linked to the commodification of natural resources and green economy approaches in international environmental law. Last not least, a natural resource perspective highlights the fact that the legal concepts devised to determine how we share the world’s resources entail distributive processes among humans themselves. Sigrid Boysen is Professor of International Law at Helmut Schmidt University in Hamburg and a Judge at the Hamburg State Constitutional Court. She serves as editor-in-chief of the international law review ‘Archiv des Völkerrechts’, has held positions as Visiting Research Fellow at Princeton University (2014), the Institute for Global Law & Policy at Harvard Law School (2021/22) and is currently Fernand Braudel Fellow at the Law Department of the European University Institute in Florence. Her research focuses on international law with a particular focus on the theory of international law, the law of natural resources, environmental justice, international environmental and economic law, and constitutional law. Recent publications include Die postkoloniale Konstellation. Natürliche Ressourcen und das Völkerrecht der Moderne, Mohr Siebeck 2021; ‘Postcolonial Global Constitutionalism’, in: Lang and Wiener (eds.), Handbook on Global Constitutionalism, 2nd ed. 2023, 166-184.

The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law. This year's lecture was given by Prof Beth Simmons, University of Pennsylvania. Summary: The Golden Age of globalization has reached an end in the popular and political imagination. In its place has arisen growing anxiety about state borders. What is the evidence of such a shift? What are the causes and consequences? What answers does international law have for how international borders should be governed, especially as human mobility intensifies? Traditional international law defining and settling borders will not suffice to answer these questions. Instead, the lectures explore a different approach that views international borders as institutions that obligate states to manage the tensions that territorial governance implies in an interdependent world. 6 pm Thursday 14 March 2024 Lecture 3: Where Cooperative Border Governance (Should) Lead: Interstate Borders as Though People Mattered The lecture culminates by addressing ways forward in the light of Lectures 1 and 2. First, it explores the ways that border unilateralism has had some results that are inconsistent with international human rights. Second, it suggests possibilities for addressing rights violations committed in the name of “border sovereignty.” While international law is not equipped to address all of the injustices and anxieties associated with international borders, it does offer cooperative levers and lenses that can help address and arrest some of its worst consequences. Chair: Eyal Benvenisti

The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law. This year's lecture was given by Prof Beth Simmons, University of Pennsylvania. Summary: The Golden Age of globalization has reached an end in the popular and political imagination. In its place has arisen growing anxiety about state borders. What is the evidence of such a shift? What are the causes and consequences? What answers does international law have for how international borders should be governed, especially as human mobility intensifies? Traditional international law defining and settling borders will not suffice to answer these questions. Instead, the lectures explore a different approach that views international borders as institutions that obligate states to manage the tensions that territorial governance implies in an interdependent world. 6 pm Wednesday 13 March 2024 Lecture 2: Treaties and Neighbors: Recovering the Cooperative Roots of International Bordering Territorializing political authority was a violent affair. Borders are implicated in that violence. But this lecture foregrounds their cooperative international legal roots as well. In theory, borders divide by agreement. That is their purpose. Any border worth its salt impacts relationships between states, communities and individuals. The obligation, then, is to address that impact. This lecture explores international legal resources for cooperative border management, which is subject, as always, to international legal obligations. Chair: Surabhi Ranganathan

The Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lecture is an annual three-part lecture series given in Cambridge to commemorate the unique contribution to the development of international law of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. These lectures are given annually by a person of eminence in the field of international law. This year's lecture was given by Prof Beth Simmons, University of Pennsylvania. Summary: The Golden Age of globalization has reached an end in the popular and political imagination. In its place has arisen growing anxiety about state borders. What is the evidence of such a shift? What are the causes and consequences? What answers does international law have for how international borders should be governed, especially as human mobility intensifies? Traditional international law defining and settling borders will not suffice to answer these questions. Instead, the lectures explore a different approach that views international borders as institutions that obligate states to manage the tensions that territorial governance implies in an interdependent world. 6 pm Tuesday 12 March 2024 Lecture I: Setting the stage: Border Anxiety in an Interdependent World Even as interstate territorial aggrandizement has waned over the decades, border anxiety around the world is on the rise. A rich array of physical and rhetorical evidence from satellite imagery to discourse analysis supports this point. International borders have become a flashpoint for political demands and policies that insist on unilateralism. Yet “sovereign borders” misconstrue the very purposes – and consequences – of bordering. Can an International Law of borders move from its traditional focus on border fixity to border management? That will be the focus of Lecture 2. Chair: Sandesh Sivakumaran

