The 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting
June 25-26, 2020
Registration fees reduced by 25%
Students attend for free
Students attend for free
ASIL will welcome these honorees and keynote speakers at the 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting
Hina Jilani
Former U.N. Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders
(Honorary Member & Friday Plenary Speaker)
William J. Burns
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
(Opening Keynote Conversation)
Claudio Grossman
American University Washington College of Law
(Goler T. Butcher Medal & Friday Plenary Speaker)
Elizabeth Odio Benito
President, Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(Prominent Woman in International Law Award)
James Gathii
Loyola University Chicago School of Law
(Grotius Lecturer)
Fleur Johns
University of New South Wales Faculty of Law
(Grotius Distinguished Discussant)
Rüdiger Wolfrum
Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law
(Manley O. Hudson Medal and Address)
Sir Daniel Bethlehem
Twenty Essex
(Brower Lecturer)
REGISTRATION NOW OPEN
Registration fees reduced by 25% - Students attend for free.
The Promise of International Law
June 25-26, 2020We look forward to welcoming you to the Society's first-ever Virtual Annual Meeting, which will offer an exciting array of substantive sessions that explore the many dimensions of our theme, "The Promise of International Law," as well as special events and interactive activities expressly designed for the Virtual Annual Meeting.
The Expanded Annual Meeting Program Will Include:
- 40 substantive sessions, the majority of which will be held live
- 50 hours of special sessions and side events, Interest Group gatherings, and "ask me anything" sessions with leaders in the field
- 50 hours of social, networking, mentoring and career development sessions
- Over 150 speakers drawn from every segment of the international law community and from related disciplines
- Eight keynote sessions and named lectures featuring prominent figures in international law
- All substantive content available to watch on-demand during and following the meeting, exclusive to registered attendees
Annual Meeting theme:
In a world of increasing polarization and threats to individual and collective security, many turn to international law for guidance and protection, while others consider this body of law and the institutions that apply it ill-equipped to address evolving needs. Has international law lived up to its full potential and is it equipped to safeguard the peaceful coexistence of its subjects, to protect human rights and the environment, and to contribute to the attainment of shared prosperity?The year 2020 will give us much to reflect upon and to reaffirm. Even as states have withdrawn or sought to withdraw from agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and the Treaty on European Union, the international community will commemorate other enduring institutions and commitments in 2020. For example, the United Nations will mark its 75th anniversary amidst calls for significant reforms to global governance. The year 2020 also will see the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty of Versailles and of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, and the 20th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. At the same time, the year 2020 will serve as a reminder that we have but ten years left to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which envisage "a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination."
At its 114th Annual Meeting in 2020, the American Society of International Law (ASIL) invites policymakers, practitioners, academics, and students of international law to reflect upon the successes and failures of international law. Has international law held states, military forces, multinational corporations, and other actors – both public and private – to account for their international obligations? What role do regulatory bodies, international institutions, and non-governmental organizations play in actualizing the objectives of international law? Can and should international law be expected to produce just outcomes in all circumstances? The Annual Meeting presents an opportunity for the Society to take stock of the past successes and failures of international law while reaffirming the promise it holds for the future.
Session Tracks:
- International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, and Criminal Justice
- Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, and Dispute Resolution
- Trade, Investment, Finance, and Technology
- Sustainable Development and Global Governance
- Security, Foreign Relations, and Use of Force
- Energy, Environment, Sea, and Space
Draft Program
(as of 5/19/2020)Keynotes & Plenaries
Morning KeynoteJune 25 - 09:00 AM - 10:00 AM
Break
BreakJune 25 - 10:00 AM - 10:15 AM
Receptions & Luncheons
Hudson Medal Conversation: Prof. Dr. Rüdiger WolfrumJune 25 - 10:15 AM - 11:15 AM
Honoree: Prof. Dr. Rüdiger Wolfrum, Max Planck Foundation
Sustainable Development & Global Governance
Between Participation and Capture: Non-state actor participation in international rule-makingJune 25 - 10:15 AM - 11:15 AM
At a moment when global governance is heavily criticized for being led by and devoted to the interests of the few, a fireside conversation with a panel of experts will examine different efforts to address the risks of capture in international rule-making and seek to draw lessons emerging from these cases. Over the past decades, non-state actors—particularly industry representatives—have been increasingly admitted to international rule-making as providers of legitimacy, expertise and funds. This trend towards inclusiveness is likely to increase, owing among other reasons to the endorsement of the Sustainable Development Goals to objectives such as “inclusive institutions at all levels”, “enhancing multi-stakeholder partnerships” and promoting “public-private partnerships”.Yet, it is often overlooked that increased non-state actor participation may skew agenda-setting and ultimately international rule- making in a way that disproportionately reflects sectoral interests. Criticism has emerged in this regard in different areas of governance: UN climate change bodies have been criticized for cozying up to corporate fossil fuel lobbies, global financial governance institutions are charged with leaning towards the interests of the large banking and financial industry they are meant to regulate, and the pharmaceutical industry is accused ofexerting outsized influence in health-related international standard-setting, sometimes in contradiction with public health objectives such as access to medicines. Moreover, philanthropic foundations earmark their contributions, thereby de facto steering the decision-making processes in international organizations that rely on these funds. Some organizations, such as the WHO’s Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors, have recently sought to address these concerns.
Panelist(s):Melissa ("MJ") Durkee, University of Georgia School of Law (Speaker) Igor Barbosa, Minister of Foreign Affairs - Brazil (Speaker) Ayelet Berman, National University of Singapore (Moderator) Hassane Cisse, (Speaker) Nancy Thevenin, (Speaker)
Trade, Investment, Finance, & Technology
Reforming the WTO through the Prism of Rules- versus Power-based Trade RelationsJune 25 - 10:15 AM - 11:15 AM
Sponsored by Dechert LLP
The post-war rules-based global trading system stands at a crossroads. All three of the WTO’s main functions—monitoring member states’ trade policies, serving as a forum for trade negotiations, and providing a mechanism to settle trade disputes—are facing criticism and the pressure to reform. While this presents a much needed opportunity to modernize the current system, it is unclear whether a “rules-based” system anchored in binding adjudication in relation to multilaterally-negotiated treaty commitments is stable or even viable over the long-term. Shocks to the system lead major players such as the United States to consider opting out of or undercutting multilateral rules, and emergent powers like China to challenge the adequacy of the established rules. Renegotiation is exceedingly difficult and has not succeeded on a large scale since the Uruguay Round, flexibility mechanisms have failed in many respects, and a reversion toward power-based trade diplomacy seems underway. This panel with address fundamental questions relating to the WTO reform process through John Jackson’s conceptual framework: Is a rules-based system doomed to fail? Can it be rescued? And, more importantly, should it be rescued?
Panelist(s):Stephen de Boer, Government of Canada (Speaker) Henry Gao, Singapore Management University (Speaker) Gabrielle Z Marceau, World Trade Organisation - UNIGE (Speaker) Jennifer Hillman, Council on Foreign Relations (Speaker)
Energy, Environment, Sea, & Space
ISDS and Climate Change Policies: A barrier, facilitator, or neitherJune 25 - 10:15 AM - 11:15 AM
Sponsored by Intersentia Publishing
As countries grapple with how best to regulate conduct within their borders to attempt to mitigate climate change and to meet the objectives of international commitments, including the Paris Agreement, policies have taken various forms – from offering “carrots” in the form green energy subsidies, to “sticks” aimed at sanctioning disfavored energy uses or sources. Such regulatory decisions have impacted a broad spectrum of investors, resulting in a spate of recent investment claims. Dozens of investment claims have been brought by renewable energy investors under the Energy Charter Treaty, asserting that states have reneged on favorable terms offered to incentivize the massive private investment in green energy during the global financial crises and in the face of budget shortfalls. Nuclear power has been steadily in decline in Europe for at least the last decade, with Germany expediting its exit from nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster, which prompted an investment claim from Vattenfall asserting the value of its nuclear assets has been stranded. And fossil fuel investors have threatened investment claims, asserting that policies impairing conventional energy production denies them their legitimate expectations of returns on their investments.This panel will address, in the context of policies enacted by states to mitigate the effects of climate change, where the line is between compensable investment claims where investors’ legitimate expectations have been frustrated by climate polices, on the one hand, and non-compensable claims resulting from states’ climate policies? Is the threat of ISDS a barrier to government policies encouraging the shift to green energy? Or do investment treaties and free trade agreements encourage foreign investment into local green economies? And, if there is uncertainty as to where the “right to regulate” in the climate space without triggering compensable investment claims, how does that uncertainty affect new investments in green or conventional energy projects? Italy has withdrawn from the ECT in an apparent response to the number of claims it was defending following its retroactive measures relating to renewable investments, and there are threats of additional withdrawals or modifications to the ECT and other ISDS mechanisms. If states withdraw from, or agree to modify the terms of, investment treaty protections, will that discourage private investment required for renewable energy sources? Alternatively, should modifications to international agreements be embraced and what should they look like to meet states’ challenges in regulating to mitigate climate change? This panel will explore the impact ISDS has on achieving internationally agreed-upon goals and individual states’ policy objectives on climate change.
Panelist(s):Kasturi Das, Institute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad, Delhi-NCR, India (Speaker) Gabriela Alvarez Avila, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, S.C. (Speaker) Danielle Morris, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (Moderator) Carlos Sole, KPMG (Speaker)
Break
BreakJune 25 - 11:15 AM - 11:30 AM
Sustainable Development & Global Governance
What Promises will States Keep "Beyond National Jurisdiction?"June 25 - 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Is the need for transnational cooperation in areas beyond the territorial jurisdiction of states sufficient to overcome the resentments and anxieties of polarization and nationalism? This session will test the hypothesis that increasing numbers of states engaged in increasing activities in outer space and the ocean is creating a dynamic space for international law. It will also question whether formal legal instruments, such as the marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreement being negotiated at this very moment, are the ideal vehicle for promises that states will keep. If not, what are the alternatives? The session will address questions of resource and security conflicts, the actors involved in these two diverse spaces, the impetus for negotiation and decisions that led to the formal agreement that resulted, and compliance mechanisms.
Panelist(s):Stefan Kirchner, University of Lapland (Speaker) Brian Egan, (Speaker) Cymie Payne, (Moderator)
Energy, Environment, Sea, & Space
Climate Change Litigation and the Future of the International Climate Change Legal RegimeJune 25 - 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Sponsored by Intersentia Publishing
This panel will discuss two approaches for climate action: international law through the implementation of the Paris Agreement and transnational and domestic litigation. The panel will explore challenges and opportunities stemming from both approaches. It will also be an opportunity to discuss whether the current debate is too focused on climate change at the expense of other pressing global environmental (and non-environmental) challenges. Are we truly facing a climate emergency? If so, how can we pursue integrated governance approaches that build on effective regime interaction? If we are not experiencing a climate emergency, or if the latter should be understood in conjunction with other emergencies, what does this mean for international climate change law and transnational and domestic climate litigation?
Panelist(s):Jolene Lin, National University of Singapore (Speaker) Laura Shay Lynes, The Resilience Institute (TRI) (Speaker) Francesco Sindico, University of Strathclyde Law School (Moderator) Daniel Magraw, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced Int'l Studies SAIS (Speaker) Hari Osofsky, Penn State Law and School of International Affairs (Speaker)
Trade, Investment, Finance, & Technology
Using Old Tools in New Ways: The New Economic World OrderJune 25 - 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Sponsored by Dechert LLP
The 21st Century has witnessed a number of attempts by States to change the economic world order that had been established by the end of the 20th Century. Although the outcomes sought involve change, the international law tools being used to achieve this arguably are not new. This session will address aspects of what is arguably the new economic world order and old tools, e.g., global international trade (non-trade disputes being weaponised as trade disputes using the WTO disputes procedures), regional international trade (CUSMA and the NAFTA denunciation/renegotiation), the international law of foreign investment (the World Investment Court and the capital exporting States’ (read the EC’s) reaction to being sued under BITs), bilateral trade (China’s belt and road initiative), sanctions and trade/investment blocking (Iran, Venezuela, Huawei 5G)
Panelist(s):Eric De Brabandere, Leiden University (Speaker) Rose Rameau, Rameau Law Firm (Speaker) Kory Parkhurst, Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC (Speaker) Céline Lévesque, (Moderator)
International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, & Criminal Justice
The Case of Self Determination in the 21st CenturyJune 25 - 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Around the world, communities have failed to fully realize their right to self-determination, despite the recognition of that right by international courts and international institutions. Sub-state political entities that have sought to assert their right to self-determination through independence referenda have faced political reprisals and charges of illegal secession. In the recent Chagos Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice shed light on the nature and right of self-determination in the context of decolonization. This session will address self-determination in the 21st Century in cases of unfinished decolonization and independent statehood movements.Using the Chagos Advisory Opinion (ICJ), Kosovo Advisory Opinion (ICJ), and Quebec opinion (Canada) as a legal framework, this panel will take place in an “oral argument” format, where a judge will pose questions to attorneys representing communities who are seeking to assert their right to self-determination and attorneys representing states that are opposed to those efforts. The judge will hear oral argument from litigants debating self-determination claims in two or more cases, such as the Comoros Islands vs. France over Mayotte, the Sahrawis of Western Sahara vs. Morocco, and/or the Kurdish Region vs. Iraq. After oral argument, time will be reserved for questions from the audience, acting as part of the judicial panel. Finally, the audience will have the opportunity to vote on the separate cases.
