Showing 5 out of 521 results.
Senior Research Fellow Denise Cheong presented at the Sixth Meeting of the CSCAP Study Group on Non-proliferation and Disarmament in the Asia-Pacific and the 11th ASEAN Regional Forum Inter-Sessional Meeting on Non-proliferation and Disarmament (as part of the CSCAP delegation) held on 7 and 8 April 2019 in Bali, Indonesia. On behalf of the ESI-CIL Nuclear Governance Project, she presented on the ‘Governance of Nuclear Energy—the ASEAN Approach’. This presentation discussed the role of the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty as an intrinsic part of the approach; the relationship of the approach to international rules, standards and practices; and the importance of fundamental principles of ASEAN engagement in helping to shape the approach. This presentation was based on a review of relevant ASEAN instruments.
Dr Tara Davenport participated in the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) held in Washington DC from 27 to 29 March 2019. On a panel titled ‘Deep Seabed Mining in Crowded Oceans’, she engaged in a discussion on the various challenges facing deep seabed mining 25 years after the International Seabed Authority was established.
CIL Ocean Law and Policy Programme Head, Robert Beckman, participated in a Submarine Cables Meeting in Colombo, Sri Lanka from 25 to 26 March 2019. The meeting was organised by the UNODC Global Maritime Crime Programme and the government of Sri Lanka. Associate Professor Beckman presented on causes of submarine cable faults and chaired a session on the legal issues that must be addressed to protect submarine cables.
Research Consultant Emily Choo was a judge at the Vietnam CISG Pre-Moot. She was previously invited to judge the national rounds of both the Foreign Direct Investment Moot and the Red Cross International Humanitarian Law Moot.
Research Fellow Dafina Atanasova participated in a two-day workshop titled ‘Engaging with Domestic Law in International Adjudication Factfinding or Transnational Law-Making?’ organised by the Amsterdam Center for International Law under the University of Amsterdam.
Dr Atanasova’s presentation—‘What Do We Actually Disagree About When Discussing the Fact-Law Dichotomy in International Adjudicators’ Engagement with Domestic Law?’—kick-started the workshop in a panel chaired by Professor Ingo Venzke. The paper demonstrates that the classic way of seeing domestic law in international adjudication along a fact-law divide serves as a rhetorical device with limited analytical import. Looking at the practice of investment arbitrators and WTO adjudicators, the paper brings to light the fallacy of relying on whether an adjudicator classifies domestic law as either ‘law’ or ‘fact’ for understanding its actual procedural place. It proposes a more granular analytical framework for this understanding, informed by questions that define the procedural place of foreign law in conflict of laws and suggesting the ‘otherness’ of domestic law as a more attuned lens. Indeed, judicial practice in both conflict of laws and international economic law shows that it is the recognition that different legal systems are habitually created, adjudicated and enforced by distinct, ie ‘other’ institutions, which better explains adjudicators’ approaches, independently of the formal characterisation of the ‘other’ law along a fact-law divide.
