"Breakfast Briefing with Anastasiya Kotova";"iCourts";"2025-04-24";"08:45";"2025-04-24";"09:45";" Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Complicity in Atrocity: How Does International Criminal Law Frame What Corporate Harm is Properly Criminal";"Complicity in Atrocity: How Does International Criminal Law Frame What Corporate Harm is Properly Criminal Abstract The legal debates on corporate responsibility in international criminal law have been ongoing since the negotiation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). While early debates considered the opportunities for domestic enforcement that the introduction of corporate criminal responsibility at the international level would produce, soon the focus of the debate shifted towards the ICC as the readily available enforcement opportunity. This presentation discusses how the acceptance of the ICC as the institutional framework for international corporate criminal responsibility shaped how international criminal lawyers think about what corporate harm qualifies as criminal. Specifically, I argue that the focus on ‘complicity in atrocity’ that is thereby produced helps normalise mundane and ubiquitous corporate harm. About the Speaker Anastasiya Kotova holds a PhD in public international law from the University of Lund (Sweden). Her research interests include international criminal law, general international law, as well as theory of and critical approaches to international law. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2025."
"Lunch seminar with Gavin Sullivan";"iCourts & MOBILE";"2025-04-23";"12:15";"2025-04-23";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Watchlisting the World: Terrorism Watchlists as Global Security Infrastructure";"Watchlisting the World: Terrorism Watchlists as Global Security Infrastructure For the last two decades, US terrorist watchlists have been challenged in the US courts and critiqued by civil liberties and human rights NGOs. This litigation and advocacy has focused on the plight of affected Americans and the (in)adequacies of US legal procedures. But it has failed to meaningfully challenge or alter this digital bordering technology and it misses its transnational power relations and racialised violence. Drawing on leaked materials, this paper takes a different critical approach. I argue that the US terrorist watchlist can be better understood as a global security infrastructure. Analysing the terrorist watchlist as infrastructure draws attention to the sociotechnical relations and distinctive forms of material agency that are allowing this bordering technology to globally scale and grow. It also shifts political and legal focus towards the ways this infrastructure and its data flows works to assemble global populations of ‘risky’ people, redraw racialised boundaries anew and fabricate through data patchy jurisdictional zones where those listed have no legal accountability or redress. This critical mapping suggests potential sites of friction and legal contestation that have been inadequately explored to date. Speaker bio Gavin Sullivan is a Reader at Edinburgh Law School and leads the UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship project, Infra-Legalities: Global Security Infrastructures, AI and International Law. This sociolegal research examines how AI and automated decision-making is reconfiguring global security law and governance, focusing on digital bordering infrastructures, terrorist watchlisting, and the countering of terrorism and violent extremism online. His first book, The Law of the List (CUP, 2020), won the 2021 ISA International Law and STAIR-ISA Book Awards for research bringing STS into dialogue with global politics. Gavin has provided pro bono legal representation to people targeted by security lists worldwide since 2010, including before the UN Office of the Ombudsperson. He is on the Independent Advisory Committee of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, he co-directs the Scottish Council on Global Affairs and he is on the Editorial Board of the journal, Transnational Legal Theory. Participate via ZoomMeeting ID: 639 5383 9865Passcode: 731238 "
"Breakfast Briefing with Jonathan Somer";"iCourts";"2025-04-10";"08:45";"2025-04-10";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"All Hands on Tech: Legal Considerations of Public-Private Collaboration on Military AI and Autonomous Weapons Systems Design and Development in Denmark";"All Hands on Tech: Legal Considerations of Public-Private Collaboration on Military AI and Autonomous Weapons Systems Design and Development in Denmark Abstract The Danish Government’s 2021 ‘National Defence Industrial Strategy’ includes private industry as part of the Danish security architecture and aims ‘to give Denmark a bigger, stronger and more sustainable Danish defence industry’, in part by close collaboration between authorities, research institutions, and the private defence industry (including ‘spin-in’ high tech companies), referred to as triple-helix collaboration. It identifies priorities of autonomous and unmanned systems as well as advanced software and artificial intelligence (AI). So far, there has been little institutional consideration of what this public-private collaboration on military AI and autonomous weapons (AW) systems may mean regarding compliance with international humanitarian law. The presentation aims to identify the specific issues raised by the involvement of private tech actors in the design and development of these military systems with respect to Denmark’s obligations under the applicable legal framework, and to explore to what extent emerging AI/AW systems regulatory norms and good practice take into account the involvement of the private tech industry. It will then look to what steps Denmark could take to help ensure private tech companies are equipped and incentivized to understand and apply the legal framework in military AI/AW systems design and development. About the Speaker Jonathan Somer is currently Legal Advisor at the Danish Red Cross. Prior to joining the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, he worked with Geneva Call and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. As a consultant, he has advised, among others, the United Nations and the Government of Denmark. He holds a law degree from the University of British Columbia and an LLM from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, and has been awarded the Henry Dunant Prize for his scholarship in international humanitarian law. Jonathan will be speaking in his personal capacity and the views expressed during the event do not represent the position of the Danish Red Cross. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2025."
"Lunch seminar with Naphtali Ukamwa";"iCourts";"2025-04-09";"12:15";"2025-04-09";"13:15";"Online only via Zoom";"The State Obligation to Appear Before International Courts and Tribunals";"The State Obligation to Appear Before International Courts and Tribunals Abstract As states have either refused to appear or failed to defend their cases before international courts and tribunals (IC/Ts), scholars have debated whether states are obligated to participate in the relevant legal proceedings. These debates rest on mixed theoretical approaches to international law: the Grotian naturalist-positivist and positivist-inductivist views. While the Grotian naturalist-positivists argue that states have an obligation to appear, the positivist-inductivists contend that states have no such obligation. This paper examines the jural-relational universe of states where these debates occur—namely that of jurisdiction—as a crucial starting point for understanding the existence or absence of a duty of states to appear before IC/Ts. This paper argues that the obligation of states to appear before IC/Ts can be inferred primarily from a set of case-specific factors that are classified as jurisdiction-dependent and jurisdiction-independent. Speaker Bio Naphtali Ukamwa is a PhD Researcher in Public International Law at Trinity College Dublin. He is interested in Public International Law, Jurisprudence, and History. He holds a Bachelor of Laws (Hons), Lagos and an LLM in International (Human Rights and Humanitarian) Law, Lund. He is also a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Join meeting via Zoom Meeting ID: 657 9522 3693Passcode: 358843"
"Breakfast Briefing – Expert Roundtable";"iCourts";"2025-03-27";"08:45";"2025-03-27";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"The Recent Criminalisation of War Crimes, Torture, Crimes against Humanity and Aggression in Denmark";"The Recent Criminalisation of War Crimes, Torture, Crimes against Humanity and Aggression in Denmark Abstract In December 2024, the Danish parliament adopted comprehensive legislation to criminalise war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity, and aggression. The aim was to align Denmark’s legal framework with international standards and ensure that perpetrators of these serious crimes can be prosecuted and punished within Danish courts. Previously, Denmark’s Penal Code did not specifically address these international crimes, relying instead on general provisions for crimes such as murder, assault, and rape. However, with the increasing number of conflicts worldwide and the potential for war criminals to seek refuge in Denmark, the government recognised the need for more specific legislation. The new legislation, in force since January 2025, introduces an entirely new chapter in the Danish Penal Code dedicated to international crimes. This chapter covers war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity, and aggression, allowing Danish courts to prosecute individuals for these offenses regardless of where they were committed. About the Speakers Unlike other breakfast briefings, this event will have the format of a roundtable with several short presentations. The panellists were members of the expert committee that drafted proposals on how to criminalise those international crimes in Danish law. At the event, they will be speaking in their personal capacity and their views do not necessarily represent the position of their respective institutions. Christian Ejby Strøm Karstensen (Danish Ministry of Defence) Elna Søndergaard (DIGNITY – Danish Institute against Torture) Peter Vedel Kessing (Danish Institute for Human Rights & UN Committee against Torture) Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2025. "
"Lunch seminar with Karen Alter";"iCourts";"2025-03-26";"12:15";"2025-03-26";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"The Legalization of Global Economic Governance: Contracting, Multilateralism and Unilateralism";"The Legalization of Global Economic Governance: Contracting, Multilateralism and Unilateralism Abstract: This article defines four legal ideal types of global economic governance– transnational private contracting, interstate contracting, principled multilateralism, and extraterritorial unilateralism–focusing on how the choice among these types excludes actors and implicates public interests. We argue that: 1) states are always making choices at a given moment, intentionally or tacitly, about which legal type governs transnational behavior; 2) these choices have distributional and political consequences; 3) global economic governance combines legal forms within regime complexes to either address or exclude public concerns. The focus on legal form is a way to understand how legalized globalization balances and undermines the balance between private and public rights. While we focus on the consequences for domestic publics and for future negotiations, the four ideal types have implications that reach beyond these questions. After explicating the ideal types, we offer three examples of international regime complexes where three modes of governance display their attributes and operate in tandem: international tax arrangements, international investment, and global health. Examining the modes together, as opposed to focusing only one one mode the exclusion of others, reveals how legal promises made in one venue/mode/moment can be undermined by the legalized rights of the other modes of global economic governance, unless a powerful force overwhelms so as to coordinate the otherwise undermining/centripetal forces of self-interested private rights-claiming. The analysis therefore brings to light the vested legal rights pulling apart the achievement of public objectives, and the political forces as they may be able to reprioritize public-facing objectives. Speaker bio Karen J. Alter is the Norman Dwight Harris Professor of International Relations and Professor of Political Science and Law, and co-director Research Group on Global Capitalism and Law at Northwestern University. A longtime specialist on the politics of international law and international courts, and the politics of international regime complexity, Professor Alter has conducted research in Latin America, Africa and Europe. Alter’s newest research focuses on the construction of global economic rules regulating trade and money, how China’s rise is influencing international relations, backlash politics, and US Export Control Politics. From August 2023-July 2024 Professor Alter served as a Senior Research Fellow at the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce, sponsored by a CFR International Affairs Fellow for Tenured IR Faculty. Alter is author or editor of six books and more than seventy articles and book chapters on the politics of international law, comparative international courts, and international regime complexity. Alter is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, a former Guggenheim Fellow, winner of the Berlin Prize from the American Academy in Berlin, and winner of the American Society of International Law’s Certificate of Merit for a Preeminent Contribution to Creative Scholarship. "
"Lunch seminar with Isil Kurnaz";"iCourts";"2025-03-19";"12:15";"2025-03-05";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Conceptual And Theoretical Dimensions Of Strategic Human Rights Litigation (Shrl) In Echr’s Assessment: An Analysis Through The Culture Wars";"Conceptual And Theoretical Dimensions Of Strategic Human Rights Litigation (Shrl) In Echr’s Assessment: An Analysis Through The Culture Wars Strategic litigation is the use of judicial and quasi-judicial procedures to identify a widespread and systematic violation of human rights in order to achieve justice in a broad sense beyond a specific case that is not related to a singular victimization, and to achieve legal, social and political results and changes by influencing policy-making processes, law and policy implementation through a case determined and carried out with a strategic and tactical approach, regardless of the aim of winning the case. The multiple and complex definition and elements here distinguish strategic litigation from other judicial and litigation processes. So what makes strategic litigation strategic? While litigation and strategic litigation both refer to a legal action to solve problems, the key point of distinction is the element of intent and purpose. The main research question here is whether strategic human rights litigation differs from the legal strategies and tactics of civil society organizations when it comes to conflictual and intersectional rights groups. Strategic human rights litigation, which we can see as the legal application field of culture wars, also manifests itself before the ECHR as a conflict of the right to life against abortion, freedom of religion against LGBTI+ rights, and traditional rights arising from family law against surrogacy. So how do these two opposing groups, civil society organizations on the one hand, which are confined to the dichotomy of progressive and reactionary, and on the other hand, which actually use the discourse of human rights and the rhetoric of rights and mobilize their own masses with similar tools, diverge when it comes to legal mobilization? Are rights weapons used in the legal battle of the culture wars? In asking these questions, how do the doctrines used by the ECtHR replace conceptual history and theoretical explanations? What are the implications of applying critical legal theory to this field? Most importantly, how can we conduct a debate on the content of law if the strategies of the two opposing groups using human rights discourse to protect their overlapping interests are the same? Speaker bio Işıl Kurnaz is a PhD researcher at Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in Italy. Her PhD thesis focuses on Strategic Human Rights Litigation and Culture Wars Before European Court of Human Rights. She has been researching in the intersecting interests between the religious/ faith-based litigants and feminist/gender equality-based litigants under the supervision of Prof. Giuseppe Martinico from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna. She is a lawyer with specific interest in international human rights law, international law and constitutional law. She obtained her LL.M. degree with distinction from Lund University with a merit-based Swedish Government Scholarship in the name of Anna Lindh by the Swedish Institute where she has also been awarded Lund University Global Scholarship. She worked as a consultant in the United Nations Women Chapter and as a trainer in various organizations such as Amnesty International, the Friedrich Naumann Foundation regarding gender equality, human rights, constitutional jurisprudence and strategic human rights litigation before ECHR. As a consultant in UN, she has written the report on equal political representation of women and the LGBTİQ+ community (co-authored with Aslıhan Tekin from the European Women's Lobby). She also worked on the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (Lanzarote Convention), as a legal consultant at the International Child Center. She is a registered lawyer at the Ankara Bar Association, a member of the Women's Coalition in Turkey and a member of the Network for Future Global Leaders by the Swedish Institute. Her personal interests are literature, philosophy, poetry. Join Zoom MeetingMeeting ID: 658 3184 8624Passcode: 323720"
"Breakfast Briefing with Cornelius Wiesener";"iCourts";"2025-03-13";"08:45";"2025-03-13";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights in Military Operations: The War in Ukraine";"Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights in Military Operations: The War in Ukraine Abstract This presentation builds on a recently published background paper, which examines whether and how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies to military operations abroad. The topic has gained renewed attention due to the ongoing war in Ukraine, which has led to a record number of inter-state complaints and individual applications before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. The outcome in those proceedings – and similar cases concerning recent fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan – is not only important for the parties involved. It may also be of high relevance for other Council of Europe (CoE) member states, including Denmark, with regard to their future military operations. This explains their active participation through third-party interventions in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia. Most central in the pending cases is the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction. While there is agreement on many situations in which the ECHR may apply abroad, combat situations continue to be the most contentious issue. Another important question is how the Court could take applicable rules of international humanitarian law (e.g. on distinction, proportionality and precaution) into account and whether it should also consider the so-called jus ad bellum, i.e. the fact that Russia is fighting an illegal war of aggression, in its assessment. About the Speaker Cornelius Wiesener is a tenure-track assistant professor at iCourts and a member of the InterMil project, which conducts strategic research and provides research-based public-sector consultancy within the field of military studies. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2025. "
"Lunch seminar with Aleksandra Kustra-Rogatka";"iCourts";"2025-03-12";"12:15";"2025-03-12";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Judicial reform in Poland before European courts: What makes a court a counter-majoritarian institution?";"Judicial reform in Poland before European courts: What makes a court a counter-majoritarian institution? The current crisis regarding the rule of law in Poland highlights the essential role of European courts and multi-layered constitutionalism in determining the minimum standards that national courts must uphold to function effectively as counter-majoritarian institutions. The rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning Poland's controversial judicial reforms emphasize the significance of effective judicial protection as a fundamental component of a multi-level system of fundamental rights. This project aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the decisions made by the CJEU and the ECtHR concerning the rule of law crisis in Poland. It will explore whether and how these courts have influenced the perception of national courts as counter-majoritarian institutions. Specifically, the project seeks to address the extent to which the European courts have adopted different approaches to addressing violations of the right to a fair trial in Poland and how their case law should be applied to restore the rule of law in the country. Speaker bio Aleksandra Kustra-Rogatka is an associate professor at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, interested in EU constitutionalism, judicial review, and the nexus between law and democracy. Her research explores the dynamics of constitutional courts’ position toward European integration, constitutional identity, rule of law, and transitional justice. She was a visiting researcher at the University of Göttingen, the Free University of Berlin, LUISS University in Rome, and Humboldt University of Berlin. She also served as a judge's legal assistant at the Office of the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland (2008–2017). Currently, she is a team member of the EU-funded Horizon project RED-SPINEL (Respond to Emerging Dissensus: SuPranational Instruments and Norms of European Liberal democracy). Join Zoom MeetingMeeting ID: 634 9018 0372Passcode: 275813 "
"Lunch seminar with Ezgi Özlü";"iCourts";"2025-02-26";"12:15";"2025-02-26";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"Lawyers, Migration Control, and Border Justice";"Lawyers, Migration Control, and Border Justice The objective of this empirical project, which combines a systematic analysis of case law with socio-legal approaches, is to examine the contribution of lawyers to the development of European human rights jurisprudence, particularly in relation to three contemporary aspects of border justice: pushbacks, hotspots, and the transfer of migrants to countries outside the European Union (EU). By lawyers, we refer specifically to legal practitioners advocating for migrants' rights. By border justice, we mean the legal norms governing conditions of entry and residence, rights to family reunification, asylum procedures, and reception conditions. The term pushback refers to the summary return of migrants at the border or shortly after their entry into a territory, while hotspot denotes facilities established at the EU’s external borders for the initial reception, identification, and registration of migrants. In terms of European human rights jurisprudence, this study analyses case law from both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). As a comparative dimension, we also examine the inter-American and African human rights systems. Speaker bio Ezgi Özlü is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Strasbourg and a re:constitution fellow of 2024/2025. She holds a PhD from the University of Strasbourg, where her research focused on how procedural costs affect the right of individual application before the European Court of Human Rights. Her dissertation was awarded the 2024 Thesis Prize by the René Cassin Foundation in France and the best doctoral thesis in Public Law at the University of Strasbourg for 2023–2024. During her PhD studies, Ezgi was a Research Fellow at the Department of International Public Law and Dispute Resolution at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law. Her research interests encompass issues related to access to justice, including legal aid, procedural costs, admissibility requirements, and reparations. She is also focused on topics surrounding the legal profession, such as legal mobilisation, legal ethics, and litigation funding, as well as broader procedural aspects of international adjudication. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 615 6860 4474Passcode: 710987 "
"Lunch seminar with Dragos Calin";"iCourts";"2025-02-12";"12:15";"2025-02-12";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"The Impact of the Recent Case Law of CJEU regarding Article 2 TEU on National Constitutional Values ​​in Romania";"The Impact of the Recent Case Law of CJEU regarding Article 2 TEU on National Constitutional Values ​​in Romania This presentation concerns the analysis of the refusal of the Constitutional Court of Romania, and more recently, of the High Court of Cassation and Justice in Romania to apply the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the rule of law. In recent years, the Constitutional Court of Romania has tried to create an internal wall for not giving effect to the application of the supremacy of European Union law, respectively the judgment of the CJEU in Joined Cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19, Asociația Forumul Judecătorilor din România and Others, as regards the Constitution itself, by developing an ultra vires control and an identity control in an original way. Although the pressure to change such an approach is omnipresent, however, the reasons of Decision no. 390/2021 have not been revised until today by the subsequent case law of the Constitutional Court of Romania, but on the contrary, in two press releases, the idea of revising the Constitution for accepting the effects of the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the matter was launched exclusively. However, a series of somehow sovereigntist decisions, also including here the interpretation in its own, extensive manner, of an opinion of the Venice Commission, seems rather on the way to be abandoned, an example in this regard being the recent Decision no. 283/2023, by which the Constitutional Court of Romania restated the need to impose a threshold in the case of the offence of abuse of office. This sovereign discourse of the Constitutional Court of Romania is now taken over by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which is again a fiercely defender of its own Decision No 67/2022, its arguments being considered, after thorough analysis, to be contrary to the jurisdiction of the European Union by the judgment of the Court of Justice from 24 July 2023 in Case C-107/23 PPU [Lin] and by the orders of 9 January 2024 in Cases C-75/23 and C-131/23. The new interpretative decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Decision No 37/2024, which is binding erga omnes in Romania, is virtually another declaration of war against European Union law, stating that the disapplying of provisions of national law falling within the standard of protection of foreseeability of criminal law, requested by the Court of Justice of the European Union, is not compatible with Article 7 (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It was also considered that the national standard of protection of fundamental rights, the mitior lex (corollary of the non-retroactivity/ultra-activity of the more severe criminal law), including in relation to limitation periods for criminal liability and its interruption, gives substance to the principle of the legality of the offence and the penalty, as governed by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ensuring the guarantees provided for therein and a higher level of protection, of which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 53 of the Charter, national courts must apply national standards, which provide greater protection. At the same time, the High Court of Cassation and Justice held that the obligation imposed on the courts by the judgment in Case C-107/23 PPU [Lin] has the effect of ensuring a level of protection of fundamental rights which is not equivalent or comparable to the protection afforded by Article 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and that, in those circumstances, measures taken by judicial authorities are justified only as long as the application of Union law protects fundamental rights in a manner which can be considered at least equivalent to the protection afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights. The High Court of Cassation and Justice also ruled that the systemic risk of impunity for offences against the financial interests of the European Union, in the light of which Decision No 67/2022 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice should be disapplied, according to the judgment in Case C-107/23 PPU [Lin], cannot be assessed by the courts in the absence of criteria predefined by the legislature because it means a breach of the principle of the separation of powers, and the succession of laws in time is not susceptible to different legal treatment depending on the nature of the offence, depending on whether it is an offence directed against the financial interests of the European Union or another non-political offence, any other interpretation being liable to infringe Article 7 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, for the lack of precision and predictability of the law. Regarding the contribution to iCourts, knowing these realities in Romania, practically ignored by the European Commission, is essential, because the ""step by step"" model of destroying the independence of a judicial system can become a source of inspiration for other EU Member States. The Impact of the Recent Case Law of CJEU regarding Article 2 TEU on National Constitutional Values in Romania by Dragos Calin :: SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4922540 Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 685 0352 1724Passcode: 868267 Bio DRAGOȘ CĂLIN Judge, Bucharest Court of Appeals (since April 2009); EU Law Trainer, The National Institute of Magistracy, Bucharest (since 2006); Associate Researcher of the Institute for Legal Research of the Romanian Academy - Centre for European Legal Studies (2010-2022; 2024); Founding member and Co-President of the Romanian Judges’ Forum Association (since 2007); Director of the Romanian Judges’ Forum Review (since 2009); Vice-President of GEMME - European Group of Magistrates for Mediation (May 2010-May 2012); Founding member (2009) and Vice-President of the International Conference for Mediation and Justice (2012-2016); Member of the Association of European Magistrates for Human Rights (since 2011); Member of the Franco-Romanian Lawyers Association (since 2009); Member of the Association of Magistrates of the European Union (since 2007). PhD in Law (University of Bucharest, Faculty of Law) - The Dialogue between Constitutional Courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union (2018). I graduated the Faculty of Law of the University of Bucharest in 1998 and the National Institute of Magistracy in 2003, the second from my series of graduates. Postgraduate studies at the Faculty of Law of the University of Bucharest (2013) and the Academy of Economic Sciences in Bucharest, Faculty of Administration and Public Management (2015). Author of numerous books and articles (more then 200) in the field of law, published in Romania, France, United States, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Belgium, Italy, Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Bulgaria, Mongolia, Lebanon, Columbia, India, Indonesia, Armenia and Argentina, among which Limitele libertatii de exprimare. Politicieni, jurnalisti, magistrati. Comentarii si jurisprudenta, 2014; Hotararile CEDO in cauzele impotriva Romaniei. Analiza, consecinte, autoritati potential responsabile – in perioada 1994-2014 (vol. I-X), 2010-2015; Quelle justice pour la France? 31 personnalités répondent aux préoccupations des Français, Éditions l'Harmattan, Paris, 2012; Procedura trimiterii preliminare. Principii de drept al Uniunii Europene si experiente ale sistemului roman de drept, 2012; Noul Cod civil – comentarii, doctrina, jurisprudenta. Vol. II. Mosteniri si liberalitati. Obligatii, 2012; Refuzul instantelor nationale de a trimite intrebari preliminare. Jurisprudenta romaneasca, 2013; Dictionar de drepturile omului, 2013; Cooperarea judiciara in materie civila si comerciala in Uniunea Europeana, 2014; La Médiation, un chemin de paix pour la justice en Europe, Éditions l'Harmattan, Paris, (ed.), 2015; Dreptul Uniunii Europene şi tribunalele constituţionale ale statelor membre. Interviuri (ed.), 2015; Directiva – act de dreptul Uniunii Europene şi dreptul român (ed.), 2016; La mediation entre l'habitude d'avoir recours au systeme traditionnel de justice et le remboursement de l'integralite des frais de justice in New Developments in Civil and Commercial Mediation - Global Comparative Perspectives (Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law), eds. Carlos Esplugues and Louis Marquis, Springer, Heidelberg, 2015; La Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne en Roumanie, in Laurence Burgorgue Larsen (ed.), La Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne saisie par les juges en Europe, Col. Cahiers européene, IREDIES - Institut de recherche en droit international et européen de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Pedone, Paris, 2016; Dialogul dintre tribunalele constituționale și Curtea de Justiție a Uniunii Europene, 2018; 900 days of Uninterrupted Siege upon the Romanian Magistracy. A Survival Guide, 2020; Recent Controversy Regarding the Promotion of Judges in Romania: Searching for Meritocracy - International Journal for Court Administration (iacajournal.org), Volume 12, Issue 1, 2021; Constitutionalism and Politics | The Court of Justice of the European Union, ultima ratio for saving the independence of the judges in Romania – a commentary of the CJEU preliminary ruling in C‑83/19, C‑127/19, C‑195/19, C‑291/19 and C‑355/19 and C‑397/19, AFJR and others - Constitutionalism and Politics (eui.eu), in European University Institute - Constitutionalism and Politics Blog, 2021; The priority of the EU law in Romania: between reality and Fata Morgana – Official Blog of UNIO, in UNIO EU Journal Blog; Constitutional courts cannot build brick walls between the CJEU and national judges concerning the rule of law values in Article 2 TEU: RS - Kluwer Law Online, in Common Market Law Review 60(2023), Issue 3. Courses of Specialization at the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxemburg (April-June 2005), CEELI Institute Prague (Building Judiciary Integrity - October-November 2007), Tribunal Superior de Justicia Madrid, Spain (September 2010), Consejo General del Poder Judicial Madrid and European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) - Espacio Judicial Europeo Social (December 2010 - October 2011). I have participated in hundreds of scientific conferences organized in Romania or other countries, as a lecturer or participant (among others, in Paris, Luxembourg, Rome, Nice, Lübeck, Budapest, Palermo, Ankara, Barcelona, Madrid, Lisbon, Trier, Sofia, Aix-en-Provence, Fontevrault, Wienn, St. Vincent de Mercuze, La Rochelle, Chisinau, The Hague, Krakow, Katowice, Ljubljana). Romania's International Rapporteur for the XIX International Congress of Comparative Law (Vienna, 2014); U.S. Department of State, IVLP Project ""Rule of Law and the U.S. Judicial System"" (Washington, Manchester, East Lansing, Santa Fe, 2022). Website: www.dragoscalin.ro "
"Lunch seminar with Sarah Lee";"iCourts";"2025-01-08";"12:15";"2025-01-08";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Curiosity Killed the Court: comparative analysis of the backlash and (un)revival of the EurAsEC Court and the SADC Tribunal ";"Curiosity Killed the Court: comparative analysis of the backlash and (un)revival of the EurAsEC Court and the SADC Tribunal Abstract Although a large body of literature on international courts focuses on the factors of their success and their effectiveness, ""failed"" courts - those that were dismantled, are dormant, or never put into operation, are scarcely studied. Yet, analysing these courts could contribute to knowledge about the reasons and factors of international court creation, and help assess strategies used by ICs in order to reinforce their legitimacy and ensure their survival. In this seminar, the trajectories of two courts, the EurAsEC Court, and the SADC Tribunal, will be studied. First, it must be noted that both courts seemingly share a similar fate: after facing defiance and backlash from Member States, both courts have been reshaped, with more restricted powers. The EurAsEC Court was established in 2000, adjudicated its first case in 2012, and was dissolved in 2014, after rendering 22 cases. The SADC Tribunal was established in 2005, and after issuing controversial decisions in 2007, was suspended in 2010 and was (un)officially disbanded in 2012, with a caseload of 15 rulings. Moreover, in both cases, a first protocol was signed and ratified in 2000, and a revised one was drafted in 2014, in order to reinstate an “inheritor” court - the EAEU Court of the EurAsEC Court, and none for the SADC Tribunal. But who, and what, “killed” those courts? Why and how were they “revived”? This paper will argue that the perceived overstepping of competence of the delegated authority (the courts), by the delegating authority (the Member states), links these two courts, and that it was often a too bold or aggressive decision, or series of decisions, with a manifest desire to expand their jurisdiction, that led to strong backlash from states. Using the existing strategic models, which theorize the strategies and tactics of ICs, this paper will try to analyze the legitimation strategies used by these courts with different audiences (interactions between ICs-states, ICs-national courts, ICs-bar and lawyer associations, ICs-civil society), and assess their efficiency. Furthermore, it will show that non-organic growth of doctrine and principles associated with judicial expansion, illustrating a sort of “spurious emulation” of existing successful courts, can prove to be tempting but ultimately fatal. This is likely to be the case especially if the Member states are, from the beginning, reluctant to delegate part of their sovereignty, and have the opportunity to restrict the powers of the IC. Finally, the revival of those courts will be analyzed, in order to observe how true the above hypotheses hold. Indeed, the new protocols that have been drafted follow a similar pattern: the courts are much more constrained, in jurisdiction and competence, with the removal of the preliminary ruling and infringement procedures in both cases, as well as the courts being explicitly limited in their jurisdiction to the issues inscribed within their respective Treaties. As such, the trajectories of the two courts - the dismantling of the SADC Tribunal, and the revival of a weaker Eurasian Court, will also be compared, through the study of the factors that led to these differences. Speaker bio Sarah has been a PhD researcher at the CLTEJ (Center for Legal Theory and Empirical Jurisprudence) at KU Leuven since December 2023, under the supervision of Prof. Arthur Dyevre. Her research focuses on the empirical analysis of ""failed"" international and regional courts, by observing the factors, mechanisms, and consequences of international court failure. More specifically, her research project aims to map the trajectories of aborted, dormant and dismantled courts, assess the effectiveness of legitimization strategies used by courts in uncertain environments, and create a typology of ""failed"" and ""successful"" courts. Her study will rely on a combination of quantitative analysis and case studies. She holds a Bachelor's Degree from Sciences Po (2017-2019, cum laude) and a Master's degree in Law from l'École de Droit de Sciences Po (2020-2023). During her studies, she spent a year at the University of Cambridge (2019-2020, first class ranking) and a semester at Stanford University (2022, Honors Ranking in EU law course). Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 621 2614 4474Passcode: 465571"
