It is my great pleasure to be with you today in this Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law under the theme “International Law as an Instrument.”

Less than twenty-four hours ago, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released its “State of the Climate Report,” which the UN secretary-general described as “yet another wake-up call for ambitious and urgent climate action.” The report shows climate change is making extreme weather events more frequent and severe and it sets out record highs in global temperatures, sea levels, and greenhouse gas concentrations. Secretary-General Guterres noted the report proves that climate change is moving faster than our efforts to address it, and called for a Climate Action summit in September, instructing leaders: “Don't come with a speech, come with a plan.”

Climate change litigation is a global phenomenon. According to a database maintained by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, as of February 4, 2019 a total of 1,297 climate cases had been filed in courts or other tribunals worldwide. Of these, 1,009—78 percent—were from the United States, Australia was a distant second, with ninety-eight, followed by the United Kingdom with forty-seven. No other country had as many as twenty. The cases were filed in twenty-nine countries and six international tribunals, led by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which had forty-one.

People around the world are already experiencing the impacts of climate change, and their human rights are under threat. Greenpeace's Climate Justice and Liability Campaign is collaborating with a growing number of communities to reclaim their rights through strategic climate litigation. Three themes run throughout these efforts. First, the climate breakdown is a human rights crisis. Second, political and business leaders must take immediate action or risk being sued. Third, there is mounting evidence that the fossil fuel industry is significantly responsible for the climate crisis and will ultimately be held accountable. Before exploring these themes, it is useful to understand the origins of Greenpeace International's climate justice efforts.

States have undertaken increasingly ambitious climate change mitigation and adaptation commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)1 and instruments adopted thereunder, notably the 1997 Kyoto Protocol2 and the 2015 Paris Agreement.3

One audience member recalled the impact of Massachusetts v. EPA and asked what cases the panelists would choose if they had to pick one pending case to be the kind of case that opens the door for later cases.

Since the end of the Cold War it has become clear that non-state actors (NSA)1 can have a substantial impact on situations affecting international peace and security.2 Although the authority of the Security Council to directly address NSA is not uncontroversial, it is clear that as a practical matter the Council does exercise this authority regularly.3 My remarks will address this practice and explain its legal significance.

I want to raise a quandary facing international investment dispute settlement: the tension between the wish to curb “dual hatting” and the wish to increase the diversity of persons appointed as arbitrators.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is in the midst of an important reform process, and the call for reform includes ethics. Amongst others, criticisms related to ethics in ISDS include concerns related to the lack of diversity among arbitrators, the ensuing increasing possibility of personal, professional, and issue conflicts, the concern that actors can simultaneously wear multiple hats (so-called “double hatting”) as they can serve as counsel in one arbitration and as arbitrator or expert in another that deals with similar or connected issues, as well as, more generally, the lack of common ethical standards applicable to all participants in arbitral proceedings irrespective of their diverse legal cultures.

Individuals appearing before the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) are not subject under international law to any compulsory code of conduct which would guide them in navigating issues of professional ethics. Neither the ICJ Statute nor its Rules impose any qualification requirements on counsel. In practice, legal teams appearing before the Court are comprised of individuals from different legal backgrounds, who tend to be either qualified legal practitioners or academics. Qualified practitioners may be subject to professional codes of conduct from their home jurisdiction, but these can vary considerably across different jurisdictions. Counsel who are academics or are not admitted in any jurisdiction may not be subject to any conduct rules.

A complex society like ours favors multipositionality of actors, in that they are affiliated with multiple social and professional spheres each having its own networks, interests and governing principles, and generating special bonds of interest. This is especially true for international adjudication as being an international judge or arbitrator is not a career. There is always a before, often an after, and sometimes other professional activities in parallel. Moreover, to have the necessary competences is not enough to be appointed and appointment is more likely for people affiliated to multiple networks.

Again, we are delighted to have you here. I am Kathleen Claussen. I teach at the University of Miami Law School, and I am delighted to moderate this session that will address current U.S. trade policy, and this particular moment in time in U.S. trade policy, which some have called, as you know well, a trade war.

Near-Earth Objects: There are many objects in space that come close to earth's orbit. The velocities of asteroids or other near-earth objects (NEOs) that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other in the international community are examining are about seventeen kilometers a second—the energy releases are equivalent to the detonation of a nuclear weapon. NEOs that are of concern, “potentially hazardous objects,” are ones where their orbits bring them into five million miles of Earth's orbit. NASA and other observatories around the world are constantly scanning the skies for potentially hazardous “near-Earth objects,” and thousands have already been found. At the start of 2019, the number of discovered near-Earth asteroids totaled more than 19,000. An average of thirty new discoveries are added each week. NASA estimates that at least 17,000 big near-Earth asteroids have yet to be discovered.

Thank you all for coming, on behalf of the Private International Law Group of the American Society of International Law—we go by PILIG. If you are not a member, please sign up. Signing up is free, if you are a member of ASIL.

These comments briefly address two international legal issues of concern in the Venezuela crisis: the legality of any party resorting to lethal force or taking action short of lethal force. Turmoil in Venezuela moved to a new, more dangerous level, when in January 2019 the leader of the parliament, Juan Guaidó, claimed to be the legitimate president in place of the incumbent, Nicolás Maduro. A variety of parties have taken and have threatened to take action in the wake of Guaidó’s claim. The news media has reported on three categories of action short of lethal force, including economic sanctions, military assistance, and humanitarian assistance. In the second category, lethal force, two examples are most relevant, the use of force against protesters and others not organized to use armed force, and the use of force by, on behalf of, and against groups that are organized to fight.

Chimène Keitner, Alfred & Hanna Fromm Professor of International Law at UC Hastings Law, moderated a discussion among John B. Bellinger III, former U.S. State Department legal adviser and current head of Arnold & Porter's global law and public policy practice; Marko Milanovic, professor of public international law at the University of Nottingham School of Law; and Angela Mudukuti, senior international criminal justice lawyer at the Wayamo Foundation.

Good afternoon, and welcome! Before we opened this panel, in an informal survey, a few of our audience members shared that they have had experience working with disability issues. The central inquiry of this panel is how disability currently is integrated into international law, and what changes are underway.

Welcome everyone. I am Sean Murphy, the President of the American Society of International Law, and I am delighted to have everyone here for what has become a signature event of our annual meeting.