Panelist(s):Bethlehem Arega Asmamaw, African Union (Speaker) Mamadou Hébié, International Court of Justice (Speaker) James Kateka, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Speaker)
Security, Foreign Relations, & the Use of Force
Head of State ImmunityJune 25 - 13:00 PM - 14:00 PM
Organized by the International Criminal Law Interest Group
This panel will explore the concept of head-of-state immunity under international criminal law, in light of recent case law and other prosecutorial and investigative developments at the International Criminal Court, as well as the International Court of Justice and within other tribunals, on this topic. Head-of-state immunity remains a controversial topic within International Criminal Law: although many scholars and tribunal prosecutors argue that sitting heads of state should not be immune from international prosecutions if accused of atrocity crimes, multiple states as well as a minority of scholars assert the opposite. In practice, the work of the International Criminal Court as well as the work of other tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, have been hampered because of the assertion of head-of-state immunity. Moreover, immunity has been asserted by former and sitting heads of state within domestic contexts; such immunity claims impede the pursuit of justice and the imposition of individual criminal responsibility. This panel will explore head-of-state immunity, from its origins to its more recent applications at the International Criminal Court as well as at other tribunals. In addition, panelists will discuss whether the assertion of immunity differs in the context of atrocity crimes prosecutions from its assertion within other types of prosecutions for lesser crimes.
This panel will explore the concept of head-of-state immunity under international criminal law, in light of recent case law and other prosecutorial and investigative developments at the International Criminal Court, as well as the International Court of Justice and within other tribunals, on this topic. Head-of-state immunity remains a controversial topic within International Criminal Law: although many scholars and tribunal prosecutors argue that sitting heads of state should not be immune from international prosecutions if accused of atrocity crimes, multiple states as well as a minority of scholars assert the opposite. In practice, the work of the International Criminal Court as well as the work of other tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, have been hampered because of the assertion of head-of-state immunity. Moreover, immunity has been asserted by former and sitting heads of state within domestic contexts; such immunity claims impede the pursuit of justice and the imposition of individual criminal responsibility. This panel will explore head-of-state immunity, from its origins to its more recent applications at the International Criminal Court as well as at other tribunals. In addition, panelists will discuss whether the assertion of immunity differs in the context of atrocity crimes prosecutions from its assertion within other types of prosecutions for lesser crimes.
Panelist(s):Leila Sadat, (Speaker) Adil Haque, (Speaker) Ingrid Wuerth, (Speaker) Matiangai Sirleaf, (Speaker) David Scheffer, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (Speaker) Andrew Boyle, (Moderator)
Trade, Investment, Finance, & Technology
Promise or Peril? Towards an international data protection regimeJune 25 - 13:00 PM - 14:00 PM
Sponsored by Dechert LLP
Organized by the International Law and Technology Interest Group
This session tackles one of the most pressing issues in transnational legal practice today: data protection and privacy rights. The EU’s enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in May 2018, has transformed markets around the globe as governments, multinational companies and civil society organizations with transnational activities have focused organizational resources on bringing their international practices and their accompanying data processing into compliance with the GDPR’s extensive regulatory framework. Other countries, including China, Brazil and India have followed suit with their own data protection regimes, all of which incorporate elements of extra-territorial jurisdiction similar to those within the GDPR. In addition, the International Standards Organization has recently issued a data privacy information management standard, ISO/IEC 27701.The global trend towards personal data protection is well underway. In the United States several states (notably California, with its recent CCPA), have moved forward with data protection laws, yet Congress struggles to draft federal privacy legislation, grappling with core questions of proper scope and effective enforcement.These developments suggest a number of corollary questions: is an international data protection regime evolving? If not, should one be developed? What role do comparative and international law norms, including human rights, play in shaping existing and potential data protection and privacy regimes? This session will explore these and other questions to map the state of play with respect to data protection and privacy regulation from a transnational perspective.
This session tackles one of the most pressing issues in transnational legal practice today: data protection and privacy rights. The EU’s enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in May 2018, has transformed markets around the globe as governments, multinational companies and civil society organizations with transnational activities have focused organizational resources on bringing their international practices and their accompanying data processing into compliance with the GDPR’s extensive regulatory framework. Other countries, including China, Brazil and India have followed suit with their own data protection regimes, all of which incorporate elements of extra-territorial jurisdiction similar to those within the GDPR. In addition, the International Standards Organization has recently issued a data privacy information management standard, ISO/IEC 27701.The global trend towards personal data protection is well underway. In the United States several states (notably California, with its recent CCPA), have moved forward with data protection laws, yet Congress struggles to draft federal privacy legislation, grappling with core questions of proper scope and effective enforcement.These developments suggest a number of corollary questions: is an international data protection regime evolving? If not, should one be developed? What role do comparative and international law norms, including human rights, play in shaping existing and potential data protection and privacy regimes? This session will explore these and other questions to map the state of play with respect to data protection and privacy regulation from a transnational perspective.
Panelist(s):Lisl Brunner, AT&T (Speaker) Margaret Hu, Washington and Lee University School of Law (Speaker) Andrea Matwyshyn, (Speaker) Arturo J. Carrillo, (Moderator)
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute Resolution
The U.S. and International Courts and Tribunals: A historical approach to the current dilemmaJune 25 - 13:00 PM - 14:00 PM
Sponsored by Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
Organized by the International Courts and Tribunals Interest Group
The United States has historically been at the vanguard of international dispute resolution, from the Jay Treaty through the countless cases of diplomatic protection, the Alabama Claims, the U.S.-Mexico Claims Commission, the Venuezuela bond arbitration, and many others. The panel will look at a sample of those cases from the 19th and 20th centuries to examine how States (including the United States) have changed their approaches to international courts and tribunals in the 21st century. The panel will address how the procedure and structures of earlier systems influenced States’ engagement with international courts and tribunals. The panel will further examine the political conditions bearing on international adjudication, both domestically and internationally, that existed at the time of the earlier cases, how those conditions compare to the current domestic and international atmosphere, and how those conditions affect States’ engagement with international courts and tribunals. In the process, the panel will address the questions: has the promise of international law, laid out in previous centuries as it relates to international adjudication, been fulfilled? What lessons can be drawn from earlier approaches, as we determine how that promise will fare in the future?
The United States has historically been at the vanguard of international dispute resolution, from the Jay Treaty through the countless cases of diplomatic protection, the Alabama Claims, the U.S.-Mexico Claims Commission, the Venuezuela bond arbitration, and many others. The panel will look at a sample of those cases from the 19th and 20th centuries to examine how States (including the United States) have changed their approaches to international courts and tribunals in the 21st century. The panel will address how the procedure and structures of earlier systems influenced States’ engagement with international courts and tribunals. The panel will further examine the political conditions bearing on international adjudication, both domestically and internationally, that existed at the time of the earlier cases, how those conditions compare to the current domestic and international atmosphere, and how those conditions affect States’ engagement with international courts and tribunals. In the process, the panel will address the questions: has the promise of international law, laid out in previous centuries as it relates to international adjudication, been fulfilled? What lessons can be drawn from earlier approaches, as we determine how that promise will fare in the future?
Panelist(s):Amalia D. Kessler, Stanford University (Speaker) Natalie L. Reid, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (Speaker) Jennifer Thornton, Arent Fox LLP (Speaker) Harold Koh, (Speaker) David Bigge, (Moderator)
Trade, Investment, Finance, & Technology
Protecting Human Rights in the Digital Age: Can international law provide the necessary framework?June 25 - 13:00 PM - 14:00 PM
Sponsored by Dechert LLP
Digital platforms have fundamentally changed the flow of information on a global scale. The effects of the digital age on human beings are widespread, from empowering individuals and advancing society on the one hand, to emboldening the spread of disinformation and enabling the spread of hate-based radicalization. There are many initiatives on the part of the private sector, States and civil society to address the increased abuse of digital platforms, but these initiatives are largely developing as a patchwork of domestic regulation. What is still lacking is a comprehensive normative framework that addresses fundamental human rights and still enables platforms to operate cross-jurisdictionally.International human rights law can serve as the cornerstone for such a global framework. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights entail that human rights law applies to digital platforms, wherever they are based or operating. In turn, key elements of human rights law can serve as guiding principles for both governments and digital platforms to institute regulations or policies governing online dissemination of information. Consideration must be given to the freedom of expression as well as the rights to freedom of thought and opinion and the right to privacy, but that must be weighed alongside the need for individual and public safety and security.The panel will be a robust discussion on how human rights law can inform a framework for protecting individuals in the digital age, including how to strike the right balance among fundamental human rights that at times may be in tension.
Panelist(s):Emma Llansó, Center for Democracy & Technology (Speaker)
Break
BreakJune 25 - 14:00 PM - 14:15 PM
Security, Foreign Relations, & the Use of Force
The Promise and Limits of Cyber Power in International LawJune 25 - 14:15 PM - 15:15 PM
This session will explore the international legal framework governing cyber power, and its limits. With the 2020 U.S. elections on the horizon and increasing reports of cyber effects operations ongoing worldwide, understanding the legal frameworks within which States must work as they contemplate deploying tools in cyberspace is imperative to maintaining international peace and security. To date, only a handful of nations have publicly shared their views on the application of international law to cyberspace [this may need to be updated come next April]. In this session, intelligence, defense, and foreign affairs officials from three such nations -- the United Kingdom, United States, and [France / Estonia / other?] -- will engage with cyber experts to discuss three core questions related to the applicability of international law in the cyber sphere: What cyber activities constitute unlawful interventions into the domestic affairs of another country? What activities in cyberspace constitute an armed attack against another country? And what activities are permissible for States to respond to either of these types of events?
Panelist(s):Sue Robertson, Office of the Attorney General of Australia (Speaker) Monica Hakimi, University of Michigan Law School (Moderator)
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute Resolution
The Singapore Convention on Mediation and the Future of Appropriate Dispute ResolutionJune 25 - 14:15 PM - 15:15 PM
Sponsored by Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
In August 2019, the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation became open for signature in Singapore. On the very first day, forty-six countries signed what has become known as the Singapore Convention. Part of the reason for the popularity of the Convention is the structural support it offers to provide a holistic approach to the resolution of international disputes. Rather than parties having to rely exclusively on international arbitration tribunals or courts to secure compliance with legal obligations, parties have a reliable, rule-of-law-based enforcement mechanism to buttress their private mediation efforts by promoting a streamlined enforcement mechanism that ensures mediation has meaningful—rather than aspirational—value.This session will examine the genesis, current status, and utility of the Singapore Convention, drawing partly on the knowledge of persons involved in its development. Panelists will discuss practical implications for international dispute resolution practitioners, as well as potential limitations of the Convention, including how the Convention may intersect with existing domestic mediation practices and the lack of participation among European Union states.The session will also use the Singapore Convention as a springboard for discussions about exploring forms of Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR), particularly non-adjudicative forms of international dispute resolution like mediation, negotiation, and community- based conflict management. By exploring how a range of dispute resolution options can be effective, whether non-adjudicative or more traditional forms like litigation and arbitration, the panel will consider how the Singapore Convention could impact parties’ choices and options for identifying effective dispute resolution strategies and international conflict management. The panel will provide these insights by offering commentary reflecting a range of perspectives, including government officials, practitioners, clients, and scholars.
Panelist(s):Itai Apter, Israel Ministry of Justice (Speaker) Andrea Schneider, Marquette University Law School (Speaker) Mark Califano, (Speaker) Edwin Tong, (Speaker) Shahla Ali, (Moderator)
Security, Foreign Relations, & the Use of Force
Where Next? The international arms control frameworkJune 25 - 14:15 PM - 15:15 PM
The international legal framework governing arms control is in a state of flux. There have been significant developments in the fabric of the arms control framework in recent months and years, such as the announced U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (“INF”) Treaty, and the uncertainty surrounding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“Iran Nuclear Deal”). There are also major milestones looming, such as the impending expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction (“New Start”) Treaty. This panel will address these developments and challenges and place them in the context of the broader geopolitical forces at play. These forces include the great powers’ emphasis on updating their arsenals, the increasing tensions between the United States and Russia, China’s resistance to the existing legal framework, and efforts to monitor developments in Iran and North Korea.
Panelist(s):Lynn Rusten, Nuclear Threat Initiative (Speaker) Izumi Nakamitsu, United Nations (Speaker) Alexandra Bell, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (Moderator) Zia Mian, (Speaker)
International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, & Criminal Justice
Imprisoning Schindler: Responding to the legal vulnerability of those who aid refugeesJune 25 - 14:15 PM - 15:15 PM
The truth is that international refugee law (Art. 31) does not protect those who assist refugees, but only refugees themselves, against penalties. Hundreds of volunteers and aid workers across a number European countries have been arrested, charged or investigated for supporting persons seeking protection in the past five years and now the United States Government is following suit. Against that backdrop, this problem-solving exercise will provide a forum for international law experts on the panel and in the audience to actively think about whether other non-refugee bodies of international law, including, for example international humanitarian law, international human rights law, law of the sea, the principle of good faith, might productively be brought to bear.At this interactive event, you will hear from those who have been criminalized for helping refugees, and be part of dynamic and creative discussion exploring the promise of international law for those who have faced official sanction for aiding their fellow humans
Panelist(s):Obiora Okafor, Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto, Canada (Speaker) James C. Hathaway, University of Michigan Law School (Moderator) Gregory Kuykendall, (Speaker)
Break
BreakJune 25 - 15:15 PM - 15:30 PM
New Voices in International LawJune 25 - 15:30 PM - 16:30 PM
Energy, Environment, Sea, & Space
Transitional Justice in a Hostile ClimateJune 25 - 15:30 PM - 16:30 PM
Sponsored by Intersentia Publishing
Organized by the Transitional Justice and the Rule of Law Interest Group
Climate change is the greatest challenge of our time and it is already putting existing theories and institutions to a test. The most dramatic impact of climate change is expected to occur in marginalized communities that already have their livelihoods threatened by structural vulnerabilities and disaster. Climate change implicates issues of global justice, intergenerational ethics, distributive justice, moral, political and legal responsibility. Practices and tools from transitional justice have been used in numerous countries to address similar questions. This roundtable will explore what synergies exist between transitional justice theory and practice and climate change mitigation strategies.
