With empirical touchstones from Europe, North America, and Africa, the paper argued that heritage and property represent different approaches to subject formation, produce distinct bodies of expertise, and belong to different rationalities of government in a global patrimonial field: that cultural property is a technology of sovereignty, part of the order of the modern liberal state, but cultural heritage is a technology of reformation that cultivates responsible subjects and entangles them in networks of expertise and management. Recounting Scottish claims to the Lewis Chessmen and Greek claims to the Parthenon Sculptures, the paper explored different nuances in assertions of sovereign power and affirmations of cultural integrity in the face of foreign invasion and foreign rule, globalized markets, and foreign science under the sign of cultural property. The paper contrasted these to the safeguarding of the Jemaa el Fna marketplace in Marrakech and other cases that attempt to organize cooperation and orchestrate social practices under the sign of cultural heritage.

My comments follow the call for interdisciplinary approaches in cultural heritage and the arts, looking to the meaning of interdisciplinary approaches in the context of scholarly engagement with efforts to promote World Heritage. In particular, I look to the issues of “doing” interdisciplinary studies in relation to the application of scholarly insights for international aid efforts involving World Heritage sites. My thoughts arise from experiences as an empirical scholar doing field work on World Heritage nominations in Myanmar, but as much as they connect to the circumstances of developing countries they also extend more generally to other locations. The argument is that intentions for interdisciplinary approaches in World Heritage practice are challenged by the structure of the international aid system, which is comprised of donors and aid providers with established practices. As a result, there is a need for scholars to consider ways of “doing” interdisciplinary studies in the promotion of World Heritage.

The series of attacks against cultural heritage by extremist groups over the past decade have led to many initiatives aimed at strengthening the protection of cultural heritage in situations of conflict. Many of these initiatives adopted an interdisciplinary approach, including lawyers, policymakers, and heritage professionals. However, a number of gaps remains, not only during an armed conflict but also in the pre- and post-conflict stages.

Walls, fences, and other artificial barriers along national borders have been proliferating in response to a variety of perceived threats to sovereign states such as terrorism and drug trafficking. But by far the most significant rationale today for the construction of new barriers is in response to prospective migrants, ranging from undocumented individuals to massive refugee flows. The European refugee crisis, which reached a peak in 2015, and the repeated arrivals of Central American refugees at the United States border with Mexico prompted, respectively, new barriers in Europe and a determination by former President Trump to extend existing barriers in the United States along its border with Mexico. Often such initiatives have more to do with fear-mongering and other political motives than with effective control of migrants given the characteristic reliance of migrants on normal avenues of approach and ports of entry.

J. Benton Heath introduced the topic. Essential security interests clauses have been invoked in a handful of cases, including several cases arising out of the Argentine debt crisis and the twin cases brought by Deutsche Bank and CC/Devas against India relating to satellite frequencies, with mixed outcomes and reasoning. In several treaties, these clauses also refer to public health measures, but there is little guidance on how such clauses should be interpreted or applied. Using a fictional but realistic scenario, the advocates and tribunal members—playing assigned roles—were asked to consider whether public health exceptions are self-judging, whether they deprive a tribunal of jurisdiction or go to the merits, and what showing is required for the clause to apply. The scenario also raised broader doctrinal questions about the nature of exceptions in investment treaties, their relationship with the treaty's primary obligations, and the interrelationship between security clauses and the customary international law defense of necessity.

Although the 2020–2021 international agendas were obviously focused on the COVID-19 situation, our societies are under continuous relevant threat as a result of disasters brought about by natural and technological hazards and worsened by the effects of climate change. Such phenomena, capable of significantly disrupting affected communities, are giving rise to multiple legal and institutional challenges and consequently the protection of persons affected by climate change and disasters features on the agenda of several international bodies. A number of examples could be mentioned in this regard, such as the forthcoming debate in 2021 at the United Nations General Assembly on the possibility of adopting a treaty based on the 2016 International Law Commission (ILC) Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters; the current activities of the ILC focused on sea-level rise in international law; debates in human rights monitoring bodies on the relationship between disasters and legal protection, which have intensified in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and led to a continuous flow of recommendations, reports, and other advocacy activities highlighting the challenges raised by this disaster; as complemented by increasing recourse to strategic litigation on climate change in international and domestic fora.

For the 2020 World Disasters Report, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) compiled and analyzed disaster data since the 1960s, looking globally at the number and type of disasters, the number of people affected and how and where and reviewing how this has changed over time. When looking at the trends in disaster data, the impact of climate crisis is clear.

