The Faculty of Lawinvites you to participate in a workshop and attend a lecture ofProfessor Pål Wra nge (University of Stockholm)on 18 and 20 of November 2019
Dear colleagues!
The Faculty of Law
invites you to participate in a workshop and attend a lecture of
Professor Pål Wrange (University of Stockholm)
on 18 and 20 of November 2019.
|
Pål Wrange (Ph.D, LL.M) is professor of public international law at Stockholm University and director of the Stockholm Centre for International Law and Justice (www.scil.se). He is a former principal legal advisor at the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs and a former political advisor to the European Union’s Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region. Dr. Wrange has published widely on international law, international relations and theory and has consulted on international criminal justice and peace-building. He has held visiting positions at i.a. Harvard Law School, European University Institute and the University of Melbourne.
| |
|
| |
Schedule:
18 November 2019
18:10-21:00 – A workshop “To see the international economic world order in grains of sand: two cases of regime contestation between investment law, trade law, human rights law and environmental law”
International law is often pictured as a fragmented system in which different regimes (such as human rights law and investment law) have different rules and procedures, and compete with one another. While international law in general is a weak legal system, the regimes of international economic law are much stronger, and this is particularly true for international investment law, which can be enforced in domestic courts in almost any state. This means, says critics, that in a conflict between for instance human rights and the rights of an investor, the rights of the investor wins. This criticism is justified in general, but how the conflict plays out in particular cases depends on the circumstances, including the facts of the case, the details of the legal regime involved, the legal arguments used by the parties and the personalities of the judges/arbitrators. In this seminar we will discuss two cases: South American Silver Limited (Bermuda) v. the Plurinational State of Bolivia and Brazil – Tyres.
a) South American Silver Limited (Bermuda) v. the Plurinational State
of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15. The case involves, inter alia,
investor rights vs rights of indigenous peoples. You will find the
case here. https://www.iisd.org/itn/2019/04/23/tribunal-finds-expropriation-of-investment-by-bolivia-due-to-non-payment-of-compensation-but-awards-only-sunk-costs-to-british-investor-trishna-menon/
It is long, but you should focus on pp 89-122. Here is a summary:
https://www.iisd.org/itn/2019/04/23/tribunal-finds-expropriation-of-investment-by-bolivia-due-to-non-payment-of-compensation-but-awards-only-sunk-costs-to-british-investor-trishna-menon/
For general information on about investor state dispute settlement
procedure (investment disputes) see
https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/8014c6b7/frequently-asked-questions-about-investor-state-dispute-settlement
https://www.svensktnaringsliv.se/migration_catalog/Rapporter_och_opinionsmaterial/
Rapporter/isds_608416.html/BINARY/ISDS
https://longreads.tni.org/isds-many-fear-meaningless-reforms/
https://corporateeurope.org/en/international-trade/2014/04/still-not-loving-isds-10-reasons-oppose-investors-super-rights-eu-trade
http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/03/16/the-death-of-isds/
b) Brazil -- Tyres. For an extract of the case and a commentary, see
enclosed document. It is not a perfect trade vs environment case, but
it is still useful as a background to a discussion on these issues.
For a comment on this and other cases see
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/538a0f32e4b0e9ab915750a1/t/538db556e4b038f0a6eff7c4/
1401795926548/Falkner_Jaspers_2012_Environment_Trade_WTO_final_ms.pdf
For general information on the WTO dispute settlement procedure, see
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm
20 November 2019
18:10-19:30 – A lecture “ Sovereignty, belligerency and cyberspace”
This talk will discuss how intrusive (hacking) cyber espionage in peacetime is legally justified, in particular by US governmental sources. In their reading, “cyberspace” has become a virtual "space" of exception from the usual peacetime rules of respect for sovereignty. Given the ubiquitous and interlinked nature of “cyberspace”, exceptions previously applicable only in war, or in other hostile relations, have now de facto become the rule, and states have sought ways to rationalise and justify that, without openly flouting the established categories of war, peace and sovereignty. In the US, it has occurred through a very limited conception of sovereignty (sovereignty as a non-binding principle). This leaves much of “cyberspace” in a legal no-mans land, or more adequately, a free-for-all-land, in which states can almost search and manipulate data on computers in foreign states without much consequence. This very limited conception of territorial sovereignty is related to the metaphorical spatialization of the Internet as a new "domain", a "cyberspace", rather than as a network of hardware located in interlinked but still separate national jurisdictions.
Both a workshop and a lecture will take place in the conference hall of the Faculty of Law (room 311).
Address: Moscow, Bolshoy Trekhsvyatitelsky per., 3, Conference hall # 311 (3-d floor).
The working language is English (without translation).
If you need a pass to enter the building, please, send by e-mail your surname and name to Tatyana Zhukova:tzhukova@hse.ru and please, do not forget to bring your passport or ID to the event.