Lecture summary: Many political economists, economic historians, and historical sociologists understand the transition from the 1970s to the 1980s as involving a shift from debates about inflation, oil shocks, floating currencies, and the New International Economic Order to neoliberalism's political and ideological breakthrough, first in the industrialized states of the North Atlantic and shortly thereafter in much of the global South. By contrast, among most scholars of international law, the 1980s are remembered chiefly for signalling the effective close of the decolonization era, and with it the struggle to transform and reconstruct international law to meet the demands of 'economic' in addition to 'political' sovereignty. This talk puts these two perspectives into conversation. Drawing mainly from the work of Simon Clarke and Nicos Poulantzas, core figures in the Marxist state-theoretical debates of the 1970s and 1980s, the talk examines changes to prevailing conceptions of economic development and international human rights at the end of the decolonization era in light of broader structural changes in the juridicopolitical architecture of capitalist states.

Umut Özsu is Professor of Law and Legal Studies at Carleton University. His research interests lie mainly in public international law, the history and theory of international law, and Marxist critiques of law, rights, and the state. He is the author of Formalizing Displacement: International Law and Population Transfers (OUP, 2015) and Completing Humanity: The International Law of Decolonization, 1960–82 (CUP, 2023). He is also co-editor of the Research Handbook on Law and Marxism (Elgar, 2021) and The Extraterritoriality of Law: History, Theory, Politics (Routledge, 2019), as well as several journal symposia.

On 26 November 2024 Professor Paul Mitchell (University College London) delivered the CELH annual lecture on the topic 'Legal History and Literature: Towards Creative Reciprocity'.

The Centre for English Legal History (CELH) was formally established in 2016 to provide a hub for researchers working in legal history across the University of Cambridge. The Centre holds regular seminars during academic terms, and an annual centrepiece lecture.

To find out more, and download the accompanying presentation, please refer to:

http://www.celh.law.cam.ac.uk/lectures

Speakers: Professors Daniel Monk (Birkbeck University of London) & Rebecca Probert (University of Exeter)

The enactment of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 was a landmark moment in family law. Coming into force in 1971, it had a significant impact on legal practice and was followed by a dramatic increase in divorce rates, reflecting changes in social attitudes.

Fifty Year of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 brought together scholars from law, sociology, history, demography, and film and literature, to reflect on the changes to divorce law and practice over the past 50 years, and the changing impact of divorce on different people in society, particularly women. As such, it presents a 'biography' of this important piece of legislation, moving from its conception and birth, through its reception and development, to its imminent demise. Looking to the future, and to the new law introduced by the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020. It hopes to suggest ways for evaluating what makes a 'good' divorce law.

Rebecca Probert’s research focuses on the law and history of marriage, bigamy, divorce and cohabitation. She is currently working on a history of bigamy from 1604 to the present day. Daniel Monk’s research has research has explored a wide range of issues relating to families, children, education and sexuality. His current research is about law and friendship and how to make family law visual.

Daniel Monk’s research has research has explored a wide range of issues relating to families, children, education and sexuality. His current research is about law and friendship and how to make family law visual.

This seminar was co-hosted by the Cambridge Socio-Legal Group, an interdisciplinary discussion forum promoting debate on topical socio-legal issues and empirical research methodology, and the Cambridge Family Law Centre.

The CSLG organises and supports events and publications relating to socio-legal research, drawing participants from within the University of Cambridge and around the world. A donation would be instrumental in allowing the Cambridge Socio-Legal Group to continue its cross-disciplinary work:

https://www.philanthropy.cam.ac.uk/give-to-cambridge/the-cambridge-socio-legal-group