The recent International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) World Disasters Report 2020 and the Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), including the Report on Oceans and the Cryosphere of 2019, point to an increasing risk of disasters and adverse effects of climate change, which are worsened by the interface between disasters and climate change. Work by humanitarian organizations in the field and by scientific experts is showing that the effects of this intersection, which makes the impact of climate change and disasters even more dramatic, are here and that measures have to be taken to protect persons affected in this context.

On October 24, 2019, The Human Rights Committee adopted a view in the case of Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand; a case concerning the complaint of a national of Kiribati, seeking asylum in New Zealand, from the effects of climate change in Kiribati. With his claim being rejected by New Zealand, Mr. Teitiota was returned to his country; however, he insisted that by sending him back to Kiribati, New Zealand violated his right to life under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by exposing him to conditions that endanger his life. The conditions included the sea level rise in Kiribati due to climate change, resulting in the scarcity of habitable space, environmental degradation, and saltwater contamination of the freshwater supply.

Unlike most of you, I hope, I have spent quite a lot of time in jail. This is not because I am a criminal, even though those who jailed me have called me a terrorist and worse. It is because I am a campaigner for democracy. I believe everyone has a right to vote and to be represented by a government they choose as free citizens. For that I have spent many years behind bars.

This Article was prepared by Andrea Harrison, Chair of the Lieber Society on the Law of Armed Conflict.

International trade dispute settlement today encompasses many modes of operation across several different fora. Given this diversity, it is difficult to say whether there is a clear “2.0” version of trade dispute settlement. While such a label may suggest that the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) is the “1.0,” the WTO system is in fact a revision to the prior General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) enforcement arrangement. The state of play today for trade dispute settlement belies any clear label apart from what we might try to use to capture a variegated landscape that is constantly in motion. States continue to experiment with compliance and enforcement tools, such that singular directional statements are insufficient to capture what is happening in practice.

The dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization (WTO) had long been viewed as the “crown jewel” of the multilateral trading system. In just over twenty-five years, in various proceedings under the dispute settlement understanding (DSU), the WTO dispute settlement system was prolific and thorough. There have been nearly four hundred adopted panel and Appellate Body reports (including compliance panel proceeding under DSU Article 21.5), twenty-five decisions notified under arbitrations on determining the amount of retaliation under DSU Article 22.6, thirty-eight awards to determine the implementation period under DSU Article 21.3(c), and one stand-alone arbitral award under DSU Article 25. This output has attracted attention in other international tribunals, notably the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In the 2007 Pulp Mills case before the ICJ, the WTO was commended as having contributed the most to the development of “best practices” in the evaluation of evidence submitted during the course of dispute settlement proceedings.

During the decade between 2007 and 2017, the World Trade Organization (WTO) became the almost exclusive forum for the settlement of interstate trade disputes. The previous 1995–2005 period had seen some signs that regional trade agreements (RTAs), such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR), and the Andean Community, could become alternative forums for dispute settlement in trade. Between 2007 and 2017, however, the only agreement under which (two) trade disputes were brought to adjudication was the Dominican Republic—Central America—United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR).

Obviously it is regrettable that the 115th Annual Meeting including this Panel cannot take place physically in Washington. We miss the ambiance, the camaraderie, being together as Oscar Schachter's “invisible college of international lawyers.” But we are grateful that the American Society has successfully managed to organize this meeting in an online format, just like many international organizations have continued their work in the best possible way, under the trying circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This contribution will provide some brief observations about the manner in which the main intergovernmental bodies of the UN have functioned during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This presentation gives a brief overview of how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, or Agency) has fulfilled its mandated activities during the pandemic, considering: (1) host country relations; (2) meetings of IAEA policy making organs; (3) other meetings under the auspices of the Agency; and (4) IAEA nuclear verification work, for which the Agency is most well-known.

Seen from here on the factory floors of the many international organizations based in Geneva, lockdown has had significant consequences in both the governance meetings and negotiations in which states engage, most notably in respect of the politics that influence our lawmaking, the participation in our meetings and negotiations, and the personal relationships between diplomats, which are essential to successful multilateralism.

Adaptation is the one thing that the COVID-19 pandemic taught us. Not only as human beings in our personal lives but also as professionals working in multilateral diplomacy. We learned the hard way to adapt to a new reality of continuous lockdowns, working from home, conducting meetings virtually, and possible negotiations of legal instruments online. Simply, with all the challenges we met and despite the slow mode, multilateralism is still functioning and business is continuing.

It is a great honor for me to introduce to you this year's Women in International Law Interest Group (WILIG) Prominent Woman in International Law honoree, Judge Gabriel Kirk McDonald.