Climate change is the greatest challenge of our time and it is already putting existing theories and institutions to a test. The most dramatic impact of climate change is expected to occur in marginalized communities that already have their livelihoods threatened by structural vulnerabilities and disaster. Climate change implicates issues of global justice, intergenerational ethics, distributive justice, moral, political and legal responsibility. Practices and tools from transitional justice have been used in numerous countries to address similar questions. This roundtable will explore what synergies exist between transitional justice theory and practice and climate change mitigation strategies.
Panelist(s):Michael Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP (Speaker) Amat Alsoswa, former Yemeni Minister of Human Rights (Moderator) Usha Natarajan, American University in Cairo (Speaker) Maxine Burkett, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai'i (Speaker) Gearóid Ó Cuinn, (Speaker)
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute Resolution
Protecting Human Rights through International Adjudication: Reflections on Recent Cases and DevelopmentsJune 25 - 15:30 PM - 16:30 PM
Sponsored by Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
Organized by the Dispute Resolution Interest Group
As human rights considerations permeate into various areas of international law, the role of international adjudication in protecting human rights has also been growing. This area has both private and public dimensions. The International Court of Justice has been recently presented with a number of inter-State disputes related to human rights abuses, including a historic lawsuit brought by The Gambia on behalf of the States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, seeking to hold Myanmar accountable under international law for State-sponsored genocide against the Rohingya. An investment arbitration tribunal in Urbaser v. Argentina for the first time accepted jurisdiction over the State’s counterclaim based on human rights, confirming that the “right to water” was a human right. This past year has also seen the publication of the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration, which are heralded as an important development for future adjudication of human rights disputes involving private parties. This panel will address the promise of international courts and tribunals in adjudication of human rights issues and suitability of international arbitration for resolving human rights disputes that arise in connection with transnational business.
As human rights considerations permeate into various areas of international law, the role of international adjudication in protecting human rights has also been growing. This area has both private and public dimensions. The International Court of Justice has been recently presented with a number of inter-State disputes related to human rights abuses, including a historic lawsuit brought by The Gambia on behalf of the States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, seeking to hold Myanmar accountable under international law for State-sponsored genocide against the Rohingya. An investment arbitration tribunal in Urbaser v. Argentina for the first time accepted jurisdiction over the State’s counterclaim based on human rights, confirming that the “right to water” was a human right. This past year has also seen the publication of the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration, which are heralded as an important development for future adjudication of human rights disputes involving private parties. This panel will address the promise of international courts and tribunals in adjudication of human rights issues and suitability of international arbitration for resolving human rights disputes that arise in connection with transnational business.
Panelist(s):Ursula Kriebaum, University of Vienna, Department of International Law (Speaker) Toby Landau, (Speaker) Jennifer Permesly, (Moderator)
Sustainable Development & Global Governance
Sustainable Development and International law: Fragmentation, disconnects and the challenge of international policy coherence in meeting the SDGsJune 25 - 15:30 PM - 16:30 PM
Public international law norms are relevant to a wide range of the sustainable development goals. Yet there is a systemic failure to connect the two spheres and a dearth of literature on the interaction between public international law and the policy and political frameworks that underpin development.There are moreover few entry points in development policy for the concrete integration of binding international law norms, and the uptake of such norms in development policy, frameworks and programming is uneven at best. The disconnect between public international law and development frameworks can be viewed as yet another example of the fragmentation of international law exemplifying the challenge of international policy coherence: the same countries are parties to core international treaties andparticipants in international development (whether as donors or partners) and yet engage in development activities without a systematic assessment of which international norms apply even in sectors where international treaties clearly govern. Similarly, the SDGs are often viewed in isolation and in a normative and legal vacuum. The 2030 Agenda is typically discussed in terms of its goals, targets and indicators – without any effective engagement with international law norms.This session will debate the nexus between the SDGs and international law and will consider the emergence of sustainable development as a norm post-Rio Declaration. The panel will explore in concrete terms the fundamental role of international law in the attainment of the SDGs by 2030 and will assess the role of existing legal regimes (as they currently exist or as they may be bolstered or reformed) or whether new legal regimes need to be established. It will explore the proposition that a more systematic and coherent approach should be adopted in development policy and practice to promote the respect of international law in development activities, to mitigate human rights risk and to and ensure a more cohesive and less fragmented approach to international law in development.
Panelist(s):Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, University of Geneva (Speaker) Sandra Fredman, University of Oxford (Speaker) Rajat Khosla, Human Rights Adviser to the World Health Organization (Speaker) Robert McCorquodale, University of Nottingham (Moderator) Victor Mosoti, (Speaker)
Break
BreakJune 25 - 16:30 PM - 17:00 PM
Keynotes & Plenaries
Evening Keynote June 25 - 17:00 PM - 18:00 PM
Keynotes & Plenaries
Morning KeynoteJune 26 - 09:00 AM - 10:00 AM
Break
BreakJune 26 - 10:00 AM - 10:15 AM
Energy, Environment, Sea, & Space
Reforming International Environmental Law for the Anthropocene?June 26 - 10:15 AM - 11:15 AM
Sponsored by Intersentia Publishing
Organized by the International Environmental Law Interest Group
International environmental law is at a crossroads. Even as the international community struggles to cooperate and act effectively to address critical global environmental challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and oceans management, efforts are afoot to consolidate and deepen the normative and institutional framework for international environmental law. We propose to hold a roundtable discussion critically exploring the degree to which ongoing efforts to develop a Global Pact for the Environment and to expand constitutional and legislative environmental rights worldwide foster efforts to develop a set of shared norms, and to advance ambitious environmental protection efforts.
International environmental law is at a crossroads. Even as the international community struggles to cooperate and act effectively to address critical global environmental challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and oceans management, efforts are afoot to consolidate and deepen the normative and institutional framework for international environmental law. We propose to hold a roundtable discussion critically exploring the degree to which ongoing efforts to develop a Global Pact for the Environment and to expand constitutional and legislative environmental rights worldwide foster efforts to develop a set of shared norms, and to advance ambitious environmental protection efforts.
Panelist(s):Yann Aguila, Bredin Prat (Law Firm) (Speaker) Louis Kotzé, North-West University (Speaker) Carla García Zendejas, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) (Speaker) Deepa Badrinarayana, (Speaker) Cinnamon Carlarne, (Moderator)
International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, & Criminal Justice
The ICC and Beyond: Re-evaluating the promise of international criminal justiceJune 26 - 10:15 AM - 11:15 AM
While the International Criminal Court (ICC) remains a necessary and vital feature of the international criminal justice landscape, events in its recent past can be characterized as anything but smooth sailing. The Court faces challenges from threatened and actual state withdrawals from the ICC to the debate over the concept of the “interests of justice” and its role in the Afghanistan investigation to the return of U.S. antagonism to the Court. However, the ICC was never designed to bear the burden alone, and this session aims to critically and constructively discuss not only the ICC but also the other justice mechanisms for core international crimes including domestic courts, regional courts, hybrid mechanisms, and specialist chambers. The participants will address emerging and pressing questions, including whether the future of international criminal law is in domestic regimes, the promise and potential of regional courts, and the when and where hybrids or specialized mechanisms are preferable.
Panelist(s):Charles Jalloh, Florida International University (Speaker) Stephen Rapp, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Center for Prevention of Genocide (Speaker) Priya Pillai, Asia Justice Coalition secretariat (Moderator) Lorraine Smith-van Lin, SmithvanLin Consultancy (Speaker) Catherine Marchi-Uhel, (Speaker)
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute Resolution
The Duty to Litigate in Good Faith in International Dispute SettlementJune 26 - 10:15 AM - 11:15 AM
Sponsored by Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
What does the duty of good faith require of disputing parties engaged in litigation before international courts and tribunals? The duty of good faith is well established in international law, and parties frequently invoke it, but its scope and effect in the context international dispute settlement remain unclear. How does the duty of good faith affect the making of applications for interim relief, matters of evidence and the hearing of witnesses? What of “guerilla tactics” such as ambushes, intimidation or sabotage which presentthe risk of serious interference or obstructive conduct by a disputing party? What role should adjudicators play in ensuring that the parties act in good faith and do not engage in abuse of process? With the proliferation of international courts and tribunals and the massive uptake in international proceedings, the stakes are high. More than ever, parties, counsel, and adjudicators must know which conduct will be permitted and which conduct will be sanctioned.Focusing on proceedings before the International Court of Justice and three other regimes in which States participate in international proceedings – international investment law, international trade law, and international human rights law – this panel will examine how different international courts and tribunals have given content to the duty to litigate in good faith. Is there a unified concept of procedural good faith or is it heavily context-dependent? Is there – and, critically, should there be – a difference in approach in State- State proceedings before the ICJ and the WTO versus proceedings in the investment or human rights spheres where individual claimants face respondent States? The adjudicators, counsel, and academics on this panel will identify parallels and differences among legal regimes, discuss recent trends, and critically evaluate the contours of the duty of good faith in international dispute settlement. The moderator-driven rapid response format will aim at fostering a lively discussion.
Panelist(s):Payam Akhavan, McGill University (Speaker) Emma Lindsay, Withers LLP (Moderator) Philippa Webb, King's College London (Speaker) Zachary Douglas, (Speaker) Mélida Hodgson, (Speaker)
Break
BreakJune 26 - 11:15 AM - 11:30 AM
International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, & Criminal Justice
Contemporary Human Rights ResearchJune 26 - 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Organized by the International Legal Research Interest Group
Research in human rights requires resources and skills that enable access both to texts and to empirical data in all formats. What new issues and emerging technology tools enhance and enlarge international legal and human rights research, and how are law firm and academic information managers using, and training users, in familiarity with these emerging areas and tools? For what new advances should lawyers be prepared? Predictive, analytic, and data mining tools may promote or disrupt research human rights, climate change, and access to justice. Avoiding implicit bias in Artificial Intelligence and machine learning (a concern evidenced by The Toronto Declaration on Protecting the Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination in Machine Learning Systems) is a new issue that adds algorithms, used in search engines, to the contested spaces within which human rights must be asserted. This updated tour of potential platforms and applications for scholarship or practice will include presentation of current topics and technology-driven projects and, it is hoped, stimulate ideas for other use cases and research efficiencies that either facilitate or complicate the investigation of international norms.
Research in human rights requires resources and skills that enable access both to texts and to empirical data in all formats. What new issues and emerging technology tools enhance and enlarge international legal and human rights research, and how are law firm and academic information managers using, and training users, in familiarity with these emerging areas and tools? For what new advances should lawyers be prepared? Predictive, analytic, and data mining tools may promote or disrupt research human rights, climate change, and access to justice. Avoiding implicit bias in Artificial Intelligence and machine learning (a concern evidenced by The Toronto Declaration on Protecting the Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination in Machine Learning Systems) is a new issue that adds algorithms, used in search engines, to the contested spaces within which human rights must be asserted. This updated tour of potential platforms and applications for scholarship or practice will include presentation of current topics and technology-driven projects and, it is hoped, stimulate ideas for other use cases and research efficiencies that either facilitate or complicate the investigation of international norms.
Panelist(s):Jenny Gesley, Law Library of Congress (Speaker) Jootaek Lee, Rutgers Law School (Speaker) Saskia Mehlhorn, (Speaker) Marylin J. Raisch, (Moderator)
Sustainable Development & Global Governance
Fifth Annual Detlev F. Vagts Roundtable: Conceptualizing Intellectual Property as a Social Determinant of HealthJune 26 - 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Panelist(s):Gian Luca Burci, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva (Speaker) Margaret Chon, Seattle University School of Law (Speaker) Rochelle Dreyfuss, New York University School of Law (Moderator) Judit Rius Sanjuan, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (Speaker) Ana Rutschman, Saint Louis University School of Law (Speaker) Bhaven Sampat, (Speaker)
International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, & Criminal Justice
Has International Law Lived Up to its Promise in Advancing the Rights of Women and Girls?June 26 - 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
This session will comprehensively address whether international law has lived up to the promise of upholding and advancing the rights of women and girls. It will review the various legal instruments devised with the aim of protecting and promoting these rights, as well as ensuring accountability for violation of these rights, including the various relevant international and regional instruments, international court decisions, and political resolutions that apply. Panelists will lay out the landscape of international law and assess the extent to which these elements of the legal system have achieved or failed in their effect, the gaps that exist in the current structure, and potential solutions. The participants will also identify any common threads among these international law systems, including in terms of obstacles to women and girls’ enjoyment of rights and access to justice.