Speaker: Dr Andriani Kalintiri, King’s College London

Abstract: Is EU antitrust law resilient in the face of change? This question has acquired prominence amidst the many crises and disruptions of recent times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and digitalisation. Attempts to answer it though have been rather narrow in scope and tend to employ the language of resilience casually. This article contributes to knowledge (a) by developing a conceptual framework for understanding and assessing legal resilience in administrative enforcement systems and (b) by applying it to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU with a view to investigating its ability to respond to change in a systematic manner. The analysis reveals that the current regime exhibits several design features that enable decisionmakers to make resilience choices as needed, and the resilience choices that have been made on various occasions are prima facie justifiable given the nature of the problem the European Commission and/or the EU Courts were faced with. However, certain aspects of the existing legal framework may weaken or limit EU antitrust law’s ability to deal with certain problems, in particular (very) complex ones, whereas some of the resilience choices that have been made have had implications for legal certainty, coherence and legitimacy that may not have been sufficiently appreciated so far. The article highlights the added value of a legal resilience perspective for effectively using EU antitrust law as a tool for tackling problems in an ever-changing world and demonstrates that, albeit not a panacea, such a perspective may reinforce the quality of enforcement and public’s trust in it.

3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners: https://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/centre-activities

For more information about CELS see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Lecture summary: In this talk Sharifah Sekalala examines this critical moment in the making of Global Health Law, with two treaty making processes: the newly finalised revisions of the International Health Regulations and ongoing negotiations by the Intergovernmental Negotiation Body for a possible pandemic Accord or Instrument, as we well as soft-law proposals for the World Health Organization proposal for a medical countermeasures platform.

The lecture will illustrate that despite the laudable objectives of creating a new system of international law that attempts to redress previous inequalities in accessing vaccines and countermeasures, they are unlikely to meet these broader objectives. The lecture will argue that this is because, despite being a public good, Global Health Law has always been underpinned by capitalist and post-colonial rationales which privilege trade. In order to make lasting changes, the current system of Global Health Law must focus on broader questions of ‘reparations’ that will achieve greater equity.

Sharifah is a Professor of Global Health Law at the University of Warwick and the Director of the Warwick Global Health Centre. She is an interdisciplinary researcher whose work is at the intersection of international law, public policy and global health. Professor Sekalala is particularly focused on the role of human rights frameworks in addressing global health inequalities. Her research has focused on health crises in Sub-Saharan Africa, international financing institutions and the rise of non-communicable diseases and she has published in leading legal, international relations and public health journals.

Prof Sekalala is currently the PI on a Wellcome-Trust-funded project on digital health apps in Sub-Saharan Africa. Professor Sekalala is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FaSS) and she has consulted on human rights and health in many developing countries and worked for international organisations such as UNAIDS, the WHO and the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Her research has also been funded by the Wellcome Trust, GCRF, ESRC, Open Society Foundation and international organisations including the International Labour Organisation and the WHO. Sharifah also sits on the Strategic Advisory Network of the ESRC.

Sharifah holds a PhD in Law (Warwick, 2012), an LLM in Public International Law (Distinction in research, Nottingham, 2006) and an LLB Honours (Makerere University, Uganda 2004). She was called to the Ugandan Bar in 2005.

Speaker: Professor Christopher Nicholls (University of Western Ontario)

In 1933, in the depths of the Great Depression, the Yale Law School and Harvard Business School launched an innovative joint program: the “Law-Business Course”. The program’s principal architect was Yale law professor William O. Douglas, best remembered today as the longest serving member of the US Supreme Court and one of the most provocative. For a short time, this remarkable academic initiative brought together professional schools at America’s two foremost universities, foreshadowing the interdisciplinary approach to law and business education that animate modern JD/MBA programs. The creation and short life of this unique academic collaboration provide a fascinating glimpse into the intellectual dynamism of early twentieth century business law education and the politics and practical exigencies facing academic pioneers of that important era. The story of this forward-thinking interdisciplinary perspective also offers important insights into current approaches to business law and, in particular, the pivotal role of modern finance theory in the development of the study, practice, and theory of corporate law today.

3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.

