Lauterpacht Centre for International Law

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 .

Lecture summary: The Rome Statute was adopted 25 years ago. It reflected the hopes of the international community that there should be a permanent criminal court, that it should provide a forum for determining individual criminal responsibility for war crimes, for genocide and for crimes against humanity. It reflected the hopes of many that the Court should be a world court, one that would complement the efforts of individual countries to create and sustain jurisdiction domestically and universally for such crimes, and one which would both follow the jurisprudential gains of the International Criminal Tribunals and Courts that came before it, and lead in the creation of new and enlightened jurisprudence. Subsequently, in Kampala, the offence of aggression was added to the list of offences triable, in limited circumstances, by the Court. Has the International Criminal Court achieved its aims? Is the vision of the Rome Statute still alive, given the polarisation of so many international institutions? Is the Court flexible enough to reflect new challenges to world politics such as harm to the environment? Has complementarity diluted the accountability of the international criminal law? Is the Court able to reflect the considerable advances made in domestic courts around access to justice for women and children? For persons who are LGBTIQ? For persons with disabilities? Is there consistency between international human rights law and the jurisprudence of the Court? Is any desired consistency an aim of the international community? Has the Court prevented the development of a selective justice? The negotiations towards the Rome Statute were built with a vision of a substantive justice, with an unprecedented degree of representation for victims of the most heinous crimes, and with the hope that peace has a better chance if justice is effectively delivered. This lecture will address the promise of a world court in the context of international vision and politics. These lectures are kindly supported by Dr and Mrs Ivan Berkowitz who are Principal Benefactors of the Centre.

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