Lecture summary: This research examines international law’s longstanding entanglement with communications infrastructure. There is increasing concern regarding the rise of private global power in the form of global digital platforms and their model of information capitalism. This paper responds by focusing on historical connections between international law and infrastructure as a means of examining their relationship in the global communications context. This reveals a longer trajectory to current interest in information capitalism’s effects on international life. Current concerns focus on the power of private digital platforms and the networked communicative infrastructure they maintain for the global economy. Introducing an historical perspective to such debates highlights infrastructure’s ongoing connections to violence and exploitation. This points to the wider and constitutive role of infrastructure in international life and underscores the need to address the blending of public and private forms of power in global governance. While the technologies driving change and re-appraisal within the contemporary international legal imagination are clearly distinct, viewing infrastructure as regulation in the current day requires us to confront continuing patterns of inequality and discrimination, which in turn can be connected with a longer international legal history. Such a focus can also help to explain how the traditional form of international law as a limited system of positive rules and of managerial ordering came to dominate the legal imagination and entrench a state-centrism which now appears anachronistic in light of the reality of private power and its concentration on the international plane. Dr Daniel Joyce is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney. He specialises in international law, media law and human rights. Daniel is an Affiliated Research Fellow at the Erik Castrén Institute at the University of Helsinki, an Associate of the Australian Human Rights Institute and a member of the Allens Hub for Technology, Law & Innovation. His monograph Informed Publics, Media and International Law was published by Hart in 2020. He is a visiting fellow at LSE Law School from September 2023 until March 2024.

Lecture summary: In this talk, Lucas Lixinski examines the erasure of Indigenous perspectives from the literature on the turn to history in international law. Considering the turn to history’s promise to offer alternative imaginations by recovering history, it is somewhat surprising and disappointing that so much of this turn is narrated from the perspective of colonisers. Lixinski unpacks the implications of this turn to Indigenous agency and victimhood, and leverages alternative retellings of Indigenous peoples’ engagement with European international law that focus on Indigenous agency, diplomacy, and power. The talk fundamentally challenges what we take for granted in emancipatory international legal projects, and offers possibilities for rethinking how we do international legal history. Dr Lucas Lixinski is Professor at the Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney. His research interests main centre on international human rights adjudication and international cultural heritage law, and sometimes international legal history especially in relation to rights. His latest monograph is Legalized Identities: Cultural Heritage Law and the Shaping of Transitional Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2021), which he started developing while a visitor at the Lauterpacht Centre in 2018.

Lecture summary: After the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the entry into force of its Article 108, the subject of maritime crimes has experienced many important developments. Indeed, at present, States have to deal with criminal actions which did not exist in the classical International Law of the Sea. Relevant examples include kidnapping and hostage-taking at sea, maritime terrorism offences, the smuggling of migrants by sea, illicit oil and fuel illicit activities in the maritime domain and the maritime crime of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances by sea. The issue of jurisdiction to fight this type of maritime crimes may be complex, especially when the flag State does not respect its duties under the International Law of the Sea. Practice has shown that difficulties in acting can be particularly stormy when dealing with the fight against the maritime crime of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances by sea. In these terms, the starting point for a contemporary analysis of the issue of interdicting ships without nationality in relation to maritime crimes can be a question of a general nature: when fighting against illicit drug trafficking must the principle of the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state really be considered untouchable? Professor Fernando Loureiro Bastos is Associate Professor of Public Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Lisbon. He is Head of the Research Group on International and European Law of the Lisbon Public Law Research Centre and President of the Portuguese Society of International Law (Portuguese Branch of the International Law Association) and a member of the ILA Committee on International Law and Sea Level Rise. He has served as Co-Agent and Counsel of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Case 19 – M/V “Virginia G”, ITLOS (2011-2014). Commentator: Dr Tor Krever, ‘Piracy as a maritime crime’. Chair: Mr Stratis Georgilas (G-H Law Chambers, Athens)