Panelist(s):Lisa Davis, CUNY Law School (Speaker) Donald Steinberg, InterAction (Speaker) Adwoa Kufuor, UN OHCHR (Speaker) Patti Sellers, (Moderator)
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute Resolution
Eighth Annual Charles N. Brower Lecture on International Dispute Resolution: Sir Daniel BethlehemJune 26 - 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Sponsored by Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
The Eighth Annual Charles N. Brower Lecture on International Dispute Resolution will be presented at the 2020 ASIL Annual Meeting by Sir Daniel Bethlehem QC. Daniel Bethlehem is a barrister and Queen’s Counsel practising in the field of public international law from Twenty Essex chambers in London, in which role he acts both as counsel / adviser and as arbitrator. From May 2006 to May 2011, he was principal Legal Adviser of the U.K. Foreign & Commonwealth Office. Prior to this, in parallel with his Bar practice, he was Director of the Lauterpacht Centre of International Law at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Clare Hall, Cambridge. In addition to his legal practice, Daniel is the founder and director of Legal Policy International, a discreet strategic consultancy advising on high legal content international policy and political issues.
The Brower Lecture is named in honor of Judge Charles N. Brower for his many contributions to the field of international law.
The Brower Lecture is named in honor of Judge Charles N. Brower for his many contributions to the field of international law.
Panelist(s):Sir Daniel Bethlehem, Twenty Essex (Lecturer)
Break
BreakJune 26 - 12:30 PM - 13:00 PM
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute Resolution
The CJEU and the Future of the Multilateral Investment CourtJune 26 - 13:00 PM - 14:00 PM
Sponsored by Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
The Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) is one of the most ambitious procedural reform efforts to impact international investment law since the negotiation of the ICSID Convention. Muchhas been said about the alleged benefits and costs of creating a new multilateral institution to replace ad hoc arbitration as the dominant method of dispute resolution. This panel will not rehash that already robust debate. Instead, the panelists will approach the MIC through the lens of the European Union and its laws. In particular, we will focus on the recent Opinion 1/17 ofthe Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), issued on April 30, 2019 regarding a standing investment court system in the Canadian-European Trade Agreement (CETA). What aspects of international investment dispute resolution are consistent with the Achmea decision? Is the CJEU approach internally consistent? What does the CJEU’s approach to international investment law mean for the harmonization of intra-EU investment law and what, if anything, should investment agreement partners of the European Union now and in the future (like Canada and the United Kingdom respectively) take away from these two landmark CJEU decisions or the several currently working through the system?
Panelist(s):Jonas Hallberg, National Board of Trade, Sweden (Speaker) Angeline Welsh, Essex Court Chambers (Moderator) Colin Brown, (Speaker) Lola Fadina, (Speaker) Sylvie Tabet, (Speaker)
Professional and Academic Development
Second Annual International Law Review Editors RoundtableJune 26 - 13:00 PM - 14:00 PM
In recognition of the important role that student-edited international law journals play in the dissemination of international legal scholarship, the Society hosts an annual International Law Review Editor Roundtable. This Roundtable will discuss key issues around legal scholarship, including: selecting great topics that might be more relevant to the various audiences of law journals, including scholars and practitioners; how international law journals can be more effective at soliciting and/or selecting relevant pieces of international legal scholarship; and how to work with authors (who may have different cultural perspectives) to successfully publish their pieces. The Roundtable will be facilitated by international law experts as well as sitting editors-in-chief of law student-run international law journals. The Society invites current students and recent graduates interested in the process of scholarship and publication in international law to connect with their peers and distinguished scholars and practitioners.
International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, & Criminal Justice
International Law and Theories of Global JusticeJune 26 - 13:00 PM - 14:00 PM
Organized by the International Legal Theory Interest Group
International law informs, and is informed by, concerns for global justice. Yet the two fields that engage most with prescribing the normative structure of the world order – international law and the philosophy of global justice – have tended to work on parallel tracks. Many international lawyers, with their professional, methodological commitment to formal sources, regard considerations of substantive (and not merely procedural) justice as ultra vires for much of their work. Philosophers of global justice, in turn, tend to explore the moral commitments of international actors without grappling with the complexities of international legal doctrine. In recent years, however, both disciplines have begun to engage with one another more, as reflected in works such as Carmody et al, Global Justice and International Economic Law (CUP, 2012); Ratner, The Thin Justice of International Law (OUP, 2015); Haque, Law and Morality at War (OUP, 2017); and Linarelli et al, The Misery of International Law (OUP, 2018). The time is ripe, therefore, for an interdisciplinary conversation to take stock of the relationship between international law and theories of global justice.This panel will seek to inform and enlighten Annual Meeting attendees about these new interdisciplinary developments and, in particular, the role of global justice discourse for practicing and academic international lawyers. The proposed format would ask two international lawyers and two philosophers with diverse perspectives to address international law’s relationship to global justice. How should international lawyers see their roles in terms of advancing different notions of global justice? Are certain types of international lawyering more or less amenable to using law as an instrument of global justice? How does the international lawyer’s role as practical problem-solver allow for her or him to take into account considerations of justice?
International law informs, and is informed by, concerns for global justice. Yet the two fields that engage most with prescribing the normative structure of the world order – international law and the philosophy of global justice – have tended to work on parallel tracks. Many international lawyers, with their professional, methodological commitment to formal sources, regard considerations of substantive (and not merely procedural) justice as ultra vires for much of their work. Philosophers of global justice, in turn, tend to explore the moral commitments of international actors without grappling with the complexities of international legal doctrine. In recent years, however, both disciplines have begun to engage with one another more, as reflected in works such as Carmody et al, Global Justice and International Economic Law (CUP, 2012); Ratner, The Thin Justice of International Law (OUP, 2015); Haque, Law and Morality at War (OUP, 2017); and Linarelli et al, The Misery of International Law (OUP, 2018). The time is ripe, therefore, for an interdisciplinary conversation to take stock of the relationship between international law and theories of global justice.This panel will seek to inform and enlighten Annual Meeting attendees about these new interdisciplinary developments and, in particular, the role of global justice discourse for practicing and academic international lawyers. The proposed format would ask two international lawyers and two philosophers with diverse perspectives to address international law’s relationship to global justice. How should international lawyers see their roles in terms of advancing different notions of global justice? Are certain types of international lawyering more or less amenable to using law as an instrument of global justice? How does the international lawyer’s role as practical problem-solver allow for her or him to take into account considerations of justice?
Panelist(s):Jiewuh Song, Seoul National University (Speaker) Steven Ratner, University of Michigan Law School (Moderator) Carmen E Pavel, King's College London (Speaker) James Graham Stewart, Allard law School, University of British Columbia (Speaker) David Luban, (Speaker)
Energy, Environment, Sea, & Space
Addressing the Law of the Sea: Challenges of Sea-Level RiseJune 26 - 13:00 PM - 14:00 PM
Sponsored by Intersentia Publishing
Sea-level rise is accelerating globally. Small island States are particularly affected by sea level rise, as are other coastal States. In light of this situation, serious legal questions arise in relation to the law of the sea. What does the UN Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) provide or fail to provide concerning baselines from which maritime zones are measured when these are affected by sea level rise? Should they remain fixed or be changed to reflect new realities? Is there State practice, and if so what direction is it taking? What are the main legal and practical concerns about fixing or changing baselines? How does sea level rise affect the determination of islands/rocks/low tide elevations, and what is the direction of State practice? Are there legal implications of sea level rise for boundary delimitation, and differences in terms of agreed boundaries, as opposed to undelimited areas? What are the dispute settlement options under LOSC in relation to sea level rise?
Panelist(s):Alfred Soons, Utrecht University (Speaker) Patrícia Galvão Teles, International Law Commission (Moderator) Rüdiger Wolfrum, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & Int'l Law (Speaker) Nilufer Oral, Centre for International Law, NUS Singapore (Speaker) Filimon Manoni, (Speaker)
Security, Foreign Relations, & the Use of Force
Recent Peace Agreement Negotiations: Successes and challenges from the Eritrea-Ethiopia, US-Taliban and HudaydahJune 26 - 13:00 PM - 14:00 PM
While each peace negotiation must be assessed on its own set of unique circumstances, the focus of the panel would be on techniques commonly deployed and the experiences of individuals directly involved in the negotiations. The three peace agreements referred to above each had different dynamics and prevailing considerations. They also ranged in the extent to which the parties sought to resolve disputes through recourse to adjudication rather than political settlement. Hopefully, through the discussion, the panelists would be able to illustrate the approaches they utilized and exchange ideas on the extent to which international legal principles were (or were not) essential to the deliberations.
Panelist(s):Laurel Miller, (Speaker)
Break
BreakJune 26 - 14:00 PM - 14:15 PM
Energy, Environment, Sea, & Space
Which Way to the Stars? Challenges to regulation of “new space” activitiesJune 26 - 14:15 PM - 15:15 PM
Sponsored by Intersentia Publishing
The imminent increase of privately-funded, commercial space flight and other operations, collectively referred to in international law literature as “New Space” activities, is often presented as a challenge to the corpus iuris spatialis. Truthfully, the proliferation of such “New Space” activities provides the impetus needed for a possible revamping of existing norms relating to the use, exploration and exploitation of outer space. Emphasis has been on particular space law aspects, specifically those presumed to constitute an impediment to financially profitable commercial operations. For instance, commercial endeavors regarding the exploitation of natural resources on celestial bodies are challenged by and in turn challenging the principle of non-appropriation of outer space, enshrined in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, as well as the potential profit-sharing mechanism of Article 11 of the Moon Agreement. Efforts are already undertaken both at the governmental and non-governmental level, internationally, bilaterally or, upon occasion, unilaterally, to provide responses to such challenges.Nonetheless, there is a broader discussion to be had on the evolution of space law beyond the conceptualization of space as simply a resource. Indeed, whereas providing responses to targeted commercial issues may facilitate the evolution of a specific aspect of space law, the discipline itself will suffer if it follows a piecemeal “New Space” approach. A holistic, centrally-coordinated approach will eventually be necessary, brought about by the multitude of operational requirements and concerns of national regulators as well as the different branches of the space industry. The incentive to reach such a centrally coordinated framework for all kinds of “New Space” activities is the one element all of them have in common: movement in, through and out of outer space, including on celestial bodies, and impacts of various space uses (such as for geostationary orbits necessary for telecommunications, proposals for space mining and space debris management, space exploration and information exchanges on science, climate change, among others). Consequently, an international, cooperative system of regulatory cooperation for “New Space” activities, operated by an appropriately mandated international body, could be the institutional clearinghouse and coordinated guarantee for the orderly development of “New Space” activities, in a way that would both satisfy commercial interests, but also safeguard the pressing jurisdictional concerns of States. Is this more functional approach a prima facie unprecedented erosion of State sovereignty?
Panelist(s):Yuri Takaya-Umehara, The University of Tokyo (Speaker)
Trade, Investment, Finance, & Technology
The Great Transformation and the Promise of International Economic LawJune 26 - 14:15 PM - 15:15 PM
Sponsored by Dechert LLP
The postwar international economic order, symbolized by the Bretton Woods system, has recently been questioned as the Great Divergence eclipses the Great Convergence. Brexit has challenged long-held conventional wisdom on European integration. Trade wars prompted by the Trump doctrine (“America First”) have brought an existential angst to the World Trade Organization (WTO) system. At the same time, emerging economies, at the behest of China, have recently launched competitive mega projects, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Could multilateralism survive recent massive economic nationalism? Do these developments herald the end of the conventional (Western) model of global economic governance? Is China creating a new form of international trade and economic ordering based on a web of international finance, trade, and investment initiatives? Should other actors take note and look for ways to nudge the Chinese government to play a more constructive role, and to work within the system to advance its interests? Against this captivating background, this panel seeks to revisit the conventional theme of international economic law and reflect on new ones.
Panelist(s):James Gathii, (Moderator) Eunkyung Kim Shin, Baker & McKenzie (Speaker) Cliff Manjiao, (Speaker) Daphne Hong, (Speaker) Simon Lester, (Speaker)
Sustainable Development & Global Governance
Does International Law Make the World More Equal?June 26 - 14:15 PM - 15:15 PM
Does international law reduce global inequality or contribute to it? This session explores the compatibility of some of the world’s most prominent international organizations and legal regimes with three Sustainable Development Goals: SDG 5 (Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls) and SDG 10 (Reduce inequality within and among countries), and SDG 16 (Promote peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice, and accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels). Panelists will be invited to comment on whether international legal rules and organizations address or hinder these goals across three dimensions. The first dimension explores institutional design and inequality: what institutional features, such as substantive rights, advance SDG 5, SDG 10, and SDG 16? The second dimension explores participation and inequality: how does the process of creating, modifying, and evaluating these institutions advance or undermine these same SDGs? The final dimension evaluates the practice of these institutions and inequality: does the actual operation of these institutions today advance the three identified SDG goals? By exploring inequality across these three dimensions, panelists and audience members are able to diagnose the particular institutional shortcomings that may compromise the ability of international law to achieve its promise of making the world more equal.
