Podcasts about customary international law

In this episode of the Space Policy Pioneers Podcast, host Andy Williams, Director of Science in Space, interviews space policy expert Hjalte Osborn Frandsen. They discuss different career paths in space policy, the skills needed for success, and delve into the question of whether pursuing a PhD in the field is necessary. Hjalte shares his journey from a legal and consulting background into the space policy research field and his current work on space traffic management. They also discuss the challenges in addressing the rapid increase in space traffic, especially in low Earth orbit, and the potential future of this segment of policy, but also where the industry is heading and its need for a diverse range of professionals from various disciplines. Bio: After obtaining M.Sc. in International Law, Economics and Management and a Master of Laws (LL.M.) from the University of Copenhagen, Hjalte spent a decade working as a management consultant at the nexus of technological change, sustainability, and governance. Driven by a deep-seated passion for space law and policy, Hjalte re-entered academia three years ago, embarking on a Ph.D. journey in the field of Space Law & Policy. Hjalte's Ph.D. project explores avenues for better governance of the increasingly congested and contested region of Low Earth Orbit. https://www.linkedin.com/in/hjalteosbornfrandsen/ Disclaimer: All guests are talking in their personal capacity and are not representing any official position of their former or current employing organization. Episode Guide 00:05 Introduction to the Space Policy Pioneers Podcast 01:16 The Journey into Space Policy 01:41 Transitioning from Business Consulting to Space Policy 02:15 The Decision to Pursue a PhD in Space Policy 05:01 The Challenges and Rewards of a PhD 08:10 The Role of a PhD in the Space Sector 08:35 The Process of Crafting a Research Proposal 20:34 The Future of Space Traffic Management 24:57 Career Paths after a PhD in Space Law 31:12 Closing Thoughts and Future Aspirations Links and Resources University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law: https://jura.ku.dk/english/ Hjalte's profile at Copenhagen: https://jura.ku.dk/english/staff/find-a-researcher/?pure=en/persons/389443 A million paper satellites: https://www.outerspaceinstitute.ca/docs/One%20million%20(paper)%20satellites%20-%20Accepted%20Version%20.pdf International Telecommunications Union (ITU). https://www.itu.int/ International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). https://www.icao.int/ Law of Sea: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf Internet Governance: https://www.internetgovernance.org/what-is-internet-governance/ United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html Danish Space Law and Policy: https://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/space-and-denmark Hjalte's Publications - All Open Access! Frandsen, H. O. 2023, Towards Right-of-Way Rules in Orbit: Principles & Parameters for Sustainable Space Traffic, Air and Space Law, vol 48(3), pp. 297 – 318, https://doi.org/10.54648/aila2023042 Frandsen, H. O. 2022, Customary International Law as a Vessel for Global Accord: The Case of Customary Rules-of- the-Road for Governing the Orbital Highways of Earth, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, vol 87, pp. 705-757, https://doi.org/10.25172/jalc.87.4.3 Frandsen, H. O. 2022, Looking for the Rules-of-the-Road of Outer Space: A search for basic traffic rules in treaties, guidelines and standards, Journal of Space Safety Engineering, vol 9(2), pp. 231-238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2022.02.002 Frandsen, H. O. 2022, Governing Outer Space – legal issues mounting at the final frontier, Danish Institute for International Studies: https://www.diis.dk/en/research/governing-outer-space-legal-issues-mounting-the-final-frontier