The LCIL and Cambridge International Law Journal (CILJ) are pleased to invite you to the LCIL-CILJ Annual Lecture Lecture summary: Recent pathbreaking trade agreements empower trade policymakers to target foreign companies in novel ways and to police corporate due diligence in global supply chains rather than seek to change foreign government behavior as used to be their purview. This repurposing of our trade enforcement system has the power to transform dramatically the global commercial system, the bargains it manages, the procedures applicable to it, and the rights and obligations of all involved. This research project maps the institutional ascent of this revealed practice, which it maintains was the product of disillusionment with the intellectual pedigrees of conventional trade law. The project evaluates our trade policing in light of the progressive aims policymakers have set for it, taking into account the many constituencies on whom the burdens fall unevenly. This excavation exposes how our trade police do not operate like other widely accepted forms of law enforcement or of international law bureaucracy. Tactics like those in the new arsenal bear close resemblance to the practices of authoritarian governments that seek to provoke acquiescence without process. The project’s assessment prescribes lessons for the several disciplines trade policing touches, including for the way scholars and lawmakers conceive of what bodies of law, tools, and actors are best suited to manage transnational corporate behavior and for concepts of compliance in international law. Finally, this project demonstrates that, as a corporate accountability system, trade policing has leapfrogged efforts by fields with similar aims like business and human rights, and the policing tools we have so far are just the tip of the iceberg. Kathleen Claussen is a leader in international economic law and procedure and has served as arbitrator, counsel, expert, public servant, and teacher. Her expertise covers several topics of international law, especially trade, investment, international business and labor; dispute settlement and international dispute bodies; national security and cybersecurity law; and, administrative law issues surrounding U.S. foreign relations and transnational agreements. Professor Claussen has served as a visiting faculty member or invited researcher at numerous institutions around the world, including Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, the University of Cambridge Lauterpacht Centre for International Law where she was a Brandon Fellow, the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, the iCourts Center of Excellence at the University of Copenhagen, the George C. Marshall Center for Security Studies, the University of Zurich and Collegium Helveticum, and the World Trade Institute. Prior to joining the Georgetown faculty in 2023, she was a member of the faculty at the University of Miami School of Law for five years.

Lecture summary: For better or for worse, the ‘English school’ or ‘British tradition’ of international law has eluded systematization or definition. The lecture pursues the argument that it is possible to identify clear synergies in the mainstream legal method of British international lawyers, focusing on British approaches to the doctrine of self-defence. It should not be surprising that this method follows in the common law tradition, displaying the tradition's three key hallmarks of (1) connection to social practice, (2) focus on courts and (3) an anti-theoretical tendency. Identity and analysis of these characteristics helps us to understand the distinctive contribution of British approaches to international law and the work this 'common law method' has done in strengthening and shaping international law. Identifying these characteristics is also important in order to understand the more problematic implications of their application in the international legal context. The common law method has consequences for the structure and direction of the international legal system, including the parameters of its community, the site of its authority and the role of theory in its development. Reflection on these strengths and weaknesses helps us better understand British contributions to international law. Paradoxically, the route to a more universal international law requires us first to understand the ways in which it is plural. Devika Hovell is an Associate Professor in Public International Law at the London School of Economics. She holds a doctorate from the University of Oxford, a Master of Laws from New York University and an Arts/Law degree from the University of Western Australia. She served as Associate to Justice Kenneth Hayne at the High Court of Australia, and as judicial clerk at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, before starting her academic career at the University of New South Wales. She joined the London School of Economics in 2012. She is author of The Power of Process (edited by Oxford University Press) and has published articles in a range of journals, including the American Journal of International Law, the European Journal of International Law, the Leiden Journal of International Law and the Modern Law Review. The article the subject of this lecture will be published in the centennial volume of the British Yearbook of International Law. She is on the Editorial Board of the European Journal of International Law and is one of four editors of the international law blog, EJIL Talk!.

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

Lecture Summary: This lecture will discuss recent developments in the UN Climate Regime, focusing in particular on the mismatch between the increasing emphasis on temperature goals and target-setting under the Paris Agreement and its treatment of equity and fairness in delivering these goals and targets. Lavanya Rajamani is a Professor of International Environmental Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, and Yamani Fellow in Public International Law, St Peter's College, Oxford. Lavanya writes, teaches and advises on international climate change law. She has been closely involved in the climate change negotiations in various capacities for two decades, including as advisor to Chairs, Presidencies, and the Secretariat. She was part of the core UNFCCC drafting and advisory group for the Paris Agreement. And a Coordinating Lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report. She is also currently involved in providing the evidence base for ongoing climate change litigation in national, regional and international courts.

