The Faculty has distributed Volume 17 Number 3 of the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series on SSRN.
This issue includes the following articles:
Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Markus Gehring, Ted Gleason & Matheus Garcia: Climate and Investment Law Nexus Reimagined -Beyond ISDS, Obligations and Instruments to Avoid and to Defend (5/2026)
This report explores the critical intersection between international investment agreements (IIAs) and climate action, emphasizing the need to reconcile investment protection with climate goals. While IIAs generally prioritize foreign direct investment protection, they risk hindering ambitious climate policies through mechanisms like investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS).
The report critiques broad ISDS clauses, vague investment definitions, and lengthy sunset clauses for their restrictive impacts on states’ ability to regulate for climate resilience. To realign IIAs with climate goals, the report advocates for targeted reforms, including incorporating climate-positive provisions, explicitly supporting renewable energy investments, and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. Additionally, it highlights the role of robust legal frameworks in mobilizing climate finance, de-risking investments, and fostering international cooperation. The report stresses the importance of integrating environmental considerations across trade and investment frameworks, moving beyond limited Trade and Sustainable
Development (TSD) chapters. The report also examines innovative mechanisms like emissions trading system (ETS) linkages and supply-side crediting, which can address carbon leakage and enhance low-carbon investment. Through pragmatic reforms, IIAs can evolve to support the scale of investment required to achieve the Paris Agreement objectives and a just climate transition.
Mohamed Moussa: When Values Clash: A Federal Perspective (6/2026)
The article examines cases of value conflict, where two values clash intensely and the one-sided enforcement of Article 2 TEU risks subordinating one to the other. It develops a taxonomy of such conflicts, distinguishing between incidental overlaps and irreconcilable clashes, and uses this distinction to guide how value enforcement should operate in practice.
To do so, the article draws on United States debates on centralisation, which offer useful parallels to EU discussions on values and the federal boundary question. It shows that, despite doctrinal differences, both systems rely on similar mechanisms to justify centralisation. However, both also share a key challenge: while centralisation can effectively enforce shared values or rights, it is poorly suited to resolving deeply contested "culture war" issues involving fundamentally opposing value commitments. In such cases, centralisation may intensify disagreement rather than resolve it, and may even undermine the values it seeks to protect. Building on this analysis, the article proposes a differentiated framework for value enforcement. It identifies when central intervention is justified and when restraint is preferable, and argues against the uniform application of Article 2 TEU in situations of genuine value conflict.
Catherine Barnard & Fiona Costello: British Citizenship via the EU Settlement Scheme: Some Socio-Legal Reflections (7/2026)
Following the EU referendum, EU citizens and their family members living in the UK had to register under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), introduced in 2019, to secure their continued residency rights under the Withdrawal Agreement. Data from the UK Home Office’s EUSS shows that over 6 million EU nationals have already made applications to the scheme (and many are continuing to apply well after the 30 June 2021 deadline). However, our research with low paid EU migrant workers in Great Yarmouth shows that, for many, their status under EUSS does not feel ‘secure’; British citizenship is considered the ‘gold standard’ of security post-Brexit in the UK.
We shall argue that many consider applying for British citizenship for reasons of pragmatism, rather than principle; they want the security that comes from holding British nationality because they doubt that the rights under the EU Settlement Scheme are sufficient. Parents particularly want British citizenship for their children because they see it as a way of investing in their child’s future. For others, it is about claiming what they consider as a right to which they are entitled, and an improvement to their social status. None of the explanations given by our participants talk of the general reasons often associated with citizenship, namely principle or patriotism. For our interviewees, their approach is strategic and instrumental, obtaining another passport or citizenship for the benefits and opportunities it offers, a phenomenon well-known in the literature. However, for the particularly marginalised group of low paid workers in Great Yarmouth, the cost of applying for British citizenship, together with the language requirements necessary to pass the English language test, present significant barriers which may frustrate their ambitions.
Brian R. Cheffins, Bobby V. Reddy & Kim Willey: Reviving the Public Company: Canadian Lessons for the U.K.? (9/2026)
In Britain, a substantial decline in the number of publicly traded companies has prompted a wave of reform designed to bolster equity markets. There has simultaneously been much discussion of the decline of the public company in Canada. Nevertheless, along various dimensions Canadian equity markets are in comparatively good health. Perhaps, then, Canada can offer lessons as policymakers in the U.K. seek to revive the publicly traded company. This paper explores this possibility by canvassing salient aspects of Canadian equity markets. It indicates in so doing that Canadian stock market idiosyncrasies mean there are distinct limits on the lessons Canada has to offer with bolstering the publicly traded company.
Interested readers can browse the Working Paper Series at SSRN, or sign up to subscribe to distributions of the the e-journal.