Latin Term – Meaning – “Opinion that an act is necessary by rule of law” or opinion of law. It is considered to be a belief that the practice is obligatory. This belief in the mandatory nature the conduct or practice may be termed Opinio Juris.  Importance and Relevance – To decide whether a custom has become a source of International Law or not. What is Custom?  ‘Custom' is one of the many sources of International Law. It means a long established and commonly adopted practice that has acquired the force of law.  Also finds mention in Article 38 (b) of the ICJ Statute that states that International Courts must apply international customs in their decisions, wherever possible and wherever it is a general practice accepted as law either in domestic laws or treaties or international agreements.  Three types – general, regional and local.  General Customs are followed in most of the places and jurisdictions.  Regional Customs are followed in a particular region. North America may have its own Regional Customs distinct from South America or Asia.  Local Customs have limited influence in a geographical area. India Pakistan and Sri Lanka may have a local custom that may not be followed anywhere else.  The existence of a custom can be deduced from the practice and behaviour of states. Such custom becomes part of International Law when it is a State Practice and opinio juris.  State Practice + Opinio Juris = New Customary Rule of International Law   Four Steps  1. Establish existence usage of a practice or conduct. 2. Existence of State Practice 3. Existence of Opinio Juris 4. 1 +2 + 3 = New Custom If all three are present, the practice or conduct becomes a new customary rule of International Law.  1. Step 1 - How to establish existence of usage of a practice or conduct? When a country contends existence of a practice or conduct, it usually gives evidence in form of newspaper reports, statements by government leaders, mentions particular provisions in some law. 2. Step 2 - If such an existence is established, then the next step is to look into State Practice. State Practice simply means how states behave in practice. This practice can be found in their legislation, judicial decisions, administrative acts, official publications, treaties etc. Basically, it covers any act or statements by a state from which its existence as a customary law may be inferred. 3. Step 3 - Once State Practice is established, then the presence of opinio juris is to be seen. To ascertain such presence of Opinio Juris, the behaviour of the state towards that conduct or practice is seen. If the states make that practice or conduct legally obligatory or codify it or make it a legal right, then that conduct, or practice can be said to satisfy the ingredients of ‘Opinio Juris'  4. Step 4 - If existence of usage of a practice or conduct satisfies the dual requirements of State Practice and Opinio Juris, it becomes a valid ‘custom' in International Law and the Court may decide accordingly.  Issues faced by the Court in deciding presence of Opinio Juris  1. Countries may exert pressure to make a practice a custom but views of countries with greater power does carry greater weight as politics or power cannot be divorced from law. 2. Unsubstantiated and unilateral claim by a state regarding existence of a custom cannot be accepted. It is the international context that plays a vital role in the creation of custom.  3. Unsubstantiated and unilateral claim by a state regarding the existence of a custom are not accepted. It is the international context that plays a vital role in the creation of custom. 4. In new areas of law, Opinio Juris may be quickly or even instantaneously established because of the newness of the situation involved and lack of contrary rules. However, in traditional areas of law, it is more difficult to establish a custom as it has to be done through series of usages. Custom should mirror the perception of the majority of states. Important Case Laws 1. Lotus Case2. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases3. Nicaragua v. United States 4. Germany v. Italy5. Asylum Case (Peru v. Colombia) 

Freya Baetens, Professor of Public International Law at Oslo University, gives a presentation on how the International Court of Justice has addressed claims based on ‘regional' customary international law.

Panos Merkouris (University of Groningen) joins us to talk about his ERC project TRICI-Law that focuses on interpretation of customary international law. TRICI-Law's website: https://trici-law.com Publications mentioned in the episode: Merkouris, Panos. Article 31(3)(c) VCLT and the Principle of Systemic Integration, Normative Shadows in Plato's Cave, Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2015. Peter Haggenmacher, “La doctrine des deux éléments du droit coutumier dans la pratique de la Cour internationale”, Revue Générale de Droit International Public 90 (1986): 5–125. Monica Hakimi, “Making Sense of Customary International Law”, Michigan Law Review 118, no. 8 (2020): 1487–1538. Sur, Serge. “La créativité du droit international”, in Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol. 363, 2013. Whitehead, Alfred North and Russell, Bertrand. Principia Mathematica, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. Neil Gaiman, The Sandman (comic book). Christos Kithreotis (Χρίστος Κυθρεώτης), Ekei Pou Zoume (Εκεί Που Ζούμε), Athens: Patakis (Εκδόσεις Πατάκη), 2019.

Monica Hakimi (University of Michigan) joins us to talk about flaws of international legal positivism, interplay between formal and informal law, and customary international law. Publications referred to in the episode: Jutta Brunnée and Stephen J. Toope, Legitimacy and Legality in International Law: An Interactional Account (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Monica Hakimi, ‘The Jus ad Bellum's Regulatory Form', American Journal of International Law 112, no. 2 (2018): 151–90. Monica Hakimi, ‘Making Sense of Customary International Law', Michigan Law Review 118, no. 8 (2020): 1487–1538. Don Herzog, Sovereignty, RIP (New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2020).