Lecture summary: Just over a year ago, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought public comments on a bold and thoughtfully framed rule proposal for the enhancement and standardization of climate-related disclosure. It was a move that signaled to many that the US was finally responding to the global shift amongst investors and asset managers toward the integration of ESG data into fundamental value analysis. Today, however, as ESG issues in the US have become politically polarized and as litigation challenges loom large, the possibility of meaningful change appears more remote. Now is therefore an ideal time to spotlight the new ESG disclosure requirements in the UK and EU and, against this backdrop, to refute the claim that ESG disclosure involves “major questions” that transcend the SEC’s longstanding and clear authority to impose new reporting requirements on publicly traded companies. The UK and EU experiences likewise provide valuable perspectives in connection with other hot-button issues in the US, including: closing the public-private disclosure gap, broadening the traditional concept of materiality, and imposing mandates that require real-time disclosure as opposed to disclosure primarily at periodic intervals. Donna M. Nagy is the C. Ben Dutton Professor of Law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law in Bloomington, Indiana, USA. She teaches and writes in the areas of securities litigation, securities regulation, and corporations, and has served for eight years as the law school’s Executive Associate Dean. Her scholarship includes two co-authored books, one on the law of insider trading and a casebook on Securities Litigation, Enforcement, and Compliance. She has published extensively in distinguished law journals on matters including insider trading and fiduciary principles; securities disclosure and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) information; government officials and financial conflicts of interest; and securities enforcement remedies. She is also a frequent speaker on securities regulation and litigation topics at law schools and professional conferences. Professor Nagy is a member of the American Law Institute and served as a member of the National Adjudicatory Council of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and as an appointed member to the ABA Corporate Laws Committee. She began her teaching career in 1994, and prior to that, was an associate with Debevoise & Plimpton in Washington, D.C. She earned her law degree in 1989 from New York University School of Law and her BA in Political Science in 1986 from Vassar College.

Lecture 2: 'Exploring Nexus' A series of three lectures by Dr. B.S.Chimni, Distinguished Professor of International Law, O.P. Jindal Global University. Previously, he was for over three decades Professor of International Law, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Between 2004-2006 he was the Vice Chancellor of the W.B. National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. He has been a Visiting Professor at Brown and Tokyo universities, the Graduate Institute, Geneva and the American University of Cairo, and has been visiting fellow at Harvard, Minnesota, and York (Canada) universities and the Institute of Advanced Studies, Nantes. He is an associate member of Institut de Droit International, and Member, Academic Council, Institute for Global Law and Policy (IGLP), Harvard Law School. He is former Vice-President Asian Society of International law and at present Member of its Advisory Council. He is a member of the editorial board of American Journal of International Law and also the former Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Journal of International Law. In 2022 he was honored by the American Society of International Law with its Honorary Membership. The University of London has instituted a scholarship in his name for the MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies by distance-learning. He has also received an honorary doctorate from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. He is the author of International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches. He is closely associated with the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) movement.

Lecture 1: 'Mapping the Terrain' A series of three lectures by Dr. B.S.Chimni, Distinguished Professor of International Law, O.P. Jindal Global University. Previously, he was for over three decades Professor of International Law, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Between 2004-2006 he was the Vice Chancellor of the W.B. National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. He has been a Visiting Professor at Brown and Tokyo universities, the Graduate Institute, Geneva and the American University of Cairo, and has been visiting fellow at Harvard, Minnesota, and York (Canada) universities and the Institute of Advanced Studies, Nantes. He is an associate member of Institut de Droit International, and Member, Academic Council, Institute for Global Law and Policy (IGLP), Harvard Law School. He is former Vice-President Asian Society of International law and at present Member of its Advisory Council. He is a member of the editorial board of American Journal of International Law and also the former Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Journal of International Law. In 2022 he was honored by the American Society of International Law with its Honorary Membership. The University of London has instituted a scholarship in his name for the MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies by distance-learning. He has also received an honorary doctorate from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. He is the author of International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches. He is closely associated with the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) movement.