"Breakfast Briefing with Simon Fasterkjær Kjeldsen and Martin Lolle Christensen";"iCourts";"2024-12-12";"08:45";"2024-12-12";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Sanctions – or Restrictive Measures – in the Context of International Law";"Sanctions – or Restrictive Measures – in the Context of International Law Abstract Sanctions have become a preferred foreign policy instrument within the tool box of economic instruments. The use of sanctions is mandated both within UN and EU law, and throughout the last decades they have been used, in particular but not only, by Western states and their allies. As a prominent example, severe sanctions have been imposed on Russia in response to its illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The use of international sanctions raises a number of relevant issues under international law. The breakfast briefing will give an overview and discuss recent developments and key international legal issues concerning the use of sanctions and restrictive measures, and consider both their application, limits and impact on developments in international law more broadly including in the perspective of countermeasures. The speakers are both employed at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Denmark, but are speaking in their personal capacity. The views presented are those of the speaker and do not represent the views of MFA. About the Speakers Martin Lolle Christensen is Head of Section at the Department of International Law and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. He holds a law degree (cand.jur) from the University of Copenhagen, and an LL.M. and Ph.D. from the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. Simon Fasterkjær Kjeldsen is Sanctions Coordinator at the Department for Economic Security at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. He holds a law degree (cand.jur) from the University of Copenhagen, and is qualified for the Danish Bar as an attorney-at-law (currently deposited) with former practice areas in the field between international trade, national security and EU law. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Fall 2024. "
"Lunch seminar with CHEN Mohan";"iCourts";"2024-12-11";"12:15";"2024-12-11";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S. & online via Zoom";"Burden of Proof before the International Court of Justice: Perspectives from the Environmental Case Law";"Burden of Proof before the International Court of Justice: Perspectives from the Environmental Case Law Abstract At a time when States from all regions are exponentially increasing their participation in International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s proceedings, including through an unprecedent number of written statements in the advisory opinion on ‘Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change’, the potential of the ICJ as a forum for international environmental law is higher than ever. The recent momentum of strategic litigations and interventions based on community interest is also conceivably relevant in the environmental context. This presentation will address the evidentiary aspects of environmental case law of the ICJ, with a focus on burden of proof. There is no concrete design at the ICJ for burden of proof, leading to questions include in the first place who shall obtain and present evidences? The ICJ should take on the active role of facilitating fact-finding proprio motu when the parties' evidence is insufficient. However, the extent to which this should be done needs to be carefully calibrated so as not to give rise to concerns about equality of arms. The ICJ should resume its neutral, managerial-like role when more evidence is brought in from the outside to tackle complex scientific and factual issues. The ICJ needs to value expert evidences and third-party cooperation in its proceedings, while being mindful of the possibility of and ways to respond to the introduction and subsequent evaluation of facts beyond the scope of the party's claims. In addition, given the compounded, continuous, and often irreparable nature of environmental impacts, the precautionary principle should be emphasized in litigation by means of introducing additional incidental proceedings to preserve evidence. The precautionary principle is also inherently incompatible with the best scientific evidence. And consideration could be given to change the ICJ’s previous stance to the shift of the burden of proof. The arguments and calculations made in individual cases are worth pondering, in order to examine why insufficient proof of environmental damage by a party in the face of evidentiary difficulties does not necessarily lead to total satisfaction of remedies nor total failure in a lawsuit. The presentation will end with comments on how a State can deal with the burden of proof in environmental cases before the ICJ, depending on its role as a party, an intervening State, or other ‘party-of-interest’. Speaker bio Ms. CHEN Mohan is a PhD candidate in public international law at Wuhan University, China. She holds degrees from Wuhan University (LLB, MA) and University of Geneva (LLM). Her research interests include history of international law, international environmental law and international procedural law. Her recent research project is entitled ""Evidentiary issues in the environment-related cases before the International Court of Justice"". Join Zoom meeting Meeting ID: 622 9414 6997Passcode: 038783"
"Lunch seminar with Ruth Breeze";"iCourts";"2024-12-04";"12:15";"2024-12-04";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"Forging new relationships between people and lawmakers? Petitions to parliament from the Scottish and Welsh Parliament.";"Forging new relationships between people and lawmakers? Petitions to parliament from the Scottish and Welsh Parliament. This paper examines the innovative systems of public petitioning established by the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments to foster public engagement with the newly devolved Powers. Using the framework of interpersonality, I examine the relations envisaged between lawmakers, citizens and other social actors as conceptualised in the guides, and explore how citizens themselves understand the limits and possibilities of this affordance, using a sample of petitions submitted to each institution. In my comparison, I find that the Scottish model currently holds greater potential for the promotion of civic consciousness within the new, devolved public sphere. Interestingly, the Scottish petitioners themselves are more likely to appeal to the public or public interest as a motivating factor, suggesting that this system encourages petitioners to develop a more sophisticated awareness of community values, moving towards the common good. Speaker bio Ruth Breeze is Full Professor of English at the University of Navarra, Spain, and PI of the Public Discourse Research Group in the Instituto Cultura y Sociedad. Her most recent books are Pandemic and Crisis Discourse: Communicating COVID-19 and Public Health Strategy (with Andreas Musolff, Bloomsbury, 2022), Teaching English Medium Instruction Courses in Higher Education (with Carmen Sancho Guinda, Bloomsbury, 2021), and Imagining the Peoples of Europe: Populist Discourses across the Political Spectrum (with Jan Zienkowski, John Benjamins, 2019). Join Zoom Meetinghttps://ucph-ku.zoom.us/j/66005126328?pwd=ldiieviNeSkeeQBS37b994uZ4rfJoa.1 Meeting ID: 660 0512 6328Passcode: 973627 "
"Breakfast Briefing with Eddie Omar Rosenberg Khawaja and Maria Dommer Nielsen";"iCourts";"2024-11-28";"08:45";"2024-11-28";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"International Criminal Law in Domestic Civil Litigation: The Lawsuit against Denmark Concerning Indirect Weapons Exports to Israel";"International Criminal Law in Domestic Civil Litigation: The Lawsuit against Denmark Concerning Indirect Weapons Exports to Israel Abstract In March 2024, a Palestinian man sued the National Police, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Justice in Denmark with the claim that the permissions for weapons exports to the USA via the F-35 fighter jet program and the underlying framework for these decisions violate Denmark’s obligations under international law. It is one of two cases in Denmark concerning indirect weapons exports to Israel – the other being brought by a number of NGOs. Both can be viewed as part of a series of civil lawsuits across Europe, where direct or indirect weapons exports to Israel are challenged in domestic courts with reference to the UN Arms Trade Treaty, the EU Common Position on exports of military technology and equipment, and the Geneva Conventions. The case primarily concerns an interpretation of Danish domestic law and international law pertaining to weapons exports. The complaint also contains an analysis of Israel’s methods of warfare and indicators of the country’s non-compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) to substantiate the complaint’s main argument: that there is a clear and/or overriding risk of the exported military technology being used to commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL. The briefing provides an overview of the case and its challenges, and will also highlight how academic legal research has been used in the case. About the Speakers Eddie Omar Rosenberg Khawaja is the owner of Rosenberg Khawaja Law Firm and has extensive experience in domestic criminal trials, criminal cases with cross-border elements and human rights issues. In addition, he is specialized in immigration law and has particular experience in civil litigation with a focus on human rights and EU law. Eddie has also litigated before the European Court of Justice and brought several cases before other international courts and committees. Eddie has previously taught a number of criminal law and immigration law subjects at the Faculty of Law at the University of Copenhagen and on courses for lawyers and judges, etc. Maria Dommer Nielsen is an assistant attorney at Rosenberg Khawaja law firm and has taught the subject ‘International Criminal Law’ at the Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, since 2022. She works with human rights issues in practice and other cases with an international perspective. She has an LLM from the University of Copenhagen and an LLB in Global Law from Tilburg University in the Netherlands. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Fall 2024. "
"Lunch seminar with Edouard Fromageau";"iCourts";"2024-11-27";"12:15";"2024-11-27";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"A Tentative Taxonomy of Quasi-Judicial Bodies in International Law";"A Tentative Taxonomy of Quasi-Judicial Bodies in International Law Abstract The adjective ‘quasi-judicial’ is used to describe an array of domestic and international bodies that eschew traditional categorizations. The term was used first domestically in the 1820s. It emerged in international legal discourse only in the 1990s, when international courts and tribunals proliferated. Indeed, it was used to label a new class of international bodies and procedures that, at the same time, differed from adjudicative bodies, because they were not issuing binding decisions, but was also unlike diplomatic means of international dispute settlement, because they had several of the features of adjudicative bodies such as independent members, rules of procedure, legal reasoning etc. Quasi-judicial bodies are nowadays legion at the international level.Some of those organs, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the World Bank Inspection Panel, and the European Investment Bank Complaints Mechanism have gained considerable visibility and are now a legitimate part of the international adjudication landscape. While visible and numerous, these quasi-judicial bodies have not yet been analyzed as a category by the international law scholarship. In this lunch seminar, I will present the first two chapters of my forthcoming monograph on quasi-judicial bodies in international law, and provide a tentative taxonomy of these bodies in international law. Speaker bio Edouard Fromageau is a Senior Lecturer in International Economic Law at the University of Aberdeen and taught arbitration courses for the past 15 years (in Geneva, Luxembourg, and Düsseldorf). He specialises in international economic law, international dispute resolution, law and technology, and the law of international organisations, but also contributed in several occasions to projects with international human rights, global animal law and international environmental law aspects. Before joining the University of Aberdeen as a Lecturer in 2020, Dr. Fromageau was a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, which he joined in 2015 after a postdoctoral stay at NYU School of Law. Dr. Fromageau obtained a dual Ph.D. (summa cum laude, Prix Bellot) in public international law from the University of Geneva (Switzerland) and Aix-Marseille Université (France) in 2014. He was a Research and Teaching Assistant at the Public International Law Department of the Faculty of Law at the University of Geneva between January 2009 and December 2014. He was also a Visiting Researcher at the Humboldt University of Berlin in 2012, and a Guest Lecturer at the University of Kobe in 2017. Dr. Fromageau is a member of the Board of the European Society of International Law, and was a co-convener of the ESIL Interest Group on International Courts and Tribunals. His current research interests include legal theory and legal reasoning, global and international institutional law, judicial and quasi-judicial dispute settlement.Topics Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 635 2562 2993 Passcode: 925628 "
"Breakfast Briefing with Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen";"iCourts";"2024-11-14";"08:45";"2024-11-14";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Head of State Immunity in the 21st Century";"Head of State Immunity in the 21st Century Abstract In light of the development of international criminal law since Nuremberg, it is natural to ask whether the customary rules on immunity to this day continue to protect state leaders from prosecution for international crimes. The leading judgments on the issue from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) point to different results. This places states like Denmark in a legal dilemma, which is currently actualized by the ICC cases concerning Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In her presentation, Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen will present and analyze the most recent theoretical arguments for exceptions to the personal immunity of high-ranking state officials before certain international criminal courts. About the Speaker Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen is Professor of International Law and Vice Dean for Research at the Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, and will present her upcoming InterMil report. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Fall 2024. "
"Lunch seminar with Joseph Wasonga";"iCourts";"2024-11-13";"12:15";"2024-11-13";"13:15";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"Media representation of atrocity crimes, victimhood and international criminal justice: the case of 2007 post-election violence in Kenya";"Media representation of atrocity crimes, victimhood and international criminal justice: the case of 2007 post-election violence in Kenya Abstract Is there a relationship between media representation, society and the pursuit of justice for victims of mass violence? International criminal accountability presupposes that victims of atrocity crimes and corresponding perpetrators can be delineated in situations of mass violence. However, the domains of victimhood and perpetration remain convoluted and complex since defining victims, offenders and offenses can be problematic depending on the sociopolitical formation of the society in which such crimes occur. The manner social and legal systems characterise individuals associated with armed groups may influence the positioning of these individuals in the victim-perpetrator dichotomy. Media is instrumental in this characterization and likely to regenerate legal and social designations of victims and perpetrators. These observations raise questions as to whether media representation of victimhood, criminality, and perpetrator affects the way a society thinks about accountability for victims of mass violence. What about objectivity in the representation of violations of human rights and victimhood in situations of mass violence? What implications would such framing have on the dispensation of justice, and indeed whose justice? The above questions are significant in discerning how media representation may have shaped the character of victimhood in the pursuit of international criminal justice for the victims of 2007 post-election violence (PEV) in Kenya. This paper interrogates how media reporting framed victimhood in relation to the International Criminal Court’s response to the 2007 PEV in Kenya. In the process, we analyse the changing character of victimhood as may have been represented in Kenyan media and implications on international accountability. Speaker bio Dr Joseph Wasonga is a lecturer in Political Science and International Relations at Kenyatta University. Dr Wasonga has research interests in the politics of international criminal justice, peace and security, forced displacement, and foreign policy. He has a number of publications including journal articles, books and book chapters on peace and security in Africa, transitional justice, social movements in Africa, and the politics of international criminal justice, and security intelligence. Dr. Wasonga has also written on women in politics and conflict situations. Dr Wasonga holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 623 1681 5327Passcode: 229697"
"Lunch seminar with Andrea Prochazkova";"iCourts";"2024-11-06";"12:15";"2024-11-06";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor & online via Zoom ";"The Czech Constitutional Court as an Agent of Social Change?";"The Czech Constitutional Court as an Agent of Social Change? In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the use of strategic litigation in both international and national courts. Strategic litigation - defined as the deliberate use of legal action to bring about broader social, political, or legal change - has been employed to address issues such as the climate agenda, abortion and women's rights, social rights, and freedom of expression. While this approach seemed to be predominantly a feature of the Anglo-American legal sphere, it has increasingly found a place in the continental legal systems of Europe. We already know that constitutional courts act as agents of change within continental legal systems. However, scholars have primarily focused on how courts implement change, paying less attention to how constitutional complaints are carefully selected, who is behind these strategic efforts, and how judicially driven change takes root in society. This paper focuses on the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, a prominent example of constitutional review that emerged in the early 1990s, inspired by Western jurisprudence and practices. Unlike other constitutional courts in the region, it has operated for over thirty years in a stable democratic environment with a relatively developed civil society. The research aims to answer key questions: How does strategic litigation influence constitutional change in the Czech Republic? Who are the main actors behind these constitutional complaints, and what strategies do they employ to bring about judicially driven change? To address these questions, this paper will employ an in-depth analysis of selected case studies involving constitutional complaints. The study will also examine the implications for the Court's abstract review and the broader impact of these cases on society. By shifting the focus to the strategies behind case selection and the actors involved, this paper contributes to a deeper understanding of how constitutional change is initiated and institutionalized through the judiciary. Ultimately, it aims to shed light on the collaborative role of strategic litigation and judicial processes in the ongoing evolution of constitutional law within post-communist democracies. Speaker bio Andrea Procházková is a PhD candidate specialising in constitutional law at the Faculty of Law, Charles University in Prague. Her academic work is complemented by her role as a lecturer, where she teaches political science, constitutional law and a specialised skills course focusing on lawyers' interaction with the media. Her doctoral research focuses on elucidating the function of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic as an agent of social change. Specifically, she examines the judicial strategies used in reviewing legislative enactments in order to delineate the Court's influence within the socio-political landscape. Andrea's scholarship has consistently explored the nexus between law and politics, with a particular focus on the operation of constitutional courts in different political contexts. Her publications offer insights into the evolving dynamics between the judiciary and political actors. In addition to her academic role, Andrea is also an journalist with a focus on reporting on judicial issues and political developments in the Czech Republic. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 681 0872 1439Passcode: 153366"
"Breakfast Briefing with Frederik Harhoff";"iCourts";"2024-10-31";"08:45";"2024-10-31";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, Njalsgade 76, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"State Responsibility for Genocide and Prosecution of Individuals";"State Responsibility for Genocide and Prosecution of Individuals Abstract During his breakfast briefing, Frederik Harhoff will provide some practical and legal observations on South Africa’s case against Israel for genocide and Nicaragua’s case against Germany for complicity in genocide before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and on the request of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Arrest Warrants against Netanyahu and others for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Has the ICJ engaged itself in a political contest by accepting to hear the cases under the Genocide Convention, and will the ICC eventually issue arrest warrants against the suspects? About the Speaker Frederik Harhoff is professor emeritus of International Law and International Humanitarian Law at the Department of Law with the University of Southern Denmark in Odense (2013-2016). He served as Senior Legal Officer and Head of Chambers with the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) from 1996 to 1998 and held that same position with the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) from 2002 to 2005. From 2006 to 2013, he served as Judge ad litem with the ICTY. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Fall 2024. "
"Lunch seminar with Marthe Engedahl";"iCourts";"2024-10-30";"12:15";"2024-10-30";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"(CANCELLED) An analysis of case law from international courts related to the applicability of Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols";"An analysis of case law from international courts related to the applicability of Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols CANCELLED Abstract In this lunch seminar, Marthe Engedahl will present her analysis of case law from international courts relevant to answering the question of whether Common Article 1 (CA1) applies to the specific act of providing military assistance from one State to another during armed conflict. The analysis is based on case law from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Speaker bio Marthe Engedahl is a PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Law, University of Bergen. In her PhD project, she examines the international legal obligations of a State that provides military assistance to a State party to an ongoing, armed conflict – so-called Third State obligations. More specifically, she analyses whether Common Article 1 (CA1) of the Geneva Conventions (GC) and Additional Protocols (AP) I and III places an obligation on an assisting State ‘to ensure respect’ for the GCs and APs by the assisted State, and if it does, what the scope and content of this obligation is. As such, the overall research question of her PhD raises questions related both to the applicability and application of CA1 in the specific context of state military assistance during armed conflict, and places itself within legal doctrinal research. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 681 2521 5676Passcode: 454614"
"Conference: “Once More Unto the Breach”:   Denmark on the Security Council in an Age of Instability";"Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts) and Centre for Military Studies (CMS)";"2024-10-23";"TBA";"2024-10-24";"";"Auditorium 4A-0-69, ground floor, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S";"In preparation for Denmark’s new role as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council in 2025-2026, the University of Copenhagen’s Centre for Military Studies (CMS) and Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts) invite scholars, practitioners, decision-makers, and members of civil society to a two-day conference to discuss critical issues in international law and security.";"In preparation for Denmark’s new role as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council in 2025-2026, the University of Copenhagen’s Centre for Military Studies (CMS) and Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts) invite scholars, practitioners, decision-makers, and members of civil society to a two-day conference to discuss critical issues in international law and security. Day 1 will be devoted to reform of the Security Council’s membership and working methods, whereas Day 2 will address one of Denmark’s three priority issues as a Security Council member, namely, ‘the impact of climate change on peace and security’. Information: Date: Wednesday 23 October and Thursday 24 October Venue: Auditorium 4A-0-69, ground floor, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S Day 1 - Security Council Reform – Implications for Denmark: Despite repeated efforts by states, particularly those in the Global South, there has been only one change to the membership of the UN Security Council since its inception – expanding the number of non-permanent seats from six to ten – and no fundamental reform of its working methods. Two recent developments, however, have given such efforts new impetus. The first is the surprising statement by Joe Biden in 2022 that the US supports increasing the number of permanent seats on the Council to include not only traditional allies like Japan, Germany, and India, but also “countries in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.” The second is Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine: the Council’s inability to respond to the invasion because of Russia’s veto power has increased calls for the P5 to voluntarily refrain from vetoing resolutions aimed at ending mass atrocities and for the Council to enforce the provision in Art. 27 of the UN Charter that requires states not to vote on resolutions adopted under Chapter VI of the Charter concerning disputes to which they are a party. The first day of the conference will bring together government officials, practitioners, scholars, and members of civil society to discuss recent efforts to reform Security Council membership and working methods. Programme Day 1 Time Programme 09:30-10:00 Registration 10:00-11:15 Opening Keynote Prof. Dire Tladi, ICJ Judge, South Africa 11:15-11:30 Coffee Break 11:30-13:00 Panel 1: Reforming Security Council Membership Chair: Martin Lolle Christensen (Danish MFA) Bjarke Zinck Winther (Aalborg) Madeline O. Hosli (Leiden) Monika Heupel (Bamberg) 13:00-14:30 Lunch 14:30-16:00 Panel 2: Reforming Security Council Working Methods Chair: Kristian Søby Kristensen (Director, CMS) Anna Spain Bradley (UCLA) Alanna O’Malley (Leiden) Richard Illingworth (Glasgow) 16:00-16:15 Coffee Break 16:15-17:00 Closing Keynote Lisbet Zilmer-Johns, State Secretary for Foreign Policy, Danish MFA 17:00-18:00 Reception 19:00- Speakers Dinner Day 2 - Rising Sea Levels – Implications for International Law and Security: As a member of the Security Council, Denmark has pledged to promote three key issues: ‘1. To adapt the Security Council's crisis management and prevention to new types of conflicts. 2. Addressing the impact of climate change on peace and security. 3. Strengthening the Women, Peace and Security agenda in the Security Council.’ The second day of the conference will address the second issue, ‘the impact of climate change on peace and security’.The rising sea levels caused by climate change raise numerous questions of international law. For small island states such as Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands, foundational issues are at stake, including whether territory is a necessary condition forcontinued statehood. At the same time, current developments put pressure on the international law of the sea, which in the short term may have immediate consequences for many states, including Denmark. The second day of the conference will bring together government officials, practitioners, scholars, and members of civil society to discuss recent developments in international law in relation to rising sea-levels. Programme Day 2 Time Programme 09:00-09:30 Registration and coffee 09:30-10.45 Panel 1: Implications of sea level rise Chair: Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen (iCourts, UCPH) Michael Aastrup Jensen (chairperson Foreign Policy Committee) Kamal Amakrane (GA president’s climate envoy and head of Global Center for Climate Migration) Jonas Vejsager Nøddekær (Secretary General, DanChurchAid) 10:45-11:15 Coffee Break 11:15-12:15 Panel 2: Status of the international legal developments Chair: Marc Schack (iCourts, UCPH) Yoshifumi Tanaka (Professor, CEPRI, UCPH) Beatriz Martinez Romera (Associate Professor, Head of Centre, CLIMA, UCPH) 12:15-13:00 Lunch and goodbye Registration Everyone is welcome, but registration is necessary throught this formular - no later than Tuesday 22 October at 12:00."
"Lunch seminar with Jakub Jaraczewski ";"iCourts";"2024-10-16";"11:30";"2024-10-16";"12:30";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor & online via Zoom";"Repairing the rule of law the hard way - experiences from Poland";"Repairing the rule of law the hard way - experiences from Poland Abstract After eight years of a rule of law crisis instigated by an antidemocratic government, Poland witnessed a significant political shift. The last year's parliamentary elections resulted in a centrist majority and a government committed to restoring the independence of the judiciary and repairing democratic institutions. However, this endeavor is not without its challenges, given the unique features of the Polish public law and the obstacles left by the previous government. As the pressure to implement CJEU/ECtHR judgments mounts and the divisions within the pro-democratic camp widen, Polish authorities are formulating a unique playbook for democratic restoration in a contested environment. The presentation of key developments and factors will be followed by a QA session, allowing the audience to actively participate in the discussion about the Polish experience and its implications for the wider European Union.Speaker bio Jakub Jaraczewski is a Research Coordinator at Democracy Reporting International, a Berlin-based NGO dedicated to supporting democracy and the rule of law worldwide. As part of the re: constitution programme, he works with journalists and policymakers to improve the public debate on the rule of law in the European Union. Jakub focuses on the situation in Central and Eastern Europe. His insights have been featured in the New York Times, Guardian, Politico, Euronews, and other leading European and global media. Join Zoom MeetingMeeting ID: 645 2940 1387Passcode: 333335"
"Breakfast Briefing with Alexander Wentker";"iCourts";"2024-10-10";"08:45";"2024-10-10";"09:45";"6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Who is at War? Establishing Party Status and its Meaning in International Law";"Who is at War? Establishing Party Status and its Meaning in International Law Abstract The question of what constitutes an armed conflict has featured prominently in international law debates. However, international lawyers have paid less attention to the inextricable question of who is engaged in a conflict, focusing solely on whether there is an armed conflict. The briefing explores why it matters and how it is established that a State, international organisation, or armed group is a party to an armed conflict. The first part of the briefing demonstrates that party status is central at all levels of the international legal regulation of armed conflicts, with parties to armed conflict being both key addressees of international law and central reference points for regulating individuals and third parties. In response to increasingly widespread cooperation practices, the briefing’s second part advances an analytical framework for identifying parties to conflicts with multiple parties on the same side (or 'co-parties'). This framework allows for a refined account of how responsibilities are allocated in armed conflicts and hopes to provide a piece to the larger puzzle of e how international law can best respond to the realities of contemporary conflicts. About the Speaker Alexander Wentker is a senior research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, an associate researcher at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and an associate fellow with Chatham House’s international law programme. Alexander has a range of research interests in public international law, public law, and EU law. His book Party Status to Armed Conflict in International Law was published with OUP earlier this year. He teaches courses in public law and international law at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and and Freie Universität Berlin. Alexander holds a doctorate in law and an MJur from the University of Oxford as well as a Maîtrise en droit from Université Paris II-Panthéon-Assas. He is a fully qualified German lawyer and a former clerk of the Supreme Court of Namibia. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Fall 2024. "
"Lunch seminar with Brad Roth";"iCourts";"2024-10-02";"12:15";"2024-10-02";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"Applying a Realistic Interpretivism to International Law";"Applying a Realistic Interpretivism to International Law According to Ronald Dworkin, “constructive interpretation is a matter of imposing purpose on an object or practice in order to make of it the best example of the form or genre to which it is taken to belong.” For Dworkin, legal interpretation properly entails a “moral reading” of source material that, “all things considered, makes the community’s legal record the best it can be from the point of view of political morality.” Dworkin only belatedly came to apply his interpretivist approach to the international legal order, with his major contribution on that subject appearing only after his death. That contribution reflected an incomplete and skewed understanding of the international legal order’s essential purposes, underestimating the enduring prevalence of discord and for that reason overstating the international system’s role in enhancing the legitimacy of municipal governance. Yet an alternative “moral reading” of the United Nations Charter-based international system, better grounded in the stubborn realities and practical imperatives of global political life, is both available and edifying, promising a more compelling account of the system’s fundamental norms than can be furnished by international legal positivism. This moral reading highlights the international legal order’s role as a framework of accommodation among bearers of differing interests and values, and eschews placing impractical conditions on the compromises needed to achieve interstate peace and cooperation. Speaker bio Brad R. Roth is Professor of Political Science and Law at Wayne State University in Detroit , and a Visiting Scholar for Fall 2024 at the Mitchell Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice at Queen's University Belfast. His scholarship applies political theory to problems in international and comparative public law, with a special focus on crises of political authority. He is the author of Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law (Oxford University Press, 1999), Sovereign Equality and Moral Disagreement (Oxford University Press, 2011), and a wide range of book chapters, journal articles, and commentaries dealing with questions of sovereignty, constitutionalism, human rights and democracy. Much of his work focuses on legal aspects of conflicts that have occasioned the use of force (e.g., Israel-Palestine, the former Yugoslavia, and Ukraine) and on retrospective and extraterritorial applications of criminal law to conflict participants. Brad was a Visiting Scholar at iCourts in the Summer of 2017, and has spoken at two subsequent iCourts conferences. Brad was a Visiting Scholar at iCourts in the Summer of 2017, and has spoken at two subsequent iCourts conferences. Join meeting via Zoom. Meeting ID: 669 5396 2581Passcode: 381179 "
"Breakfast Briefing with Gilad Ben-Nun";"iCourts";"2024-09-26";"08:45";"2024-09-26";"09:45";"Room 6A-2-40, Njalsgade 76, 2nd floor, Copenhagen S";"Georg Cohn (1887-1956): Denmark’s (Forgotten) “Father” of International Law?";"Georg Cohn (1887-1956): Denmark’s (Forgotten) “Father” of International Law? Abstract Rabbi Georg Cohn was the foremost Danish international jurist during the 1st half of the 20th century, who in 1922 wrote the first draft of the League of Nations’s Non-Recognition principle of territorial appropriation by force. During the 1930s, he headed the ‘universalist’ jurists who opposed the use of force in international affairs against ‘Machtrecht’ jurists led by Carl Schmitt. He also led Denmark’s legal team in the Eastern Greenland case at the PCIJ (1932). Upon return to Denmark from his forced Nazi exile in Sweden after WWII, Cohn headed the Danish delegation to the Geneva Conventions (1948-49). There, he single-handedly inserted into the Fourth Geneva Convention for Civilians its prohibition of transfer by occupiers of their own civilian populations into territories they have forcefully usurped (Art. 49 para. 6), and its prohibition on death penalties there (Art. 68). Given contemporary breaches by occupiers of this prohibition (e.g. ICJ Advisory Opinion against Israel, 19 July 2024), this lecture recasts Cohn’s legal legacy demonstrating its high contemporary relevance. About the Speaker Prof. Dr. (Habil.) Gilad Ben-Nun, is interim professor (Vertretungsprofessor) for Global Studies at the University of Leipzig. A former FORD Foundation Senior Fellow at UNIDIR, and former EU Marie Curie fellow at Verona University’s law faculty, he has served as Israel Studies professor at LMU Munich (2020-2022) and has held the Alfred Grosser Chaired professorship (2021-2022) at Sciences Po in Paris. His first monograph Seeking Asylum in Israel – Refugees and the History of Migration Law (London: Bloomsbury) won the 2017 US National Jewish Book award. His article ‘How Jewish is International Law?’ won the Spotlight Award of the Journal of the History of International law in 2021. This lecture is largely based upon his Habilitationsschrift: The 4th Geneva Convention for Civilians: The History of International Humanitarian law (London: Bloomsbury 2020). Gilad is a guest of Roskilde University’s Erasmus Mundus Global Studies programme. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Fall 2024. This event is organised jointly with the Centre for Statecraft and International Order at Roskilde University’s Department of Social Sciences and Business. "
"Seminar with Dr. Emily Tannock";"iCourts (the Danish National Research Foundation's Centre of Excellence for International Courts and Governance) & CMS (Center for Military Studies)";"2024-09-19";"15:00";"2024-09-19";"16:30";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Faculty of Law, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"War and Progress? On the tension in liberal ideas about the legitimate use of force";"War and Progress? On the tension in liberal ideas about the legitimate use of force What do normative debates about the legitimacy of force reveal about progress in world politics, including whether using force to achieve progress is thought to be possible or even desirable? How might notions of violence become transgressive, constitutive of, or even amount to a progressive international order? And how has this changed in recent history? In this talk, I will discuss the relationship between ideas of progress and the legitimate use of force, by way of three ongoing debates about force across the 20th and 21st centuries: permanent security and atrocity prevention, aggression and self-defence, and humane ‘forever’ war and peace. I will discuss how the norms that have evolved towards these ends shape, and are shaped by, contemporary conflicts, and the role of rules and institutions in this process, including international law. I will also reflect on whether there is a hierarchy between norms of violence, which might render some uses of force more transgressive of international order than others. Speaker bio Emily Tannock lectures at the Centre for Future Defence and National Security at Deakin University, Australia, based at the Australian War College. She is also an Honorary Research Fellow at the School of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Queensland. Before joining Deakin, she was Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland where she obtained her PhD. She has degrees in International Relations from the Australian National University, and in International Law from the University of Melbourne. She has held visiting positions at the European University Institute and at the Centro Studi Americani in Rome. She writes about historical international relations, especially norms about the past, present, and future of war and its impact on societies. Her work has been published in the European Journal of International Relations and in the prize-winning collection on the The Globalization of International Society (Oxford University Press). "