Panelist(s):Catherine Gibson, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (Speaker) Fatema Sumar, Oxfam America (Speaker) Kimberly Brown, The Carter Center (Moderator) Chantal Thomas, Cornell University (Speaker)
Sustainable Development & Global Governance
Accountability Is an IO’s Jam? International organizations and immunity one year after Jam v. International Finance CorpJune 26 - 14:15 PM - 15:15 PM
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer suggested in his dissenting opinion in Jam v. IFC that the majority’s approach could open the flood gates to lawsuits against international organizations in domestic U.S. courts in ways that Congress did not intend and that would inhibit IOs from carrying out their essential functions. Some commentators welcomed this opening, finding promise in Jam as potentially leading to better accountability outcomes, in particular with respect to human rights abuses. Others predicted that the decision would encourage international organizations to improve their “alternative means” of dispute resolution, or even to take more drastic measures like amending their charters to strengthen or clarify immunity provisions. This Jam session will explore the promises of Jam one year since the landmark SCOTUS decision. What are IOs doing, if anything, to improve their internal justice systems? What are they doing to improve project management to prevent abuses or tortious conduct? Perhaps more important, what should IOs be doing? And if IOs are not taking action themselves, are there any signs that Justice Breyer’s prophesy that U.S. domestic courts would become more accessible to lawsuits against IOs could become true? Does the case still hold promise for victims to achieve accountability for alleged abuses by IOs?
Panelist(s):Edward Okeke, World Bank (Speaker) Beatrice Lindstrom, Harvard Law School (Speaker) Nancy L. Perkins, Arnold & Porter (Speaker) Pablo Arrocha, Permanent Mission of Mexico to the UN (Moderator) Carla Ferstman, University of Essex (Speaker)
Break
BreakJune 26 - 15:15 PM - 15:30 PM
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute Resolution
The Promise and Prospects of the 2019 Hague ConventionJune 26 - 15:30 PM - 16:30 PM
Sponsored by Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
On 2 July 2019, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Hague Judgments Convention”) was concluded at the Twenty-Second Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It was designed as a “sister convention” to the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Heralded as a true game changer for cross-border dispute resolution, its potential effects have been likened to that of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958. But will this new convention fulfill the “promise of international law”?This panel will consider: (i) the reasons behind the push for a new multilateral convention to promote mutual recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments; (ii) the objectives and scope of the Hague Judgments Convention; and (iii) its prospects in terms of likely signatories, and the magnitude of its future impact. The previous treaty on this subject – the 1971 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters – only ever garnered a handful of state parties. The panel will discuss the key differences between the two conventions, and the features of the new Hague Judgments Convention that may lead states to sign it (or not).
Panelist(s):Cara North, Levy Kaufmann-Kohler (Speaker) Yuko Nishitani, Kyoto University Graduate School of Law (Speaker) Shubha Sastry, U.S. Department of State (Speaker) Peter D. Trooboff, Covington & Burling LLP (Moderator) Riccarda Chanda, Embassy of Switzerland (Speaker)
Professional and Academic Development
Prominent Woman in International Law SessionJune 26 - 15:30 PM - 16:30 PM
Security, Foreign Relations, & the Use of Force
Responding to Atrocity Crimes and the Security Council’s Veto Power: Implications, Realities, and the FutureJune 26 - 15:30 PM - 16:30 PM
This session will address how the international community has sought to and could, in the future, respond to the commission of atrocity crimes and upholding the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), through other avenues under international law, despite the constraints that have been imposed as a result of the Security Council’s veto power. The discussion is aimed at looking at the traditional and non-traditional / creative alternative measures that the international community has had to and could adopt in the future to prevent, stop and seek accountability for atrocity crimes.First, the panel will discuss the implications that the veto power, which P5 Member States of the Security Council hold, has had on recent initiatives or intended measures by the international community to address ongoing atrocity crimes. By looking at contemporaneous examples, the panel will identify the consequences that the veto power may have had on the international community’s responses. The panel will also be asked to discuss what adjustments and perhaps, sacrifices that the international community has had to make by ensuring an intended measure does not get defeated at the Security Council as a result of the veto power. Correspondingly, questions will also be posed about how the Security Council’s failure to act (as a result of a P5 Member State exercising their veto power) has prompted alternative creative routes to achieve action and accountability, and has inspired other organs or Member States individually / collectively to take action.Lastly, the panel will also question what impact the Security Council’s veto power, the concessions and adjustments that the international community has had to make in order to pass a measure through the Security Council, as well as the resort to other alternative routes (i.e., other UN organs or individual/collective Member State action outside of the United Nations) implies for R2P. Does lack of international consensus imply the end of the concept of R2P? Are there alternatives to R2P to prevent the commission of atrocity crimes, or can Member States still seek to abide by their R2P through non-traditional measures (i.e., those that do not pass through the Security Council)?
Panelist(s):Ana Peyro Llopis, United Nations-Office of Legal Affairs (Speaker) Adama Dieng, United Nations (Speaker) Jennifer Trahan, NYU Global Affairs Program (Speaker) Monica Shahanara, (Speaker) Elizabeth Wilson, (Moderator)
Sustainable Development & Global Governance
The Promise of Multilateralism in Latin AmericaJune 26 - 15:30 PM - 16:30 PM
Organized by the Latin America Interest Group
From Simon Bolivar’s 1826 Congress of Panama to the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, multilateralism has always been front and center in the history of Latin America. But is it thriving or declining today? What can it help achieve, and what obstacles is it posing? This session will explore the past, present and future of multilateralism in the region, including an assessment of multilateral institutions and groups in resolving crises in the region. Have they been successful (e.g., in Venezuela, Haiti or Nicaragua)? How should success be measured? Are the institutions that aim to promote economic integration and trade (e.g. Mercosur, Pacific Alliance) in ascendancy or decline? What is the record and promise of specialized institutions (e.g. the SIEPAC focusing on the electricity grid in Central America, or the Inter-American Development Bank)? Do ad hoc groups, like the Lima Group, hold more power and promise than formal institutions like the OAS? Are the existing institutions suited to address challenges such as migration, climate change, or trans-border criminal activities? Should new institutions, such as a regional criminal court, be created? What should be the role of these institutions with regard to corruption, a particularly “hot” topic in the region?
From Simon Bolivar’s 1826 Congress of Panama to the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, multilateralism has always been front and center in the history of Latin America. But is it thriving or declining today? What can it help achieve, and what obstacles is it posing? This session will explore the past, present and future of multilateralism in the region, including an assessment of multilateral institutions and groups in resolving crises in the region. Have they been successful (e.g., in Venezuela, Haiti or Nicaragua)? How should success be measured? Are the institutions that aim to promote economic integration and trade (e.g. Mercosur, Pacific Alliance) in ascendancy or decline? What is the record and promise of specialized institutions (e.g. the SIEPAC focusing on the electricity grid in Central America, or the Inter-American Development Bank)? Do ad hoc groups, like the Lima Group, hold more power and promise than formal institutions like the OAS? Are the existing institutions suited to address challenges such as migration, climate change, or trans-border criminal activities? Should new institutions, such as a regional criminal court, be created? What should be the role of these institutions with regard to corruption, a particularly “hot” topic in the region?
Panelist(s):Karen Alter, (Speaker) Mariana Durney, (Speaker) Michael Camilleri, (Speaker) Cesar Coronel Ortega, (Moderator)
Break
BreakJune 26 - 16:30 PM - 17:00 PM
Keynotes & Plenaries
Closing Plenary of the 2020 Annual Meeting of the American Society of International LawJune 26 - 17:00 PM - 18:00 PM
Cities and Other Sub-National Entities: What Promise Do They Hold for International Law?
Today, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities. In 2050, the proportion living in cities will have risen to 75%. How does this rapid urbanisation influence international law and governance? Does the changing role of cities in international law and governance apply to other sub-national entities as well? In 2001, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, “The central challenge for the international community is clear: to make both urbanization and globalization work for all people, instead of leaving billions behind or on the margins.” Cities and other sub-national entities are crucial to facing this challenge, as is confirmed by the adoption in 2015 of Sustainable Development Goal 11, to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. Indeed, the UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) was reformed to strengthen its role in the implementation of the New Urban Agenda (2016) of the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development.
Cities and other sub-national entities play a role in the making of international law and global policy, with their involvement in the adoption of the 2016 Paris Agreement as a case in point. They also play a role in implementing international law and global policy, sometimes even when the national government has declined to ratify a treaty or implement a policy. International organizations are engaging with city networks, such as United Cities and Local Government (UCLG), to help improve life for people in the urban sphere. How should we understand this intensifying dynamic? What is the promise of international law for cities and other sub-national entities, and what is their promise for international law? Indeed, where does this promise fall short?
International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, & Criminal JusticeThe Case of Self Determination in the 21st Century
Around the world, communities have failed to fully realize their right to self-determination, despite the recognition of that right by international courts and international institutions. Sub-state political entities that have sought to assert their right to self-determination through independence referenda have faced political reprisals and charges of illegal secession. In the recent Chagos Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice shed light on the nature and right of self-determination in the context of decolonization. This session will address self-determination in the 21st Century in cases of unfinished decolonization and independent statehood movements.Using the Chagos Advisory Opinion (ICJ), Kosovo Advisory Opinion (ICJ), and Quebec opinion (Canada) as a legal framework, this panel will take place in an “oral argument” format, where a judge will pose questions to attorneys representing communities who are seeking to assert their right to self-determination and attorneys representing states that are opposed to those efforts. The judge will hear oral argument from litigants debating self-determination claims in two or more cases, such as the Comoros Islands vs. France over Mayotte, the Sahrawis of Western Sahara vs. Morocco, and/or the Kurdish Region vs. Iraq. After oral argument, time will be reserved for questions from the audience, acting as part of the judicial panel. Finally, the audience will have the opportunity to vote on the separate cases.
International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, & Criminal JusticeImprisoning Schindler: Responding to the legal vulnerability of those who aid refugees
The truth is that international refugee law (Art. 31) does not protect those who assist refugees, but only refugees themselves, against penalties. Hundreds of volunteers and aid workers across a number European countries have been arrested, charged or investigated for supporting persons seeking protection in the past five years and now the United States Government is following suit. Against that backdrop, this problem-solving exercise will provide a forum for international law experts on the panel and in the audience to actively think about whether other non-refugee bodies of international law, including, for example international humanitarian law, international human rights law, law of the sea, the principle of good faith, might productively be brought to bear.At this interactive event, you will hear from those who have been criminalized for helping refugees, and be part of dynamic and creative discussion exploring the promise of international law for those who have faced official sanction for aiding their fellow humans
International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, & Criminal JusticeThe ICC and Beyond: Re-evaluating the promise of international criminal justice
While the International Criminal Court (ICC) remains a necessary and vital feature of the international criminal justice landscape, events in its recent past can be characterized as anything but smooth sailing. The Court faces challenges from threatened and actual state withdrawals from the ICC to the debate over the concept of the “interests of justice” and its role in the Afghanistan investigation to the return of U.S. antagonism to the Court. However, the ICC was never designed to bear the burden alone, and this session aims to critically and constructively discuss not only the ICC but also the other justice mechanisms for core international crimes including domestic courts, regional courts, hybrid mechanisms, and specialist chambers. The participants will address emerging and pressing questions, including whether the future of international criminal law is in domestic regimes, the promise and potential of regional courts, and the when and where hybrids or specialized mechanisms are preferable.
International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, & Criminal JusticeContemporary Human Rights Research
Organized by the International Legal Research Interest Group
Research in human rights requires resources and skills that enable access both to texts and to empirical data in all formats. What new issues and emerging technology tools enhance and enlarge international legal and human rights research, and how are law firm and academic information managers using, and training users, in familiarity with these emerging areas and tools? For what new advances should lawyers be prepared? Predictive, analytic, and data mining tools may promote or disrupt research human rights, climate change, and access to justice. Avoiding implicit bias in Artificial Intelligence and machine learning (a concern evidenced by The Toronto Declaration on Protecting the Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination in Machine Learning Systems) is a new issue that adds algorithms, used in search engines, to the contested spaces within which human rights must be asserted. This updated tour of potential platforms and applications for scholarship or practice will include presentation of current topics and technology-driven projects and, it is hoped, stimulate ideas for other use cases and research efficiencies that either facilitate or complicate the investigation of international norms.
Research in human rights requires resources and skills that enable access both to texts and to empirical data in all formats. What new issues and emerging technology tools enhance and enlarge international legal and human rights research, and how are law firm and academic information managers using, and training users, in familiarity with these emerging areas and tools? For what new advances should lawyers be prepared? Predictive, analytic, and data mining tools may promote or disrupt research human rights, climate change, and access to justice. Avoiding implicit bias in Artificial Intelligence and machine learning (a concern evidenced by The Toronto Declaration on Protecting the Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination in Machine Learning Systems) is a new issue that adds algorithms, used in search engines, to the contested spaces within which human rights must be asserted. This updated tour of potential platforms and applications for scholarship or practice will include presentation of current topics and technology-driven projects and, it is hoped, stimulate ideas for other use cases and research efficiencies that either facilitate or complicate the investigation of international norms.
International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, & Criminal JusticeHas International Law Lived Up to its Promise in Advancing the Rights of Women and Girls?
This session will comprehensively address whether international law has lived up to the promise of upholding and advancing the rights of women and girls. It will review the various legal instruments devised with the aim of protecting and promoting these rights, as well as ensuring accountability for violation of these rights, including the various relevant international and regional instruments, international court decisions, and political resolutions that apply. Panelists will lay out the landscape of international law and assess the extent to which these elements of the legal system have achieved or failed in their effect, the gaps that exist in the current structure, and potential solutions. The participants will also identify any common threads among these international law systems, including in terms of obstacles to women and girls’ enjoyment of rights and access to justice.
International Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, & Criminal JusticeInternational Law and Theories of Global Justice
Organized by the International Legal Theory Interest Group
International law informs, and is informed by, concerns for global justice. Yet the two fields that engage most with prescribing the normative structure of the world order – international law and the philosophy of global justice – have tended to work on parallel tracks. Many international lawyers, with their professional, methodological commitment to formal sources, regard considerations of substantive (and not merely procedural) justice as ultra vires for much of their work. Philosophers of global justice, in turn, tend to explore the moral commitments of international actors without grappling with the complexities of international legal doctrine. In recent years, however, both disciplines have begun to engage with one another more, as reflected in works such as Carmody et al, Global Justice and International Economic Law (CUP, 2012); Ratner, The Thin Justice of International Law (OUP, 2015); Haque, Law and Morality at War (OUP, 2017); and Linarelli et al, The Misery of International Law (OUP, 2018). The time is ripe, therefore, for an interdisciplinary conversation to take stock of the relationship between international law and theories of global justice.This panel will seek to inform and enlighten Annual Meeting attendees about these new interdisciplinary developments and, in particular, the role of global justice discourse for practicing and academic international lawyers. The proposed format would ask two international lawyers and two philosophers with diverse perspectives to address international law’s relationship to global justice. How should international lawyers see their roles in terms of advancing different notions of global justice? Are certain types of international lawyering more or less amenable to using law as an instrument of global justice? How does the international lawyer’s role as practical problem-solver allow for her or him to take into account considerations of justice?
International law informs, and is informed by, concerns for global justice. Yet the two fields that engage most with prescribing the normative structure of the world order – international law and the philosophy of global justice – have tended to work on parallel tracks. Many international lawyers, with their professional, methodological commitment to formal sources, regard considerations of substantive (and not merely procedural) justice as ultra vires for much of their work. Philosophers of global justice, in turn, tend to explore the moral commitments of international actors without grappling with the complexities of international legal doctrine. In recent years, however, both disciplines have begun to engage with one another more, as reflected in works such as Carmody et al, Global Justice and International Economic Law (CUP, 2012); Ratner, The Thin Justice of International Law (OUP, 2015); Haque, Law and Morality at War (OUP, 2017); and Linarelli et al, The Misery of International Law (OUP, 2018). The time is ripe, therefore, for an interdisciplinary conversation to take stock of the relationship between international law and theories of global justice.This panel will seek to inform and enlighten Annual Meeting attendees about these new interdisciplinary developments and, in particular, the role of global justice discourse for practicing and academic international lawyers. The proposed format would ask two international lawyers and two philosophers with diverse perspectives to address international law’s relationship to global justice. How should international lawyers see their roles in terms of advancing different notions of global justice? Are certain types of international lawyering more or less amenable to using law as an instrument of global justice? How does the international lawyer’s role as practical problem-solver allow for her or him to take into account considerations of justice?
All sessions in this track sponsored by
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute ResolutionThe U.S. and International Courts and Tribunals: A historical approach to the current dilemma
Organized by the International Courts and Tribunals Interest Group
The United States has historically been at the vanguard of international dispute resolution, from the Jay Treaty through the countless cases of diplomatic protection, the Alabama Claims, the U.S.-Mexico Claims Commission, the Venuezuela bond arbitration, and many others. The panel will look at a sample of those cases from the 19th and 20th centuries to examine how States (including the United States) have changed their approaches to international courts and tribunals in the 21st century. The panel will address how the procedure and structures of earlier systems influenced States’ engagement with international courts and tribunals. The panel will further examine the political conditions bearing on international adjudication, both domestically and internationally, that existed at the time of the earlier cases, how those conditions compare to the current domestic and international atmosphere, and how those conditions affect States’ engagement with international courts and tribunals. In the process, the panel will address the questions: has the promise of international law, laid out in previous centuries as it relates to international adjudication, been fulfilled? What lessons can be drawn from earlier approaches, as we determine how that promise will fare in the future?
The United States has historically been at the vanguard of international dispute resolution, from the Jay Treaty through the countless cases of diplomatic protection, the Alabama Claims, the U.S.-Mexico Claims Commission, the Venuezuela bond arbitration, and many others. The panel will look at a sample of those cases from the 19th and 20th centuries to examine how States (including the United States) have changed their approaches to international courts and tribunals in the 21st century. The panel will address how the procedure and structures of earlier systems influenced States’ engagement with international courts and tribunals. The panel will further examine the political conditions bearing on international adjudication, both domestically and internationally, that existed at the time of the earlier cases, how those conditions compare to the current domestic and international atmosphere, and how those conditions affect States’ engagement with international courts and tribunals. In the process, the panel will address the questions: has the promise of international law, laid out in previous centuries as it relates to international adjudication, been fulfilled? What lessons can be drawn from earlier approaches, as we determine how that promise will fare in the future?
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute ResolutionThe Singapore Convention on Mediation and the Future of Appropriate Dispute Resolution
In August 2019, the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation became open for signature in Singapore. On the very first day, forty-six countries signed what has become known as the Singapore Convention. Part of the reason for the popularity of the Convention is the structural support it offers to provide a holistic approach to the resolution of international disputes. Rather than parties having to rely exclusively on international arbitration tribunals or courts to secure compliance with legal obligations, parties have a reliable, rule-of-law-based enforcement mechanism to buttress their private mediation efforts by promoting a streamlined enforcement mechanism that ensures mediation has meaningful—rather than aspirational—value.This session will examine the genesis, current status, and utility of the Singapore Convention, drawing partly on the knowledge of persons involved in its development. Panelists will discuss practical implications for international dispute resolution practitioners, as well as potential limitations of the Convention, including how the Convention may intersect with existing domestic mediation practices and the lack of participation among European Union states.The session will also use the Singapore Convention as a springboard for discussions about exploring forms of Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR), particularly non-adjudicative forms of international dispute resolution like mediation, negotiation, and community- based conflict management. By exploring how a range of dispute resolution options can be effective, whether non-adjudicative or more traditional forms like litigation and arbitration, the panel will consider how the Singapore Convention could impact parties’ choices and options for identifying effective dispute resolution strategies and international conflict management. The panel will provide these insights by offering commentary reflecting a range of perspectives, including government officials, practitioners, clients, and scholars.
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute ResolutionProtecting Human Rights through International Adjudication: Reflections on Recent Cases and Developments
Organized by the Dispute Resolution Interest Group
As human rights considerations permeate into various areas of international law, the role of international adjudication in protecting human rights has also been growing. This area has both private and public dimensions. The International Court of Justice has been recently presented with a number of inter-State disputes related to human rights abuses, including a historic lawsuit brought by The Gambia on behalf of the States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, seeking to hold Myanmar accountable under international law for State-sponsored genocide against the Rohingya. An investment arbitration tribunal in Urbaser v. Argentina for the first time accepted jurisdiction over the State’s counterclaim based on human rights, confirming that the “right to water” was a human right. This past year has also seen the publication of the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration, which are heralded as an important development for future adjudication of human rights disputes involving private parties. This panel will address the promise of international courts and tribunals in adjudication of human rights issues and suitability of international arbitration for resolving human rights disputes that arise in connection with transnational business.
As human rights considerations permeate into various areas of international law, the role of international adjudication in protecting human rights has also been growing. This area has both private and public dimensions. The International Court of Justice has been recently presented with a number of inter-State disputes related to human rights abuses, including a historic lawsuit brought by The Gambia on behalf of the States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, seeking to hold Myanmar accountable under international law for State-sponsored genocide against the Rohingya. An investment arbitration tribunal in Urbaser v. Argentina for the first time accepted jurisdiction over the State’s counterclaim based on human rights, confirming that the “right to water” was a human right. This past year has also seen the publication of the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration, which are heralded as an important development for future adjudication of human rights disputes involving private parties. This panel will address the promise of international courts and tribunals in adjudication of human rights issues and suitability of international arbitration for resolving human rights disputes that arise in connection with transnational business.
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute ResolutionThe Duty to Litigate in Good Faith in International Dispute Settlement
What does the duty of good faith require of disputing parties engaged in litigation before international courts and tribunals? The duty of good faith is well established in international law, and parties frequently invoke it, but its scope and effect in the context international dispute settlement remain unclear. How does the duty of good faith affect the making of applications for interim relief, matters of evidence and the hearing of witnesses? What of “guerilla tactics” such as ambushes, intimidation or sabotage which presentthe risk of serious interference or obstructive conduct by a disputing party? What role should adjudicators play in ensuring that the parties act in good faith and do not engage in abuse of process? With the proliferation of international courts and tribunals and the massive uptake in international proceedings, the stakes are high. More than ever, parties, counsel, and adjudicators must know which conduct will be permitted and which conduct will be sanctioned.Focusing on proceedings before the International Court of Justice and three other regimes in which States participate in international proceedings – international investment law, international trade law, and international human rights law – this panel will examine how different international courts and tribunals have given content to the duty to litigate in good faith. Is there a unified concept of procedural good faith or is it heavily context-dependent? Is there – and, critically, should there be – a difference in approach in State- State proceedings before the ICJ and the WTO versus proceedings in the investment or human rights spheres where individual claimants face respondent States? The adjudicators, counsel, and academics on this panel will identify parallels and differences among legal regimes, discuss recent trends, and critically evaluate the contours of the duty of good faith in international dispute settlement. The moderator-driven rapid response format will aim at fostering a lively discussion.
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute ResolutionEighth Annual Charles N. Brower Lecture on International Dispute Resolution: Sir Daniel Bethlehem
The Eighth Annual Charles N. Brower Lecture on International Dispute Resolution will be presented at the 2020 ASIL Annual Meeting by Sir Daniel Bethlehem QC. Daniel Bethlehem is a barrister and Queen’s Counsel practising in the field of public international law from Twenty Essex chambers in London, in which role he acts both as counsel / adviser and as arbitrator. From May 2006 to May 2011, he was principal Legal Adviser of the U.K. Foreign & Commonwealth Office. Prior to this, in parallel with his Bar practice, he was Director of the Lauterpacht Centre of International Law at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Clare Hall, Cambridge. In addition to his legal practice, Daniel is the founder and director of Legal Policy International, a discreet strategic consultancy advising on high legal content international policy and political issues.
The Brower Lecture is named in honor of Judge Charles N. Brower for his many contributions to the field of international law.
The Brower Lecture is named in honor of Judge Charles N. Brower for his many contributions to the field of international law.
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute ResolutionThe CJEU and the Future of the Multilateral Investment Court
The Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) is one of the most ambitious procedural reform efforts to impact international investment law since the negotiation of the ICSID Convention. Muchhas been said about the alleged benefits and costs of creating a new multilateral institution to replace ad hoc arbitration as the dominant method of dispute resolution. This panel will not rehash that already robust debate. Instead, the panelists will approach the MIC through the lens of the European Union and its laws. In particular, we will focus on the recent Opinion 1/17 ofthe Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), issued on April 30, 2019 regarding a standing investment court system in the Canadian-European Trade Agreement (CETA). What aspects of international investment dispute resolution are consistent with the Achmea decision? Is the CJEU approach internally consistent? What does the CJEU’s approach to international investment law mean for the harmonization of intra-EU investment law and what, if anything, should investment agreement partners of the European Union now and in the future (like Canada and the United Kingdom respectively) take away from these two landmark CJEU decisions or the several currently working through the system?
Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, & Dispute ResolutionThe Promise and Prospects of the 2019 Hague Convention
On 2 July 2019, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Hague Judgments Convention”) was concluded at the Twenty-Second Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It was designed as a “sister convention” to the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Heralded as a true game changer for cross-border dispute resolution, its potential effects have been likened to that of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958. But will this new convention fulfill the “promise of international law”?This panel will consider: (i) the reasons behind the push for a new multilateral convention to promote mutual recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments; (ii) the objectives and scope of the Hague Judgments Convention; and (iii) its prospects in terms of likely signatories, and the magnitude of its future impact. The previous treaty on this subject – the 1971 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters – only ever garnered a handful of state parties. The panel will discuss the key differences between the two conventions, and the features of the new Hague Judgments Convention that may lead states to sign it (or not).
All sessions in this track sponsored by
Dechert LLP
Dechert LLP
Trade, Investment, Finance, & TechnologyReforming the WTO through the Prism of Rules- versus Power-based Trade Relations
The post-war rules-based global trading system stands at a crossroads. All three of the WTO’s main functions—monitoring member states’ trade policies, serving as a forum for trade negotiations, and providing a mechanism to settle trade disputes—are facing criticism and the pressure to reform. While this presents a much needed opportunity to modernize the current system, it is unclear whether a “rules-based” system anchored in binding adjudication in relation to multilaterally-negotiated treaty commitments is stable or even viable over the long-term. Shocks to the system lead major players such as the United States to consider opting out of or undercutting multilateral rules, and emergent powers like China to challenge the adequacy of the established rules. Renegotiation is exceedingly difficult and has not succeeded on a large scale since the Uruguay Round, flexibility mechanisms have failed in many respects, and a reversion toward power-based trade diplomacy seems underway. This panel with address fundamental questions relating to the WTO reform process through John Jackson’s conceptual framework: Is a rules-based system doomed to fail? Can it be rescued? And, more importantly, should it be rescued?