Lecture 3: 'Reframing Doctrines' A series of three lectures by Dr. B.S.Chimni, Distinguished Professor of International Law, O.P. Jindal Global University. Previously, he was for over three decades Professor of International Law, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Between 2004-2006 he was the Vice Chancellor of the W.B. National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. He has been a Visiting Professor at Brown and Tokyo universities, the Graduate Institute, Geneva and the American University of Cairo, and has been visiting fellow at Harvard, Minnesota, and York (Canada) universities and the Institute of Advanced Studies, Nantes. He is an associate member of Institut de Droit International, and Member, Academic Council, Institute for Global Law and Policy (IGLP), Harvard Law School. He is former Vice-President Asian Society of International law and at present Member of its Advisory Council. He is a member of the editorial board of American Journal of International Law and also the former Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Journal of International Law. In 2022 he was honored by the American Society of International Law with its Honorary Membership. The University of London has instituted a scholarship in his name for the MA in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies by distance-learning. He has also received an honorary doctorate from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. He is the author of International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches. He is closely associated with the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) movement.

Lecture summary: International economic law binds the state in relation to markets – most prominently with respect to cross-border trade in goods and services (trade) and the cross-border flow of capital (investment). The core tension to be managed in treaty design involves the balance between economic disciplines and the sovereign’s reserved regulatory authority – between liberalization and policy space. The trade regime has been fairly successful in striking this balance, while the investment regime has been less so. As a result, a natural tendency among reformers has been to look to trade for lessons and solutions to the challenges of investment treaties. This lecture considers why mechanisms that have worked in the former context have proven unworkable in the latter, and what that means for design going forward. Both the trade and investment regimes preserve policy space through a process of justification at the dispute settlement stage. Policy justification is built into most trade agreements (and some investment treaties) through formal exceptions clauses. Even in the absence of such clauses, exceptions-style justification has informally penetrated both regimes through adjudicative reasoning and borrowing. This "exceptions paradigm" of justification has worked well in trade treaties, where it has been especially key to securing a workable balance in the WTO/GATT context – in a coherent way, on which actors can plan ex ante. But, where tried, the exceptions paradigm has not worked out in the investment regime. I argue that the difference lies in the institutions within which trade and investment rules and exceptions are embedded. This lecture compares the trade and investment regimes across three institutional nodes: (1) the nature of the right of action (public vs private); (2) the degree of judicial centralization (court system vs ad hoc arbitration); and (3) the available remedies (prospective injunctive relief vs retrospective damages). I suggest that it is trade law's public-oriented institutions that have made the exceptions clause workable – not the other way around. By contrast, investment law's private-oriented institutions make that system particularly inhospitable to exceptions-style justification. Julian Arato is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. His scholarly expertise spans the areas of public international law, international economic law, and private law. Arato serves as a member of the board of editors of the American Journal of International Law. He is active in the governance of the American Society of International Law, having recently served on the executive council and as co-chair of the international economic law interest group. He also serves as chair of the Academic Forum on Investor-State Dispute Settlement and as a member of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration Academic Council. Since 2018, Arato has served as an observer delegate to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (ISDS Reform).

Lecture Summary: The survival of our planet requires swift and targeted climate policies to adapt, mitigate and repair. Scientists and political elites acknowledge the urgency to reduce our reliance on coal and fossil fuels to achieve the necessary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Academics have been studying the impacts of investment treaty protections on climate action and argued that investment treaties raise the cost of climate action, financially and via regulatory chill and limit their ability to combat climate change. There also have been instances where investment treaties protected investors in the renewable energy sector leading to the argument that international investment law can support transition to renewable energy. This lecture will reflect on the compatibility of states’ existing investment treaty obligations with their climate obligations. It will consider the consequences of investment law’s distaste of local politics, stakeholder participation and public protest, which are essential to the realization of the right to a healthy environment, climate policy-making, and more broadly to democratic governance. Anil is a Senior Lecturer at Essex Law School and a co-director of the Essex Business and Human Rights Project. Her research interests are in the fields of international investment law and business and human rights. Her research bridges the gap between corporate law, international investment law, human rights law, and tort law, examining how these areas can and should interact to operationalise human rights standards in the modern business context. She has published works on parent-subsidiary relationships in the business and human rights context, non-financial reporting, duty of care in supply chain relationships, human rights in investment contracts and the embedded inequalities in the investment treaty regime. She is the author of The Nationality of Corporate Investors under International Investment Law (2020, Hart Publishing), a member of the IEL Collective’s steering committee and a member of Teaching Business and Human Rights Forum’s governance committee.