"Lunch seminar with Pedro Cuesta";"iCourts";"2024-09-18";"12:15";"2024-09-18";"13:15";"Online only (via Zoom)";"Scholactivism in Public Law";"Scholactivism in Public Law In recent years, public-law scholars have been drawn into activism, particularly in response to government actions perceived as threats to the rule of law. A known example is the ""Polish Constitutional Crisis"" that began in 2015 when the Polish government implemented judicial reforms weakening the Constitutional Tribunal and Supreme Court. These actions sparked widespread concern about the erosion of judicial independence and democratic governance. Among the most outspoken critics was Professor Wojciech Sadurski, a constitutional law expert. Sadurski publicly condemned the government's reforms as unconstitutional, emphasizing the threat to democratic norms. In retaliation, the Polish government targeted him with defamation lawsuits, highlighting the tension between his role as an academic and his activism. This case exemplifies the ethical challenges faced by public-law scholars: Should they remain neutral and uphold academic objectivity, or step beyond academia to defend democratic values, even at personal risk? This dilemma underscores the growing debate around ‘scholactivism’ — a concept that blurs the boundaries between academic inquiry and political action. In recent years, scholars have increasingly felt compelled to influence society, from opposing illiberal government actions to condemning international aggressions. The aim of this entry is to analyze the impact of scholactivism on one particular kind of academic: public-law scholars, who, due to the nature of their field, are especially prone to facing this moral conflict. Public law can be defined as the area of law governing relations between private entities, including individuals and public authorities, or between public institutions. Although the subject of study is narrow, some of the conclusions that this entry reaches can be generalized, serving to understand the discussion on scholactivism in other fields. Speaker bio Pedro Cuesta García is a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Doctoral Fellow under the framework of the GEM-DIAMOND PhD fellowship, part of the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme. Pedro holds a Bachelors of Laws (LLB) from the University Carlos III de Madrid, and a ""European Public Law & Governance"" Masters of Laws (LLM) from the European Law School of Maastricht University. His joint PhD journey starts at Luiss Guido Carli University in Rome and continues at iCourts, the Danish National Research Foundation's Centre of Excellence for International Courts, at the University of Copenhagen. His supervisors are Professor Giovanni Piccirilli, from Luiss University, and Professor Mikael Madsen, from the University of Copenhagen. Academic interest His academic interests are centered on various areas of EU law: the constitutional aspects of EU law; constitutional pluralism, the construction of the EU polity, the fundamental values of the EU, and the protection of fundamental rights among others; the Law of the Economic and Monetary Union, including the banking union, and the Law of the Common Commercial policy, Thesis' topic His Ph.D. Thesis investigates the gaps in the cooperation between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and national courts, especially constitutional and supreme courts. In particular, the focus is on how such gaps, due to misunderstandings at times and open conflicts at others, have challenged the primacy of EU law and whether this phenomenon affects the autonomous nature of the EU legal order and the primacy of EU law. In a nutshell, his thesis analyzes what motivates the resistance of some constitutional/supreme courts to the primacy of European Union law, and more broadly the judicial activism of the CJEU. Pedro Cuesta Garcia was staying at iCourts from 20 August 2023 to 30 June 2024. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 660 3625 0073Passcode: 308829 "
"Lunch seminar with Federico Bonito";"iCourts";"2024-09-11";"12:15";"2024-09-11";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"General Principles of Law as Applied by International Administrative Tribunal between Contaminations and Cross-Fertilization";"General Principles of Law as Applied by International Administrative Tribunal between Contaminations and Cross-Fertilization Abstract The proliferation of international administrative tribunals (IATs) represents one of the most relevant challenges for international administrative law (IAL). This may lead IATs to embrace different directions in settling disputes between IOs and their staff members, resulting in fragmentation of the law. Yet a closer examination of the jurisprudence of these tribunals reveals that international administrative judges tend to resolve disputes consistently with the solutions adopted by their counterparts in other IOs. In numerous cases, IATs have adopted decisions based on “general principles of law” and borrowed legal concepts from domestic legal orders or other IATs’ judgments. Thus, the research analyses how IATs identify and develop principles for adjudicating disputes between IOs and their employees. Specifically, it studies the influences on the determination process of these principles. Firstly, the thesis analyzes how international administrative judges identify norms widespread in domestic legal systems to deduce applicable rules of IAL. At the same time, the research studies how and why IATs exchange with one another to elaborate common practices, interpretations, and arguments based on principles. The methodology involves a doctrinal reading of decisions issued by the most relevant IATs. However, the inquiry of the IATs exchange will be complemented by an empirical approach aimed at gauging the dialogue between IATs, through the measurement of direct citations and thanks to a linguistic analysis of judicial decisions. The interplay between the doctrinal approach and the empirical methods has been revealed to be useful in the study of international courts and the applications of legal sources. Thus, quantitative findings can then undergo the doctrinal process of systematization aimed at illustrating the content and the functions of general principles recognized by IATs. Speaker bio Federico Bonito is a PhD candidate at the University of Roma Tre, Department of Law. His thesis deals with general principles of law as applied by international administrative tribunals between vertical and horizontal cross-fertilization. He worked as an intern at the Legal Office of the Joint Force Command Naples (NATO), where he cooperated in the activities of the Mission Appeals Tribunal, an international administrative tribunal established within NATO-led missions. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 669 3143 8211Passcode: 821859"
"Lunch seminar with Esra Demir-Gürsel";"iCourts";"2024-08-28";"12:15";"2024-08-28";"13:15";"Room 6B-4-04, Faculty of Law, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"The Council of Europe’s Oppositional Framings of Europe and Its Others: From Totalitarianism to Authoritarianism, From Populism to Backsliding";"The Council of Europe’s Oppositional Framings of Europe and Its Others: From Totalitarianism to Authoritarianism, From Populism to Backsliding In the past decade, there has been a marked shift away from the human rights associated with liberal democracy. Several European states have been at the forefront of this development since the 2008 global financial crisis, which was followed by other events triggering anxieties around migration, security, and stability. These trends against liberal democracy among its members have severely disrupted the foundational discourses of the Council of Europe (CoE), which has played a crucial role in framing Europe’s history and present in human rights and democracy. Various concepts have been mobilized to capture this drift away from liberal democracy, including illiberalism, populism, authoritarianism, authoritarian populism, and democratic/rule of law backsliding. In the CoE context, these developments have not only recalled the discourses surrounding the establishment of the CoE and the drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights to prevent a drift towards “totalitarianism” and “authoritarianism,” but they have also introduced new terms to the CoE’s vocabulary, such as “populism” and “democratic backsliding.” This paper investigates how these concepts are used by CoE organs and its member states to analyze their discursive functions across different phases of the CoE’s history. It argues that within the CoE context, these concepts are employed less to denote clearly differentiated political forms or categories with distinct political and legal implications. Instead, they are used more as discursive tools to frame Europe in human rights and democracy in opposition to its “others.” Join Zoom MeetingMeeting ID: 611 7617 6145Passcode: 770373 "
"Lunch seminar with Irina Freiman";"iCourts";"2024-08-21";"12:15";"2024-08-21";"13:15";"Online via Zoom";"Russian arbitrage strategies";"Russian arbitrage strategies Abstract The dynamics of the last two years show an explosive growth in international disputes involving Russia. All existing international forums are engaged, this includes international tribunals and arbitration institutions. Large Russian companies, for example, those supplying energy resources to Europe, have been sued in arbitrations before, but not in such cases and not for such amounts. The 'International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea' has several cases involving Russia. Using the example of international proceedings involving Russia in recent years, we can talk about trends and identify strategies that Russia uses when working with these institutions. In the lecture we will review the flagship cases, identify Russia's strategy and make an assessment and perspective of the results of arbitrations and the success of the chosen strategy. Speaker bio Irina Freiman is a PhD candidate at the Walther Schücking Institute for International Law at the Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. Her dissertation focuses on the law of the sea, maritime customs and Arctic issues in the context of dispute settlement. The current research project at iCourts is 'Russia's Strategies in International Arbitration and Tribunals'. The project includes an analysis of arbitration strategies in recent years. It involves the study of a large amount of data on arbitral awards, as well as an assessment of the prospects for a number of ongoing disputes before arbitration tribunals and international courts. Her areas of interest include arbitration, the law of the sea, the Arctic, law and energy transition. Join Zoom MeetingMeeting ID: 696 6651 8335Passcode: 569175"
"Lunch seminar with Lauge Poulsen";"iCourts";"2024-08-14";"12:15";"2024-08-14";"13:15";"University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law, Conference/flex room, ground floor, room 8A.0.57, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Compensation, Economic Hostages, and Market Access: Lump Sum Agreements since Westphalia";"Compensation, Economic Hostages, and Market Access: Lump Sum Agreements since Westphalia Abstract Lump sum agreements have been signed since the 17th century up until today and were the most important international law instrument used to settle international claims during the 20th century. The agreements have contributed to customary international law on matters such as attribution of state conduct and the nature of compensable claims, and yet while some are well-known and documented the broader phenomenon has been subject to hardly systematic scrutiny. This paper seeks to remedy this gap based on a compilation of almost 400 lump sum agreements from Westphalia until today. This is considerably more than reported in earlier work. In addition to a fuller historical account of this central piece of international claims infrastructure, I provide a general, but simple, framework to understand why, and how, the agreements were negotiated as alternatives to adjudication through the release of economic hostages and the provision of side-payments. Speaker Bio Lauge Poulsen is Professor of International Relations & Law, UCL and Chair of Climate & Investment Law Programme, OECD. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 660 1233 2317 Passcode: 564667"
"Lunch seminar with Amanda Bills";"iCourts";"2024-06-26";"12:15";"2024-06-26";"13:15";"8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Exploring Standard(s) of Proof at the International Court of Justice";"Exploring Standard(s) of Proof at the International Court of Justice This project examines the use of, and justifications for, a differentiated standard of proof by the International Court of Justice. As a decisional threshold indicating when evidence can be taken as proof of a factual allegation, the standard of proof is often decisive for the outcome of judicial proceedings. Beyond the general understanding that the Court is not bound by prescriptive rules of evidence and may exercise ‘flexibility’, little is known about the rationale that guides the Court’s determination of the standard of proof. As the Court is increasingly confronted with fact-intensive and politically sensitive cases – the recent cases brought under the Genocide Convention, such as The Gambia v Myanmar and South Africa v Israel, to name two examples – understanding not only how, but also why, the standard of proof varies in cases before the Court is important theoretically as well as from the perspective of litigating states. This presentation will set out a theoretical framework to explain the Court’s use of a differentiated standard of proof. Drawing on this framework, the presentation will discuss on-going work with a case study. Speaker bio Amanda Bills is a Doctoral Candidate at Lund University, Faculty of Law. Her doctoral project addresses questions of evidence and proof before international courts and tribunals, with a specific focus on the use of a differentiated standard of proof by the International Court of Justice. She holds a Master of Laws (LL.M), also from Lund University. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 625 7933 6349Passcode: 721636"
"Lunch seminar with Catherine Van de Graaf";"iCourts";"2024-06-24";"12:15";"2024-06-24";"13:15";"8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"1 May - 30 June 2024";"Just an accessory: the Strasbourg Court's separate examination of the discrimination complaint Abstract Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prescribes that the enjoyment of rights and freedoms it includes shall be secured by the member states without discrimination “on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”. In this sense, Article 14 is an accessory right which is always attached to another substantive Convention right. To say that the article 14 case law is thinly developed is not a controversial statement. On the contrary, during a recent exploratory interview round with Judges at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) this was confirmed by several of them. It is true that the ECtHR is not a fourth-instance court and is not bound by the same obligation to state reasons as ordinary courts. Yet, this does not explain why when alleging an article 14 violation, the applicant almost automatically receives the default answer that “there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with article [X] of the Convention”. This paper investigates through automated content analysis (using Python) in which cases article 14 is not investigated by the Court, how this develops over time and how the non-investigation of article 14 relates to the investigation of other articles. As ECtHR-judges have the opportunity to state reasons when they disagree with the finding of their colleagues that it was not necessary to investigate the article 14-complaint, we are provided – on rare occasions – with some insight into the disagreement that surrounds the review of the article. When such division exists, the dissenting opinion of the judge(s) is subjected to qualitative discourse analysis as to find out the arguments that were present during the deliberations about article 14. In a second phase, these results will be discussed with judges at the ECtHR in order to find underlying reasons. Speaker bio Cathérine Van de Graaf is a postdoctoral researcher at the Academy for European Human Rights Protection (University of Cologne) under the direction of Prof. Angelika Nußberger. She assists in the teaching of “The European Convention on Human Rights: Theory and Practice” as a visiting professor at the Human Rights Centre (Ghent University). In 2021, she obtained a doctorate in law from Ghent University under the supervision of Prof. Eva Brems. In this context, she conducted and published empirical legal research with a focus on procedural justice theory, perceived discrimination and Islamophobia. In 2022, Cathérine obtained a grant from the Volkswagen Foundation for the project “Who is the Court for? Bringing the Human back into Human Rights Research” in which she focuses on empirically mapping out human rights trajectories before the European Court of Human Rights. She is part of the Human Rights Action Team of Ghent University which regularly contributes to Third Party Interventions before the ECtHR and coaches a team of University of Cologne students for the Helga Pedersen Moot Court Competition. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 660 6132 9057Passcode: 209507"
"Lunch seminar with Konstantinos Alexandris Polomarkakis";"iCourts";"2024-06-19";"12:15";"2024-06-19";"13:15";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"The Court of Justice of the European Union and the Judicial Making of EU Labour Law";"The Court of Justice of the European Union and the Judicial Making of EU Labour Law The presentation explores the CJEU's role as a sui generis law-maker and frames its diverse approaches to judicial intervention in the field of labour law in more detail. It begins by briefly considering the key narratives surrounding the Court's approach to labour law, right until the beginning of the 2008 global economic and financial crisis. This is followed by the presentation of the pertinent discourse surrounding the role of courts as law-makers, particularly in relation to labour law. There is plenty of literature that establishes the CJEU's law-making capacity, and this is not something that the presentation seeks to question. Instead, it cherishes those views, using them as a foundational premise upon which the classification of the Court's approaches to labour law builds on. In tandem, certain institutional and substantive limitations in the capacity of the CJEU to undertake unrestricted labour law-making are discussed. A considerable part of the presentation is devoted to the conceptual framing of the diverse narratives underpinning the orientation of labour law-making and the ideological choices involved therein. The narratives draw on leading typologies, such as the worlds of welfare capitalism and the varieties of capitalism, as well as Polanyian analyses and ideas of movement and countermovement, incorporating concerns around the commodification of labour and the scope of protective measures. These act as the analytical framework for breaking down the CJEU's contribution to EU labour law-making into three distinct clusters, which lend themselves to become the driving force behind the framing of the CJEU’s approaches to judicial intervention. The classification frames the CJEU’s role as a -sometimes inconsistent- law and policy maker and fuels a contextual analysis of its decision-making function. Although influenced by the legislative context of the dispute, the Court enjoys considerable interpretative power over it, resembling a peculiar EU lawmaker. The overall findings confirm that the Court does not follow one particular direction, reflecting, through its inconsistencies, the diverse approach towards the regulation of labour both at national and EU level. Speaker Bio Konstantinos Alexandris Polomarkakis is Professor of Law at Royal Holloway, University of London. He joined Royal Holloway from the University of Exeter, where he was Senior Lecturer in Law and co-director of the Centre for European Legal Studies. Konstantinos's research interests centre on the impact of policy and judicial decision making on the trajectory of labour and non-discrimination law, especially at the European level. A core strand of his research looks, from a socio-legal perspective, at the ways in which the Court of Justice of the European Union can step in the shoes of the legislator through its decision-making capacity. His research has been published in leading generalist and specialist journals, such as the Modern Law Review, Social & Legal Studies, European Law Open and European Journal of Risk Regulation. His monograph, provisionally titled 'The Judicial Making of Labour Law', is under contract with Oxford University Press and examines the conceptualisation of European labour law by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 671 8895 1839Passcode: 077631"
"PhD Summer School 2024";"The Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts) and Centre of Excellence on Global Mobility Law (MOBILE) ";"2024-06-17";"";"2024-06-21";"";"The Faculty of Law: Njalsgade 76, 2300 Copenhagen S.";"PhD Summer School 2024.";" The Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts) and Centre of Excellence on Global Mobility Law (MOBILE) are hosting a Summer School for ambitious PhD students working on international law in its social and political contexts. We particularly welcome applications from students from the Global South, whose projects have a strong empirical approach, and who focus on the core research areas of iCourts and MOBILE, respectively, international courts and global mobility law. The idea The iCourts / MOBILE PhD Summer School is a celebration of intellectual curiosity, academic cooperation, and professional networking. Since its inception in 2013, the Summer School has challenged and assisted more than 200 PhD students from around the world. Students who sign up for the Summer School will meet an engaged group of both young and senior scholars who look forward to sharing their experience and knowledge with you. As a participant You are expected to take an active part in the scholarly discussions, to present your own work, and to give feedback to your co-participants. The 2024 Summer School will be held in person at the University of Copenhagen’s Faculty of Law. The leaflet Download the PDF leaflet here. The participants The summer school will admit up to 24 PhD students and is designed for students in the early stages of their research. To be admitted to the program, students must be enrolled in a doctoral program. As part of the application, PhD students are requested to submit a 300 word abstract describing their research project. Participants will be expected to take an active part in the scholarly discussions, to submit assignments, present their own work, and to give feedback to their co-participants. Students should be prepared to refine and change their projects in light of the feedback given during the Summer School; thus, the optimal time to participate in the summer school is after students have an approved project and after they have surveyed the relevant literature.Participants may have begun their research, but it is better to participate before any serious writing up of findings. The programme structure The 2024 Summer School will be held in person at the University of Copenhagen’s Faculty of Law. The program will consist of morning lectures, afternoon working group sessions and a social program. Lectures Faculty members will teach a session related to their own research interests and methodological approaches. They will present some of their own work and discuss methodological issues related to researching a specified topic. Students will have assigned readings (approximately 200 pages). Working group sessions Small groups of 4-5 students will be formed based on similarity or complementarity of topics and/or methods. These groups of students will meet every day with researchers from iCourts and MOBILE to work on methodological issues related to their own projects. Social programme As an integrated part of the Summer School iCourts’ and MOBILE's PhD students will arrange sightseeing in the city of Copenhagen. Evenings Most evenings will involve homework — doing readings for the next morning’s lecture and preparing assignments for the working group session. Your host iCourts is a research center dedicated to the study of international courts, their role in a globalising legal order and their impact on politics and society. iCourts opened in March 2012 as a Centre of Excellence funded by a large grant from the Danish National Research Foundation. Since its founding, iCourts has contributed to transforming the scholarly and practical understanding of international courts (ICs) at both the global and regional level by developing and applying novel theoretical and methodological tools. To read more about iCourts’ current research, click here. MOBILE is a research center dedicated to the study of global mobility law. MOBILE was established in 2023 as a Centre of Excellence funded by a large grant from the Danish National Research Foundation. The center’s mission is to systematically study the legal infrastructures of human mobility across geographies, social divides, travel patterns and time. To read more about MOBILE’s research, click here. Founded in 1479, the University of Copenhagen is among the oldest universities in Northern Europe. The Faculty of Law was among the four original faculties and about 4,500 students are enrolled in the legal programs. In 2017, the Faculty of Law moved to South Campus in completely new buildings with excellent facilities and green outdoor areas. The Faculty All faculty of the iCourts and MOBILE's Summer School are experienced and leading experts on international courts from Europe and the United States. Lecturers Professor Mikael Rask Madsen, Director of iCourts University of Copenhagen, DK Professor Mikkel Jarle Christensen, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Associate Professor Anne Lise Kjær, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Associate Professor Amalie Frese, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Assistant Professor Zuzanna Godzimirska, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Professor Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, MOBILE, University of Copenhagen, DK Professor Morten Broberg, MOBILE, University of Copenhagen, DK Associate Professor Nora Stappert, MOBILE, University of Copenhagen, DK Assistant Professor William Hamilton Byrne, MOBILE, University of Copenhagen, DK Professor (WSR) Joanna Lam, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Professor Henrik Palmer Olsen, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Professor Urska Sadl, MOBILE, University of Copenhagen, DK Organising Committee Assistant Professor, Zuzanna Godzimirska, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Assistant Professor, William Hamilton Byrne, MOBILE, University of Copenhagen, DK Fee and scholarships The fee for attending the Summer School is 250 EUR. The organizers offers financial support for up to 5 PhD scholars. If successful, the grants will cover travel and accommodation during the Summer School, as well as the registration fee.If you wish to apply for iCourts / MOBILE's grant, please indicate so in the registration form. Please indicate also whether your participation is contingent on obtaining a iCourts / MOBILE grant. Organizing Committee The iCourts / MOBILE Summer School is organized by Associate Professor Zuzanna Godzimirska (iCourts) and Assistant Professor, William Hamilton Byrne (MOBILE). "
"Breakfast Briefing with Anna Andersson";"iCourts";"2024-06-13";"08:45";"2024-06-13";"09:45";"6B-4-04, Faculty of Law, Njalsgade 76, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Emerging Norms for Autonomous Weapons Systems";"Emerging Norms for Autonomous Weapons Systems Abstract 2023 marked the tenth year of multilateral discussions as to whether there is a need for new international law specifically regulating autonomous weapons systems (AWS). It turned out to be a very intense year. The Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (CCW GGE LAWS) issued their first substantive report since 2019; a number of states adopted a political declaration on responsible use of military artificial intelligence and autonomy; and there were three regional gatherings aimed at forming joint approaches on how to advance efforts to develop new international law for AWS. Furthermore, the issue was raised before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Hence, 2024 looks set to be another busy year, with AWS being on the agenda of both the UNGA and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), as well as the UN Human Rights Council. This sparks the question whether we are at a turning point in the longstanding legal development on the topic of AWS. Looking at the statements made at international forums and the recent outcome of such processes, Anna Andersson will provide an analysis of the normative implications of these developments. Is the result of these different processes that new norms regulating AWS have developed, or do they merely confirm the applicability of already existing international law to AWS? What normative impact does the current state of the discussion have on the existing legal framework? Anna will also provide an overview of what can be expected forthe near future in terms of legal development. About the Speaker Anna Andersson is a researcher at the Swedish Defence Research Agency and a PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. Anna has a law degree from Örebro University, Sweden, and a master’s degree in international humanitarian law and human rights from the Geneva Academy, Switzerland. Anna has previously worked as a lecturer in international law at Örebro University and the Swedish Defence University. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2024. "
"Lunch seminar with Miyu Nakata";"iCourts";"2024-06-12";"12:15";"2024-06-12";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Confusion over Accomplice Criminal Liability in Japan: the Advantages of the Monistic System of the Principals";"Confusion over Accomplice Criminal Liability in Japan: the Advantages of the Monistic System of the Principals Abstract One of the main objectives in the discussion of accomplice criminal liability is to understand the legislative systems governing it. There are two primary systems: the Complicity System (Beteiligungssystem) and the Monistic System (Einheitstätersystem). In the Complicity System, penalties for criminal acts involving multiple persons are determined systematically, by identifying the form of involvement of each offender, and applying the penalty requirement corresponding to the form of involvement. Conversely, in the Monistic System, penalties for criminal acts involving multiple participants are determined by identifying all participants as principals and basing the sentencing on the degree of contribution each offender made to the crime. The Japanese Penal Code adopts the former approach, while the Danish Penal Code adopts the latter. Although the Japanese Penal Code and academic theories support the Complicity System, criminal practices in Japan often reflect the Monistic System. In practice, those who play significant roles in the crime are treated as principals, while others are classified as accomplices. Recent data shows that approximately 97.9% of defendants were prosecuted as principals, while only about 2.1% were prosecuted as accomplices. This discrepancy indicates that, despite the nominal adoption of the Complicity System, Japanese criminal practice operates similarly to the Monistic System, causing confusion in the discussion of accomplice liability. This research aims to resolve this confusion by proposing a new theory that incorporates the flexibility of the Monistic System, aligning sentencing with each participant’s contribution to the crime. A central task is to clarify the substantive content of significant roles necessary to assign principal liability to actors in Japanese accomplice cases. This is because significant roles are recognized differently in various court rulings, leading to a lack of clear definitions. The research methodology includes doctrinal research and systematic case law analysis to elucidate sentencing standards for accomplice cases in Monistic System countries and to compare them with Japanese standards. Speaker bio Miyu Nakata is a PhD candidate at the Graduate School of Law, Waseda University, Japan. His area of research is substantive criminal law theory, in particular the doctrines of participation. His research focuses on developing a new theory of complicity that allows for flexible sentencing based on an individual's contribution to a crime. This research aims to propose a new theoretical framework that incorporates the advantages of the monistic system of principals, which allows for flexibility in sentencing according to the individual's contribution to the crime. Therefore, Danish criminal law and Austrian criminal law, where this system is applied, are the subject of comparative law. "
"Public talk: Mass Starvation as a Crime with Tom Dannenbaum";"The Danish National Research Foundation's Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts, Faculty of Law) and  Centre for Military Studies (Faculty of Social Sciences)";"2024-06-03";"15:00";"2024-06-03";"16:30";"University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law, 2nd floor, room 7C.2.12, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S";"Tom Dannenbaum is Associate Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, where he is Co-Director of the Center for International Law & Governance.";"Abstract: Mass starvation in war is resurgent, devastating populations in Ethiopia, Palestine, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, and elsewhere. The practice has also drawn the scrutiny of the United Nations Security Council. And yet, what precisely is criminally wrongful about starvation methods remains underspecified. A common way of thinking about the criminal wrong is as a form of killing or harming civilians. Although its differentiating particularities matter, the basic wrongfulness of the crime inheres, on this view, in it being an attack on those who ought not be attacked. For some, this supports a broad interpretation of the starvation ban. However, for others, the graduality of starvation preserves the continuous possibility of the avoidance or minimization of civilian death or harm in a way that direct kinetic attacks do not. In combination with the method’s purported military utility, this distinctive incrementalism has underpinned arguments for the permissibility of certain forms of siege and other deprivation and a narrow interpretation of the starvation crime. Drawing on the moral philosophy of torture, Tom Dannenbaum offers a different normative theory of the crime. Starvation, like torture, is peculiarly wrongful in its distortion of victims’ biological imperatives against their capacities to formulate and act on higher-order desires, political commitments, and even love. This process does not merely raise the cost of fulfilling those commitments. Instead, starvation tears gradually at the very capacity of those affected to prioritize their most fundamental commitments, regardless of whether they would choose to do so under the conditions necessary to evaluate matters with a “contemplative attitude.” Rather than palliating, the slowness of starvation methods is at the crux of this torturous wrong. Recognizing this redefines the meaning and place of the crime in the framework of international criminal law. Bio: Tom Dannenbaum is Associate Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, where he is Co-Director of the Center for International Law & Governance. He writes on the law of armed conflict, the law governing the use of force, international criminal law, human rights, shared responsibility, and international judging. His articles have appeared in a range of leading journals and have received multiple awards. His book, The Crime of Aggression, Humanity, and the Soldier, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2018. Dannenbaum has testified or presented before U.S. congressional and U.N. bodies and groups, has been cited by the International Law Commission and the Hague Court of Appeal, and has commented on issues of international law in leading media outlets. Registration: Everyone is welcome to attend, but please register here on this registration formular - no later than Sunday 2 June at 23:59. For questions please contact Amalie Hautop (amalie.hautop@jur.ku.dk) "
"Breakfast Briefing with Júlia Miklasová";"iCourts";"2024-05-30";"08:45";"2024-05-30";"09:45";"6B-4-04, Faculty of Law, Njalsgade 76, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Secessionist Attempts Resulting from Violations of Jus Cogens Norms: Legal Implications with a Special Focus on the Post-Soviet Space";"Secessionist Attempts Resulting from Violations of Jus Cogens Norms: Legal Implications with a Special Focus on the Post-Soviet Space Abstract According to a mainstream doctrinal view, the creation of states through unilateral secession is a meta-legal fact not governed by international law (ex factis jus oritur). In her presentation, Júlia Miklasová will challenge this position, highlighting the legal implications relevant to the secessionist attempts resulting from violating peremptory norms of international law. It will detail four types of legal consequences: the non-existence of the claimed statehood, the inapplicability of the law of state succession, the (in)validity of acts of secessionist entities and the applicability of the aggravated regime of international responsibility (notably, the duty of non-recognition). Focusing, primarily, on the practice from the post-Soviet space, Júlia will demonstrate the prevalence of the effects of the principle of ex injuria jus non oritur in contemporary regulation of secession. About the Speaker Júlia Miklasová is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Cologne, Germany. Júlia obtained her PhD (summa cum laude avec les félicitations du jury) from the Graduate Institute Geneva. Previously, Júlia was a Visiting Researcher at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge, a Junior Visiting Fellow at the IWM in Vienna, a Research Assistant at the Global Migration Centre in Geneva and a Legal Assistant to a Member of the ILC in Geneva. Her monograph Secession in Contemporary International Law with a Special Reference to the Post-Soviet Space is forthcoming with Brill. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2024. "
"Lunch seminar with Nurbanu Hayir 2024";"iCourts";"2024-05-29";"12:15";"2024-05-29";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the 'Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor.";"Article 17’s Unexpected Allies: Why the European Court of Human Rights Grants Greater Deference to Low-Reputation States?";"Article 17’s Unexpected Allies: Why the European Court of Human Rights Grants Greater Deference to Low-Reputation States? Judicial deference to respondent states by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, Court) has been understood as a key component of the judicial review of member states’ compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The common understanding is that through its margin of appreciation (MoA) doctrine, the Court has shown greater judicial deference to states with strong human rights records, institutions and procedures while reviewing their respect for human rights as opposed to those it considers to be less resilient democracies. Notwithstanding, in a series of cases concerning Article 17 of the ECHR, which prohibits individuals from abusing their rights under the Convention, the Court has ruled in favor of defendant states such as Russia, Hungary, Romania, Latvia and Turkiye by exercising considerable judicial deference. At this overlooked juncture of the Court’s MoA doctrine and Article 17 (and related) cases, this paper argues that the Court’s judicial deference strategy regarding respondent states’ human rights reputation is shaped by an underlying assumption about democratic resilience, which inversely benefits low-reputation states in cases of certain ideologies such as totalitarianism, communism, and fundamentalist Islam. The Court’s assumption about the fragility of the legal and political institutions of low-reputation states exceptionally becomes a ground for deferring to them to preempt the looming threats against their democratic systems. Its definition of democracy, as the only compatible system with the Convention, excludes these suspect ideologies within the Council of Europe framework, and in turn, it lowers the threshold to grant a margin of appreciation to low-reputation states to prevent these threats. Speaker bio Nurbanu Hayır recently got her LL.M. degree from Yale Law School and holds a first law degree from Galatasaray University. She is visiting iCourts as a Yale University Fox Fellow for her research on how public opinion factors into international law compliance, in particular, enforcement of international court judgments and the impact of sanctions on state acts. She has a broad interest in examining how international law regulates the treatment of foreigners and how nation-state boundaries influence the principles and dynamics of international law. Her previous academic works have explored diverse issues, such as understanding the enforcement histories of international courts through the application of compliance theories, how social psychology phenomena shed light on the varying actions taken by states in similar issues arising from refugee law, the intersection of sanctions and EU migration law, and a critical analysis of the deployment of emergency doctrines in migration contexts. Join Zoom meeting Meeting ID: 627 4538 8459Passcode: 839199"