Trade, Investment, Finance, & TechnologyUsing Old Tools in New Ways: The New Economic World Order
The 21st Century has witnessed a number of attempts by States to change the economic world order that had been established by the end of the 20th Century. Although the outcomes sought involve change, the international law tools being used to achieve this arguably are not new. This session will address aspects of what is arguably the new economic world order and old tools, e.g., global international trade (non-trade disputes being weaponised as trade disputes using the WTO disputes procedures), regional international trade (CUSMA and the NAFTA denunciation/renegotiation), the international law of foreign investment (the World Investment Court and the capital exporting States’ (read the EC’s) reaction to being sued under BITs), bilateral trade (China’s belt and road initiative), sanctions and trade/investment blocking (Iran, Venezuela, Huawei 5G)
Trade, Investment, Finance, & TechnologyPromise or Peril? Towards an international data protection regime
Organized by the International Law and Technology Interest Group
This session tackles one of the most pressing issues in transnational legal practice today: data protection and privacy rights. The EU’s enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in May 2018, has transformed markets around the globe as governments, multinational companies and civil society organizations with transnational activities have focused organizational resources on bringing their international practices and their accompanying data processing into compliance with the GDPR’s extensive regulatory framework. Other countries, including China, Brazil and India have followed suit with their own data protection regimes, all of which incorporate elements of extra-territorial jurisdiction similar to those within the GDPR. In addition, the International Standards Organization has recently issued a data privacy information management standard, ISO/IEC 27701.The global trend towards personal data protection is well underway. In the United States several states (notably California, with its recent CCPA), have moved forward with data protection laws, yet Congress struggles to draft federal privacy legislation, grappling with core questions of proper scope and effective enforcement.These developments suggest a number of corollary questions: is an international data protection regime evolving? If not, should one be developed? What role do comparative and international law norms, including human rights, play in shaping existing and potential data protection and privacy regimes? This session will explore these and other questions to map the state of play with respect to data protection and privacy regulation from a transnational perspective.
This session tackles one of the most pressing issues in transnational legal practice today: data protection and privacy rights. The EU’s enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in May 2018, has transformed markets around the globe as governments, multinational companies and civil society organizations with transnational activities have focused organizational resources on bringing their international practices and their accompanying data processing into compliance with the GDPR’s extensive regulatory framework. Other countries, including China, Brazil and India have followed suit with their own data protection regimes, all of which incorporate elements of extra-territorial jurisdiction similar to those within the GDPR. In addition, the International Standards Organization has recently issued a data privacy information management standard, ISO/IEC 27701.The global trend towards personal data protection is well underway. In the United States several states (notably California, with its recent CCPA), have moved forward with data protection laws, yet Congress struggles to draft federal privacy legislation, grappling with core questions of proper scope and effective enforcement.These developments suggest a number of corollary questions: is an international data protection regime evolving? If not, should one be developed? What role do comparative and international law norms, including human rights, play in shaping existing and potential data protection and privacy regimes? This session will explore these and other questions to map the state of play with respect to data protection and privacy regulation from a transnational perspective.
Trade, Investment, Finance, & TechnologyProtecting Human Rights in the Digital Age: Can international law provide the necessary framework?
Digital platforms have fundamentally changed the flow of information on a global scale. The effects of the digital age on human beings are widespread, from empowering individuals and advancing society on the one hand, to emboldening the spread of disinformation and enabling the spread of hate-based radicalization. There are many initiatives on the part of the private sector, States and civil society to address the increased abuse of digital platforms, but these initiatives are largely developing as a patchwork of domestic regulation. What is still lacking is a comprehensive normative framework that addresses fundamental human rights and still enables platforms to operate cross-jurisdictionally.International human rights law can serve as the cornerstone for such a global framework. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights entail that human rights law applies to digital platforms, wherever they are based or operating. In turn, key elements of human rights law can serve as guiding principles for both governments and digital platforms to institute regulations or policies governing online dissemination of information. Consideration must be given to the freedom of expression as well as the rights to freedom of thought and opinion and the right to privacy, but that must be weighed alongside the need for individual and public safety and security.The panel will be a robust discussion on how human rights law can inform a framework for protecting individuals in the digital age, including how to strike the right balance among fundamental human rights that at times may be in tension.
Trade, Investment, Finance, & TechnologyThe Great Transformation and the Promise of International Economic Law
The postwar international economic order, symbolized by the Bretton Woods system, has recently been questioned as the Great Divergence eclipses the Great Convergence. Brexit has challenged long-held conventional wisdom on European integration. Trade wars prompted by the Trump doctrine (“America First”) have brought an existential angst to the World Trade Organization (WTO) system. At the same time, emerging economies, at the behest of China, have recently launched competitive mega projects, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Could multilateralism survive recent massive economic nationalism? Do these developments herald the end of the conventional (Western) model of global economic governance? Is China creating a new form of international trade and economic ordering based on a web of international finance, trade, and investment initiatives? Should other actors take note and look for ways to nudge the Chinese government to play a more constructive role, and to work within the system to advance its interests? Against this captivating background, this panel seeks to revisit the conventional theme of international economic law and reflect on new ones.
Sustainable Development & Global GovernanceBetween Participation and Capture: Non-state actor participation in international rule-making
At a moment when global governance is heavily criticized for being led by and devoted to the interests of the few, a fireside conversation with a panel of experts will examine different efforts to address the risks of capture in international rule-making and seek to draw lessons emerging from these cases. Over the past decades, non-state actors—particularly industry representatives—have been increasingly admitted to international rule-making as providers of legitimacy, expertise and funds. This trend towards inclusiveness is likely to increase, owing among other reasons to the endorsement of the Sustainable Development Goals to objectives such as “inclusive institutions at all levels”, “enhancing multi-stakeholder partnerships” and promoting “public-private partnerships”.Yet, it is often overlooked that increased non-state actor participation may skew agenda-setting and ultimately international rule- making in a way that disproportionately reflects sectoral interests. Criticism has emerged in this regard in different areas of governance: UN climate change bodies have been criticized for cozying up to corporate fossil fuel lobbies, global financial governance institutions are charged with leaning towards the interests of the large banking and financial industry they are meant to regulate, and the pharmaceutical industry is accused ofexerting outsized influence in health-related international standard-setting, sometimes in contradiction with public health objectives such as access to medicines. Moreover, philanthropic foundations earmark their contributions, thereby de facto steering the decision-making processes in international organizations that rely on these funds. Some organizations, such as the WHO’s Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors, have recently sought to address these concerns.
Sustainable Development & Global GovernanceWhat Promises will States Keep "Beyond National Jurisdiction?"
Is the need for transnational cooperation in areas beyond the territorial jurisdiction of states sufficient to overcome the resentments and anxieties of polarization and nationalism? This session will test the hypothesis that increasing numbers of states engaged in increasing activities in outer space and the ocean is creating a dynamic space for international law. It will also question whether formal legal instruments, such as the marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreement being negotiated at this very moment, are the ideal vehicle for promises that states will keep. If not, what are the alternatives? The session will address questions of resource and security conflicts, the actors involved in these two diverse spaces, the impetus for negotiation and decisions that led to the formal agreement that resulted, and compliance mechanisms.
Sustainable Development & Global GovernanceSustainable Development and International law: Fragmentation, disconnects and the challenge of international policy coherence in meeting the SDGs
Public international law norms are relevant to a wide range of the sustainable development goals. Yet there is a systemic failure to connect the two spheres and a dearth of literature on the interaction between public international law and the policy and political frameworks that underpin development.There are moreover few entry points in development policy for the concrete integration of binding international law norms, and the uptake of such norms in development policy, frameworks and programming is uneven at best. The disconnect between public international law and development frameworks can be viewed as yet another example of the fragmentation of international law exemplifying the challenge of international policy coherence: the same countries are parties to core international treaties andparticipants in international development (whether as donors or partners) and yet engage in development activities without a systematic assessment of which international norms apply even in sectors where international treaties clearly govern. Similarly, the SDGs are often viewed in isolation and in a normative and legal vacuum. The 2030 Agenda is typically discussed in terms of its goals, targets and indicators – without any effective engagement with international law norms.This session will debate the nexus between the SDGs and international law and will consider the emergence of sustainable development as a norm post-Rio Declaration. The panel will explore in concrete terms the fundamental role of international law in the attainment of the SDGs by 2030 and will assess the role of existing legal regimes (as they currently exist or as they may be bolstered or reformed) or whether new legal regimes need to be established. It will explore the proposition that a more systematic and coherent approach should be adopted in development policy and practice to promote the respect of international law in development activities, to mitigate human rights risk and to and ensure a more cohesive and less fragmented approach to international law in development.
Sustainable Development & Global GovernanceFifth Annual Detlev F. Vagts Roundtable: Conceptualizing Intellectual Property as a Social Determinant of Health
Sustainable Development & Global GovernanceDoes International Law Make the World More Equal?
Does international law reduce global inequality or contribute to it? This session explores the compatibility of some of the world’s most prominent international organizations and legal regimes with three Sustainable Development Goals: SDG 5 (Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls) and SDG 10 (Reduce inequality within and among countries), and SDG 16 (Promote peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice, and accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels). Panelists will be invited to comment on whether international legal rules and organizations address or hinder these goals across three dimensions. The first dimension explores institutional design and inequality: what institutional features, such as substantive rights, advance SDG 5, SDG 10, and SDG 16? The second dimension explores participation and inequality: how does the process of creating, modifying, and evaluating these institutions advance or undermine these same SDGs? The final dimension evaluates the practice of these institutions and inequality: does the actual operation of these institutions today advance the three identified SDG goals? By exploring inequality across these three dimensions, panelists and audience members are able to diagnose the particular institutional shortcomings that may compromise the ability of international law to achieve its promise of making the world more equal.
Sustainable Development & Global GovernanceAccountability Is an IO’s Jam? International organizations and immunity one year after Jam v. International Finance Corp
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer suggested in his dissenting opinion in Jam v. IFC that the majority’s approach could open the flood gates to lawsuits against international organizations in domestic U.S. courts in ways that Congress did not intend and that would inhibit IOs from carrying out their essential functions. Some commentators welcomed this opening, finding promise in Jam as potentially leading to better accountability outcomes, in particular with respect to human rights abuses. Others predicted that the decision would encourage international organizations to improve their “alternative means” of dispute resolution, or even to take more drastic measures like amending their charters to strengthen or clarify immunity provisions. This Jam session will explore the promises of Jam one year since the landmark SCOTUS decision. What are IOs doing, if anything, to improve their internal justice systems? What are they doing to improve project management to prevent abuses or tortious conduct? Perhaps more important, what should IOs be doing? And if IOs are not taking action themselves, are there any signs that Justice Breyer’s prophesy that U.S. domestic courts would become more accessible to lawsuits against IOs could become true? Does the case still hold promise for victims to achieve accountability for alleged abuses by IOs?
Sustainable Development & Global GovernanceThe Promise of Multilateralism in Latin America
Organized by the Latin America Interest Group
From Simon Bolivar’s 1826 Congress of Panama to the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, multilateralism has always been front and center in the history of Latin America. But is it thriving or declining today? What can it help achieve, and what obstacles is it posing? This session will explore the past, present and future of multilateralism in the region, including an assessment of multilateral institutions and groups in resolving crises in the region. Have they been successful (e.g., in Venezuela, Haiti or Nicaragua)? How should success be measured? Are the institutions that aim to promote economic integration and trade (e.g. Mercosur, Pacific Alliance) in ascendancy or decline? What is the record and promise of specialized institutions (e.g. the SIEPAC focusing on the electricity grid in Central America, or the Inter-American Development Bank)? Do ad hoc groups, like the Lima Group, hold more power and promise than formal institutions like the OAS? Are the existing institutions suited to address challenges such as migration, climate change, or trans-border criminal activities? Should new institutions, such as a regional criminal court, be created? What should be the role of these institutions with regard to corruption, a particularly “hot” topic in the region?
From Simon Bolivar’s 1826 Congress of Panama to the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, multilateralism has always been front and center in the history of Latin America. But is it thriving or declining today? What can it help achieve, and what obstacles is it posing? This session will explore the past, present and future of multilateralism in the region, including an assessment of multilateral institutions and groups in resolving crises in the region. Have they been successful (e.g., in Venezuela, Haiti or Nicaragua)? How should success be measured? Are the institutions that aim to promote economic integration and trade (e.g. Mercosur, Pacific Alliance) in ascendancy or decline? What is the record and promise of specialized institutions (e.g. the SIEPAC focusing on the electricity grid in Central America, or the Inter-American Development Bank)? Do ad hoc groups, like the Lima Group, hold more power and promise than formal institutions like the OAS? Are the existing institutions suited to address challenges such as migration, climate change, or trans-border criminal activities? Should new institutions, such as a regional criminal court, be created? What should be the role of these institutions with regard to corruption, a particularly “hot” topic in the region?
Security, Foreign Relations, & the Use of ForceHead of State Immunity
Organized by the International Criminal Law Interest Group
This panel will explore the concept of head-of-state immunity under international criminal law, in light of recent case law and other prosecutorial and investigative developments at the International Criminal Court, as well as the International Court of Justice and within other tribunals, on this topic. Head-of-state immunity remains a controversial topic within International Criminal Law: although many scholars and tribunal prosecutors argue that sitting heads of state should not be immune from international prosecutions if accused of atrocity crimes, multiple states as well as a minority of scholars assert the opposite. In practice, the work of the International Criminal Court as well as the work of other tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, have been hampered because of the assertion of head-of-state immunity. Moreover, immunity has been asserted by former and sitting heads of state within domestic contexts; such immunity claims impede the pursuit of justice and the imposition of individual criminal responsibility. This panel will explore head-of-state immunity, from its origins to its more recent applications at the International Criminal Court as well as at other tribunals. In addition, panelists will discuss whether the assertion of immunity differs in the context of atrocity crimes prosecutions from its assertion within other types of prosecutions for lesser crimes.