For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:

http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

Speaker: Professor Barend van Leeuwen, Durham University

Abstract: What do we mean when we talk about the "horizontal direct effect" of the free movement provisions? You would think that, after decades of case law on the free movement provisions, the meaning of this concept should be relatively clear and crystallised. However, there is still a significant amount of disagreement about the very meaning of the concept of "horizontal direct effect". While some EU lawyers speak of horizontal direct effect when the free movement provisions are applied in a dispute between private parties (a procedural approach), other EU lawyers will only refer to horizontal direct effect when the rule or conduct that is being challenged is of a private nature (a substantive approach). This paper will analyse these different interpretations of the concept of horizontal direct effect through the lens of the "Familiapress dilemma". It will be argued that a distinction should be made between horizontal direct effect cases (in which private rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties) and horizontal enforcement cases (in which State rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties). The problem with a procedural approach to horizontal direct effect is that no connection is made between direct effect and the question of who is held responsible (and liable) for breaches of the free movement provisions. This makes it more difficult to provide effective judicial protection to victims of breaches of free movement law, because it is unclear who should ultimately "pay the bill". Against this background, it will be argued that the CJEU should develop more explicit techniques or "formulas" to allocate responsibility in free movement cases. In parallel, the CJEU should improve the effectiveness of the remedies of State liability and private liability for breaches of the free movement provisions.

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Dr Henry Pearce, Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Portsmouth and Deputy Editor for Computer Law & Security Review

Abstract: This presentation examines the impact of Brexit on UK data protection law and, using the introduction of the now-defunct Data Protection and Digital Information Bill as a case study, critiques the ongoing reliance on personal data as the core concept underlying UK data protection law and policy. As an alternative, the presentation explores the possibility of a harm-based approach to data protection, which would shift the law’s focus away from the concept of personal data to the notion of information harms. It is contended that an approach in this vein could help to address some of the semantic and practical challenges inherent in the current personal data-based approach and could provide a more sustainable foundation for data protection law moving forward.

Biography: Dr Henry Pearce is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Portsmouth. He joined the University in November 2018, having previously been lecturer in law at the University of Hertfordshire from July 2015, and tutor in law at the University of Southampton from December 2012 until June 2015. He is Deputy Editor for Computer Law & Security Review (CLSR) and provides data protection consultancy services to a number of firms based in London and the South of the UK. His research primarily focuses on data protection law and policy, and law and emerging technologies.

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Lecture summary: The United Nations Charter order (UNCO) and the co-evolved liberal international order (LIO) are contested with a heretofore unknown force. The steep rise in contestations in the realm of public politics rather than the courtroom demonstrates a shift from normal contestation as a source of legitimacy and ordering towards deep contestation as a political challenge of foundational elements of liberal order. Today, not only in the Global South but also across Europe and North America, sceptics of globalization on the political left and nationalist-populists on the political right are challenging the fundamental pillars of the LIO (i.e., democracy, economic openness, and multilateralism). The process is paired by growing contestations of international law that is codified in the UN Charter including contestation of core norms of the UNCO (i.e., non-intervention, human rights, and sovereignty). While the effect of deep contestation is unknowable, we do know however that normal contestation is the essence of everyday politics. The clash of interests, norms, and ideas is entirely normal. Yet, contestation can also be degenerative, moving political outcomes away from desired ends through ad hoc and perhaps inconsistent compromises. As core norms of the LIO and UNCO have become deeply contested, we require a better understanding about the expected effects. Access to contestation as the right to speak and participate in political decisions is a necessary condition for normative legitimacy and mutual recognition of the norms that govern us. Achieving this condition involves struggles about norm(ative) meaning-in-use which take place on distinct sites of global order. This raises a question about time, substance, and norm(ative) change in global order more generally and, more specifically, which elements of international order ought to be retained. The lecture posits that the observed qualitative shift from constitutive everyday contestations towards potentially degenerative political contestation calls for a methodological stocktake of how contestations work with regard to global re/ordering, i.e. whose practices count and whose norms ought to count in that process?

Professor Antje Wiener FAcSS, MAE, holds the Chair of Political Science, especially Global Governance at the University of Hamburg where she is a member of the Faculty of Business and Social Sciences as well as the Law Faculty. She is an elected By-Fellow of Hughes Hall University of Cambridge, a Fellow of the UK’s Academy of Social Sciences, and a Member of the Academia Europea. Her research and teaching centres on International Relations theory, especially norms research and contestation theory. Previously she held Chairs in International Studies at Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Bath and taught at the Universities of Stanford, Carleton, Sussex and Hannover. Current research projects include ‘Contested Climate Justice in Sensitive Regions’ at the Cluster of Excellence Climate, Climatic Change and Society (CLICCS) as well as ‘Doing Theory – From Where and What For? A Backpackers’ Guide to Knowledge Production’ at the Centre for Sustainable Society Research (CSS) among others. With James Tully, she is co-founding editor of Global Constitutionalism (CUP, since 2012 ). And she also edits the Norm Research in International Relations Series (Springer). She serves on several Committees of the Academy of Social Sciences . In 2021, she concluded her second three-year term as elected member of the Executive Committee of the German Political Science Association (DVPW). Her book ‘Contestation and Constitution of Norms in Global International Relations’ (CUP 2018) was awarded the International Law Section’s Book Prize in 2020. And her most recent book ‘Contesting the World: Norm Research in Theory and Practice’ co-edited with Phil Orchard was published with CUP in 2024.