"Lunch seminar with Katarzyna Krzyzanowska ";"iCourts";"2024-05-22";"12:15";"2024-05-22";"13:15";"Zoom only";"The Legalist Mind — a Polish View on the European Union";"The Legalist Mind — a Polish View on the European Union How the European Union is imagined by lawyers of the semi-peripheries? This research explores the ways in which Polish legal scholars contributed to the conceptual discussions of the European Union. Responding to the current surge in the academic literature that critically assesses the legacy of EU legal theoreticians, this study attempts to provide a critical investigation into the Polish imaginary of the EU. It focuses on the discourse analysis of the academic publications, commentaries, and public interventions made by the main Polish legal scholars in the area of EU law and announced from the early 2000s up until the ongoing prolonged rule of law crisis. It tentatively argues that these debates were overly legalistic — partly because of the Copenhagen criteria to be met before Poland joined the EU, partly because of the checklist approach towards the rule of law crisis. Moreover, this research will trace back the intellectual inspirations of the main Polish scholars. This broad view on the legal publications from the EU semi-periphery will offer missing insights into understanding EU integration. It will examine the intellectual pluralism of the EU legal thought by positioning the Polish imaginary of the EU vis-á-vis the literature on EU integration. Speaker bio Katarzyna is a PhD candidate at the European University Institute, Department of Law, where she conducts a research on the judicial understanding of constitutional identity in times of the rule of law crisis (the case of Poland). She employs empirical methods (semi-structured interviews with the constitutional judges and the clerks) to discern the ways in which judges conceive of the relations between the national constitutional law and EU law. For her studies, she visited the Centre of Law and Society at Cardiff University (2022) and the Institute for European Studies at ULB (2023). Katarzyna is also an editor of the Review of Democracy, an online platform issued by the CEU Democracy Institute, where she is a Head of the Review of Books section. Katarzyna is also an editor of the Review of Democracy, an online platform issued by the CEU Democracy Institute, where she is a Head of the Review of Books section. Currently, she is a re:constitution fellow and works on a project on the evolution of relations between Polish constitutional discourse and the EU. Click to join Zoom meeting Meeting ID: 630 7948 6931Passcode: 446352 "
"Breakfast Briefing with Cornelius Wiesener";"iCourts";"2024-05-16";"08:45";"2024-05-16";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Compulsory Military Service in Transition – Conscription under the European Convention on Human Rights ";"Compulsory Military Service in Transition – Conscription under the European Convention on Human Rights Abstract Mandatory military service was on the retreat in Europe during much of the 1990s and the early 2000s. After the end of the Cold War, large conscript armies were considered unnecessary without a major threat from the East. They also seemed ill equipped for the type of overseas deployments that many states embarked on to address new and diverse security threats outside of Europe. As a result, many states abolished conscription; and those maintaining it chose to severely reduce the length of military service or its recruitment base. This tide has turned quite dramatically after the beginning of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, starting in 2014. Since then, many countries have reinstated conscription or consider in what form or shape it could be reintroduced or reformed, both in terms of pressing military needs and new social realities, including gender equality. While a reinstatement or reform of conscription may in some cases require a constitutional amendment, this is not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle. A far greater challenge may, however, come from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which binds (almost) all states across Europe and has a significant constraining effect on their power to act and to legislate. The ECHR is thus an ideal benchmark for a cross-country study. Unfortunately, most comparative studies about conscription are outdated, largely published at a time when military service was in the process of being abolished. Moreover, the few legal studies that exist fail to comprehensively address the inherently coercive nature of conscription and the related challenges under human rights law. To fill this gap, Cornelius Wiesener will focus in his presentation on the following three, interrelated dimensions under the ECHR: peacetime conscription, wartime conscription, and draft equality/selection. They form the building blocks for a planned multi-year research project. About the Speaker Cornelius Wiesener is a tenure-track assistant professor at iCourts and a member of the InterMil project, which conducts strategic research and provides research-based public-sector consultancy within the field of military studies. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2024. "
"Lunch seminar with Elise Filius";"iCourts";"2024-05-08";"12:15";"2024-05-08";"13:15";" 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S ";"The European courtroom as a political arena? A study on the role and position of the Dutch Judiciary in Asylum and Surrender cases";"The European courtroom as a political arena? A study on the role and position of the Dutch Judiciary in Asylum and Surrender cases One of the main constitutional objectives of the EU is the emergence of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (hereafter AFSJ) without internal frontiers. EU competencies within the AFSJ relate to the policy areas of asylum, immigration, criminal law, and civil law cooperation. Due to the politically sensitive nature of these areas, the EU Member States chose to enhance inter-state cooperation via mechanisms that are based on mutual recognition and mutual trust rather than (fully) harmonize the national legal systems. As a result, national decisions taken in Member State A are recognized and executed in Member State B quasi-automatically with limited grounds to refuse the request, trusting the quality and lawfulness of each other’s legal systems. Two prominent cooperation mechanisms in the AFSJ that function on the notion of mutual recognition and mutual trust are the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (hereafter EAW) and the Dublin Regulation III. The EAW was the first EU instrument to implement the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters. It replaced the system of extradition with a faster surrender mechanism between judicial authorities of the EU Member States. In the different yet adjacent field of asylum law, the Dublin Regulation III allocates the responsibility for the examination of an individual asylum claim to one Member State. As a consequence of mutual trust, the Dublin Regulation III and the FD EAW have been depoliticized, i.e. decisions are now subject only to judicial control. For example, contrary to the extradition procedure, the role of central authorities, such as the Minister of Justice, has been reduced to a minimum in the decision-making process of an EAW. However, this did not prevent national judicial authorities from being confronted with politically sensitive arrest warrants. Even the Catalan leader Puigdemont became the subject of an EAW issued by the Spanish Supreme Court for the purposes of criminal prosecution on charges of rebellion and corruption (i.e. embezzlement of public funds) linked to his part in Catalonia's independence campaign. Furthermore, the European Union and its Member States are currently faced with major challenges, as a result of inter alia the undermining of the fundamental common values on which the EU is founded, as stated in article 2 TEU. Although these issues are addressed on a political level, it appears to be difficult to find an effective solution. Consequently, the (national) judiciary is faced with pressing politically sensitive issues. Judicial decision-making in politically sensitive cases has implications that go beyond the individual case, and take on a wider relevance for judicial cooperation in Europe. This raises the question of how national courts deal with these issues, and, second to that, how this (potentially) impacts the way the Dublin Regulation III and the EAW function (such as, with effects that go beyond the respective fields of asylum and criminal law). In my research, I focus on the Dutch national courts dealing with cases that can be deemed as politically sensitive. The research method used to answer the research question contains, in addition to normative elements, qualitative-empirical research methods. More specifically, the question will be answered via doctrinal research, a systematic case law analysis, and semi-structured interviews among the Dutch judiciary. In this lunch seminar, I will discuss the set of viewpoints that have been drawn up for the aim of this research to distinguish politically sensitive cases from other (non-politically sensitive) cases. Additionally, I will go into the preliminary findings of the interviews. Speaker bio Elise Filius is a PhD candidate at the University of Leiden (Europa Institute and the Department of Criminal Law & Criminology). She graduated from the University of Tilburg and holds an LL.M. in Criminal Law. Prior to her PhD, she worked for four years as a lecturer at the University of Tilburg where she taught several courses on European Criminal Law, Global Law and Dutch Criminal Law. Her research focusses on the question how the Dutch judiciary deals with politically sensitive cases concerning the Dublin Regulation III and the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant, and, second to that, how this (potentially) impacts on the way these EU-instruments function (such as, for instance, with effects that go beyond the respective fields of asylum and criminal law). Elise will be a Visiting Researcher at iCourts from 8 April – 16 May. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 688 7355 4692Passcode: 797133 "
"Breakfast Briefing – Expert Roundtable";"iCourts";"2024-05-02";"08:45";"2024-05-02";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Situation in Gaza/Palestine and Israel";" Situation in Gaza/Palestine and Israel Abstract Historically and politically, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been among the most difficult to understand, debate, and eventually solve. Similarly, from a legal perspective, the conflict raises a number of difficult legal questions, which often relate to fundamental issues about the legal status of Palestine, the legal classification of areas, and the legal obligations of Israel as an occupying power. The attack on Israel by Hamas on Saturday, 7 October 2023 represented an unprecedented and horrifying escalation of the conflict, which was met by a major military response by Israel. Characteristic for Hamas’ conduct has been its violent attack on hundreds of civilians, its large-scale hostage taking and serious abuses of people in their power, as well as its continuous rocket attacks against Israel. Israel’s response has most notably included a massive bombing campaign in Gaza, followed by a large ground offensive, as well as a number of measures taken that result in limited access to basic needs. The offensive has resulted in deaths and injuries in the tens of thousands, along with mass displacement and destruction. According to a December 2023 IPC analysis, the hostilities have caused catastrophic levels of acute food insecurity and an increasing risk of famine across the Gaza Strip. In response to Israel’s military operation in Gaza, South Africa initiated on 29 December 2023 a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging that Israel is committing genocide and other violations of the Genocide Convention. On 26 January 2024, the ICJ ruled to issue an order for interim measures against Israel. The parties to this conflict are obliged to adhere to relevant international law, including international humanitarian law, and at this event we will discuss key issues in that regard. About the Speakers Unlike other breakfast briefings, this event will have the format of a roundtable with short presentations from five panelists: Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen (University of Copenhagen) Iben Yde (Royal Danish Defence College) Marc Schack (University of Copenhagen) Martin Mennecke (University of Southern Denmark) Sorcha MacLeod (University of Copenhagen) For more information on relevant issues of international law in relation to this conflict, members of the InterMil project team (including some of the panelists) have published a series of thematic updates, which are available here (in Danish only). Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2024. "
"Seminar with David Schneiderman";"iCourts";"2024-04-24";"13:15";"2024-04-24";"14:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"Investment Arbitration as International Bureaucracy?";"Investment Arbitration as International Bureaucracy? (Draft Chapter from A Sociology of International Investment Law: Themes from Max Weber by David Schneiderman) Max Weber characterized bureaucratic power as one of the most ‘fateful’ forces in modern life. Indispensable to the rise of formally rational law of the modern Western state was a staff of well-trained and independent bureaucrats who administer and enforce it. Because Weber did not distinguish sharply between the figures who enforced the administration of justice and other officials, judicial machinery was assimilated into his discussion of bureaucracy. This robust understanding of administration provides ground upon which to consider investment arbitration as a form of bureaucratic justice understood in Weberian terms. I take up this question by, first, summarizing Weber’s worry about bureaucracy and, second, by examining scholarship that considers ways in which the authority of international adjudicators, operating in a wide variety of settings, can be controlled. Finally, in the third part, I consider how investment arbitration fits into the machinery for international justice for foreign investors, serving at the apex of investment law’s bureaucracy. The aim is to portray investment arbitration as not merely performing bureaucratic functions but also political ones. Speaker bio David Schneiderman is Professor of Law and Political Science (by courtesy) at the University of Toronto where he teaches Canadian and comparative constitutional law and international investment law. He is the author of over 80 articles and book chapters and, in addition, the author or editor of fourteen books. Among them are Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization: Investment Rules and Democracy's Promise (Cambridge UP 2008), Resisting Economic Globalization: Critical Theory and International Investment Law (Palgrave 2013), Investment Law’s Alibis: Colonialism, Imperialism, Debt and Development (Cambridge UP 2022), Rethinking Investment Law (co-edited with Gus Van Harten) (Oxford UP 2023), and Constitutional Review and International Investment Law: Deference or Defiance? (Oxford UP 2024). Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 642 6943 1526Passcode: 899268 "
"Breakfast Briefing with Vladislava Stoyanova";"iCourts";"2024-04-18";"08:45";"2024-04-18";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights – within and beyond Boundaries";"Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights – within and beyond Boundaries Abstract It is beyond question that states have positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to prevent and address harm and risks of harm. However, given the difficulties in determining and delimiting the role of the state, the conditions under which positive obligations may apply can be unclear. The search for balance between intrusion and restraint by the state – between protection and freedom from interference – further complicates the question of state responsibility for a breach of positive obligations under the ECHR. Based on her recent book, Vladislava Stoyanova will address these challenges during her presentation. By systematising the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, she will provide key insights into the elements crucial for ascertaining state responsibility for omissions: state knowledge, causation, and reasonableness. About the Speaker Vladislava Stoyanova is an Associate Professor of Public International Law at the Faculty of Law, Lund University, and a visiting fellow at the newly established MOBILE centre, University of Copenhagen – Faculty of Law. She is the holder of the Wallenberg Academy Fellowship (2019-2024), awarded by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, leading the project ‘The Borders Within: The Multifaceted Legal Landscape of Migrant Integration in Europe’. She is the holder of the 2023 Henrik Enderlein Prize for research excellence in social sciences. Her publications include the monographs Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: Within and Beyond Boundaries (Oxford University Press, 2023) and Human Trafficking and Slavery Reconsidered: Conceptual Limits and States’ Positive Obligations in European Law (Cambridge University Press 2017), as well as four co-edited volumes. Her research interests generally relate to public international law, human rights law, migration law and EU law. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2024."
"Lunch seminar with Ezgi Özlü";"iCourts";"2024-04-17";"12:15";"2024-04-17";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor & online via Zoom ";"Cause Lawyers before the European Court of Human Rights";"Cause Lawyers before the European Court of Human Rights Abstract Cause lawyers are considered to be committed to lofty goals, which include protecting the rule of law and advancing human rights. Praised as the most effective human rights regime in the world and an important player in European politics, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been a topical judicial forum for lawyers who noticed the potential of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as a basis to break new legal ground in the national systems. Institutions do, however, change. Today, this Court is accepted to be self- restrained, and it has been more and more balanced and cautious about states’ concerns. The mobilisation of the ECHR law depends on who brings which case and which cases pass the admissibility stage. The ECHR scholarship has demonstrated that most of the reform process resulted in the risk of jeopardising the very essence of the right of individual petition. Similarly, the ECtHR application is generally resource-intensive, considering the skills and time required of lawyers (for complex cases in particular, depending on the expertise of the lawyer). Social movement actors, lawyers and expert NGOs can form ‘support structures’ for individual litigants and equip them with the necessary financial means and expert knowledge. Nevertheless, not all individuals have equal access to support structures that help them reach international courts. The research question at hand is to what extent do cause lawyers transform the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Four broad steps are adopted for the moment: The first step will be selecting the cause lawyers that I examine in the further steps. The selection process will be through a quantitative analysis of the Strasbourg case law of the last twenty years. The second step will be a systemic analysis of these selected cases. The third step will be conducting interviews with the ECtHR Judges, Registry lawyers, and lawyers from the Execution Department. The fourth step will be a prosopographic analysis of cause lawyers as ‘professionals/actors’, their backgrounds, career paths, and their interaction with other actors. This project aims to contribute to the existing scholarship on how victims and representatives experience ECHR litigation and deepen the understanding of cause lawyering. Speaker bio Ezgi Özlü is a Postdoctoral researcher at the Luxembourg Center of European Law (University of Luxembourg). She holds a PhD from the University of Strasbourg, where she examined how procedural costs affect the right of individual application before the European Court of Human Rights. During her PhD, she was a research fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the Department of International Public Law and Dispute Resolution (September 2019-December 2023). Previously, she worked for the update of the memorandum of just satisfaction awards at the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and as a research and teaching assistant of constitutional law at the University of Kocaeli (from 2014 to 2016). Admitted to Istanbul Bar, she holds LLMs in human rights law (University of Strasbourg, 2017) and public law (University of Galatasaray, 2015). Ezgi’s area of research covers questions relating to access to justice (e.g. legal aid, procedural costs, admissibility requirements, reparations), lawyers (e.g. legal mobilisation, legal ethics, litigation funding) and several procedural aspects of international adjudication more broadly. During her stay at the iCourts, she will be working on her project about cause lawyers and human rights mechanisms. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 675 1390 8072Passcode: 163560 "
"Breakfast Briefing with Alexandre Skander Galand";"iCourts";"2024-04-04";"08:45";"2024-04-04";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"The Creation of International Criminal Tribunals as a Means of Reprisal: Reconsidering Personal Immunity in Wartime";"The Creation of International Criminal Tribunals as a Means of Reprisal: Reconsidering Personal Immunity in Wartime Abstract The establishment of an ad hoc international criminal tribunal in the context of an ongoing armed conflict arguably makes the close links between international criminal law and reprisals resurface. The urge to establish that personal immunity does not apply before international criminal courts is founded on a compromise which accepts that personal immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction is usually absolute. By revisiting the immunities of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction in light of the law on state responsibility, the laws of war, and self-defence, it will be shown that conceptually there may be other areas where personal immunity is inapplicable. Three different views on personal immunity’s non-applicability before international courts can be distinguished, taking into account factors like the court’s creation, international endorsement, and bases for jurisdiction. These perspectives suggest that ad hoc international criminal courts established during armed conflicts may be seen as a form of retorsions, sanctions, or reprisals within the framework of international criminal justice. About the Speaker Alexandre Skander Galand is an Assistant Professor of International Law at Maastricht University. He is an international law scholar, specialised in international criminal law, international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Alexandre is an Associate Editor of the Oxford Reports on International Human Rights Law / UN Treaty Bodies and Co-Coordinator of the European Society of International Law’s Interest Group on International Criminal Justice. He is a member of the Barreau du Québec (Canada) and holds a PhD in International Law from the European University Institute (EUI). Before joining Maastricht University, he held postdoctoral research positions at the Hertie School, the EUI, the University of Oxford and Koç University, and was a visiting fellow at the University of Essex and the University of Turin. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2024."
"The Guarantor of European Democracy?";"iCourts, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen and Edinburgh Law School";"2024-03-21";"09:00";"2024-03-22";"14:00";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"Interrogating the European Court of Human Rights’ Role in Democracy Consolidation in Europe";"Interrogating the European Court of Human Rights’ Role in Democracy Consolidation in Europe This workshop seeks to explore the role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR/Court) in democracy consolidation in a particularly acute moment for democracy in Europe. This workshop will more specifically examine the role of the ECtHR in stemming democratic backsliding among the states under its jurisdiction by examining the Court’s role in guaranteeing democracy centred around two general themes: i) the role of courts in anchoring and guaranteeing democracy in constitutional theory and the extent to which these theoretical concepts and ideas are reflected in the practices of the ECtHR; and ii) The legitimating strategies adopted by the Court in safeguarding this most sensitive area of national competence when faced with backsliding democracies. Speakers at the workshop are: Cormac Mac Amhlaigh (Edinburgh) Basak Cali (Berlin/Oxford) Janneke Gerards (Utrecht) Esra Demir-Gürsel (Berlin) Michaela Heilbronner (Freiburg) Aileen Kavanagh (Dublin) Mikael Rask Madsen (Copenhagen) Rory O’Connell (Ulster) Alain Zysset (Glasgow) The workshop is the first step in a larger joint research programme between Edinburgh law School and iCourts, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, and is sponsored by the Edinburgh-Copenhagen Collaboration Programme. The workshop is organised by the two PIs of the project: Professor Cormac Mac Amhlaigh (Edinburgh) and Professor Mikael Rask Madsen (Copenhagen). Programme Thursday 21 March 2024 9:00-9:30: Arrival & Coffee 9:30-10:00. Introduction Mac Amhlaigh Madsen 10:00: 11:30. Democratic Theory and the ECtHR Zysset, ‘How to build, and not to build, the ‘democratic process theory’ of the European Court of Human Rights’ Mac Amhlaigh, ‘The European Court of Human Rights as the Guarantor of Republican Freedom’ 11:30-13:00. Lunch 13:00-14:30. Subsidiarity and the Structural Role of the ECtHR Madsen, ‘The European Court of Human Rights and Democracy: The Interplay of Subsidiarity and Authority Kavanagh, ‘Collaborative Constitutionalism and the Strasbourg Court’ 14.30-15:00. Coffee break 15:00-16:30. The ECtHR as an imperfect Elysian Court Hailbronner, ‘Representation Reinforcement in the ECtHR: The Minorities Question’ Gerards, ‘The European Court of Human Rights as a Proponent of Ely’s Theory of Procedural Review?’ Friday 22 March 2024 10:00-12:15. The ECtHR and Democratic Backsliding O’Connell, ‘The ECtHR in an age of populism and democratic backsliding: what role for non-discrimination and positive obligations?’ Demir-Gürsel, ‘Democracy and Authoritarianism in the ECtHR’s Case Law Concerning the Dissolution of Political Parties’ Cali, ‘Doctrinal Toleration Towards Anti-Democratic Practices: A Complacent Path-Dependency or Inevitability? 12:15-12:30. Concluding Remarks 12:30-13:45. Lunch To participate, please use this registration form."
"Breakfast Briefing with Gaiane Nuridzhanian";"iCourts";"2024-03-21";"08:45";"2024-03-21";"09:45";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"The Principle of Ne Bis In Idem in International Criminal Law ";"The Principle of Ne Bis In Idem in International Criminal Law Abstract The legal principle of ne bis in idem, also known as double jeopardy, proclaims that no person shall be tried twice for the same matter. This principle is important in theory and practice, as it safeguards a fundamental individual interest and spares the accused the burden of a repeat trial. In international criminal law, the principle is embodied in a variety of ne bis in idem rules. The precise content of these rules is shaped by their context and the competing interests that the rules may need to accommodate. The briefing provides an overview of the principle of ne bis in idem in international criminal law, delves into the ne bis in idem rules in the law and practice of the International Criminal Court, and discusses a topical issue of double jeopardy between the ICC and the proposed Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression Committed on the Territory of Ukraine. About the Speaker Gaiane Nuridzhanian is a legal scholar from Ukraine. She works as an associate professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of in Tromsø – The Arctic University of Norway. She holds an LLM degree from the University of Cambridge and a PhD in law from University College London. She specialises in public international law, human rights law, and international criminal law. She previously worked as a lawyer at the European Court of Human Rights and the International Advisory Panel on Ukraine (Council of Europe), and as a Visiting Legal Professional at the International Criminal Court. Her monograph The principle of ne bis in idem in international criminal law is forthcoming with Routledge in June 2024. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2024."
"Seminar with David Kosar";"iCourts";"2024-03-07";"11:00";"2024-03-07";"12:00";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"Judicial Overstay: Meddling with the Tail End of Judicial Career";"Judicial Overstay: Meddling with the Tail End of Judicial Career While several preeminent comparative law scholars have recently examined the phenomenon of executive overstay, there is little discussion in the academy about the equally troublesome and arguably more complicated phenomenon of “judicial overstay” – which broadly refers to when a judge sits on the bench for longer than original conditions would have allowed. To be sure, any inquiry into judicial tenure across different jurisdictions will be both hyper-complex and multifaceted. Whereas presidential term-limits are a foundation of constitutions around the world with relatively little variation, limitations on judicial tenure are far more diverse, and complex, across different countries as well as between different courts, and tiers of courts within national jurisdictions. Amidst this complexity, this article is the first to systematically describe, conceptualize, and assess the phenomenon of judicial overstay in comparative perspective. The article highlights three primary considerations at stake in starting a judicial overstay discussion. First, as a descriptive matter, we illustrate that judicial overstay occurs in common law as well as civil law countries all around the world and both in consolidated democracies and transitioning or hybrid regimes. Moreover, it also takes place at international courts. Beyond the countries whose constitutions supply a mechanism for allowing judges to overstay their original term, judicial overstay implicates a host of other countries’ judges at different levels and in different courts. Judicial overstay is thus far from a niche phenomenon. Second, as a conceptual matter, we illustrate that judicial overstay consists of seven different types. These types include: abusive overstay, inadvertent overstay, transitional overstay, task-oriented overstay, hybrid overstay, instrumental overstay, and “golden parachute” overstay. Thirdly, we illustrate that judicial overstay can serve both noble and ignoble purposes, and introduce an analytical toolkit for how to evaluate judicial overstay across time and space. To this end, we introduce 5 spectrums along which judicial overstay may occur, with corresponding policy implications. The spectrums are: (1) ex lege versus contra legem overstay; (2) political context; (3) short overstay versus long overstay; (4) individualized versus collective overstay; and (5) backsliding-oriented versus frontsliding-oriented overstay. By conceptualizing of judicial overstay around the world, we do not intend to pinpoint any one ideal balance. Rather, we more modestly seek to stress what we consider the core considerations at play and illustrate that judicial overstay deserves more comparative analysis and systemic evaluation. The phenomenon of judicial overstay necessitates further discussion because it implicates basic discussions surrounding the fundamental tenets of constitutional theory, not least of which includes term limits, the separation of powers and the principle of limited government. Speaker bio David Kosař (M.A. (Brno), LL.M. (CEU), J.S.D. (NYU) is Professor of Constitutional Law and Co-Director of the Judicial Studies Institute at Masaryk University in Brno. He authored “Perils of Judicial Self-Government in Transitional Societies” (CUP, 2016), co-authored “Domestic Judicial Treatment of European Court of Human Rights Case Law: Beyond Compliance” (Routledge, 2020), and edited the special issue on “Judicial Self-Governance in Europe” (German Law Journal, 2018, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 1567-2188). He has published in I-CON, EuConst, AJIL, and EJIL. David’s research interests include comparative constitutional law, constitutional theory, judicial studies, political rights, and transitional justice. Click to join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 676 4873 3647Passcode: 234720"
"Lunch seminar with Ioana Sendroiu";"iCourts";"2024-02-28";"12:15";"2024-02-28";"13:15";"Online via Zoom";"A “new France”? On solving ambiguous problems and ending political transformation";"A “new France”? On solving ambiguous problems and ending political transformation Social theory has recently made great strides in understanding how social change begins, showing that problems or crises are not self-evident, and making conceptual space for contestation or disagreement. Considerable gaps remain, however, in our understanding of how social change ends. Drawing on insights from studies of transitional justice, I argue that ending social change is just as difficult as starting or creating it. Relying on in-depth archival research on the internal and public-facing politics of implementing trials and lustration in post-World War Two France, I trace the process of settling unsettled times. I find that while trials and lustration served the same goal, namely dealing with what happened during World War Two, they involved divergent problems with different levels of ambiguity. I therefore argue that the more ambiguous the problem, the more likely it is to be politicized, and so the more onerous problem-solving becomes. Speaker bio Ioana Sendroiu is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Hong Kong. She works on the politics of social change, including in historical perspective, as well as on cognition and resilience during crisis. Her current book project is a computational and ethnographic study of how entrepreneurs are problem-solving climate change, with reference to net zero frameworks and carbon dioxide removal. At the University of Copenhagen, she will be focusing on how legal mechanisms and regulatory frameworks can help to settle crisis moments. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 625 8760 0636Passcode: 400221"
"Informers Up Close";"The Danish National Research Foundation's Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts, Faculty of Law) and  Centre for Military Studies (Faculty of Social Sciences)";"2024-01-24";"15:00";"2024-01-24";"16:00";"University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law, Conference/flex room, ground floor, room 8A.0.57, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S";"Mark Drumbl will present a book he co-authored with and Barbora Holá, forthcoming with Oxford University Press, entitled Informers up Close: Stories from Communist Prague.";"Mark A. Drumbl (Washington & Lee University)​ Mark Drumbl will present a book he co-authored with Barbora Holá, forthcoming with Oxford University Press, entitled Informers up Close: Stories from Communist Prague. Informers contribute to the power of repressive regimes. While informers may themselves be victims, and are enlisted by the state, their actions cause other individuals to suffer significant harm. Informers, then, are central to the proliferation of endemic human rights abuses. Through a case-study of Communist Czechoslovakia (1945-1989)—and drawing from secret police archives, oral histories, and a broad gamut of secondary sources—this book unearths what fuels informers to speak to authorities in repressive times and considers how transitional justice should approach informers once repression ends and a successor regime emerges. This book unravels the complex drivers behind informing and the dynamics of societal reactions to informing. It explores the agency of both informers and secret police officers. By presenting informers ‘up close,’ and the relationships between informers and secret police officers in high resolution granularity, this book centres the role of emotions in informer motivations and underscores the value of dignity in transitional reconstruction. This book also leverages research from informing in authoritarian states to better understand informing in so-called liberal democratic states which, after all, also rely on informers to maintain law, prevail in armed conflict, and preserve order. Mark A. Drumbl is the Class of 1975 Alumni Professor of Law and Director of the Transnational Law Institute at Washington and Lee University, Virginia, USA. He has been a Visiting Scholar at Oxford, Université de Paris, Free University of Amsterdam, University of Melbourne, and Queen’s University Belfast. He has written over 100 articles and book chapters. He authored Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law (CUP, 2007) and Reimagining Child Soldiers in International Law and Policy (OUP, 2012), both of which have been extensively reviewed. His work has been relied upon by national and international courts, he has served as an expert witness in trial litigation and as an expert in treaty drafting, represented clients in genocide prosecutions and public inquiries, and consulted with the UN and OSCE.​ You can download more information here (PDF) Registration Physical attendance: If you are attending in person you do NOT have to register, but just show up. Online attendance: If you want to join this event online instead, you will have to register here. After registration will you receive the zoom link and passcode in the receipt. "
"Lunch seminar with Irene Miano";"iCourts";"2024-01-24";"12:15";"2024-01-24";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor & online via Zoom";"For These Reasons - The Practice of the International Court of Justice 1945-2023";"For These Reasons - The Practice of the International Court of Justice 1945-2023 This project analyses how the International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court) provides reasons for its decisions. Justifying a decision is an act required by the ICJ’ Statute. However, this act is not a mere formality. What we read in the texts of judgments and advisory opinions is the results of choices made by judges that strategically uses judicial acts to communicate, as an institution, not only with the parties, but also with their broader audience. In light of these considerations, studying the use of reasons made by the Court in its judgments on the merits, judgments on preliminary objections and advisory opinion become crucially important as it can allow us to better understand the role and agenda of the ICJ and spur critical reflections on international adjudication more broadly. Therefore, this project has two layers. First, it maps reasons and highlights trends within their uses. To do so, the different ICJ’s decisions are coded using a framework of analysis composed of a series of parameters a typology of reasons and a typology of attitudes. Second, it draws conclusions on the role, agenda, image, and perception of the Court, departing from the data collected, the trends identified and the interactions of the different elements of the framework as observed. During the lunch seminar, Irene Miano will address not only her ongoing doctoral project on Reasons, but also her research on the aesthetics of the ICJ’s judicial decisions and on the Court’s communication practices. Speaker bio Irene Miano is a PhD Candidate and teaching assistant in International Law at the Geneva, Graduate Institute. Her PhD thesis addresses the use of reasons made by international courts and tribunals with a specific focus on the practice of the International Court of Justice. She also holds a Master in International law (Geneva, Graduate Institute) and a Law degree (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan). She passed the Italian bar exam in 2022. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 637 8422 8411Passcode: 769215"