Lecture summary: United Nations (UN) and several UN Agencies have started to use behavioural sciences in order to achieve their policy goals, including for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). While it is to be appreciated that insights on actual behavior inform policy making of international actors, they raise scientific and normative considerations warranting caution. First, for those considerations it matters, who the acting and the targeted actors are, that is, where and for what behavioral sciences are used (inter-state or targeting citizens). Behavioural interventions come in many facets and warrant a differentiated view – a finely built roadmap is thus desirable. Second, there are concerns about the internal and external validity of experimental research on which behavioural sciences largely, but not solely, draws. Third, taking a differentiated view on behavioral sciences also allows for a more finely grained view on normative concerns underlying the operations of the United Nations. This contribution spells out those considerations while still advocating for the approach as such. Reading material: https://www.uninnovation.network/assets/BeSci/UN_Behavioural_Science_Report_2021.pdf Anne van Aaken (Dr. iur. and MA Economics) is Alexander von Humboldt Professor for Law and Economics, Legal Theory, Public International Law and European Law and Director of the Institute of Law and Economics, University of Hamburg. She was Vice-President of the European Society of International Law and is Chair of the European University Institute Research Council. She is a general editor of Journal of International Dispute Settlement and a member of the editorial boards of AJIL, the Journal of International Economic Law, International Theory, and EJIL (until 2021). She was a guest professor in Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America and the USA (Global Law Professor at NYU and Columbia). She has been expert consultant for the IBRD, UNCTAD, GIZ, OECD and the UN High Level Advisory Board of Effective Multilateralism. Her research focuses on international (economic) law, international governance, behavioral economics/psychology and international legal theory. She has published widely on those topics.

Lecture summary: It is alleged that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) embodied the victory of Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice’s preference to interpret treaties based on the “ordinary meaning of the words” over Sir Hersh Lauterpacht’s view that one instead should seek to ascertain the treaty parties’ “actual intentions.” But is that so? If, as VCLT Article 31(1) provides, the focus is to be on “the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose,” and if that “ordinary meaning” is not, as per Article 32, “ambiguous,” “obscure,” “manifestly absurd or unreasonable,” then why should resort to “Supplementary Means of Interpretation” be appropriate at all “in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31”? If, as many believe, the VCLT is hierarchical, shouldn’t interpretation be complete when an “ordinary meaning” is established that is “unambiguous,” not “obscure,” and “neither manifestly absurd or unreasonable”? Did those preferring to determine the treaty parties “actual intentions” in fact sneak into the VLCT’s text that provision for supplementary “confirmation” of a clear “ordinary meaning”? Is to that extent the VCLT in fact, as is said of treaties generally, “an agreement to disagree”? In reality, given the sequential submissions in international arbitrations, as well as before international courts and tribunals, each party, beginning with the Applicant’s or Claimant’s Memorial, followed by Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, the Reply Memorial etc., from the start places before the adjudicator all of its arguments under Section 3. of the VCLT (Articles 31-33). The fact that Article 31’s “General Rule Of Interpretation” and Article 32’s “Supplementary Means Of Interpretation” are presented to the adjudicator as a unit, and not seriatim, has resulted in some arbitral tribunals not treating those two articles of the VCLT as being hierarchical, and instead applying what has become known as the “crucible approach,” i.e., stirring the two in the pot of deliberations as though they were a regulatory potpourri rather than distinct rules, the later to be applied only if the first did not produce an unchallengable “ordinary meaning.” Thus separate approaches to the VCLT have arisen that have raised the question posed by former ICJ President Schwebel: “May Preparatory Work Be Used to Correct Rather Than Confirm the ‘Clear’ Meaning of a Treaty Provision?” Judge Charles N Brower’s career has been divided between private law practice, first with White & Case LLP in New York City and Washington, D.C., since 2001 as an Arbitrator Member of Twenty Essex Chambers in London, and public service, first with the Office of The Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State (1969-73)(successively as Assistant Legal Adviser for European Affairs, Deputy Legal Adviser and Acting Legal Adviser), as Judge of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (1983-present), as sub-Cabinet rank Deputy Special Counsellor to the President of the United States dealing with the Iran-Contra affair (1987), as Judge ad hoc of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1999-2002)(appointed by Bolivia), and the most -appointed of the only five Americans ever to be appointed Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice (2014-2022) (appointed by Colombia (1 case) and the United States (2 cases)). Judge Brower's book: 'Judging Iran: A Memoir of The Hague, The White House, and Life on the Front Line of International Justice' is available now to pre-order and will be released on 11 April 2023.