Berkowitz/Finley Lecture Hall

The LCIL and Cambridge International Law Journal (CILJ) are pleased to invite you to the LCIL-CILJ Annual Lecture This lecture is a hybrid event. There is a sandwich lunch at 12.30 pm in the Old Library at the Centre. All lecture attendees welcome. Lecture summary: Recent pathbreaking trade agreements empower trade policymakers to target foreign companies in novel ways and to police corporate due diligence in global supply chains rather than seek to change foreign government behavior as used to be their purview. This repurposing of our trade enforcement system has the power to transform dramatically the global commercial system, the bargains it manages, the procedures applicable to it, and the rights and obligations of all involved. Kathleen Claussen (Georgetown Law) is a leader in international economic law and procedure and has served as arbitrator, counsel, expert, public servant, and teacher. Her expertise covers several topics of international law, especially trade, investment, international business and labor; dispute settlement and international dispute bodies; national security and cybersecurity law; and, administrative law issues surrounding U.S. foreign relations and transnational agreements.

This lecture is a hybrid event. There is a sandwich lunch at 12.30 pm in the Old Library at the Centre. All lecture attendees welcome. Lecture summary: On the one hand, inferring a ‘dispute’ from State silence ensures that States cannot unilaterally control and impede the jurisdiction of numerous international courts and tribunals merely by remaining silent. On the other hand, such an inference may exceed the respondent’s consent to a court’s jurisdiction, insofar as no real dispute exists, thus departing from the voluntarist basis of international adjudication. This article argues that State practice and international decisions support the proposition that a dispute can be inferred from a prospective respondent’s silence only exceptionally. More specifically (a) the claim of a prospective applicant must be such as to call for the reaction of the silent State; (b) the silent State must be aware of the claim; (c) the silent State must be in a position to react; and (d) reasonable time must pass. These conditions do not lower but arguably even heighten the threshold for establishing jurisdiction. Dr Danae Azaria is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Laws, University College London (UCL), and the Principal Investigator of the grant on State Silence funded by the European Research Council.

In-person Seminar: 3.00 pm - 7.00 pm Seminar summary: Energy is ‘the backbone of our economies’. As part of the overall energy supply, renewable energy is more important than ever. It is an important element in the fight against climate change and is relevant in the context of Sustainable Development Goals. The years 2022 and 2023 witnessed ground-breaking developments as regards the status and future of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Unsuccessful reforms of the ECT, together with numerous treaty-based arbitrations brought against EU member states, triggered the process of withdrawals from the ECT. These developments follow the termination of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties. The event will provide an opportunity to discuss the current challenges faced by international investment law and treaty-based arbitration in the renewable energy sector. The event will address questions such as: (i) ‘Looking into the crystal ball’ – how will the recent developments frame the future? (ii) Identifying historical patterns which can be expected to repeat – which facts have led to the unprecedented number of investor-state arbitrations filed against EU member states (for example, in the ‘Spanish saga cases’)? (iii) ‘Lessons learned’ from the current case law – what impact can arbitral awards rendered against Spain and other EU member states have on future proceedings commenced against other states, within and outside of the EU? Chair and moderator: Dr Joanna Gomula, LCIL Centre Fellow Please note, this event will not be streamed or recorded.

This lecture is a hybrid event. There is a sandwich lunch at 12.30 pm in the Old Library at the Centre. All lecture attendees welcome. Lecture summary: In this lecture, based on an article in the American Journal of International Law, Professor Milanovic will examine the notion of coercion as an element of non-intervention. International law prohibits States from intervening in the internal and external affairs of other States, but only if the method of intervention is coercive. Building on recent developments in State practice, especially in the cyber context, Professor Milanovic argues that coercion can be understood in two different ways or models. First, as coercion-as-extortion, a demand coupled with a threat of harm or the infliction of harm, done to extract some kind of concession from the victim State – in other words, an act targeting the victim State’s will or decision-making calculus. Second, as coercion-as-control, an act depriving the victim State of its ability to control its sovereign choices. Many of the difficulties surrounding the notion of coercion arise as a consequence of failing to distinguish between these two different models. Coercion-as-extortion consists of imposing costs on the victim State, so as to cause it to change its policy choices. This is precisely how coercion has traditionally been understood in this context, as “dictatorial” intervention. Coercion-as-control, by contrast, is not about affecting the victim State’s decision-making calculus – the victim State’s leadership may even be entirely unaware of the actions taken against it – but consists of a material constraint on its ability to pursue the choices that it wanted to pursue. Consider here, for example, a cyber operation against the elections in another country, which may be entirely unrelated to any demands or threats by the coercing State. Please note this lecture will not be recorded. The Friday Lunchtime Lecture series is kindly supported by Cambridge University Press & Assessment .