"Lunch seminar with Ronit Levine-Schnur";"";"2024-01-17";"12:15";"2024-01-17";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, Copenhagen S";"Echoes of the Past: A Voice-Centric Approach for Empirically Analyzing Indigenous Consultation Hearings";"Echoes of the Past: A Voice-Centric Approach for Empirically Analyzing Indigenous Consultation Hearings The paper employs a data-driven strategy to investigate indigenous consultation procedures. Using a “voice-centric approach,” a computational model developed specifically for this study, we analyze a corpus of testimonies obtained from two Israeli state-led consultation procedures involving the Bedouin community and their land rights. The article finds that Bedouin speakers were eight times more likely to discuss a theme of communal land possession which represents their historical group narrative, whereas non-Bedouin speakers are four times more likely to raise a theme concerned with legal land rights. Based on these findings we identify two distinct and conflicting modes for harnessing legal language with respect to the indigenous past as a source of entitlement. We suggest that our voice-centric approach can assist in improving future consultation processes, also beyond the specific context, by providing an empirical-computational framework for listening to a multitude of conflicting voices. Speaker bio Dr. Levine-Schnur is a senior lecturer at the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law, and the co-director of the university Center of Applied Research on Risks to Democracy. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 618 0450 6925Passcode: 587173"
"Lunch seminar with Nurbanu Hayir";"iCourts";"2024-01-10";"12:15";"2024-01-10";"13:15";"Room 7A-2-04 (JUSTITIA), Njalsgade 76, 2nd floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"The Influence of Law on the Scope of Procedural Justice for Asylum-Seekers";"The Influence of Law on the Scope of Procedural Justice for Asylum-Seekers This presentation explores an answer to why harsh asylum policies do not damage the legitimacy of political governments in functioning democracies by focusing on the dynamics shaping public opinion in Europe in the aftermath of the Syrian civil war and the Russo-Ukrainian war. An overview of international refugee law shows that most asylum policies are likely to violate international law, which receives criticism from the international community and civil society. Despite this, asylum policies are one of the policy areas in which domestic and international reactions are seemingly in clear conflict, showing that harsh asylum policies do not come with a high political cost, whereas lack thereof does. The presentation investigates the reason behind this by drawing on the theories of procedural justice and the scope of justice in social psychology. Procedural justice theory studies demonstrate that individuals tend to consider the fair treatment of other groups when they form judgments about the legitimacy of authorities. The scope of justice studies find that nationality, race, and religion are important factors in determining whether justice is relevant for other groups. Most harsh asylum policies strip or constrain, by law, the procedural guarantees under international refugee law. The argument at the crux of this paper is that law plays a role in evaluating the deservingness of refugees. Law is an under-investigated factor in the scope of justice theory, but it often provides legitimizing rhetoric that enables other personal and immutable characteristics such as race, nationality, and religion to operate as a moral exclusion tool. As a result, a domestic society does not extend its procedural justice considerations to others. The presentation tests this argument in mini-case studies by analyzing the political statements and media discourse in the 2015 refugee influx to Europe following the Syrian civil war and the Ukrainian and Russian refugee influx ensuing from the 2022 Russo-Ukrainian War. Ukrainian refugees, fortunately, encountered a welcoming reception when they fled Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, unlike Syrian and Russian refugees. Findings show that in cases of countries that admitted a very low number of refugees or received attention for denying refugee rights by closing borders or pushing back refugee boats, political discourse relies heavily on exclusionary dynamics that draw on legal arguments. The paper’s foregrounding of legality aims to investigate the potential of this dynamic concept as a tool to widen or narrow the scope of justice and fuel the legitimizing rhetoric on harsh asylum policies. It also aims to provide the basis for further empirical research to test the hypothesis that individuals care about the procedurally just treatment of people outside their national boundaries to the extent that they do not consider those refugees as having been involved in illicit conduct of some sort. Speaker bio Nurbanu Hayır recently got her LL.M. degree from Yale Law School and holds a first law degree from Galatasaray University. She is visiting iCourts as a Yale University Fox Fellow for her research on how public opinion factors into international law compliance, in particular, enforcement of international court judgments and the impact of sanctions on state acts. She has a broad interest in examining how international law regulates the treatment of foreigners and how nation-state boundaries influence the principles and dynamics of international law. Her previous academic works have explored diverse issues, such as understanding the enforcement histories of international courts through the application of compliance theories, how social psychology phenomena shed light on the varying actions taken by states in similar issues arising from refugee law, the intersection of sanctions and EU migration law, and a critical analysis of the deployment of emergency doctrines in migration contexts. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 669 6510 8602Passcode: 961937"
"Lunch seminar with Max Steuer";"iCourts";"2023-12-20";"12:15";"2023-12-20";"13:15";"Room 7A-2-04 (JUSTITIA), Njalsgade 76, 2nd floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Republican Constitutional Pluralism, (De-)Differentiation, and ‘Race to the Top’ in Fundamental Rights Protection ";"Republican Constitutional Pluralism, (De-)Differentiation, and ‘Race to the Top’ in Fundamental Rights Protection ‘Constitutional pluralism’, the constitutional theory equivalent of ‘unity in diversity’ in European integration parlance, has lost much of its purchase since the rise of illiberal challengers, most visibly the governments of Hungary and Poland. These have engaged in a ‘race to the bottom’ of fundamental rights protection even beyond their jurisdictions, with vulnerable individuals such as asylum seekers or ethnic and religious minorities having been particularly targeted. The invocation of constitutional pluralism by illiberals, including the captured Polish Constitutional Tribunal, has prompted the proponents of the EU law supremacist narrative to contest its capacity to contribute to European democratization. Yet, even its proponents agree that, while it may have democratizing potential, this manifests through differentiation, the establishment of various degrees and kinds of association within the EU. This paper addresses how, if at all, constitutional pluralism may be redeemed as a democratizing building block in Europe. While it supports existing efforts at distinguishing between conceptual claims of constitutional pluralism and its hijacked versions by illiberal actors, it also finds the existing approaches to constitutional pluralism insufficient to appreciate its democratizing potential. Inspired by republican theory, it subsequently argues for a connection between republican constitutional pluralism (RCP), fundamental rights protection and (de-)differentiation. Understood as pressing for the recognition of previously invisible sources of domination via a ‘race to the top’ in fundamental rights standards as the antidote to domination, it highlights the counterintuitive de-differentiating and democratizing capacity of RCP. To illustrate this capacity, the paper invokes examples from the case law of the so-called Visegrad Four EU member state constitutional courts, as jurisdictions particularly under pressure of autocratization within the EU. It finds instances of RCP to be lacking in the region, which represents a missed potential for the democracy-enhancing capacity of these constitutional courts. The paper subsequently responds to two major critiques levelled against RCP: firstly, that fundamental rights often conflict, and hence a ‘race to the top’ runs always at the expense of some rights as opposed to others and, secondly, that the idea of ‘the highest level of protection [of rights] is a meaningless concept’ (Weiler, ICON [2021], 183). It argues that, upon closer scrutiny, claims of rights conflicts are frequently conflicts between a right and an interest, in which case RCP argues for the primacy of the former, due to its greater capacity to reduce domination. In the minority of cases raising genuine rights conflicts, while not offering easy ways out, RCP requires engagement with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), particularly in the wake of the EU’s anticipated accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, hence transforming the traditional binary relationship between the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and member state constitutional courts to a triangular one with the involvement of the ECtHR. Here, two alternative scenarios arise. Firstly, ECtHR supremacy could be accepted from the perspective of its broader jurisdiction and historical authority as well as its primary focus on fundamental rights. Secondly, the triangular relationship could encourage a ‘race to the top’ raising claims for more ambitious rights protection standards in ECtHR case law in those cases in which the CJEU, an EU member state constitutional court, or both guarantee higher standards thereof. Speaker bio Max Steuer (MA [Central European University], LLM [University of Cambridge], PhD [Comenius University]) is Associate Professor at O.P. Jindal Global University, Jindal Global Law School, India, and Assistant Professor (on leave in Fall 2023) at Comenius University in Bratislava, Department of Political Science, Slovakia. His interdisciplinary research focuses on questions of democracy protection and has been published in peer-reviewed journals, edited collections and encyclopedias including European Constitutional Law Review, Review of Central and East European Law, and the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law. In 2023, he is principal investigator for the project Illiberalism and the Constitution of the Slovak Republic: Political Discourse Analysis (Scientific Grant Agency of the Slovak Ministry of Education) and coordinator of the educational and awareness-raising initiative Talking Courts (US Embassy in Slovakia), among others. He has served as reviews editor of Volume 14 (2023) and guest co-editor of the special section on ‘Cultural Expertise and Litigation: Practices in South Asia and Europe’ for the Jindal Global Law Review. While at iCourts, Max aims to develop the account of ‘republican constitutional pluralism’ (RCP) which argues that, if based in republican theory, constitutional pluralism-based arguments may be more resilient against abuse by illiberal actors, which has become one of the main sources of critique of constitutional pluralism as such. RCP has implications for the understanding of the relationship between European Union law and constitutionalism in the EU member states, among others. The broader project critically engages with the relationship between constitutional pluralism and differentiation in the EU as well. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 688 0688 5914Passcode: 400980"
"Lunch seminar with Lavinia Francesconi";"iCourts";"2023-12-13";"12:15";"2023-12-13";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"Equality and non-discrimination in the Inter-American Human Rights Regime";"Equality and non-discrimination in the Inter-American Human Rights Regime Within the Inter-American legal space there is a community of practices actively seeking to “confront violence, social exclusion, and weak institutions through legal means” (Urueña 2021, von Bogdandy and Urueña 2020). Indeed, the Inter-American Human Rights System is well-known for its jurisprudence on systematic and systemic issues in the region. Since the early 2000s the institution, its (hard and soft) laws, and its decisions have been specializing on mostly discriminated groups, such as women, indigenous peoples, afro-descendants, disabled persons, elder people etc. The PhD thesis examines the structure and application of the principle (and rules) on equality and non-discrimination in the Inter-American Human Rights Regime. In addition to the doctrinal description of the institutions and laws related to equality and non-discrimination, empirical tools will be deployed to determine patterns in the application of these rules within the system’s decisions. Indeed, the legal system is conceived as a complex one, composed of the interaction of different entities, norms, and decisions, where patterns can be detected through network analysis. The cases related to equality and non-discrimination are also comprehended as complex, meaning that different social systems and social characteristics can be involved in a discriminatory situation. The lunch seminar will be the opportunity to discuss the thesis’s configuration and its main advancements. Speaker bio Lavinia Francesconi is a PhD candidate at the law department of Aix-Marseille University. She graduated cum laude from the Law faculty of the University of Bologna, and she holds an LL.M. in Public International Law from Leiden University, and a Diploma in International Human Rights Law from the University of Chile. Ms. Francesconi acts as a legal counsel and researcher on international law for different organizations, among others, at the Aix-Global Justice Clinic. Previously, she has been collaborating in international and academic institutions, both in Europe and in South America. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 616 4752 8809Passcode: 877389"
"Breakfast Briefing with Keiko Kono";"iCourts";"2023-12-07";"08:45";"2023-12-07";"10:00";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"Cancelled - a new date will be circulated";"Towards Tallinn Manual 3.0 – Challenges and Perspectives ** CANCELLED - A new date will be circulated ** Abstract This presentation will focus on several topics covered in two editions of Tallinn Manual (TM): Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare (2013) and Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (2017). It will assess where disagreements lie among TMs experts and states and how relevant TMs are to actual cyber incidents, and predict in which direction the next edition – TM 3.0 – will go. Selected topics are peacetime espionage, non-intervention, (collective) countermeasures, necessity, extra-territorial enforcement jurisdiction, and “attack” under law of armed conflict. Following Denmark’s recent release of its position paper on international law and cyber operations, this presentation will consider what Denmark is expected to do next on the matter in the coming years. About the speaker Keiko Kono is a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Military Studies (CMS), Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. Prior to joining CMS, she was a researcher of international law for the Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD). She was also a researcher at the law branch of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence as a national representative of the Japanese MoD. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Autumn 2023."
"Lunch seminar with Aden Knaap";"iCourts";"2023-12-06";"12:15";"2023-12-06";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Judging the World: International Courts and the End of Empire";"Judging the World: International Courts and the End of Empire When did international courts begin to influence world politics? Most scholars say not until very recently: after the end of the Cold War. Before then, so the traditional narrative goes, international courts were politically marginal: their numbers limited, their jurisdiction voluntary, and their standing restricted to states. They were, on this view, ‘old-style' international courts. It is only in the 1990s that ‘new-style' international courts are said to have emerged: their numbers much greater, their jurisdiction compulsory, and their standing expanded to include non-state actors. My book project, ‘Judging the World: International Courts and the End of Empire’, suggests that this gets the history backwards. I argue that international courts were central to world politics from 1900 to the 1970s. During this period, almost every recognised polity joined these courts, from the smallest of small states to the greatest of great powers, including the United States, the Soviet Union, and China. Corporations and individuals appeared before them. And parties almost always obeyed their verdicts. As a result, these courts were involved in some of the most significant conflicts of the period: from the Boer War in southern Africa to the Banana Wars in Central America and the Caribbean; from the First World War to the Russian Revolution; and from the decolonization of Asia and Africa after the Second World War to the nationalization of oil during the Cold War. In short, for almost a century, international courts governed the world—or, rather, they judged it. From this vantage point, the division between ‘old’ and ‘new’ international courts appears anachronistic. In many ways, the old international courts of the early twentieth century were more powerful than today’s new ones. Speaker bio Aden Knaap is a Max Weber Fellow at the European University Institute in Florence. His articles have been published in law and history journals including the European Journal of International Law and the Journal of Global History. He is currently writing a book about the history of international courts and their impact on world order in the twentieth century. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 665 3869 0328Passcode: 810245"
"Lunch seminar with Virginia Passalacqua";"iCourts";"2023-11-29";"12:15";"2023-11-29";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"(Explaining the Dearth of) Racial Discrimination Litigation in EU Law";"(Explaining the Dearth of) Racial Discrimination Litigation in EU Law In the early 2000s, the EU equipped itself with strong anti-discrimination legislation. The so-called Equality Directives (2000/43 and 2000/78), introduced in the Member States a relatively broad and legally robust set of legislative measures intended to combat discrimination, with particularly strong and extensive measures against race discrimination. However, litigation coming from national courts to the Court of Justice under these two Directives has varied quite a bit, depending on the grounds of discrimination. The largest number of cases has dealt with discrimination based on age, with only a small number of cases raising issues of race discrimination. This is rather puzzling given the pervasive racial discrimination within most countries of the European Union and the fact that the prohibition of race discrimination is broad in scope under EU law. This study posits that to understand patterns of EU litigation, we need first to analyze litigation before domestic courts. Relying on data on anti-discrimination litigation before the national courts of selected Member States, the study explores whether the paucity of EU litigation reflects low litigation rates at the national level. On the contrary, in the case of relatively higher levels of racial discrimination litigation before domestic courts, we ask whether the low number of EU preliminary references requested or made reflects a preference for other remedies or instruments in national and international law, and if so why this might be. Speaker bio Virginia Passalacqua is an expert in EU law, migration, and legal mobilization, which she investigates with a law-in-context perspective. Virginia is currently working on her book “Mobilizing EU Justice”, where she investigates why civil society actors engage in EU litigation for migrant rights in some countries but not in others. In the book, she uncovers the conditions under which civil society actors use EU litigation for migrant rights and the obstacles that hamper mobilization via the Court of Justice of the EU. Virginia holds a degree in law (cum laude) from the University of Bologna and a Ph.D. in EU law from the European University Institute, where she worked under the supervision of Professor Bruno de Witte. Her dissertation was awarded the Mauro Cappelletti Prize for the Best EUI Thesis in Comparative Law and her paper, ""Altruism, Euro-Expertise and Open EU Legal Opportunity Structure: Empirical Insights on Legal Mobilization Before the CJEU in the Migration Field"" was awarded the Ius Commune Prize 2020. Virginia has recently joined the University of Turin where she works as an Assistant Professor. Previously she was an Emile Noël Fellow at NYU, a Postdoctoral Fellow at Utrecht University and at Collegio Carlo Alberto, and an Academic Fellow at Bocconi University. She held visiting positions at the London School of Economics and at Oxford University. Click here to join via Zoom Meeting ID: 681 5920 0466Passcode: 689300"
"Breakfast Briefing with Jonathan Somer";"iCourts";"2023-11-23";"08:45";"2023-11-23";"10:00";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S";"The EWIPA Declaration: Dublin’ Down on Measures to Protect Civilians from the Effects of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas?";"The EWIPA Declaration: Dublin’ Down on Measures to Protect Civilians from the Effects of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas? Abstract Armed conflict in urban environments spells bad news for civilians. While some refute data suggesting that 90 % of casualties in urban environments are civilian, there is no doubt that civilians pay an inordinate price. The use of explosive weapons in populated areas accounts for a great deal of this civilian loss, including damage to civilian objects. In November 2022, Denmark joined 82 other states from around the globe in Dublin to endorse the ""Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences arising from the use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Area Explosive Weapons"" (EWIPA Declaration). While the political declaration does not purport to create new legal obligations, the jury is still out as to what extent it raises the bar for states signatories and non-state armed group adherents towards greater civilian protection in populated areas. On the one-year anniversary of the adoption of the EWIPA Declaration, the presentation will reflect on some of the key issues in the multi-year drafting process led by Ireland, as well as the relevance of the Declaration itself. About the speaker Jonathan Somer is currently Legal Advisor at the Danish Red Cross. Prior to joining the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, he worked with Geneva Call and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. As a consultant, he has advised, among others, the United Nations and the Government of Denmark. He holds a JD from the University of British Columbia, an LLM from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, and has been awarded the Henry Dunant Prize for his scholarship in international humanitarian law. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Autumn 2023."
"Lunch seminar with Greta Spano";"iCourts";"2023-11-22";"12:15";"2023-11-22";"13:15";"7A-2-04 (JUSTITIA), Njalsgade 76, 2nd floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"The interpretation of autonomous concepts of EU law. A corpus linguistic analysis of the case-law of the ECJ on the terms habitual residence and worker";"The interpretation of autonomous concepts of EU law. A corpus linguistic analysis of the case-law of the ECJ on the terms habitual residence and worker ’Law is a linguistic phenomenon’ (Guastini, 2006). This sentence has a particular relevance in the European legal order, since the law is promulgated in 24 official versions. In this system, the Court of Justice of the European Union interprets new terms, which are independent from both any national and international meaning, the so-called autonomous concepts. This new terminology, representing legal concepts specific to the European system, is translated in all official languages and will be, in turn, interpreted by domestic judges. The effects of a national interpretation of autonomous concepts could be disruptive: a non-technical term could be seen as too vague, leaving too much room for a wider - and maybe contradicting - interpretation; on the other hand, the choice of a term too specific and close, if not identical, to the term used in one Member State could create a semantic overlapping and interpretive confusion. In this multi-level and multilingual context, two questions arise: How does the Court of Justice interpret autonomous concepts of EU law? To what extent autonomous concepts of EU law have an impact on the Italian and French national legal terminology? The aim of this research is to illustrate the creation and circulation of autonomous concepts of European Union law, interpreted as such before the Court of Justice to the national legal system, to create a wider framework based on the analysis of a number of autonomous concepts. Particularly, this presentation investigates the linguistic side of harmonisation of the concepts of habitual residence and worker, with an interdisciplinary approach, in order to understand, on one hand, if there has been an evolution of such concepts at the European level, and, on the other hand, if these autonomous concepts had an impact on the Italian and French counterparts, and if so, what are the implications that such impact have on the national perspective. The approach through which this research will be presented is the linguistic analysis of a corpus of judgments of the ECJ in three language versions (French, Italian and English), employing Sketch Engine as a text analysis tool. The relevant data for corpus analysis is gathered from the case-law of the Court of Justice, as well as the Italian and French case-law on a selected set of autonomous concepts. The analysis, in fact, will mainly focus on interpretive texts. Through the linguistic analysis of corpora, this examination has the purpose, at the European level, to describe the evolution of the autonomous interpretation before the Court of Justice and, at the national level, to outline the implementation process. Therefore, from the observation of language in case-law, this analysis will formulate a hypothesis on how autonomous concepts are interpreted and in which way they circulate in the Member States. To this end, this analysis of case-law will investigate firstly, the creation of such concepts at the European level; secondly, the interpretation before the Court of Justice of habitual residence and worker as autonomous concepts of the European union and the evolution of its judicial reasoning; thirdly, the impact (if any) that these autonomous concepts had on the French and Italian legal systems. Speaker bio Greta Spanò is a fourth-year PhD researcher in law at the European University Institute (EUI, Florence). In 2018, she obtained a double degree in Italian and French law at Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and Università degli Studi di Firenze; she also obtained a master’s degree in legal translation at ISIT Paris (2019) and a LLM in Comparative, European and International Laws at the EUI (2020). Prior to her PhD, she worked as a trainee at the comparative unit of the Conseil constitutionnel and at the Court of Justice of European Union. Her main interests include the fields of legal history, comparative law, legal translation, and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Particularly, her research at the EUI concerns the autonomous interpretation of concepts by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the implementation on Member States’ courts (France and Italy), with a comparative legal-linguistic perspective. During her research stay at iCourts, she will focus on the theoretical aspects of the autonomous interpretation as well as the corpus linguistic analysis of judgments of the ECJ. Click to join via Zoom Meeting ID: 650 9493 2055Passcode: 299494"
"International Investment Law for the Green Transition: the Limits of Plurilateralism";"Study Hub for International Economic Law and Development (SHIELD)";"2023-11-09";"09:15";"2023-11-09";"15:30";"South Campus, 6A.2.46, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 S, Denmark.";"The potential and risks of plurilateral engagement in International Investment Law (IIL) for the Green Transition explored by experts in IIL, EU law, economics, and environmental law.";"This thought-provoking workshop on November 9, 2023 will explore the constraints and limitations associated with plurilateral engagement in reforming International Investment Law (IIL) to support the green transition. Plurilateral agreements can harmonize regulatory frameworks, reduce regulatory uncertainty for investors, and promote investments in the renewable energy sector. However, it is not always the most efficient or effective solution in promoting the green transition. Currently, IIL provides extensive protection for fossil fuel-based energy industries while not imposing enough obligations on investors. It is imperative to adapt to the demand for a sustainable future as the EU aims for carbon neutrality by 2050 and has adopted the European Green Deal agenda to transition to renewable energy sources. In line with these goals, the EU’s proposed amendments to modernize the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and align it with their objectives. This has generated mixed responses, resulting in a few EU Member States withdrawing from the ECT. This situation could have legal implications for the EU and its international relationships. Additionally, the UNCITRAL Working Group III has been cautious about making substantial reforms to the investor-state dispute settlement system, which begs the question whether plurilaterism is the right way forward. The workshop brings together experts in international investment law, EU law, economics, and environmental law to explore complexities and limitations of plurilateralism. The workshop is organized as part of the research project ""ENERGIZE: Re-Shaping International Investment Law for the Green Transition,"" funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark (DFF). For more information about the project, please visit our website at https://jura.ku.dk/icourts/research/energize/. Read more about SHIELD by clicking here Program Please download the program by clicking here (PDF) Abstracts ""The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) as a Mixed Agreement""- by Prof. Eleftheria Neframi (PDF) ""The (Announced) EU's Coordinated Withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty: Issues of Treaty Law and International Responsibility"" - by Assoc. Prof. Luca Pantaleo (PDF) ""A Fair and Equitable Green Transition"" - by Assoc. Prof. Fernando Dias Simões (PDF) ""Facilitating Green Transition through Plurilateral Instruments: Towards Right To Regulate For Climate Actions In International Investment Law Regime"" - by Aleksander szostak, LL.M. (PDF) ""Bridging the Gap Between Environmental Objectives and International Investment Law: The Implications of UNCITRAL’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform Draft Provision on Procedural and Cross-Cutting Issues (article 12)"" - by Dr. Siri Silvereke (PDF) ""A New Toy: Will the Establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court Weaken Investment Protection"" - by Asst. Prof. Pawel Marcisz (PDF) ""International Investment Law & Climate Change: Preservation through Plurilateralism as the Way Forward?"" - by Assoc. Prof. Elizabeth Whitsitt (PDF) "
"Breakfast Briefing with Gleb Bogush";"iCourts";"2023-11-09";"08:45";"2023-11-09";"09:45";"University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law, Room 6B-4-04, 4th floor, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S";"Prohibited Means of Lawfare: Russia’s Wartime Criminal Justice";"Prohibited Means of Lawfare: Russia’s Wartime Criminal Justice Abstract After a year of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Russian authorities began actively resorting to criminal justice, initiating cases and conducting trials, including on charges of war crimes, against Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilians. The number of such cases increased significantly in the spring of 2023, when the investigation of Russia’s war crimes by Ukraine intensified and the International Criminal Court released two first arrest warrants in the Ukraine situation. Russia’s activity can be interpreted, among other things, as an attempt to engage in “lawfare” to resist ongoing efforts to build an international coalition for accountability. This is concerning as it could further worsen the humanitarian situation and jeopardize the prospects of peace. The briefing scrutinizes this practice of the Russian authorities from the standpoint of international humanitarian and international criminal law. About the speaker Gleb Bogush is a Postdoctoral Researcher at iСourts, the University of Copenhagen. Before 2022, he worked as an Associate Professor of Public International Law at the HSE University in Moscow, Russia. His main area of interest includes international criminal law, especially the International Criminal Court, the law on the use of force, and international humanitarian law. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Autumn 2023."
"Lunch seminar with Carolina Fabara";"iCourts";"2023-11-01";"12:15";"2023-11-01";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Foreign-Commercial Litigations adopting digital technologies";"Foreign-Commercial Litigations adopting digital technologies The right to access the courts is a basic human right in civilised societies, but the current legal system is unfriendly and often unaffordable for the victims of e-commerce disputes and copyright infringements seeking access to justice. Consequently, the Chinese government attaches great importance to the application of digital technology in the administration of justice, and makes every effort to promote the digital technology in the process of judicial reform. In foreign-related cases, digital technology has a profound impact on the case, which has changed the previous way of handling cases to a great extent. Therefore, how to design a judicial system that is more accessible has become a critical legal point of contention in the digital economy era. In China, the notion of an Internet Court, which substantially enhances popular access to justice, is a significant judicial innovation. It is of special significance for those lawsuits with small value claims and online evidence, and in which the parties are separated by long distances. However, these Internet Courts leave much to reflect on, including whether due process can be guaranteed, whether public trial can be fully implemented, and whether blockchain-based evidence is absolutely admissible. With the rapid development of the digital economy, most commercial activities have moved from the physical world to the Internet, and disputes arising from e-commerce have increased rapidly. E-commerce buyers and sellers are often located far apart, even located in different countries. When a dispute arises from e-commerce, the sufferer is often the consumers with weak negotiation power. If a consumer wants to claim damages from the seller, they must file a lawsuit in the court where the seller's headquarter or where the main business office is located, in accordance with current global legal systems. To bring a lawsuit, consumers often must pay high litigation costs, such as for the time, money, and labour spent on multiple court sessions. Moreover, the evidence of e-commerce disputes is usually on the Internet, so it is not easy to raise evidence in the physical courts. In addition, the transaction amount of e-commerce is usually small, but the litigation cost under the traditional litigation system may be close to or even higher than the amount of compensation that can be sought. As a result, although each country has its own judicial system, many injured parties have no motivation to file lawsuits. One special approach adopted by e-court is an ‘asynchronous trial’, which allows the litigants and their representatives to log in at different times to participate in hearing as the time difference is one of the major obstacles of online court or arbitration for international cases. For example, a Taobao shop owner Ms Wang who lives in Canada was sued by her Taobao client in China at Hangzhou e-court. Due to the 12-hour time difference between, Ms Wang can only participate in the online trial late in the evening or in the early morning if a virtual hearing is to be conducted. However, under the asynchronous trial, she was able to answer any question raised either by the opposite counsel or by the court at the convenience of her own time by logging into the system and record her answers or vice versa. In the end, the judge could hear the entire arguments recorded by the system and print out the transcripts. From the perspective of digital technology, foreign commercial litigation in China is undergoing significant changes and challenges. This paper will discuss about some key aspects to consider such as technology in the judicial process, this includes electronic filing of legal documents, online hearings, and case management through computer systems. Also the digital evidence such as emails, text messages, and online transaction records. Moreover, Chinese courts have developed guidelines for the proper handling of digital evidence in legal proceedings. For instance, China's Cybersecurity Law impacts how foreign companies handle data and cybersecurity. Complying with these regulations is crucial to avoid digital security litigation. Therefore, the protection of personal data and privacy are important issues in commercial litigation. China has implemented data privacy laws and regulations that must be considered in cases involving personal or business data. The protection of intellectual property is an important aspect in commercial litigation. Digital piracy and copyright infringement are issues that can arise and must be properly addressed in the legal context. It is critical that companies engaging in commercial litigation in China understand how digital technology can impact their cases and ensure they comply with local regulations related to technology and data privacy. Working with attorneys and legal experts with specialized knowledge of digital technology and Chinese jurisdiction is essential for proper representation in cases of this type. Especially in the foreign-related litigation, the digital litigation is reflected in: facilitate the parties to participate in litigation; save judicial resources; reduce the litigation costs of the parties; improve trial efficiency; strong replicability, there is the possibility of large-scale promotion. This paper will analyze how China constructs the foreign-related litigation legal system under the Internet thinking, the use of digital technology to promote the settlement of foreign-related litigation cases, and the characteristics of new foreign- related litigation cases produced by digital technology. Finally, this article concludes with discussions about how to balance the efficiency of litigation with the correctness of judgements. Speaker bio Carolina Fabara Verdezoto, lawyer of the Courts of Justice of the Republic of Ecuador from the University of the Americas. PhD candidate in International Law from the University of Political Sciences in Beijing, China. She has a Master of Laws (LLM) with a focus on business and economic law from Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, China. Specialist in Business Law from the Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar. Carolina's area of ​​research covers business law, international investment law, Chinese foreign investment law, and comparative law. She has been invited to give conferences on topics related to business law, women's rights and sustainable development goals. Author in various legal journals in Latin America on issues of business law, gender equality and entrepreneurship. Her area of ​​interest is the internationalization of companies, business development, legal consulting, as well as digital business. Her career is committed to defending women and supporting their economic empowerment. Click here to join via Zoom Meeting ID: 667 1985 2254Passcode: 634161 "
"Breakfast Briefing with Jes Rynkeby Knudsen";"iCourts";"2023-10-26";"08:45";"2023-10-26";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, Njalsgade 76, 2300 Copenhagen S";"The War in Ukraine from the Perspective of a Danish Military Lawyer";"The War in Ukraine from the Perspective of a Danish Military Lawyer Abstract The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine has given rise to legal questions in a wide array of different regulated areas. What are the main areas of interest and how is the fact that we now again have an armed conflict in Europe affect the legal dynamics that are in play? How does the conflict affect military legal advisors and their work? At this briefing, Jes Rynkeby Knudsen will share the main legal concerns and considerations from within the Danish Armed Forces. About the speaker Jes Rynkeby Knudsen is Chief Legal Advisor in the Danish Defense Command. He is also editing author of the Danish Military Manual on International Law Relevant to Danish Armed Forces in International Operations. From 2001 to 2016, he taught the law of armed conflict course as an external lecturer at the University of Copenhagen – Faculty of Law. He was previously (1997-2006) deployed as a military legal adviser on international missions to Iraq, Bosnia Herzegovina and Albania. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Autumn 2023."