Lecture summary: Grand corruption – the abuse of public office for private gain by a nation's leaders (kleptocrats) - has devastating consequences. As then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said, the amount lost to corruption each year is enough to feed the world's hungry 80 times over. Grand corruption contributes to climate change and is a major impediment to ameliorating it. The refugees creating humanitarian and political crises around the world are largely fleeing failed states ruled by kleptocrats. Grand corruption is antithetical to democracy. Indignation at grand corruption has prompted uprisings in many countries and created grave dangers for international peace and security.

Grand corruption does not thrive and endure in many countries because of a lack of laws. 186 UN member states are parties to the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). Virtually all of them have the laws required by the UNCAC criminalizing corrupt conduct, and international obligations to enforce them against their corrupt leaders. However, kleptocrats have impunity in the countries they rule because they control the police, the prosecutors, and the courts.

Therefore, the proposed International Anti-Corruption Court (IACC) is urgently needed. It will be a court of last resort, to prosecute kleptocrats and their private conspirators, for violating treaty counterparts of the laws of countries that are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. Successful prosecutions, and civil suits, in the IACC will result in the recovery and repatriation of stolen assets. The imprisonment of kleptocrats, who are among the worst abusers of human rights, will create opportunities for the democratic process to replace them with leaders dedicated to serving their citizens rather than enriching themselves. It will also deter others tempted to emulate their example.

The effort to establish the IACC is rapidly progressing. It has been publicly endorsed by: more than 350 world leaders, including 55 former Presidents and Prime Ministers; the European Parliament; the Netherlands, Canada, Ecuador, Nigeria, Moldova, and the UK Labour Party before it recently took office. Many other countries have privately expressed support for the IACC or strong interest in seriously considering the treaty being drafted to establish it that will be ready to be reviewed in early 2025.

Speaker: Mark L. Wolf is a Senior United States District Judge and Chair of the Integrity Initiatives International (III), which has catalyzed and is coordinating the campaign to create the IACC. Prior to his appointment in 1985, Judge Wolf served as a Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the US after Watergate and as the chief federal corruption prosecutor in Massachusetts. He has taught a course on combatting corruption internationally at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He has spoken on the role of a judge in a democracy, human rights issues, and combatting corruption in many countries, including Russia, China, Ukraine, Turkey, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Hungary, Egypt, Cyprus, Panama, Colombia, Mexico, Norway, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, and at the Vatican.

Speaker: Dr Akshaya Kamalnath (Australian National University)

Governance of companies has always involved some uncertainty and technology related challenges similarly add to the risks and challenges involved. Yet, corporate governance – both the legal and non-legal aspects – finds ways to address risks and so it will be with tech-related issues. This paper argues that effective corporate governance should now include a focus on ‘digital governance’ which I define as governance of technology and data related challenges. It will include questions of the role of AI and other technologies in making boards more effective, the governance of risks associated with the use of technology at all levels of the firm including considerations of fairness and bias when AI is used in some contexts, and data privacy and cybersecurity risks. While the paper does not call for a change in the core legal duties of directors, it proposes that soft law nudge companies to address tech-related risks. An obvious starting point is to encourage companies to appoint directors with tech expertise and constitute a tech committee where relevant. However, drawing from literature on independent directors and board diversity, the chapter notes that alterations to board composition is not a silver bullet. It must be part of a mindset where the risks posed by technology are treated seriously enough to necessitate strategies and practices beyond mere compliance with existing laws.

3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.

http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/