This panel will explore the concept of head-of-state immunity under international criminal law, in light of recent case law and other prosecutorial and investigative developments at the International Criminal Court, as well as the International Court of Justice and within other tribunals, on this topic. Head-of-state immunity remains a controversial topic within International Criminal Law: although many scholars and tribunal prosecutors argue that sitting heads of state should not be immune from international prosecutions if accused of atrocity crimes, multiple states as well as a minority of scholars assert the opposite. In practice, the work of the International Criminal Court as well as the work of other tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, have been hampered because of the assertion of head-of-state immunity. Moreover, immunity has been asserted by former and sitting heads of state within domestic contexts; such immunity claims impede the pursuit of justice and the imposition of individual criminal responsibility. This panel will explore head-of-state immunity, from its origins to its more recent applications at the International Criminal Court as well as at other tribunals. In addition, panelists will discuss whether the assertion of immunity differs in the context of atrocity crimes prosecutions from its assertion within other types of prosecutions for lesser crimes.
Security, Foreign Relations, & the Use of ForceThe Promise and Limits of Cyber Power in International Law
This session will explore the international legal framework governing cyber power, and its limits. With the 2020 U.S. elections on the horizon and increasing reports of cyber effects operations ongoing worldwide, understanding the legal frameworks within which States must work as they contemplate deploying tools in cyberspace is imperative to maintaining international peace and security. To date, only a handful of nations have publicly shared their views on the application of international law to cyberspace [this may need to be updated come next April]. In this session, intelligence, defense, and foreign affairs officials from three such nations -- the United Kingdom, United States, and [France / Estonia / other?] -- will engage with cyber experts to discuss three core questions related to the applicability of international law in the cyber sphere: What cyber activities constitute unlawful interventions into the domestic affairs of another country? What activities in cyberspace constitute an armed attack against another country? And what activities are permissible for States to respond to either of these types of events?
Security, Foreign Relations, & the Use of ForceWhere Next? The international arms control framework
The international legal framework governing arms control is in a state of flux. There have been significant developments in the fabric of the arms control framework in recent months and years, such as the announced U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (“INF”) Treaty, and the uncertainty surrounding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“Iran Nuclear Deal”). There are also major milestones looming, such as the impending expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction (“New Start”) Treaty. This panel will address these developments and challenges and place them in the context of the broader geopolitical forces at play. These forces include the great powers’ emphasis on updating their arsenals, the increasing tensions between the United States and Russia, China’s resistance to the existing legal framework, and efforts to monitor developments in Iran and North Korea.
Security, Foreign Relations, & the Use of ForceRecent Peace Agreement Negotiations: Successes and challenges from the Eritrea-Ethiopia, US-Taliban and Hudaydah
While each peace negotiation must be assessed on its own set of unique circumstances, the focus of the panel would be on techniques commonly deployed and the experiences of individuals directly involved in the negotiations. The three peace agreements referred to above each had different dynamics and prevailing considerations. They also ranged in the extent to which the parties sought to resolve disputes through recourse to adjudication rather than political settlement. Hopefully, through the discussion, the panelists would be able to illustrate the approaches they utilized and exchange ideas on the extent to which international legal principles were (or were not) essential to the deliberations.
Security, Foreign Relations, & the Use of ForceResponding to Atrocity Crimes and the Security Council’s Veto Power: Implications, Realities, and the Future
This session will address how the international community has sought to and could, in the future, respond to the commission of atrocity crimes and upholding the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), through other avenues under international law, despite the constraints that have been imposed as a result of the Security Council’s veto power. The discussion is aimed at looking at the traditional and non-traditional / creative alternative measures that the international community has had to and could adopt in the future to prevent, stop and seek accountability for atrocity crimes.First, the panel will discuss the implications that the veto power, which P5 Member States of the Security Council hold, has had on recent initiatives or intended measures by the international community to address ongoing atrocity crimes. By looking at contemporaneous examples, the panel will identify the consequences that the veto power may have had on the international community’s responses. The panel will also be asked to discuss what adjustments and perhaps, sacrifices that the international community has had to make by ensuring an intended measure does not get defeated at the Security Council as a result of the veto power. Correspondingly, questions will also be posed about how the Security Council’s failure to act (as a result of a P5 Member State exercising their veto power) has prompted alternative creative routes to achieve action and accountability, and has inspired other organs or Member States individually / collectively to take action.Lastly, the panel will also question what impact the Security Council’s veto power, the concessions and adjustments that the international community has had to make in order to pass a measure through the Security Council, as well as the resort to other alternative routes (i.e., other UN organs or individual/collective Member State action outside of the United Nations) implies for R2P. Does lack of international consensus imply the end of the concept of R2P? Are there alternatives to R2P to prevent the commission of atrocity crimes, or can Member States still seek to abide by their R2P through non-traditional measures (i.e., those that do not pass through the Security Council)?
All sessions in this track sponsored by
Intersentia Publishing
Intersentia Publishing
Energy, Environment, Sea, & SpaceISDS and Climate Change Policies: A barrier, facilitator, or neither
As countries grapple with how best to regulate conduct within their borders to attempt to mitigate climate change and to meet the objectives of international commitments, including the Paris Agreement, policies have taken various forms – from offering “carrots” in the form green energy subsidies, to “sticks” aimed at sanctioning disfavored energy uses or sources. Such regulatory decisions have impacted a broad spectrum of investors, resulting in a spate of recent investment claims. Dozens of investment claims have been brought by renewable energy investors under the Energy Charter Treaty, asserting that states have reneged on favorable terms offered to incentivize the massive private investment in green energy during the global financial crises and in the face of budget shortfalls. Nuclear power has been steadily in decline in Europe for at least the last decade, with Germany expediting its exit from nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster, which prompted an investment claim from Vattenfall asserting the value of its nuclear assets has been stranded. And fossil fuel investors have threatened investment claims, asserting that policies impairing conventional energy production denies them their legitimate expectations of returns on their investments.This panel will address, in the context of policies enacted by states to mitigate the effects of climate change, where the line is between compensable investment claims where investors’ legitimate expectations have been frustrated by climate polices, on the one hand, and non-compensable claims resulting from states’ climate policies? Is the threat of ISDS a barrier to government policies encouraging the shift to green energy? Or do investment treaties and free trade agreements encourage foreign investment into local green economies? And, if there is uncertainty as to where the “right to regulate” in the climate space without triggering compensable investment claims, how does that uncertainty affect new investments in green or conventional energy projects? Italy has withdrawn from the ECT in an apparent response to the number of claims it was defending following its retroactive measures relating to renewable investments, and there are threats of additional withdrawals or modifications to the ECT and other ISDS mechanisms. If states withdraw from, or agree to modify the terms of, investment treaty protections, will that discourage private investment required for renewable energy sources? Alternatively, should modifications to international agreements be embraced and what should they look like to meet states’ challenges in regulating to mitigate climate change? This panel will explore the impact ISDS has on achieving internationally agreed-upon goals and individual states’ policy objectives on climate change.
Energy, Environment, Sea, & SpaceClimate Change Litigation and the Future of the International Climate Change Legal Regime
This panel will discuss two approaches for climate action: international law through the implementation of the Paris Agreement and transnational and domestic litigation. The panel will explore challenges and opportunities stemming from both approaches. It will also be an opportunity to discuss whether the current debate is too focused on climate change at the expense of other pressing global environmental (and non-environmental) challenges. Are we truly facing a climate emergency? If so, how can we pursue integrated governance approaches that build on effective regime interaction? If we are not experiencing a climate emergency, or if the latter should be understood in conjunction with other emergencies, what does this mean for international climate change law and transnational and domestic climate litigation?
Energy, Environment, Sea, & SpaceTransitional Justice in a Hostile Climate
Organized by the Transitional Justice and the Rule of Law Interest Group
Climate change is the greatest challenge of our time and it is already putting existing theories and institutions to a test. The most dramatic impact of climate change is expected to occur in marginalized communities that already have their livelihoods threatened by structural vulnerabilities and disaster. Climate change implicates issues of global justice, intergenerational ethics, distributive justice, moral, political and legal responsibility. Practices and tools from transitional justice have been used in numerous countries to address similar questions. This roundtable will explore what synergies exist between transitional justice theory and practice and climate change mitigation strategies.
Climate change is the greatest challenge of our time and it is already putting existing theories and institutions to a test. The most dramatic impact of climate change is expected to occur in marginalized communities that already have their livelihoods threatened by structural vulnerabilities and disaster. Climate change implicates issues of global justice, intergenerational ethics, distributive justice, moral, political and legal responsibility. Practices and tools from transitional justice have been used in numerous countries to address similar questions. This roundtable will explore what synergies exist between transitional justice theory and practice and climate change mitigation strategies.
Energy, Environment, Sea, & SpaceReforming International Environmental Law for the Anthropocene?
Organized by the International Environmental Law Interest Group
International environmental law is at a crossroads. Even as the international community struggles to cooperate and act effectively to address critical global environmental challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and oceans management, efforts are afoot to consolidate and deepen the normative and institutional framework for international environmental law. We propose to hold a roundtable discussion critically exploring the degree to which ongoing efforts to develop a Global Pact for the Environment and to expand constitutional and legislative environmental rights worldwide foster efforts to develop a set of shared norms, and to advance ambitious environmental protection efforts.
International environmental law is at a crossroads. Even as the international community struggles to cooperate and act effectively to address critical global environmental challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and oceans management, efforts are afoot to consolidate and deepen the normative and institutional framework for international environmental law. We propose to hold a roundtable discussion critically exploring the degree to which ongoing efforts to develop a Global Pact for the Environment and to expand constitutional and legislative environmental rights worldwide foster efforts to develop a set of shared norms, and to advance ambitious environmental protection efforts.
Energy, Environment, Sea, & SpaceAddressing the Law of the Sea: Challenges of Sea-Level Rise
Sea-level rise is accelerating globally. Small island States are particularly affected by sea level rise, as are other coastal States. In light of this situation, serious legal questions arise in relation to the law of the sea. What does the UN Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) provide or fail to provide concerning baselines from which maritime zones are measured when these are affected by sea level rise? Should they remain fixed or be changed to reflect new realities? Is there State practice, and if so what direction is it taking? What are the main legal and practical concerns about fixing or changing baselines? How does sea level rise affect the determination of islands/rocks/low tide elevations, and what is the direction of State practice? Are there legal implications of sea level rise for boundary delimitation, and differences in terms of agreed boundaries, as opposed to undelimited areas? What are the dispute settlement options under LOSC in relation to sea level rise?
Energy, Environment, Sea, & SpaceWhich Way to the Stars? Challenges to regulation of “new space” activities
The imminent increase of privately-funded, commercial space flight and other operations, collectively referred to in international law literature as “New Space” activities, is often presented as a challenge to the corpus iuris spatialis. Truthfully, the proliferation of such “New Space” activities provides the impetus needed for a possible revamping of existing norms relating to the use, exploration and exploitation of outer space. Emphasis has been on particular space law aspects, specifically those presumed to constitute an impediment to financially profitable commercial operations. For instance, commercial endeavors regarding the exploitation of natural resources on celestial bodies are challenged by and in turn challenging the principle of non-appropriation of outer space, enshrined in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, as well as the potential profit-sharing mechanism of Article 11 of the Moon Agreement. Efforts are already undertaken both at the governmental and non-governmental level, internationally, bilaterally or, upon occasion, unilaterally, to provide responses to such challenges.Nonetheless, there is a broader discussion to be had on the evolution of space law beyond the conceptualization of space as simply a resource. Indeed, whereas providing responses to targeted commercial issues may facilitate the evolution of a specific aspect of space law, the discipline itself will suffer if it follows a piecemeal “New Space” approach. A holistic, centrally-coordinated approach will eventually be necessary, brought about by the multitude of operational requirements and concerns of national regulators as well as the different branches of the space industry. The incentive to reach such a centrally coordinated framework for all kinds of “New Space” activities is the one element all of them have in common: movement in, through and out of outer space, including on celestial bodies, and impacts of various space uses (such as for geostationary orbits necessary for telecommunications, proposals for space mining and space debris management, space exploration and information exchanges on science, climate change, among others). Consequently, an international, cooperative system of regulatory cooperation for “New Space” activities, operated by an appropriately mandated international body, could be the institutional clearinghouse and coordinated guarantee for the orderly development of “New Space” activities, in a way that would both satisfy commercial interests, but also safeguard the pressing jurisdictional concerns of States. Is this more functional approach a prima facie unprecedented erosion of State sovereignty?
Full Conference Registration
Registration fees reduced by 25% - Students attend for free.
VIRTUAL ANNUAL MEETING REGISTRATION RATES |
||
| Rates | Original | Reduced |
| ASIL Member | $615 | $460 |
| Non-Member | $865 | $650** |
| GOV/IO/NGO Member | $370 | $275 |
| GOV/IO/NGO Non-Member | $570 | $425** |
| Speaker - Member | $285 | $210 |
| Speaker - Non-Member | $385 | $285** |
| AM Committee | $285 | $210 |
| Student - Member | $100 | $0 |
| Student - Non-Member | $125 | $0 |
CLE Credit Processing |
$75 | $75 |
|
**Includes one-year ASIL membership. |
||