"Workshop on Legal Governance of Poverty and Social Exclusion";"iCourts - The Danish National Research Foundation's Centre of Excellence for International Courts";"2023-10-24";"09:00";"2023-10-24";"15:45";"Room number: 4A.1.13 Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 S, Denmark.";"This workshop explores dynamics between international and national law and poverty and social exclusion.";"This workshop explores dynamics between international and national law and poverty and social exclusion. While more than 95 million of the population in the EU in 2022 were at risk of living in poverty or social exclusion, the legal implications and the potential from regulation concerning combatting material and social deprivation are largely understudied. In this workshop researchers with an expertise in different intersections between law and social exclusion come together to present and discuss their contributions which addresses legal challenges in relation to poverty. The overall concern of the workshop is legal governance of poverty as the actual and potential effects from law on different manifestations of poverty, the capacity and potential of different kinds of regulation in addressing poverty as well as how poverty and social exclusion challenges aspects of the legal system. The research presentations will approach the intersection between law and poverty from a range of legal areas: poverty and law as addressed from an EU law perspective concerning the capacity of recent legal instruments in addressing poverty, the phenomenon of in-work poverty in the EU and its legal challenges, poverty and inequalities as addressed from an anti-discrimination law perspective, health law and poverty, poverty and the criminal systems in the nordic countries as well as poverty addressed through a human rights perspective in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Programme Please download the programme here (pdf) Registration To attend the workshop please register here This workshop is financed by Carlsberg Foundation and University of Copenhagen "
"Breakfast Briefing with Aloka Wanigasuriya";"iCourts";"2023-10-12";"08:45";"2023-10-12";"09:45";"University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law, Room 6B-4-04, 4th floor, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S";"The Investigation and Prosecution of International Crimes: The Situations in Georgia and Ukraine";"The Investigation and Prosecution of International Crimes: The Situations in Georgia and Ukraine Abstract This presentation will focus on the investigation of core international crimes in Georgia and Ukraine. Focusing on the activities of the International Criminal Court as well as national developments, it will highlight key factors that hold significance for the investigation and prosecution of international crimes both at the domestic and international level. In doing so, it will compare the trajectory of the situations, discuss lessons learned and engage with what can be envisioned for the future with a view of the impact of these two situations on the larger international criminal justice project. About the speaker Aloka is an assistant professor at the Department of Law, University of Southern Denmark, and completed a PhD project at the University of Copenhagen in 2022, which investigated the impact of the International Criminal Court in Ukraine and Georgia. Aloka is an Australian qualified lawyer who has previously been affiliated with the University of Newcastle (Australia), Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, Lund University (Faculty of Law), Raoul Wallenberg Institute for Human Rights, the Danish Institute for Human Rights, and Special Court for Sierra Leone (Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v Taylor). Aloka’s research interests lie within the fields of international criminal justice, public international law and international human rights law. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Autumn 2023. "
"Book launch with Karen McGregor Richmond";"iCourts";"2023-10-11";"12:15";"2023-10-11";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Marketisation and Forensic Science Provision in England and Wales";"CANCELLED iCourts is hosting a book discussion with Postdoctoral Research Fellow Karen Richmond who will present her book: Marketisation and Forensic Science Provision in England and Wales Programme 12:15-12:20 Welcomeby Center Director, Professor Mikael Rask Madsen 12:20-12:45 Presentation of the bookby Karen McGregor Richmond, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at iCourts, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen. 12:45-13:05 Discussants:Associate Professor Shai DothanDr Nina Sunde 13:05-13:15 General debatechaired by Center Director, Professor Mikael Rask Attendees are invited to a social gathering at iCourts following the discussion. Author bio Karen McGregor Richmond is a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish National Research Foundation's Centre of Excellence for International Courts, University of Copenhagen, and postgraduate researcher at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford. Her primary research focuses on expert evidence, and the interactions between law, science, and technology. About the book This unique work of evidence scholarship details the development of marketised forensic science provision in the UK. Exploring the impact that public policy developments have had upon the sector, it delves into the re-structuring of both the governance and delivery of expert scientific evidence. Using first-hand accounts drawn from empirical research, this study analyses the practices and perspectives of forensic experts and criminal justice personnel, with a particular focus on the influence of standardisation, expertise, and regulation on scientific method. Expanding our understanding of the ways in which forensic scientists have responded to policy-driven structural changes, the author highlights the effects of resulting adaptations. Challenging subsisting accounts of law’s deference to expert knowledge, this work uncovers the normative and conceptual underpinnings of law and science, to provide an innovative account of the practice of case construction. Using comparative case-study methods, the study highlights the need for a genuine theoretical engagement between the two domains and supports this endeavour with a range of empirically informed discussions, and detailed theoretical analyses. Revisiting the landmark cases, relevant legislative provisions, and government reports, the study offers a trenchant analysis of law’s mutable understandings of expertise and scientific method. Marketisation and Forensic Science Provision in England and Wales thus lays the foundations for a more rational and systematic approach to the consumption of expert evidence. The book is available at this link. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 612 9886 7811Passcode: 207402"
"Breakfast Briefing with Sorcha MacLeod";"iCourts";"2023-09-21";"08:45";"2023-09-21";"09:45";" University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law, Room 6B-4-04, 4th floor, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S ";"The Contemporary Challenges of Mercenarism: Problems and Solutions";"The Contemporary Challenges of Mercenarism: Problems and Solutions Abstract Mercenaries and mercenary-related actors are rarely out of the news currently. Whether in Libya, Central African Republic, Mali, Syria, Nagorno Karabakh, Ukraine or elsewhere, the increasing use of mercenaries to fight­ in both international and non-international armed conflicts is an alarming phenomenon. Their use prolongs armed conflicts and has substantial negative impacts for civilian populations in the form of human rights and IHL violations, which in some cases rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The use of mercenaries as proxy actors for third party states is particularly problematic, as is the growing trend of predatory recruitment and trafficking of persons for mercenarism by such states. At the same time, prosecutions of mercenaries are minimal and access to justice for victims is rare. At this breakfast briefing, Sorcha MacLeod will addresses these contemporary challenges of mercenarism and highlight approaches that may be taken by the international community to tackle them. About the speaker Sorcha MacLeod is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, and a member of the UN Working Group on Mercenaries. She is also an invited expert to the UN Intergovernmental Working Group on private military and security companies. She participated in the development of the Montreux Document regulatory process on private military and security companies, as well as the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Autumn 2023."
"Lunch seminar with Ehlimana Memisevic";"iCourts";"2023-09-13";"12:15";"2023-09-13";"13:15";"University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law, Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), ground floor, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S  & online via Zoom";"Sexual violence as a weapon of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1990-1995: unresolved, unforgotten, and denied";"Sexual violence as a weapon of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1990-1995: unresolved, unforgotten, and denied Abstract Rape and sexual violence were deliberately and methodically used as a weapon of war and genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992-1995. As the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia noted in 1992, rape was used in “particularly sadistic ways” and “intended to humiliate, shame, degrade and terrify the entire ethnic group.” It is estimated that between 20,000 and 50,000 predominantly Muslim girls and women were raped and sexually assaulted. Many of them were detained in „rape camps,“ systematically raped and often forcibly impregnated and intentionally held until it was too late to legally or safely procure an abortion. Some entire towns, like Višegrad or Foča, were turned into rape centers. The widespread use of rape and sexual violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Rwanda in the late twentieth century has laid the ground for international judicial precedents. While the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda decided that rape was a genocidal crime, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) treated it as a crime against humanity. However, the case of Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač, and Zoran Vuković, in which the ICTY found that rape was “used by members of the Bosnian Serb armed forces as an instrument of terror” was a landmark case since it was the first time in history that the combination of sexual enslavement and rape was treated as a crime against humanity and a violation of the rules of war. The ICTY showed serious commitment to prosecuting rape and sexual violence; however, even the worst crimes against women committed in the notorious rape camps still remain 'invisible,' under-reported, and un(der)documented. Of 161 individuals indicted by the ICTY, 93, or 58 percent, faced charges of rape or sexual iolence or had evidence of such violence presented against them at trial, but it is still just a fraction, considering the Tribunal received reports of more than 20,000 rapes. Many victims are still waiting for justice, and some criminals go unpunished, and even convictions do not always result in reparations for victims. In this research, I will analyze the international courts' judgments relating to rape and sexual violence in the context of the recent history of atrocities. It will focus on the contribution of women who survived wartime rape to prosecuting the perpetrators and bringing them to justice. In the second part of this research, I will focus on how these international criminal courts’ judgments relating to rape and sexual violence are received domestically by examining the current narratives in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. It will concentrate on the forms of genocide and war crimes denial, including crimes of rape and sexual violence, which have detrimental effects on the healing processes as well as reconciliation processes. Speaker bio Ehlimana Memišević, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Legal History and Comparative Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Sarajevo. She holds her BA and MA in Law, and PhD in Legal History and Comparative Law. Her major research fields include legal history and genocide studies. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 669 4590 0682Passcode: 862243"
"Lunch seminar with Maciej Krogel";"iCourts";"2023-09-06";"12:15";"2023-09-06";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor & online via Zoom";"The theory of constitutional pluralism and the European Union's responses to the rule of law crisis";"'The theory of constitutional pluralism and the European Union's responses to the rule of law crisis How the notion of constitutional pluralism applies to the European Union’s response to the rule of law crisis? It is rather a common-sense belief that concepts such as heterarchy of legal orders and non-absolute primacy of EU law make the pluralist theory outdated in the time of illiberal national politics. At best, this theory could serve to criticize illegitimate constitutional claims, or to delineate the limits for national or supranational excesses. The paper revisits Neil MacCormick’s works on constitutional pluralism in order to trace ‘the roads not taken’ in the subsequent ‘pluralist movement’ in the European constitutional scholarship. In this way the paper aims to understand why we consider the pluralist theory useless today, and how particular pluralist ideas and discourse resonate in the current EU response to illiberalism. Speaker bio Maciej Krogel is a lecturer in European law at the Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, PhD researcher at the European University Institute in Florence, and fellow in the ‘Re:constitution’ Programme. He is an editor of the European Journal of Legal Studies. He has lectured European Union law and comparative law at universities in Belgium, Denmark, Italy and Portugal. His primary research interests are constitutional theory, constitutional law of the European Union, and the political and social roles of legal scholars. Join Zoom meeting https://ucph-ku.zoom.us/j/61885427370?pwd=dW01VFR3Zm1tWkt3WmdlVEJoT1NFQT09 Meeting ID: 618 8542 7370Passcode: 773484 "
"Book seminar with Christoph Sperfeldt";"iCourts";"2023-08-30";"12:15";"2023-08-30";"13:15";"Room 7A-2-04 (JUSTITIA), Njalsgade 76, 2nd floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Practices of Reparations in International Criminal Justice";"Practices of Reparations in International Criminal Justice During this lunchtime seminar, Christoph Sperfeldt from Macquarie University will discuss his recent book Practices of Reparations in International Criminal Justice (CUP 2022). Combining interdisciplinary techniques with original ethnographic fieldwork, the book examines the first attempts of international criminal courts to provide reparations to victims of mass atrocities. The observations focus on two case studies: the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, where the author spent over ten years working at and around, and the International Criminal Court's interventions in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Enriched with first-hand observations and an awareness of contextual dynamics, the book directs attention to the 'social life of reparations' that too often get lost in formal accounts of law and its institutions. The book shows that reparations are constituted and contested through a range of practices that produce, change, and give meaning to reparations. Appreciating the nature and effects of these practices provides us with a deeper understanding of the discrepancies that exist between the reparations ideal and how it functions imperfectly in different contexts. Speaker bio Christoph Sperfeldt is Senior Lecturer at Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University. He is also Fellow at the Center for Human Rights and International Justice at Stanford University, Honorary Fellow at the Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness and Adjunct Professor at the Center for the Study of Humanitarian Law at the Royal University of Law and Economics in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Prior to joining academia, he worked for more than a decade on human rights and transitional justice in Southeast Asia. Christoph will be visitor at the UCPH Faculty of Law with MOBILE from 7 August to 3 September 2023. Further information: More information about the book is available via this link. Join Zoom Meetinghttps://ucph-ku.zoom.us/j/63169610241?pwd=YWU1WnY3bWpyQ1FqSDVWM1VuMHRCZz09 Meeting ID: 631 6961 0241Passcode: 968451"
"Book launch with Uri Weiss";"iCourts";"2023-08-23";"11:30";"2023-08-23";"12:30";"Room 7A-2-04 (JUSTITIA), 2nd floor, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S";"Games to Play and Games not to Play";"iCourts is hosting a book discussion with Dr Uri Weiss who will present his book ""Games to Play and Games not to Play"" Programme 11:30-11:35 Welcomeby Center Director, Professor Mikael Rask Madsen 11:35-12:00 Presentation of the bookby Uri Weiss, Polonsky Fellow at Polonsky Academy - Van Leer Institute 12:00-12:20 Discussants Associate Professor Shai Dothan To be determined 12:20-12:30 DiscussionChair: Center Director, Professor Mikael Rask Madsen Book abstract We have investigated how to make game theory useful, particularly in promoting peace. We concluded that game theory is most useful by choosing which games not to play, particularly games that may lead to war (or games that may lead to such games), and the best way to do that is by adopting a policy of unconditional honesty (i.e., respecting international law) and conditional generosity. The literature on game theory covers various given games between individual players; it recommends diverse strategies (namely diverse plans of action) for diverse games, particularly those in Nash equilibria, namely, those in which no player benefits from altering strategies while opponents stick to theirs. Surprisingly, sometimes the potential gain from moving from one Nash equilibrium to another is no incentive for players to act accordingly. The literature also covers discussions of what game to design in order to achieve a given goal. This part is the mechanism design theory. Its purpose is to serve social planners ignorant of the preferences of the people involved. We recommend adding to game theory the game of choosing what game to play and what game to refuse to play. This comprises a shift from the maximalist position—aiming to maximize profit—to the minimalist one—aiming at minimizing loss. This raises a discussion of the question, what set of games is advisable to encourage? It is advisable to encourage playing some groups of games, such as trade, and discourages playing other groups of games, such as wars. This shift makes the theory much more applicable to social science: usually, it is impractical to choose what game to play, but it is highly practicable to choose what game not to play and what group of games to play. This requires legislation and similar means; the study of these means aims to improve their use. The extended game theory adds to game theory discussions of equilibria that rest on mistakes—including mistakes as to the choice of a game to play. Discussing the possibility of changing both game and strategy renders game theory part and parcel of social science. Mathematical models do not suffice for this: it requires a clear distinction between describing options and explaining situations. Explanations may lead to efforts at improvement. Speaker bio Dr. Uri Weiss wrote his doctoral dissertation under the supervision of Prof. Robert J. Aumann (a Nobel Prize Winner) and Prof. Ehud Guttel at The Hebrew University. He has recently published his book ""Games to Play and Games not to Play"" (Springer, Springer Nature), a joint book with Joseph Agassi. He wrote the book as a Polonsky fellow at Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. Further information: More information about the book is available at this link: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-27601-9 Join Zoom Meetinghttps://ucph-ku.zoom.us/j/68418281358?pwd=c1A0NWdwZTZCcC9HTVVocDAzWTJqZz09 Meeting ID: 684 1828 1358Passcode: 030447 "
"Breakfast Briefing with Marc Schack";"iCourts";"2023-06-22";"08:45";"2023-06-22";"09:45";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"The Concepts of “War” and “Crisis” in Danish Law";"The Concepts of “War” and “Crisis” in Danish Law In Danish Abstract Danish legislation contains a number of special provisions that can only be activated once Denmark is at war or involved in certain crises or conflicts. Some of these provisions aim to grant Danish authorities special powers that are not available in peacetime. The concepts used in these laws to describe when the rules can be activated are, however, not always clear and unambiguous. Doubts about their scope and proper application can be problematic, namely as Denmark – along with its allies – is confronted with hybrid threats, gray zone conflicts, and other military/security efforts on a seemingly continuous basis. On this basis, Marc Schack will examine the concepts of ‘war’ and ‘crisis’ in Danish law and consider potential security challenges emanating from a lack of clarity and coherence in these rules. The briefing will be held in Danish, but all participants are welcome to contribute with questions and comments in English. About the Speaker Marc Schack is Associate Professor at the Institute for Military Technology, Royal Danish Defence College and a member of the InterMil project, which conducts strategic research and provides research-based public-sector consultancy within the field of military studies. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the International Law Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2023 "
"Lunch seminar with Marthe Engedahl";"iCourts";"2023-06-21";"12:15";"2023-06-21";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor & online via Zoom";"Military Assistance Operations in Armed Conflict: A Study of Norway’s Legal Obligations in Relation to the Assisted Party’s Conduct";"Military Assistance Operations in Armed Conflict: A Study of Norway’s Legal Obligations in Relation to the Assisted Party’s Conduct Abstract During the lunch seminar, Marthe Engedahl will present her ongoing PhD project on military assistance operations and questions related to Norway’s obligations under international law for their military partners’ conduct during international and non-international armed conflict. The focus is on the obligations flowing from the special fields of international humanitarian law (IHL), international human rights law (IHRL) and arms control regimes as well as general international law, including the rules on state responsibility. During her presentation, Marthe will outline the conceptual framework of the thesis, the overall research questions, and the identified sub-questions and research design. As a part of this, Marthe will also address the thesis’ particular focus on Norway and her initial thoughts on the relevance for other states. About the Speaker Marthe is a former military legal advisor of the Norwegian Armed Forces and served six months in Iraq in 2018-2019. Currently, Marthe is a PhD candidate in law at the Faculty of Law, University of Bergen, and is expected to complete her PhD in spring 2026. Click to join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 688 3134 3530Passcode: 275415"
"Lunch seminar with Karen Lønne Ring";"iCourts";"2023-06-14";"12:15";"2023-06-14";"13:15";"Room 6B-4-04, 4th floor, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Judicial discretion in the dark: How an absence of oversight has impacted the evolution of the procedure for reviewing victim applications at the ICC";"Judicial discretion in the dark: How an absence of oversight has impacted the evolution of the procedure for reviewing victim applications at the ICC Abstract At the International Criminal Court (ICC) victims can participate in proceedings. However, in order to gain access to the Court, victims must first apply to be recognised. A cumbersome procedure for reviewing victim applications is set out in Rule 89 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and Regulation 86 of the Regulations of the Court. Early on, however, this proved inoperable within the practical and financial constraints of the Court. Particularly in cases with large numbers of applicants, this resulted in huge backlogs of applications. Consequently, it was abandoned in practice. The Assembly of States Parties (ASP), the governing body of the ICC, recognised this issue and acknowledged the limitations of the framework, but issued no guidelines as to how the issue should be managed. As such, the Chambers have been left in a legal void, as they do not have the required resources to successfully apply the approach stipulated in the legal framework, whilst officially having to do so while the ASP continually remains seized on the matter. The lack of guidance from the governing body has de facto left the necessary amendment of the procedure to the discretion of the judiciary. As a result, Chambers have experimented with varying alternative approaches in order to find solutions to the issue of operationalising the victim-application review system in practice. This paper explores how the procedure for reviewing applications for victim status at the ICC has evolved in practice and how various actors within the Court have influenced this development. Drawing on interviews conducted with actors within the ICC who occupy, or have occupied key positions, the paper examines how these actors have (attempted to) influence the evolution of the procedure for granting victim status, utilizing the lax attitude towards applying the officially sanctioned approach within the Court and the lack of oversight on this issue from the ASP as a spring board for experimenting with new approaches. In doing so, the paper examines the individual and institutional dynamics that effect how this procedure has taken shape, employing a socio-legal approach, using both case-law reviews and semi-structured qualitative interviews. Having examined how the lack of oversight with the applied procedures affect how various actors can influence this process, the paper concludes by drawing on these findings to make broader claims about how oversight, or a lack thereof, can influence judicial policymaking in international criminal law. Speaker bio Karen is a PhD candidate at the Department of Social Sciences and Business at Roskilde University where she conducts research on procedural justice in international criminal law, specifically at the International Criminal Court. In her PhD project, Karen examines the judicialization of victimhood at the ICC by investigating how the procedure for reviewing victim applications has evolved in practice. She employs empirical methods (semi-structured elite interviews) to discern what ideas and conceptions of victims and their role in proceedings are held by practitioners and how they have influenced the legal construction of victimhood at the Court. She holds a Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s Degree in Law from the University of Copenhagen. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 649 2321 9276Passcode: 293587 "
"iCourts PhD Summer School 2023";"The Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts)";"2023-06-12";"";"2023-06-16";"";"The Faculty of Law: Njalsgade 76, 2300 Copenhagen S.";"PhD Summer School 2023.";" The Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts) is hosting a Summer School for ambitious PhD students working on international courts and international bodies and organizations broadly in their social and political contexts. We particularly welcome applications from students whose projects have a strong empirical approach, who are from the Global South and whose projects center on non-European institutions. The idea The iCourts PhD Summer School is a celebration of intellectual curiosity, academic cooperation, and professional networking. In its 11th year, the Summer School has challenged and assisted more than 200 PhD students from around the world. Students who sign up for the Summer School will meet an engaged group of both young and senior scholars who look forward to sharing their experience and knowledge with you. Din internetbrowser understøtter ikke iframes. Det betyder, at videoen iCourts Summer School ikke kan afspilles. Listen to PhD Student Sarah Scott Ford describing her experience as a participant of the digital Summer School 2020. As a participant You are expected to take an active part in the scholarly discussions, to present your own work, and to give feedback to your co-participants. The 2023 Summer School will be held in person at the University of Copenhagen’s Faculty of Law. The leaflet Download the PDF leaflet here. The participants The summer school will admit up to 24 PhD students and is designed for students in the early stages of their research. To be admitted to the program, students must be enrolled in a doctoral program. Students must submit a description of their research project as part of the application as the key focus of the summer program is to help students improve their research projects. Students should be prepared to refine and change their projects in light of the feedback given during the summer school; thus, the optimal time to participate in the summer school is after students have an approved project and after they have surveyed the relevant literature. The students may have begun research, but it is better to participate before any serious writing up of findings. The programme structure Lectures Faculty members will teach a session related to their own research interests and methodological approaches. They will present some of their own work and discuss methodological issues related to researching a specified topic. Students will have assigned readings (approximately 200 pages) that they prepare in advance. Working group sessions Small groups of 4-5 students will be formed based on similarity or complementarity of topics and methods. These groups of students will meet every day with researchers from iCourts to work on methodological issues related to their own projects. Social programme As an integrated part of the Summer School, iCourts’ PhD students and Postdocs will arrange sightseeing in the city of Copenhagen. Evenings Most evenings will involve homework — doing readings for the next morning’s lecture and preparing assignments for the working group session. Your host iCourts is a research centre dedicated to the study of international courts, their role in a globalising legal order and their impact on politics and society. iCourts opened in March 2012 as a Centre of Excellence funded by a large grant from the Danish National Research Foundation. After a successful midterm evaluation in 2016 it was extended until 2022. Since its founding, iCourts has contributed to transforming the scholarly and practical understanding of international courts (ICs) at both the global and regional level by developing and applying novel theoretical and methodological tools. Research from iCourts provided the first systematic, comparative, and empirical analysis of the creation and evolution of a growing number of ICs throughout the world and generated new ways to investigate and explain the operation and authority of ICs across the globe. Since its inception, iCourts has continually expanded its remit to foster and promote a diversity of techniques to contextualise and break open the international legal sphere. It is these methodological insights in particular that the staff at the summer school work to pass on to young, innovative PhD scholars. To read more about iCourts’ current projects, click here. Founded in 1479, the University of Copenhagen is among the oldest universities in Northern Europe. The Faculty of Law was among the four original faculties and about 4,500 students are enrolled in the legal programmes. In 2017, the Faculty of Law moved to South Campus in completely new buildings with excellent facilities and green outdoor areas. Since its founding, iCourts has contributed to transforming the scholarly and practical understanding of international courts (ICs) at both the global and regional level by developing and applying novel theoretical and methodological tools. Research from iCourts provided the first systematic, comparative, and empirical analysis of the creation and evolution of a growing number of ICs throughout the world and generated new ways to investigate and explain the operation and authority of ICs across the globe. Since its inception, iCourts has continually expanded its remit to foster and promote a diversity of techniques to contextualise and break open the international legal sphere. It is these methodological insights in particular that the staff at the summer school work to pass on to young, innovative PhD scholars. To read more about iCourts’ current projects, click here. Founded in 1479, the University of Copenhagen is among the oldest universities in Northern Europe. The Faculty of Law was among the four original faculties and about 4,500 students are enrolled in the legal programmes. In 2017, the Faculty of Law moved to South Campus in completely new buildings with excellent facilities and green outdoor areas. The Faculty All faculty of the iCourtsSummer School are experienced and leading experts on international courts from Europe and the United States. Lecturers Professor Mikael Rask Madsen, Director of iCourts University of Copenhagen, DK Professor Karen Alter, Political Science and Law, Northwestern University, US/DK Professor Mikkel Jarle Christensen, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Associate Professor Anne Lise Kjær, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Associate Professor Shai Dothan, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Associate Professor Amalie Frese, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Assistant Professor Jacob Livingston Slosser, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Assistant Professor Zuzanna Godzimirska, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Organising Committee Assistant Professor, Zuzanna Godzimirska, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Assistant Professor, Jacob Livingston Slosser, iCourts, University of Copenhagen, DK Fee and scholarships The fee for attending the Summer School is 250 EUR. The organizing committee is currently applying for funding to offer financial support to 3 PhD scholars taking into account the quality of the projects. If successful, the grants will cover travel and accommodation during the conference, as well as the registration fee.If you wish to apply for an iCourts grant, please indicate so in the registration form. It is important for us to know whether your participation is contingent on obtaining an iCourts grant. Applications for grants must be submitted at the time of registration. "
"Breakfast Briefing with Marthe Engedahl";"iCourts";"2023-05-25";"08:45";"2023-05-25";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Military Assistance Operations in Armed Conflict: A Study of Norway’s Legal Obligations in Relation to the Assisted Party’s Conduct";"Military Assistance Operations in Armed Conflict: A Study of Norway’s Legal Obligations in Relation to the Assisted Party’s Conduct Abstract During the breakfast briefing, Marthe Engedahl will present her ongoing PhD project on military assistance operations and questions related to Norway’s obligations under international law for their military partners’ conduct during international and non-international armed conflict. The focus is on the obligations flowing from the special fields of international humanitarian law (IHL), international human rights law (IHRL) and arms control regimes as well as general international law, including the rules on state responsibility. During her presentation, Marthe will outline the conceptual framework of the thesis, the overall research questions, and the identified sub-questions and research design. As a part of this, Marthe will also address the thesis’ particular focus on Norway and her initial thoughts on the relevance for other states. About the Speaker Marthe is a former military legal advisor of the Norwegian Armed Forces and served six months in Iraq in 2018-2019. Currently, Marthe is a PhD candidate in law at the Faculty of Law, University of Bergen, and is expected to complete her PhD in spring 2026. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2023 "
"Roundtable with Matej Slavik";"";"2023-05-24";"12:15";"2023-05-24";"13:15";" Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor & online via Zoom ";"";"The presented project aims to offer a new perspective on the development of constitutionalism in post-1989 East Central Europe (ECE), with regard to specific post-revolutionary constitutional realities of that era. It has been suggested rather recently, and with modest academic attention, that the constitutional and legalistic nature of the 1989 revolutions was far from given at the time, however natural it may seem to us today (Blokker, 2015). This research project aims to show that a similar claim could be made regarding the seemingly unshakable position of liberal constitutionalism which is considered to be a dominant design of post-revolutionary political systems in the region (Ginsburg, Huq, Versteeg, 2018) to which there was no viable alternative within relevant constitutional and political discourses. The underlying thesis of the project builds on the hypothesis pointing in the opposite direction – distinctive accounts of constitutionalism boosted by various expert groups and actors posed a significant challenge to the dominance of its liberal form. The early development of constitutionalism in the post-1989 ECE will be reconstructed in the presented project through identification of such expert actors, together with the analysis of their contributions to a) constitutional scholarship, b) formal processes of constitution-making and institution-building. Particular attention will be paid to the role of western-based expert actors. Recent literature suggests that the current populist backlash in the ECE (primarily in Poland and Hungary, but also in Romania or Slovenia) stems from a supposedly humiliating process of “catching-up with” or “imitating the West” (Krastev, Holmes, 2020) which was propelled by western legal advisors (Hammerslev, 2011) and is now often rejected by populist leaders. There has been, however, scarce evidence to support the view that the policies designed to bring the ECE countries “back to Europe” were in fact imposed by the West upon these countries. To map out the main networks of expert actors active in the relevant constitutional debates and the supposedly robust transfers of ideas associated with their activities could offer a more substantiated insight into the problem. Going beyond the usual focus on the case law of apex courts, the presented approach should facilitate a deeper understanding of constitutionalism and its origins in the context of post-1989 ECE, which is crucial for tackling the crisis it finds itself in today. Speaker bio Matěj Slavík is a PhD student at the University of Copenhagen and a research fellow at the Institute of Contemporary History of the Czech Academy of Sciences. He holds a master's degree in law from Charles University (2022). He is a member of the VolkswagenStiftung-sponsored project Towards Illiberal Constitutionalism in East Central Europe: Historical Analysis in Comparative and Transnational Perspectives. His research concerns the rise of liberal constitutionalism in post-1989 East Central Europe and a related process of constitutional transfers between ""East and the West"" during the 1990's. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 613 0475 1000Passcode: 182344 "
"Lecture by Martti Koskenniemi ";"iCourts";"2023-05-23";"14:15";"2023-05-23";"16:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor & online via Zoom";"To The Uttermost parts of the Earth: Transformations of Natural Law 1661-1873 (and beyond)";"To the Uttermost parts of the Earth: Transformations of Natural Law 1661-1873 (and beyond) This lecture takes its starting-point in Martti Koskenniemi’s recent book To the Uttermost parts of the Earth. Legal Imagination and International Power 1300-1870”. It will focus on the last chapters of that work by examining, in the German context, the transformations of the idiom of natural law into an early modern political science, national economy, ""social art"", philosophy and, eventually, “public international law”. It suggests that far from being over, natural law lives today within many of our inherited political and legal vocabularies. After the lecture there will be a reception in 'Pejsestuen' (7A-0-16) right next to the Flexroom. Speaker bio Martti Koskenniemi is Professor Emeritus of International law at the University of Helsinki. He has been member of the Finnish diplomatic service and of the International Law Commission (UN). He is a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy and a Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has worked as diplomat with the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (1978-1994) and been a judge with the Administrative Tribunal of the Asian Development Bank. He was a member of the International Law Commission (UN) in 2002-2006. He has been Hauser Global Visiting Professor of Law at NYU since 1997 and had several visiting professorships across the world. He has received honorary doctorates from the universities of Uppsala, McGill, Frankfurt, Tartu and the European University Institute (EUI, Florence). His main publications include From Apology to Utopia; The Structure of International Legal Argument (1989/2005), The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870-1960 (2001), The Politics of International Law (2011) and To the Uttermost Parts of the Earth: Legal Imagination and International Power 1300-1870 (2021). Please register for the event via this link. Click to join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 678 4570 4441Passcode: 565342"
"Lunch seminar with Max Lowenstein ";"iCourts";"2023-05-16";"12:15";"2023-05-16";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57 (the Flexroom), Njalsgade 76, ground floor & online via Zoom";"International Court Sentencing Explanations Framework: Purpose and Impact?";"International Court Sentencing Explanations Framework: Purpose and Impact? Any International Court (although, we will focus on the ICC) like any domestic jurisdictions’ courts, is legally obligated to sentence appropriately and to explain the meaning/impact of the sentences given to the defendant, courtroom actors and the global public. Beyond language/disability accessibility, understanding the clarity, consistency and fairness of sentencing communication processes speaks to the level of accessibility/inclusion, each courtroom provides. Judges, lawyers, and defendants to whom they are primarily directed within the courtroom, can most help to define the purpose (meaning) and impact (application) of sentencing explanations. This talk will consider communicative justice (denunciation) theory and the value of gathering courtroom actor perspectives to help align this more to actual legal practice. This talk concludes that there is a dearth of qualitative research into sentencing communication best practices globally. Given the importance of International Court sentencing explanations to sentencing transparency and judicial legitimacy, beyond mere punishment for each defendant, more qualitative data should be gathered to enhance our global understanding of them to help reform our International Courts sentencing practices. Speaker bio Dr Max Lowenstein is a law academic, with an expertise in comparative law, criminal justice (sentencing) and equality (disability) law. His comparative criminal justice research considers sentencing communications, primarily from the judicial and public perspectives. His understanding of legal communications best practice, particularly from disabled perspectives, has assisted judges, lawyers, and academics in courtroom procedural and sentencing reform. Online Profile: http://staffprofiles.bournemouth.ac.uk/displaymlowenstein Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 678 6225 7118Passcode: 280064"
"Breakfast Briefing with Solon Solomon";"iCourts";"2023-05-11";"08:45";"2023-05-11";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Civilian War Trauma and Jus Post Bellum: Exploring the Nexus between Trauma, Disability and Transitional Justice";"Civilian War Trauma and Jus Post Bellum: Exploring the Nexus between Trauma, Disability and Transitional Justice Abstract In recent years, scholars have started arguing how civilian mental harm in warfare must be acknowledged as a parameter of legal importance even in cases such harm has incidentally occurred. This postulation has begotten in turn further questions on what kind of mental harm and how severity can be juxtaposed to the anticipated military advantage. Scholars have tried to address these questions, yet so far, nothing has been said on the role incidentally incurred civilian war trauma can play in the realms of jus post bellum. Taking thus the thread from where other scholars have left it when it comes to the laws of war, the seminar will discuss the role civilian mental harm can play in a jus post bellum framework as a consideration begetting legal obligations for the restoration of the status quo ante when it comes to the affected enemy civilians’ mental health. On these grounds, the presentation will discuss such harm as disability, examining these obligations through the lens of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. About the Speaker Currently Lecturer in the Division of Public & International Law at the Brunel University London School of Law and co-Director of the BUL International Law Group, Solon Solomon has served as visiting lecturer or fellow in a number of academic institutions including King’s College London, Humboldt University in Berlin, Tel Aviv University and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. Author of the book ‘The Justiciability of International Disputes: Israel’s Advisory Opinion’, cited before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and co-editor of a volume on the laws of war in courts and quasi-judicial bodies, his research has recently appeared in the Journal of Conflict & Security Law and the Journal of International Dispute Settlement. With an extensive media presence, his opinions have been hosted in a number of media outlets, including The Times, The Financial Times, The Newsweek Magazine, Haaretz, BBC Mundo and The Independent. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the International Law Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2023"
"Book launch with Ulf Linderfalk";"iCourts";"2023-05-10";"12:15";"2023-05-10";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"The International Legal System as a System of Knowledge";"iCourts is hosting a book discussion with Ulf Linderfalk who will present his latest book The International Legal System as a System of Knowledge Programme 12:15-12:20 Welcomeby Professor Mikael Rask Madsen, Center Director 12:20-12:45 Presentation of the bookby Ulf Linderfalk, Professor of International Law, Faculty of Law, Lund University 12:45-13:05 DiscussantsJoanna Lam, Professor with special responsibilitiesCornelius Wiesener, Assistant Professor 13:05-13:15 General debatechaired by Professor Mikael Rask Madsen, Center Director Author bio Ulf Linderfalk is Professor of International Law in the Faculty of Law, Lund University, which he joined in 2001. Linderfalk is a specialized generalist. His research – throughout directed at the understanding of the systemic fabric of international law, rather than its many technical details – has engaged with a great number of areas of international law. It has examined issues arising from generally occurring phenomena, such as normative conflict, legal hierarchy, legal interpretation, legal principles, legal concepts and conceptual terms, good faith, abuse of rights, proportionality, the application of law over time, the exercise of discretion in international law, the concept of a special regime, and different conceptions of an international legal system. He is the author of four monographs – including ‘The International Legal System as a System of Knowledge’ (Edward Elgar, 2022), ‘Understanding Jus Cogens in International Law and International Legal Discourse’ (Edward Elgar, 2020), and ‘On the Interpretation of Treaties (Springer, 2007) – two textbooks (both of which are available in updated third editions); four co-edited volumes; and a total of some 40 articles in high-ranking peer-reviewed international law journals. Further information More information about the book is available at this link. Click to join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 689 9892 9680Passcode: 641175"
"Lunch seminar with Katarzyna Krzyżanowska";"iCourts";"2023-05-03";"12:15";"2023-05-03";"13:15";"Room 7A-2-04 (JUSTITIA), Njalsgade 76, 2nd floor & online via Zoom";"Constitutional identity – A Perspective from the Polish Constitutional Agents ";"Constitutional identity – A Perspective from the Polish Constitutional Agents Abstract Though national constitutional identity has become a topical issue in the very recent years and numerous doctrinal or historical studies have already analysed the content of the judgements, there is still very little research on this topic from the socio-legal perspective. Thus, the thesis takes the case of Poland, the EU member state that underwent significant constitutional changes in the past few years, and applies sociological methods to discover how the constitutional actors, including judges and the clerks— the former and the current ones — are envisioning the concept of constitutional identity and how different it is from the definition provided in Article 4(2) TEU. The precise question that this PhD thesis is attempting to answer is how the Polish constitutional judges understand constitutional identity and how do they envision the relation between the national constitutional arrangements and the EU primacy principle in light of the recent constitutional developments, broadly known as the rule of law crisis. The thesis then examines the people who are responsible for the construction of the Polish constitutional imaginary, their ideas, and the different ways of expressing resistance towards the EU legal order since Poland joined the EU in 2004. The more ambitious goal is to analyse whether the constitutional identity concept hinders or rather enhances European integration, and what is the role of the core constitutional actors — judges —in this process. To this end, the thesis makes use of the socio-legal method of semi-structured interviews conducted with the constitutional judges and clerks, which are focused on the background knowledge of the EU making the judges to decide in a particular way the constitutional problems with European dimension. The empirical part of the thesis gathers insights from the public interventions or publications made by the judges on the European topics. The thesis takes stock of the extant and robust literature on national constitutional identity as understood by scholars and judicial practitioners in the European Union. Firstly, it engages with the sociology of concepts and attempts to understand “how normative ideas are formed by, and how they in turn help to form, processes of social evolution”, in this respect: the EU integration (Thornhill 2021: 14). At least two approaches to national constitutional identity could be dissected from this scholarship: the first one treats national identity in essentialist terms and discusses, in historical terms, the essential elements of this identity, whereas the second one approaches this concept as a tool for mediating or creating conflicts over the legal primacy in the EU. Here, diverse conceptualisations of those conflicts are discussed. Secondly, the thesis provides an overview on the European legal landscape of the uses and misuses of constitutional identity by diverse apex courts and the ECJ. Thirdly, the thesis provides an empirical analysis of the interviews with the judges and their ideas on the EU integration and EU constitutionalization. Fourthly, the assessment of the doctrinal, normative and empirical findings is conducted. Fifthly, the thesis ponders over the consequence of the current rule of law crisis and attempts to answer questions like: should we double down on European dimension or there is still appreciation of particularity, and asks if the concept of constitutional identity has been tainted only recently or perhaps it was the case even before. Speaker bio Katarzyna is a PhD candidate at the European University Institute, Department of Law, where she conducts a research on the judicial understanding of constitutional identity in times of the rule of law crisis (the case of Poland). She employs empirical methods (semi-structured interviews with the constitutional judges and the clerks) to discern the ways in which judges conceive of the relations between the national constitutional law and EU law. For her studies, she visited the Centre of Law and Society at Cardiff University (2022) and the Institute for European Studies at ULB (2023). Katarzyna is also an editor of the Review of Democracy, an online platform issued by the CEU Democracy Institute, where she is a Head of the Review of Books section Click to join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 695 9224 5003Passcode: 981836"
"Digitalisation of justice and Predictive justice: European and Asian perspectives";"University of Copenhagen and Roma Tre University";"2023-05-02";"09:15";"2023-05-02";"12:00";"Microsoft Teams";"Hybrid Conference - May 2nd, 2023";"Hybrid Conference - May 2nd, 2023 - The Second Conference on Digitalization and Legal CultureDipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Università Roma Tre - Sala del Consiglio On Microsoft Teams 9:15 Introductory RemarksGiorgio Resta (Roma Tre University)Said Gulyamov (Tashkent State University of Law)9:35 National PerspectivesIndia: Purvi Pokhariyal (National Forensic Science University, Gandhinagar)Hungary: Boldizsár Artúr Szentgáli-Tóth (Centre for Social Sciences),Bettina Bor (Centre for Social Sciences)Georgia: Giorgi Amiranashvili (Tbilisi State University)Denmark: Hanne Marie Motzfeldt (University of Copenhagen)Uzbekistan: Anna Ubaydullaeva (Tashkent State University of Law)Italy: Stefano Guerra (Università di Urbino, Uni4Justice Project)China: Wen Xiang (University of Copenhagen, iCourts)Q&A Session11:40 Conclusive RemarksYulia Razmetaeva (Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ukraine)ModeratorsSimone Benvenuti, Sirio Zolea(Roma Tre University) Flyer (pdf)"
"Breakfast Briefing with Marie Thøgersen";"iCourts";"2023-04-27";"08:45";"2023-04-27";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Obligations of Non-Belligerent States when Hackers on their Territory Engage in Armed Conflicts";"Obligations of Non-Belligerent States when Hackers on their Territory Engage in Armed Conflicts Abstract One of the most striking aspects of cyberspace is the diffusion of power to the individual. Even a single person can, from the comfort of her/his own home, cause considerable harm to States on the other side of the globe. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, both belligerents have successfully deployed novel techniques for the mobilization of individuals in cyberspace. The absence of geographical boundaries in cyberspace triggers important questions regarding the international legal implications for States whose territories are being used for such operations. To assess how the legal framework stands the test of reality, this presentation examines how international law applies to malicious cyber operations against Russia orchestrated by the IT Army of Ukraine. After a legal characterization of the activities of the IT Army, it scrutinizes the legal norms conferring obligations on territorial States and accounts for the prevailing ambiguities surrounding their application. The principle of due diligence entails an obligation for States to not allow their territories to be used for cyber operations affecting the rights of, and producing serious adverse consequences for, other States. Special challenges surround the assessment in the context of an armed conflict; the legal consequences of aggression imply important nuances to the notion of ‘contrary to the rights of a State’. Based on an analysis of how the legal framework applies to the activities of the IT Army of Ukraine, it is concluded that for non-belligerents, the legality of refraining from exercising due diligence will often be contingent on contentious legal questions regarding countermeasures and self-defence. About the Speaker Marie Thøgersen is a Ph.D. fellow at iCourts, University of Copenhagen, and the Institute for Military Technology, Royal Danish Defence College. Her research explores the international legal implications of the involvement of hackers in armed conflicts. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the International Law Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2023 "
"Lunch seminar with Basak Çali";"iCourts";"2023-04-26";"12:15";"2023-04-26";"13:15";"Room 7A-2-04 (JUSTITIA), Njalsgade 76, 2nd floor & online via Zoom";"The Present and the Future of Infringement Proceedings of the Council of Europe: Lessons learned from Kavala v. Türkiye";"The Present and the Future of Infringement Proceedings of the Council of Europe: Lessons learned from Kavala v. Türkiye The Council of Europe is headed to its fourth summit under the shadow, most likely, of the unimplemented infringement proceedings judgment in the case of Kavala v. Türkiye. The aim of this article is to investigate what this persistent non-implementation teaches us for the present as well as for the future reform of infringement proceedings monitoring. Strengthening this is of inestimable importance for the future credibility of the Council of Europe, as well as the authority of the European Court of Human Rights in general. The lack of a clear strategy for handling non-implementation of infringement proceedings will have a dissuasive effect on the further use of such proceedings by the Committee of Ministers, it removes any teeth proceedings were ever intended to have. In this article I argue that the future of the effective monitoring of judgments resulting from infringement proceedings depends on: a) the foreseeable proceduralisation of the mechanisms to exert pressure on non-implementing states and, b), further judicialisation of the ECtHR’s handling of the remedies required to implement judgments resulting from infringement proceedings. In conclusion, I reflect on possible objections to this double call of proceduralisation and judicialisation as the basis of reform. Speaker bio Basak Çali is Professor of International Law at the Hertie School, Co-Director of the School's Centre for Fundamental Rights and a permanent visiting professor at iCourts. She is a legal representative of Mr. Kavala with respect to the infringement proceedings before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 625 9304 7104Passcode: 327554 "
"Roundtable with Guillaume Larouche";"iCourts";"2023-04-25";"12:15";"2023-04-25";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"International Courts (Trans)formations: The Role of European Lawyers in the 'Fabrique' of the International Criminal Court and the Proposed Multilateral Investment Court ";"International Courts (Trans)formations: The Role of European Lawyers in the 'Fabrique' of the International Criminal Court and the Proposed Multilateral Investment Court Abstract The view that the rule of law exported outside Europe is substantive, because it comprises liberal democratic values, has reached a certain level of consensus among European institutions and scholars. Pursuant to this view, European international law policies have focused on the creation and support of strong “international rule of law institutions,” such as international courts and tribunals, leading to their “Europeanization.” This view is generally relying on legal politics or legal normativity approaches to the study of law. Going beyond the story of law and legal doctrine, this research project mobilizes the theoretical lens provided by Pierre Bourdieu’s reflective sociology and field theory, as well as the scholarship of post-Bourdieu socio-legal scholars, and the conceptual insights provided by Bruno Latour. Using the methodological toolbox they provide – lengthy interviews, relational biographies, ‘artefacts’ analysis, and participant observation stays – this research aims to capture the daily export processes of the European conception of the rule of law by European lawyers. This research project, which takes place at the confluence of the European and international legal fields, investigates how European lawyers and the socialization instruments they use influence the process of exporting the European conception of the rule of law in the context of the (trans)formations of the International Criminal Court and the proposed Multilateral Investment Court. It suggests that the conception of the international rule of law put forward by European lawyers through the exportation process in the international legal fields depends on their own analyses and priorities and potentially diverges from the European institutional conception of the rule of law. This research project ultimately argues that the cosmopolitan composition of the international legal fields studied allows a more favourable environment for the transplantation of the European conception of the rule of law at the international level. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 658 2891 3360Passcode: 749603 "
"IMAGINE/iCourts lunch seminar with Jacob van de Beeten";"IMAGINE/iCourts";"2023-04-19";"12:15";"2023-04-19";"13:15";"Online via Zoom";"Post integration through law: an immanent critique of the systemic rationality of EU law";"Post integration through law: An immanent critique of the systemic rationality of EU law Abstract Integration through law tends to be assessed from the perspective of the effects it produces, but more than a set of rules, EU law is also a language which frames the project of integration on its own terms. From a legal perspective, European integration is first and an exercise in legal order building and the authority of the ECJ is premised on maintaining that order. Whilst EU law is often conceptualized as an instrument to realize the objectives of integration and the values on which the EU is founded, I argue such an understanding is premised on the idea of EU legal order as a legal system. It does so through discursive techniques which exhibit a systemic rationality, this is a form of reasoning (1) aims to maintain EU legal order; (2) has a self-referential character; (3) and operates through a process of dynamic stabilisation. Rendering explicit the systemic rationality at the core of EU law forms a first step in the process of rethinking what European integration should be about. Speaker bio Jacob van de Beeten writes a PhD at the London School of Economics under the supervision of prof. Mike Wilkinson and Dr. De Witte. He is interested in the way EU law frames the experience of European integration and the performative role of language in legal discourse. Join Zoom meeting Meeting ID: 611 9646 4002Passcode: 892014"
"IMAGINE/iCourts seminar with Teresa Violante";"IMAGINE/iCourts";"2023-04-13";"12:15";"2023-04-13";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Employing weak judicial review to manage conflicts of authority between constitutional courts and the Court of Justice";"Employing weak judicial review to manage conflicts of authority between constitutional courts and the Court of Justice Abstract Despite the Court of Justice’s unconditional and absolute version of primacy, several national courts that exercise constitutional jurisdiction have expressed their view that primacy is a relative yardstick, based not on the autonomy of EU law but on their national constitutions. Some of these courts have also expressly clarified being prepared to deflect the primacy of EU law over national constitutional law in particular circumstances, thereby enforcing the principle of the primacy of the constitution. In some situations, typical of contexts of constitutional pluralism, conflicting claims of final authority have occurred between national courts with constitutional jurisdiction and the Court of Justice. Although these cases carry the disintegrative potential of EU law, courts usually develop methods to reduce friction and assure mutual accommodation. I wish to explore how, through weak judicial review, courts performing constitutional review can, in these situations, control the extent of the conflict. Speaker bio Teresa Violante is a Research Fellow and a Phd Candidate at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg and a Visiting Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg. She holds a graduate degree in law (University of Coimbra) and a European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratization (University of Padova), and lectures on fundamental rights and constitutional law. In her Phd project, she investigates on weak judicial review by European constitutional courts, understood as the mechanisms that these courts have developed to soften the authority of their rulings near the political branches. She publishes widely on matters of comparative constitutional law and European law. She is also the Director of the Institute for the Global Rule of Law of the European Public Law Organization. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 689 7564 5107Passcode: 431749 "
"Breakfast Briefing with Hjalte Osborn Frandsen";"iCourts";"2023-04-13";"08:45";"2023-04-13";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Governance in a Time of Rapid Expansion, Privatization and Militarization of Human Presence in Outer Space: Contemporary Issues in International Space Law";"Governance in a Time of Rapid Expansion, Privatization and Militarization of Human Presence in Outer Space: Contemporary Issues in International Space Law Abstract On the 28 December, the private company SpaceX launched its 61st rocket of 2022, adding 54 satellites to its burgeoning mega-constellation of more than 3000 satellites. For comparison, the European Space Agency launched six rockets in 2022 and operates 22 satellites in total. During the first months of the Russian assault on Ukraine, several commercial space companies stepped in to provide vital satellite imageries and space-based internet in support of the Ukrainian armed forces. This exemplifies the three currently dominant trends of human space activities: expansion, securitization and privatization. The global space industry is currently undergoing the most fundamental and swift changes since the original space race ended when Neil Armstrong placed the first boot marks on the moon in 1969. The rapid changes raise a number of serious governance issues in areas such as national security, environmental protection and rule of law in outer space. The briefing will address these trends through the lens of international efforts to govern the increasingly contested and congested region of Low Earth Orbit. About the Speaker After obtaining a M.Sc. in International Law, Economics and Management and a LL.M. from Copenhagen Business School and University of Copenhagen, Hjalte Osborn Frandsen has worked as an entrepreneur, management consultant, and researcher at the nexus of technological change, sustainability, and governance. Hjalte’s Ph.D. project in International Space Law explores avenues for better governance in the increasingly congested and contested region of Low Earth Orbit. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the International Law Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2023"
"Lunch seminar with Raphael Oidtmann";"iCourts";"2023-04-12";"12:15";"2023-04-12";"13:15";"Room 7A-2-04 (JUSTITIA), Njalsgade 76, 2nd floor & online via Zoom";"Fighting Impunity Through Intermediaries – The European Union, International Criminal Justice, and the Rule of Law in Times of War";"Fighting Impunity Through Intermediaries – The European Union, International Criminal Justice, and the Rule of Law in Times of War Abstract Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) enshrines the rule of law as a foundational principle governing the European Union (EU) and distinguishes it as a value shared amongst its Member States. The long-lived conviction that the rule of law would constitute a given certainty firmly established across the European continent, however, has been contested in recent years. This notwithstanding, the EU has continued to support and strengthen (multilateral) judicial institutions abroad under a distinct rule of law paradigm. The EU has hence particularly increased its efforts to bolster the rule of law through the domains of international criminal justice and human rights protection, thereby fighting impunity for international crimes through distinct international (adjudicative) fora, such as the International Criminal Court. The EU’s very own definition of impunity as well as the notion of how this perception might influence respective EU policies and legislation, however, has remained rather vague - including with a view towards the eventual prosecution of and adjudication on international crimes. The project aims at comprehensively retracing, analysing, and contextualising the direct and indirect patterns by and through which the EU has attempted to empower intermediaries in international criminal justice, thereby supporting their fight against impunity. Speaker bio Raphael currently serves as a parliamentary and legal advisor to the State Parliament of Hesse and holds further appointments as adjunct lecturer at Mannheim Law School, as associate researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, as associate postgraduate (‘doctorant associé’) at Centre Marc Bloch, and as global fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University. Previously, he was the scientific advisor to the executive director at the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF) and held positions as a research fellow and lecturer at the universities of Mannheim and Mainz. Holding master’s degrees in political science, international and comparative law, and international relations, he currently is an external PhD candidate at the Institute of Political Science at Goethe University Frankfurt. He was a visiting researcher at iCourts in August 2020. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 621 3969 4669Passcode: 908645"
"Lunch seminar with Caroline Henckels";"iCourts";"2023-03-31";"12:15";"2023-03-31";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"The metaphor of dialogue and investor-state dispute settlement";"The metaphor of dialogue and investor-state dispute settlement Abstract The public law model of interpretive dialogue describes the interaction between legislatures and courts when interpreting constitutional rights. This model may also be apt to describe the relationship between states and investment tribunals when interpreting provisions of investment treaties. This article observes several instances of state-tribunal interaction, suggesting that dialogical mechanisms are to some extent affecting the evolution of international investment law in the manner that states intend, but not consistently so. Tribunals have in some cases accepted states’ views as to the meaning of treaty provisions in relation to states’ interventions as non-disputing parties, internal documentation of states related to the conclusion of a treaty, and unilateral interpretations of treaty provisions. In relation to what the article terms ‘second look’ cases, tribunals have also in some instances afforded a measure of deference to states’ responses to prior tribunal decisions in relation to joint interpretations of treaty parties and the creation of a new model bilateral investment treaty. Overall, however, states’ attempts to engage in dialogue with tribunals has had mixed success. This suggests that in order to secure interpretations of investment treaties that accord with their intentions, states should not rely solely on dialogic mechanisms, but may also need to take further steps to clarify their investment treaties through renegotiation and ensuring new treaties are adequately precise. Speaker bio Dr Caroline Henckels is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law at Monash University. Caroline researches in the areas of public international law (with a focus on international economic law) and public law, and has published with the European Journal of International Law, the Journal of International Economic Law, the International and Comparative Law Quarterly and Cambridge University Press, among others. She is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of International Economic Law and UNCTAD's Transnational Corporations journal, and is an Associate Editor of the Journal of World Investment and Trade. Caroline also serves as peer reviewer for numerous academic journals and book publishers. Before joining Monash, Caroline was a Vice-Chancellor's Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Law at the University of New South Wales. She has also taught law at the University of Cambridge and the University of Melbourne. She holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge, an LLM from the University of Melbourne and an LLB from Victoria University of Wellington. Caroline is admitted to practice law in the Australian federal, New Zealand and Victoria state jurisdictions, and practices as a Clinical Supervisor at Monash Law Clinics, running the Faculty's TradeLab clinical program in international trade and investment law. Click to join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 646 3317 5012Passcode: 706498"
"Breakfast Briefing with Jakob Dideriksen";"iCourts";"2023-03-23";"08:45";"2023-03-23";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"HDMS Esbern Snare in the Gulf of Guinea: Piracy, Self-Defence, and Lessons Identified";"HDMS Esbern Snare in the Gulf of Guinea: Piracy, Self-Defence, and Lessons Identified Abstract In 2021, the Danish warship Esbern Snare deployed to the Gulf of Guinea on a counter-piracy mission. A few weeks into the mission, Esbern Snare engaged a group of suspected pirates, resulting in four dead people, one seriously wounded, and a court trial in Denmark. Many legal issues were debated in relation to the deployment, including the law of the sea, use of force in law enforcement operations, and questions related to transfer and prosecution of piracy suspects. As desk officer in the Danish Ministry of Defence, Jakob Dideriksen was involved in the mission before, during, and after the deployment. Jakob will give a presentation on some of the issues that came up, including the legal mandate, and questions related to the lack of transfer agreements with states in the region, and what that meant for the overall military mission. About the Speaker Jakob Dideriksen works as a legal adviser in the Danish Ministry of Defence. He was previously employed as a military legal adviser in the Danish armed forces, with several deployments, including with the Royal Danish Navy in counter-piracy missions off Somalia. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the International Law Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2023"
"Lunch seminar with Francesca Leucci";"iCourts";"2023-03-22";"12:15";"2023-03-22";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"The Efficiency of Remedies for Environmental Harm: A Comparative Law and Economic Analysis of Natural Resource Damage Valuations in Courts";"The Efficiency of Remedies for Environmental Harm: A Comparative Law and Economic Analysis of Natural Resource Damage Valuations in Courts Imagine a river surrounded by villages and farmlands. Then, imagine a tailings dam linked to that river where the byproducts of close mining operations are stored. One day that dam might collapse and all the toxic waste might flood the near villages. Contaminated mudslides might kill people, fishes, plants and ultimately end up in countless human and ecological health damages in the short and the long run. Some questions arise here. Set aside human rights (pecuniary and nonpecuniary) damages, how much should the mining company pay for the lost natural resources? And would that price be enough to incentivise other mining companies to invest in prevention in order to avoid similar accidents in the future? The starting point of this research is represented by a proceeding instituted before the International Court of Justice in 2010. At that time, the Republic of Costa Rica sued the Republic of Nicaragua for an alleged “incursion into, occupation and use by Nicaragua’s army of Costa Rican territory”, in connection with the construction of a canal in the San Juan River. After establishing that Nicaraguan activities were unlawful because in breach of the claimant’s territorial sovereignty, on 2 February 2018 the Court issued its very first decision on compensation for the impairment or loss of environmental goods and services. What is peculiar about this case is that the Court did not accept any of the methods of damage assessment proposed by the parties (neither the ‘ecosystem service approach’ proposed by the claimant nor the ‘replacement cost approach’ suggested by the defendant). The ICJ examined the different methods and ultimately stated that an overall assessment was more suitable to equitable considerations. The case at hand provides clear evidence of the existing uncertainty in jurisprudence on how to assess environmental damages, regarding either the heads of damages and the method of monetary compensation. Furthermore, it shows that equity seems to the judiciary more appealing than accurate calculations. By analysing first the methods of environmental damage valuation in environmental economics and then selected cases at the International, regional and domestic level, the project aims to illustrate trends in the judicial assessment of environmental damages. Moreover, drawing on the theory of tort law and economics, it unveils the expected behavioural effects of remedies on potential polluters. Based on these findings, it puts forward a theory of ‘smart’ remedies to achieve both optimal deterrence and a good restoration status. Lastly, it questions whether the ecosystem service approach supported by the ecologists might provide a plausible road ahead for cost-effective and roughly accurate assessments. The lunch seminar will offer an overview of the dissertation and a focus on specific empirical chapters. Speaker bio Francesca Leucci is a fourth-year PhD candidate at Bologna, Rotterdam, and Hamburg Universities (European Doctorate in Law and Economics) under the supervision of Professors Michael Faure and Luigi Franzoni. Her doctoral project is titled ‘Law and Economics of Environmental Damage Assessment’ and it investigates pecuniary and non-pecuniary remedies for environmental damage with a method that combines efficiency questions with a multilevel case-based analysis. The aim is to explore whether judges at the International, EU and domestic levels assess environmental damages in a cost-effective way that provides polluters with optimal incentives of deterrence. The long-term goal is to find out a simple metric of environmental damages that can pursue at the same time deterrence, harm compensation and sustainability. Francesca holds a master’s degree in Law from the University of Lecce (2014), a master’s degree in Social Sciences from one of the institutes of interdisciplinary studies built in Italy upon the model of the Parisian École Normale Supérieure (2015) and a LL.M. in Economic Analysis of EU Law from the College of Europe in Bruges (2017). She worked as a trainee lawyer at the Italian Public Attorney, as a judge assistant at the Administrative Local Court and as an intern in the Legal Office of the Italian Antitrust Authority. She is also temporary expert for Eklipse, working on the impact assessment of projects on biodiversity (no net loss) through the concept of ecosystem services, and a member of the SERE (Society of Ecological Restoration Europe) Legal working group. At iCourts, Francesca will continue working on the empirical analysis of judicial decisions on environmental damages and she will be involved in the team of Veronika Fikfak’s project Human Rights Nudge."
"Lunch seminar with Gabrielė Chlevickaitė";"iCourts";"2023-03-15";"12:15";"2023-03-15";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Witness Evidence And Legal Decision Making: Empirical And Normative Analyses Of International Criminal Justice";"Witness Evidence And Legal Decision Making: Empirical And Normative Analyses Of International Criminal Justice Abstract: Establishing the legal ‘truth’, through fair and reliable fact-finding underlies the multitude of goals ascribed to international criminal courts and tribunals. However, legal fact-finding is subject to the quantity and quality of evidence available to decision-makers, and their ability to accurately assess the evidence presented. Consequently, problems of evidence may frustrate the discovery of substantive and legal truths, as has been continuously observed at international criminal courts and tribunals, especially where factual findings depend on particularly problematic witnesses: insiders. However, to date, we know surprisingly little about how legal practitioners decide whether to rely on a particular (insider) witness. Assessing the practice is imperative to understanding whether, and if so, how international criminal fact-finding could be improved. Hence, this study aims to answer this question: What factors impact insider witness credibility and reliability and how are they assessed in the investigations and prosecutions of international criminal cases? For this purpose, I conducted a systematic analysis of the ICTY, ICTR, and ICC trial judgements (N=93) and other case-related documents from 1996 to 2019, alongside an experimental vignette study with international criminal law practitioners (N=160). The findings uncover the extent of witness-related issues at ICCTs, and illuminate the dilemmas faced by legal practitioners in determining whether, and to what extent, insider witness evidence can be relied upon. They also show that when it comes to assessing insider witnesses, a shared understanding of what is credible, what is reliable, and how to go about determining which is which, still needs to be developed. This highlights the importance of training, development of standard operating procedures and empirically supported guidelines for witness assessments. The findings of this study bring me to an introduction of a new research project, on the practices and standards of witness evidence collection by civil society actors in the context of conflict-related crimes in Ukraine. Relevant publications Chlevickaitė, G. (2023). Towards a Model of (Insider) Witness Assessments in International Crime Cases: An Experimental Vignette Study. International Criminal Justice Review, 0(0). https://doi-org.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/1177/10575677221126903 Chlevickaitė, G., Holá, B. and Bijleveld, C. (2021). Suspicious Minds? Empirical Analysis of Insider Witness Assessments at the ICTY, ICTR and ICC. European Journal of Criminology Chlevickaitė, G., Holá, B. and Bijleveld, C. (2020). Judicial Witness Assessments at the ICTY, ICTR and ICC. Journal of International Criminal Justice 18(1). Author bio Gabrielė Chlevickaitė is Assistant Professor in Empirical and Normative Studies at the VU Amsterdam, where she conducts research into fact-finding in international criminal investigations and teaches at International Crimes, Conflict and Criminology MSc program and International Criminal Justice summer school at VU Amsterdam. She is concurrently a co-director of the Center for International Criminal Justice (CICJ, www.cicj.org), an interdisciplinary research centre at the VU Amsterdam. In 2017, Gabrielė was awarded NWO Research Talent Grant to conduct doctoral research on insider witness assessments at international criminal courts and tribunals. In 2017-2021 she worked at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR) in Amsterdam as a PhD candidate and was a fellow at the CICJ. She defended her dissertation in March 2022. Besides PhD research, in 2019, Gabriele was awarded (alongside a team led by Dr Anna Sagana of Maastricht University), a Constructive Advanced Thinking Interdisciplinary Research Mobility Grant for project ‘A Psychological approach to international criminal justice. Improving decision making in the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court.’ In 2015 Gabrielė graduated with an MSc in International Crimes and Criminology (cum laude) at VU Amsterdam. During and after the university studies, she interned and worked at the International Criminal Court, Investigations Division of the Office of the Prosecutor (2014-2017). During the years at the ICC, Gabrielė gained experience in investigative analysis and methods, which brought the topic international criminal fact-finding to her attention. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 666 3983 2595Passcode: 807731 "
"Breakfast Briefing with Joëlle Trampert";"iCourts";"2023-03-09";"08:45";"2023-03-09";"09:45";"Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"MH17 in The Hague and in Strasbourg – Reflections on the Dutch Court’s Judgment and the European Court of Human Rights’ Admissibility Decision";"MH17 in The Hague and in Strasbourg – Reflections on the Dutch Court’s Judgment and the European Court of Human Rights’ Admissibility Decision Abstract On 17 November 2022, the Dutch district court of The Hague pronounced judgment in the criminal case against four suspects for their role in the downing of flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine that caused the death of all passengers and crew. On 25 January 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its admissibility decision in three inter-State cases lodged against the Russian Federation, including the complaint of the Netherlands concerning Russia’s responsibility for the MH17 incident. Both courts have extensively referred to levels of control exercised by Russia to answer different legal questions; from conflict classification in the criminal case to the matter of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the inter-State case. In her presentation, Joëlle will briefly explain the background and scope of these cases, discuss the various findings on State control, and reflect on whether one court might have drawn – or may draw – on the findings of the other, including in the ECtHR’s future judgment on the merits. About the Speaker Joëlle Trampert is a PhD Candidate at the University of Amsterdam with the Rethinking SLIC* project. Her research is on state responsibility for extraterritorial complicity in international crimes and serious human rights violations. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the International Law Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2023"
"Book launch with Emilia Justyna Powell";"iCourts";"2023-03-08";"12:15";"2023-03-08";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S ";"The Peaceful Resolution of Territorial and Maritime Disputes";"iCourts is hosting a book discussion with Emilia Justyna Powell who will present her latest book ‘The Peaceful Resolution of Territorial and Maritime Disputes’ (forthcoming, 2023, coauthored with Krista Wiegand). Programme 12:15-12:20 Welcomeby Center Director, Professor Mikael Rask Madsen 12:20-12:45 Presentation of the bookby Emilia Justyna Powell, Professor of Political Science and Concurrent Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame 12:45-13:05 Discussants:Wen Xiang, Associate ProfessorZuzanna Godzimirska, Assistant Professor 13:05-13.15 General debatechaired by Center Director, Professor Mikael Rask Madsen Author bio Emilia Justyna Powell is a Professor of Political Science and Concurrent Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame. She has written extensively on international law, international courts, international dispute resolution, the Islamic legal tradition, and Islamic constitutionalism. Her prominent publications include a book published in Oxford University Press (2020) entitled Islamic Law and International Law: Peaceful Resolution of Disputes, a Cambridge University Press (2011) book, Domestic Law Goes Global: Legal Traditions and International Courts (with Sara McLaughlin Mitchell). Her new book, The Peaceful Resolution of Territorial and Maritime Disputes (with Krista E. Wiegand) is forthcoming in Oxford University Press in 2023. She has been a fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, Durham University, and at the University of Copenhagen Law School, iCourts Centre for International Courts. Born in Toruń, Poland, Emilia Justyna Powell received education in the University of Nicholas Copernicus (Poland), Jean Monnet Center for European Studies, the University of Cambridge, and the Florida State University. The book will be out on 9 May in Oxford. Join Zoom Meetinghttps://ucph-ku.zoom.us/j/63326044065?pwd=NExiYWF0eDFUUG1XdCszdEhEUmRldz09 Meeting ID: 633 2604 4065Passcode: 016708 "
"Lunch seminar with Audrey Plan";"iCourts";"2023-03-01";"12:15";"2023-03-01";"13:15";"Room 7A-2-04, Njalsgade 76, 2nd floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"A Theory Of Strategic Judicial Dialogue : Convergence And Divergence Between The European Court Of Justice And The European Court Of Human Rights";"A Theory Of Strategic Judicial Dialogue : Convergence And Divergence Between The European Court Of Justice And The European Court Of Human Rights Abstract This project demonstrates that the ECJ and the ECtHR strategically decide when to engage with each other’s case law, as a legitimacy-enhancing mechanism in the face of challenges to their authority. It uses a new index to measure the convergence and divergence of these two international courts systematically and consistently over time. The theory is then tested over three longitudinal case studies, drawing from multiple data sources including interviews with judges from the ECJ and the ECtHR. This research provides a novel theoretical argument on international judicial decision-making and leverages it to explain of the evolution of the case-law of both Courts in the areas of rights to privacy for businesses, the execution of European Arrest Warrants, and the rights to legal gender recognition for trans persons. Speaker bio Audrey is a 4th year PhD candidate at Trinity College Dublin (Law/Political Science), where she also lectures on International Judicial Politics. She holds a Bachelor of Law and Masters in European and International Studies with a specialization in European Law, and has previously worked in international legal advocacy for children’s rights. Audrey’s research interests are International Courts relations with subnational actors, the judicialization of international human rights, and the development of interdisciplinary research methods for empirical legal studies. Click to join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 642 4488 7195Passcode: 683834"
"Breakfast Briefing with Iryna Bogdanova";"iCourts";"2023-02-23";"08:45";"2023-02-23";"09:45";" Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Economic Sanctions against Russia: The End of the “Wandel durch Handel” Narrative";"Economic Sanctions against Russia: The End of the “Wandel durch Handel” Narrative Abstract Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February 2022, economic sanctions imposed on Russia after its annexation of Crimea in 2014 have been significantly tightened in an effort to stall the war. These economic sanctions are diverse and range from measures against Russian sovereign debt and freezing of the Russian Central Bank’s assets to technological and transportation sanctions. The imposed restrictions sparked off perennial debates about the legality of unilateral economic sanctions, their effectiveness and enforcement as well as circumvention practices. Besides these traditional concerns, a new issue that has attracted significant attention is the possibility of using frozen Russian assets (belonging to the Central Bank and private individuals) for funding Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts and the legality of such a move. Iryna Bogdanova will address all those issues during her presentation. About the Speaker Iryna Bogdanova is a postdoctoral researcher at the World Trade Institute (WTI), University of Berne. In 2020, Iryna was awarded a PhD degree (Summa cum Laude) by the Faculty of Law of the University of Berne. Her thesis explored the legality of unilateral economic sanctions, i.e. those imposed by individual states without authorization of the UN Security Council, under international law, and came out as a book in July 2022. Iryna is a graduate of the Master of International Law and Economics Program at the WTI and holds bachelor’s and master’s diplomas from the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in Ukraine. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the International Law Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2023 "
"Lunch seminar with Marcus Schnetter";"iCourts";"2023-02-22";"12:15";"2023-02-22";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Rhetoric as a Legitimacy Booster. Persuasion in Decisions of Constitutional Courts";"Rhetoric as a Legitimacy Booster. Persuasion in Decisions of Constitutional Courts Abstract It is common wisdom that the influence and importance of courts is a matter not of legality but of legitimacy. My research grounds on the hypothesis that courts strategically employ language to persuade their audiences to gain legitimacy. In brief: they are using rhetoric. That can be proven by a close reading of court decisions, which evidences an interweaving of form and content in legal reasoning. Speaker bio Marcus is a research associate at the Collaborative Research Centre 1385 ""Law and Literature"" at the University of Münster. Prior to that, he studied politics and law in Münster and Sheffield. He is currently in the last phase of his PhD studies and joins iCourts to discuss his dissertation on rhetoric and persuasion in court decisions addressing the relationship between national and European fundamental rights protection. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 624 0771 4456Passcode: 893377 "
"Breakfast Briefing with Sergii Masol";"iCourts";"2023-02-09";"08:45";"2023-02-09";"09:45";" Room 6B-4-04, Njalsgade 76, 4th floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Russia, People under its Jurisdiction and the European Court of Human Rights: The End and New Beginnings";"Russia, People under its Jurisdiction and the European Court of Human Rights: The End and New Beginnings Abstract On 16 September 2022, Russia ceased to be a High Contracting Party to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (also known as the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR). The European human rights protection thus entered a new era of the perpetual antagonism between the West and the East. Relying on primary and secondary sources in different languages (including Russian), Sergii Masol will examine the legal and political implications of these developments from three perspectives. What does the European Court of Human Rights lose and win without Russia? What does Russia lose and win without this court? What do people under the jurisdiction of Russia lose and win without the right to complain against this state in Strasbourg? About the Speaker Sergii Masol is a Humboldt postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Cologne. Sergii obtained his doctorate in law from the European University Institute in Florence, where he also worked as a research assistant. Previously, Sergii was a visiting researcher at the University of Copenhagen and the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. Click here to register for the event. You will receive the Zoom link when you have registered. See a list of all the International Law Breakfast Briefings for Spring 2023. "
"Lunch seminar with Theresa Squatrito";"iCourts";"2023-02-08";"12:15";"2023-02-08";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Judging under Constraint: The Politics of International Courts and their Decision-Making";"Judging under Constraint: The Politics of International Courts and their Decision-Making Abstract Through their decisions, ICs have the capacity to declare states in contravention of their legal obligations, to alter the meaning, scope and hierarchy of international legal norms, and to facilitate the peaceful settlement of disputes. Yet, how ICs arrive at their decisions is not fully understood. The decision-making of some ICs is characterized by high levels of deference to states. This can be seen in judicial outcomes that favor respondent states, narrow legal interpretations, and remedies that are minimally intrusive on state sovereignty. On the other hand, other international courts are much less deferential to states through their decision-making. These courts are more inclined to declare states in violation of their legal obligations, to interpret the law broadly, and to apply remedies that intrude on state sovereignty. Why do some courts tend to defer and others not? I will present a book project that responds to these questions and develops a novel theoretical account of judicial deference. The project argues that judicial decision-making, examined in terms of deference, is determined by an international court’s strategic space. A combination of structural factors and judicial practices shape this strategic space by contributing to the credibility of state resistance and the legitimacy of ICs. Four factors are thus integral to explaining judicial decision-making: formal independence, political fragmentation, persuasive argumentation and public legitimation. This argument is evaluated through an empirical analysis of the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and the East African Court (CCJ). Speaker bio Dr Squatrito is an Assistant Professor in International Organizations in the Department of International Relations at LSE. Through the comparative study of international institutions, she contributes to debates on the institutional design, performance, and legitimacy of IOs and international courts (ICs). Currently, her research examines judicial decision-making of international courts. She edited the volume on The Performance of International Courts and Tribunals (Cambridge University Press). She has also previously published on judicial diplomacy, legitimation of international courts, access to international courts, and European legal integration, among other topics. Dr Squatrito received her PhD from the University of Washington, Seattle in Political Science. She was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Oslo, PluriCourts Center from 2013-2017. Click to join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 636 4903 0353Passcode: 287386 "
"iCourts/IMAGINE seminar with Jakob Rendl";"iCourts/IMAGINE";"2023-02-01";"12:15";"2023-02-01";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Dark or Bright? - European Constitutionalism and International Law in Post-War Europe ";"Dark or Bright? European Constitutionalism and International Law in Post-War Europe Abstract In this seminar, Jakob Rendl will analyse the legal nature of the Treaties of the European Union through the lens of the theory of international treaty. Commonly, it is said that the EU-Treaties cannot satisfactorily be described by means of international legal categories. Allegedly, the transfer of the right to exercise sovereign rights of the Member States to the EU can be explained only in analogy to domestic law, constitutional law in particular law. In this seminar, it shall be proven that this thesis is not correct. On the contrary, there is a model of international treaty that is suitable to explain the contractual limitation of sovereignty by a state and the transfer of sovereign rights to another subject of international law – a treaty model European states are deeply acquainted with: the treaty allowing for the occupation of alien territory in time of peace. Draft paper can be requested at Jan.Komarek@jur.ku.dk Speaker bio Born in Vienna, Jakob Rendl has studied law and philosophy at the University of Vienna. Besides his current position as a PraeDoc University Assistant at the Department for Legal Philosophy (Faculty of Law at the University of Vienna), he is doing his doctorate under the supervision of Alexander Somek. With his project ""Eulogy: EU-Law and Political Messianism"". Jakob Rendl is member of the Ars Juris Doctoral School of the Vienna Law Faculty. He has been scholarship holder at Max-Planck-Institute for International Law Heidelberg in May 2022. From March to May 2023 Jakob Rendl will be research fellow at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Click to join Zoom meeting Meeting ID: 652 4740 5917 Passcode: 732610"
"New interdisciplinary perspectives in European Union Law ";"Danish National Research Foundation's Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts)";"2023-01-27";"11:00";"2023-01-27";"17:30";"University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law, Conference/flex room, ground floor, room 8A.0.57, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S  ";"The European Union (‘EU’) is currently facing immense challenges, ranging from the financial difficulties brought about by Covid-19, the undermining of the rule of law, and questions of European solidary that the asylum crises has provoked.";"The European Union (‘EU’) is currently facing immense challenges, ranging from the financial difficulties brought about by Covid-19, the undermining of the rule of law, and questions of European solidary that the asylum crises has provoked. Integral solutions to such challenges can only be found if the introspective tendencies of the EU legal doctrine are overcome and if EU law is assessed and developed against the broader needs of the European society, the polity, and the market. This conference aims to create a spirit of interdisciplinarity amongst leading scholars working in the historical, political, sociological and economic study of EU law with the purpose of generating new and innovative propositions for the development of EU law. Program Can be downloaded here (PDF) 11:00-11:10 Introduction 11:10-11:45 Martijn van den Brink (Hertie School of Governance): Doctrinal analysis and the complementary value of political theory in EU legal research 11:45-12:20 Lucía López (University of Copenhagen): Individual Rights in the Preliminary Reference Procedure: What Role for Preliminary Rulings on Validity? 12:20-12:35 Small break 12:35-13:10 Raphaële Xenidis (SciencePo): Interrogating EU Law’s Polysemy :Methodological Pluralism in EU Equality Law 13:10-14:10 Lunch break 14:10-14:45 Pablo Castillo-Ortiz (University of Sheffield): Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) as a tool for the interdisciplinary study of EU law 14:45-15:20 Shai Dothan (University of Copenhagen): Social Networks and European Courts 15:20-15:40 Coffee Break 15:40-16:15 Sabine Mair (University of Amsterdam): Contemplating the Cultural Study of EU Law 16:15-16:55 Juan A. Mayoral (University Carlos III of Madrid): Mixed Methods for Researching EU Law 16:55-17:30 Nicholas Haagensen (University of Copnehagen): Pointing to the Source of Power: Sorting the boundaries of political authority in European economic governance Registration If you wish to participate, please click here! - no later than Wednesday 25 January at 3PM (CEST) This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 846070 "
"Book launch with Jed Odermatt";"iCourts";"2023-01-25";"14:15";"2023-01-25";"15:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S ";"International Law and the European Union";"iCourts is hosting a book discussion with Professor Jed Odermatt who will present his latest book International Law and the European Union. The European Union plays a significant role in international affairs. International Law and the European Union examines the impact this has had on public international law by integrating perspectives from both EU law and international law. Its analysis focuses on fields of public international law where the EU has had an influence, including customary international law, the law of treaties, international organizations, international dispute settlement, and international responsibility. International Law and the European Union shows how the EU has had a subtle but significant impact on the development of international law and how the international legal order has developed and adjusted to accommodate the EU as a distinct legal actor. In doing so, it contributes to our understanding of how international law addresses legal subjects other than States. Programme 14:15-14:25 Welcome and introductionby Professor Mikael Rask Madsen, Centre Director at iCourts 14:25-14:45 Presentation of the bookby Jed Odermatt, Senior Lecturer at City Law School, City, University of London 14:45-15:05 DiscussantsProfessor Jan KomarekPostdoc Lucía López Zurita 15:05-15:15 General debate chaired by Professor Mikael Rask Madsen, Centre Director at iCourts After the event iCourts will host a reception with refreshments. Speaker bio Dr Jed Odermatt is a Senior Lecturer at the City Law School, City, University of London where he is co-convenor of the International Law and Affairs Group (ILAG) and member of the Institute for the Study of European Law (ISEL) . Jed’s research interests relate to public international law, international dispute settlement, the law of international organizations and EU external relations law. He is a member of the Coordinating Committee of the European Society of International Law (ESIL) Interest Group EU as a Global Actor and Co-rapporteur of the International Law Association (ILA) Study Group International Law of Regional Organisations . He is the author of International Law and the European Union (Cambridge University Press, 2021). Jed teaches and supervises in the areas of public international law and international human rights law. Further information: More information about the book is available at this link. Registration For participation in the event, please use this registration form no later than Wednesday 18 January, 12:00. "
"Book launch with Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou";"iCourts";"2023-01-18";"12:15";"2023-01-18";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom";"Can the European Court of Human Rights Shape European Public Order?";"iCourts is hosting a book discussion with Professor Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou who will present his latest book Can the European Court of Human Rights Shape European Public Order? Programme 12:15-12:20 Welcomeby Center Director, Professor Mikael Rask Madsen 12:20-12:45 Presentation of the bookby Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, Professor in Human Rights Law, Associate Dean (Research) of the School of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool 12:45-13:05 Discussants:Associate Professor Shai DothanPostdoc Marina Ban 13:05-13:15 General debatechaired by Center Director, Professor Mikael Rask Author bio Prof Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou is Professor in Human Rights Law and Associate Dean for Research of the School of Law and Social Justice at the University of Liverpool. He joined University of Liverpool in 2015, having previously worked at the University of Surrey (UK), University College Dublin (Ireland) and Gomel State University (Belarus). Kanstantsin is an author of three books and over a hundred of academic articles, review pieces and comments. He published in leading peer-reviewed journals such as Legal Studies, American Journal of International Law, Human Rights Law Review, International and Comparative Law Review and many others. He cooperates with international inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations as an expert in international and European human rights law. His research interests spread between interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights, reform of the European Court of Human Rights, administration of international justice, comparative and constitutional law. Kanstantsin is a co-founder and co-editor-in-chief of the European Convention on Human Rights Law Review. Kanstantsin is director of the International Law and Human Rights Unit. More information about the book is available at this linkRegistration For participation in the event, please use this registration form no later than Wednesday 11 January, 12:00. Join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 614 5608 1817Passcode: 525356 "
"Continuity and Change in the Legal Profession";"Danish National Research Foundation's Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts)";"2023-01-12";"09:00";"2023-01-12";"17:30";"University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law, Conference/flex room, ground floor, room 8A.0.57, South Campus, Njalsgade 76, DK-2300 Copenhagen S  ";"The workshop brings together leading scholars to discuss pressing issues facing the legal profession, such as stratification, gendered segmentation, internationalization, digitalization, and the crisis of liberalism in many countries across the world.";"ABOUT The workshop takes stock of the state-of-the-art of the legal profession in contemporary national and international society. To this purpose, the workshop brings together leading scholars to discuss pressing issues facing the legal profession, such as stratification, gendered segmentation, internationalization, digitalization, and the crisis of liberalism in many countries across the world. For decades, the legal profession has been a central actor in the development of the liberal state (Halliday and Karpik 1998) and jurists were largely educated to perform four public-oriented professional roles: civil servants (Madsen 2019), private attorneys (Madsen 2008), judges and prosecutors (Hammerslev 2003). The rise of mass education and neoliberalism in the 1980s have pushed jurists to increasingly find employment in the private sector (Dinovitzer and Garth 2004) and in international settings, such as the European Union (Vauchez 2015), international arbitration (Dezalay & Garth 1996), international human rights (Madsen 2011) and transnational commercial law (Block-Lieb & Halliday, 2017). These processes have gone hand in hand with the globalization of markets and services, which have triggered the growth of global law both in the North (Faulconbridge & Muzio 2008) and in the South (Liu & Wu 2016). The ongoing digitalization of law and society has only exacerbated these dynamics (Caserta and Madsen 2019), augmenting inequalities among lawyers (Thornton 2019) and raising questions about the potential replacement of lawyers by artificial intelligence (Remus and Levy 2017), and the eventual restructuring of law firms (Caserta 2020). While contributing to the legal profession's increased diversification in terms of its internationalization (Henderson 2007), gender composition (Kay and Gorman 2008), and stratification (Dinovitzer and Garth 2020), these developments have contributed to the disappearance of the so called: ""lawyer-statesman""; a jurist working to secure the public good (Kronman 1993). This raises important questions regarding the role of lawyers in society, especially in times of crisis of the liberal state and rule of law (Halliday and Karpik 1998), such as the present times (Graber, Levinson, and Tushnet 2018). In seeking to address this basic, yet crucial question, the workshop program covers a range of topical themes related to both the internal dynamics of the legal profession and to the external socio-political aspects influencing the trajectory and role of the legal profession in changing conditions and crisis. List of Participants Lola Avril Mex Weber Fellow at the European University Institute. Lola holds a PhD in political science (Université Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne, 2019). Her research interests lie at the intersection of the history of European law, European public policy analysis and the sociology of intermediaries in the European Union political system. Her dissertation studies the rise, institutionalization and forms of contestations of regulatory lawyers, intermediates of the European Regulatory State. Salvatore Caserta Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Copenhagen & Fernand Braudel Fellow at the European University Institute. Salvatore is specialized in public international law, international courts and international dispute resolution, the sociology of the legal profession, as well as law and technology. His research lies at the crossroads of law and sociology. His primary research interest is the role of the legal profession in a number of societal aspects (i.e. the judicialization of international politics, the rise of a digital society, the development of the welfare state, the protection of the rule of law). He is the P.I. of a research project (DigiProf), focused on exploring how the digitalization of the legal field is changing the structure and role of large law firms in contemporary society. Another area of interest is the role of international institutions in developing the international rule of law and how such institutions develop and function over time. Salvatore's research has been published by some of the main journals in the field of international law and sociology, such as the American Journal of International Law, the Leiden Journal of International Law, the Human Rights Law Review, the International and Comparative Law Quarterly, and the International Journal of the Legal Profession. Salvatore is associate editor at the Italian Law Journal and part of the scientific board of the Journal de Droit Transnational. Scott Cummings Robert Henigson Professor of Legal Ethics, University of California Los Angeles. Scott teaches and writes about the legal profession, legal ethics, access to justice, local government law. He is the founding faculty director of the UCLA Program on Legal Ethics and the Profession, which promotes empirical research and innovative programming on the challenges facing lawyers in the twenty-first century, and a long-time member of the UCLA David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy. In 2021, Professor Cummings was selected as the Fulbright Distinguished Chair at the European University Institute and a fellow at the Stanford Center for the Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences to study the role of lawyers in strengthening the rule of law. Professor Cummings’s recent research explores how innovative legal mobilization produces transformative social change. His publications include Lawyers and Movements: Legal Mobilization in Transformative Times (Oxford 2022), An Equal Place: Lawyers in the Struggle for Los Angeles (Oxford 2021), and Global Pro Bono: Causes, Consequences and Contestation (with Fabio de Sa e Silva and Louise Trubek) (Cambridge 2021). Professor Cummings is also co-author of Making Public Interest Lawyers in a Time of Crisis: An Evidence-Based Approach (with Catherine Albiston and Richard Abel), a National Science Foundation funded study that examines the factors causing law students to enter and persevere in public interest careers. Professor Cummings is co-author of the first public interest law textbook, Public Interest Lawyering: A Contemporary Perspective (with Alan Chen) (Wolters Kluwer, 2012), and co-editor of a leading legal profession casebook, Legal Ethics (with Deborah Rhode, David Luban, and Nora Engstrom) (8th ed. Foundation Press, 2016). He is the author of numerous articles on lawyers and social justice, which have appeared in leading law reviews and peer-reviewed journals. James Faulconbridge Professor at Lancaster University, Management School. His research focuses principally on the professions, professional service firms, and knowledge-intensive services. He has studied amongst others the accounting, advertising, architecture, executive search, and law professions. Theoretically, his work draws on perspectives from economic geography, organisation studies, and sociology, with institutional and practice perspectives from these disciplines being of particular significance in my work. In recent years, he has developed in particular three inter-related areas of research focus: globalization and professional service firms; knowledge, learning, and innovation practices, and mobility. Nicholas Haagensen Postdoctoral Fellow at iCourts, the Centre of Excellence for International Courts, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen. Nicholas successfully defended his double-PhD degree in Political & Social Sciences (from Université Libre de Bruxelles) and Political Economy (from Copenhagen Business School) under the GEM-STONES framework in June 2020. He holds a Master’s degree in International Business & Politics from CBS (2016). At iCourts, Nicholas investigates the socio-legal aspects of the macro-economy of Europe and the governance of the Eurozone, particularly the role of lawyers and courts in economic and monetary policy. He also looks at the international governance of sovereign debt and the role of law and lawyers in making sense of this highly politicised and economically complex issue, especially in the current context of crisis. Ole Hammerslev Professor at Lund University, Department of Sociology of Law. Ole's research covers a number of different areas within the sociology of law using insights from sociology of elites, education, political science and science, legal history and jurisprudence. A recurrent denominator is the legal profession as an entrance to examine elites, education and development of states and markets. Moreover, his research engages with legal encounters focusing on the predispute phase, i.e. how disputes emerge and transform into legal disputes. To be able to examine such issues, my basic research interest is in socio-legal theories and methodologies. Liora Israël Professor of Sociology at Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (Paris), Co-chair Master and Doctoral programs in Sociology. Liora has worked on Resistance among Lawyers and Magistrates during World War Two in France (PhD Dissertation), and then on the relationships between law and politics, on the legal training of elites, or on the use of law against discriminations in France. Her last book, “A la gauche du droit” is dealing with the transformations of legal mobilization on the left between 1968 and 1981 in France. Liora has been deeply involved in several research network from the Law and Society Association, on “cause lawyering”, “law and social movements” and then on “new legal realism”. She has been invited as a visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Law and Society (UC Berkeley) in 2014 and 2018. Her new research project is a study of French Supreme Courts lawyers in historical perspective. Mikael Rask Madsen Center Director of iCourts and Professor of Law. Mikael's research is focused on globalization and the role of legal institutions and professionals in these processes, including: 1) international Courts and their evolutions and challenges; 2) the role of legal elites in the globalization; 3) the development of the legal profession; 4) legal knowledge and power His current research concerns the special interaction between law and global integration, the role and power of lawyers in globalization, the increased importance of supranational legal institutions and more generally, the international transformation of law and authority towards networked expertise. Mikael has significant teaching experience from having studied and researched at a number of leading universities, including École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, Oxford University, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Strasbourg and Sciences Po - L'Institut d'études politiques (IEP) de Paris. At the Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, he directed the Centre for Studies in Legal Culture in the period 2008-11. He is currently the Director and PI of iCourts - the Danish National Research Foundation's Centre of Excellence for International Courts. Pete Sanderson Professor of Education, Department of Education and Community Studies School of Education and Professional Development Hilary, University of Huddersfield. Professor Sanderson joined the university in 1985 after working variously in the travel business, as a residential child care worker, a contract researcher and a further education lecturer. During his time at the School he has worked on Post-Compulsory Education and Training teacher training courses, the MA in Professional Development, the BAs in Youth and Community Work, Early Years, Communications and Cultures and the EdD. From 2015-2019 he was DEan of the School. Pete gained his BA in History from Cambridge, and a Diploma in Social Administration from York. His MPhil at York was concerned with issues of race and housing in Bradford, and he went on to work as a contract researcher on Leverhulme and EEC funded projects on race, ethnicity and educational achievement before embarking on a career in teaching. His PhD in Psychology from the University of Leeds was concerned with applying social judgement and cognitive process theories to the activity of assessing expository text, based in part on his experience as a Senior Examiner for Sociology A Level. Hilary Sommerlad Chair in Law and Social Justice, School of Law, University of Leeds. Hilary's research is committed to exploring the potential for legal professions internationally to promote access to justice. Her other interests are in continuity and change in the profession, particularly in terms of the representation of women and minorities, legal aid and the profession’s work with marginal groups, and the impact of neo-liberalism and the role of the State on the profession internationally. She joined the School of Law in January 2016 from the University of Birmingham where she was Research Director of the Centre for Professional Legal Education and Research. She graduated from New Hall, Cambridge with a degree in History, and went on to take a PhD in Political Science from York, and subsequently to qualify and practise as a solicitor. She returned to academia to teach Law and develop research in socio-legal studies at Leeds Beckett, Leicester and Birmingham Universities. Eduardo Gutierrez Cornelius Eduardo Cornelius is a Ph.D. candidate in Sociology at the University of Toronto and a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholar. He completed an LL.B at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, an MA in Sociology at the University of Sao Paulo, and an MA in socio-legal studies at York University. Lasse Folke Henriksen Henriksen’s research interest involve: social networks in organisations and markets; experts and professions in governance and policy; the socio-economic and political prominence of corporate elite; inequality in a comparative perspective; and the politics of conservation and environmental sustainability. His work frequently deploys social network analytic tools to trace the origins of social and political action. Henriksen is the author of several books and he has published in journals such as Organization; Social Networks; Regulation & Governance; Global Networks; and International Political Sociology. "
"Breakfast briefing om blasfemi: Heini í Skorini";"iCourts";"2023-01-05";"08:45";"2023-01-05";"09:45";"Det Juridiske Fakultet, Søndre Campus, lokale 6B-4-04, 4. sal, Njalsgade 76, 2300 København S & online via Zoom";"Religion, blasfemi og ytringsfrihed.";"Oplægget foregår på dansk / The lecture takes place in Danish Abstract Mandag den 30. november i 2009 udgår en mail fra det amerikanske udenrigsministerium til en række udvalgte amerikanske ambassader over hele kloden. Mailen handler om, at ytringsfriheden er under pres i FN-systemet. At retten til at kommunikere frit om religiøse anliggender er truet af især muslimske stater, som forsøger at indføre et nyt, globalt forbud imod blasfemiske eller ”religionskrænkende” ytringer. Instruksen er, at disse bestræbelser skal stoppes. Og de skal stoppes nu. Mailen fra Washington indgår i en politisk magtkamp i det diplomatiske maskineri i FN-systemet. Endnu et kapitel i en global værdikamp, som dybest set handler om ytringsfrihedens grænser og religionens rolle i det 21. århundrede. Men spændingerne mellem religion, blasfemi og ytringsfrihed har været en del af FN’s historie helt fra begyndelsen. Og lige nu foregår en kamp mellem nationalstater, tech-giganter og civilbefolkning om blasfemiens grænser i cyberspace. Gennem nye data, historisk arkivmateriale, feltarbejde og interviews med centrale diplomater fra hele verden er formålet med oplægget et give et anderledes indblik i, hvordan retten til at tænke og tale frit om religiøse forhold har været en konstant kilde til konflikter og magtkampe i international politik. Og formålet er også at vise, hvordan menneskerettighedernes indhold og betydning aldrig står stille men altid er til forhandling. Om oplægsholderen Heini í Skorini er Ph.D. i international politik ved King’s College London, Department of War Studies, MA i “Religion in Contemporary Society” ved King’s College London, Department of Theology and Religious Studies og BA i statskundskab ved Københavns Universitet og Færøernes Universitet. Han er nu lektor i international politik ved Færøernes Universitet, Institut for Samfundsvidenskab og Historie. Hans forskningsinteresser omfatter bl.a. ytringsfrihed, religion og international politik, samt menneskerettigheder og demokrati i bredere forstand. I 2021 publicerede han bogen ”Free Speech, Religion and the United Nations: The Political Struggle to Define International Free Speech Norms” ved Routledge University Press: https://www.routledge.com/Free-Speech-Religion-and-the-United-Nations-The-Political-Struggle-to/Skorini/p/book/9780367785017 Heini arbejder i øjeblikket på bogen ”Kampen om ytringsfriheden – Religion, politik og global værdikamp”; en populærvidenskabelig debatbog, der efter planen skal udkomme til april. Deltag via Zoom. Tilmelding skal ske via denne formular senest d. 4. januar 2023."
"Lunch seminar with Nina Jorgensen";"iCourts";"2023-01-04";"12:15";"2023-01-04";"13:15";"Room 8A-0-57, Njalsgade 76, ground floor, 2300 Copenhagen S & online via Zoom ";"Justice for International Crimes and the Many Moves Time Makes";"Justice for International Crimes and the Many Moves Time Makes Justice, especially at the international level, is in apparent competition with the ‘time of human beings’. This competition is played out on many levels, including the timing of justice in the sense of when the discovery of truth and meting out of punishment should prevail, having in mind concerns of domestic and international political will and stability, and a society’s need for peace and reconciliation; the time lag between describing conduct as being shocking to the conscience of humankind and recognising it as contrary to international law; and the time it takes to deliver justice before a permanent court such as the ICC or an ad hoc mechanism. This book project examines the relationship between time and justice philosophically, comparatively, and practically with a view to explaining the endurance of the ever-evolving architecture of justice for international crimes. Speaker bio Nina H. B. Jørgensen is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Southampton and a Judge at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague. She was previously a Professor of Law in Hong Kong and worked for nine years in various roles at the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Freetown, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia in Phnom Penh, and the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, among other organisations. Prior to these assignments, she was a post-doctoral researcher in international criminal law at the University of Leiden, having obtained her doctorate from the University of Oxford. Click to join Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 649 6309 5797Passcode: 257851 "