In this edition of the Jus Cogens Podcast, we revisit basic assumptions and conceptual foundations of customary international law as it develops and applies. Professor Monica Hakimi of Michigan Law presents her case to let go of the rulebook theory of understanding CIL through her article "Making Sense of Customary International Law", published in the Michigan Law Review and later debated during Opinio Juris's Customary International Law Symposium. Link to Opinio Juris Symposium: http://opiniojuris.org/2020/07/06/symposium-on-hakimis-making-sense-of-customary-international-law/ Link to Professor Hakimi's Article :https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3627905 Social Media: Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/jus-cogens-podcast, Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jus-cogens-the-international-law-podcast/id1432684061 Youtube - http://bit.ly/JCLawPodcast Twitter : https://twitter.com/JCLawPodcast Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/JCLawPodcast linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/company/juscogenspodcast

On this episode of Stereo Decisis, Robert Danay, Oliver Pulleyblank and Hilary Young are joined by David Quayat to discuss the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5. This case involves three former workers at a mine in Eritrea who launched a lawsuit in British Columbia seeking damages from a Canadian company that owned the mine. They claimed to have been subjected to torture, slavery and other human rights abuses at the mine and asserted that Nevsun was liable in tort based on breaches of customary human rights law. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the lawsuit to proceed. In Obiter Dicta, David recommends donating to a food bank, Hilary recommends The Oland Murder, a four part documentary on the murder of millionaire Richard Oland and the retrial of his son Dennis, Oliver recommends audio books and a recent album by Daniel Romano's Outfit and Rob recommends The Road by Cormac McCarthy. Please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts! Feedback, comments or suggestions? Find us on Twitter or Facebook.

From the instant that a State receives an early warning that mass atrocities are likely to occur, what, precisely, is it required to do in response? There is wide agreement that a duty to prevent atrocity crimes exists as a matter of both treaty and customary international law, but little agreement as to the specific content of the obligation. This need has become particularly acute as States hesitate to sign up for new multilateral treaties containing preventive provisions, and courts hesitate to enforce existing preventive duties. The obscurity surrounding preventive obligations is further complicated by the complex legal framework governing atrocity crimes, and the fact that the duty to prevent genocide, crimes against and humanity and war crimes each holds a separate status under the law, derived from distinct sources and the product of unique legal histories. In light of the fact that the precise nature of a crime is often not apparent until the bloodshed has begun, how are States meant to operationalize their responsibilities from the moment that risk appears? This talk will examine States' preventive obligations in relation to genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, by first reviewing the legal frameworks governing each atrocity crime, and then assessing the areas in which further clarity is needed. It will seek to articulate further procedural and substantive guidance as to the specific content of the duty to prevent from the moment that early warnings are provided, particularly in view of the International Court of Justice's recent Provisional Measures decision in the case between The Gambia and Myanmar. Finally, it will conclude by proposing to derive a procedural obligation from the duty to prevent, imported from other areas of public international law, which would assist in filling some of the key operational voids in implementing State responsibility before atrocities have begun. Shannon Raj Singh is a Visiting Fellow of Practice at Oxford with the Blavatnik School of Government's Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC) Programme on International Peace and Security. She is also an Associate Legal Officer at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, where she advises the Appeals Chamber and the Office of the President on the first terrorism trial before an international criminal tribunal. At ELAC, Shannon is researching the prevention of mass atrocities with Federica D'Alessandra, Executive Director of the Oxford Programme on International Peace and Security. Together, they are working to articulate the preventive duties of States in relation to genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and to provide substantive guidance as to implementing and operationalizing the due diligence standard. The research is intended to be part of a stream of work to guide policymakers working in the atrocity prevention and accountability space. Shannon is also an advisor to the Transatlantic Network on Atrocity Prevention, an action-oriented network for engagement across governments, multilateral institutions, academia, and practitioners. Shannon is an American attorney licensed to practice in California, and a graduate of UCLA and the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law. She is also an Officer for the War Crimes Committee of the International Bar Association, and its Special Rapporteur on the ILC Draft Articles on Crimes Against Humanity. She has spoken on expert panels around the world on international criminal law, atrocity prevention, and the intersection of technology and human rights.

Michael Scharf on Accelerated Formation of Customary International Law

Dr Panos Merkouris, University of Groningen - January 2016

The Lauterpacht Centre for International Law (LCIL), University of Cambridge hosts a regular Friday lunchtime lecture series on key areas of International Law. Previous subjects have included UN peacekeeping operations, the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the crime of aggression, whaling, children and military tribunals, and theories and practices for proving individual criminal responsibility for genocide and crimes against humanity. This lecture, entitled 'How Does Customary International Law Change? The Case of State Immunity'', was delivered at the Lauterpacht Centre on Friday 10 May 2013 by Dr Pierre-Hugues Verdier, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law, and chaired by Dr Michael Waibel, University Lecturer in Law, Cambridge. Please note, the question and answer sections of LCIL lectures are omitted to facilitate a free and frank discussion with participants. Contributors appear in their own individual capacity. Any views expressed are their own and do not necessarily reflect of the views of the Lauterpacht Centre or other related institution. For more information about the series, please see the Lauterpacht Centre website at http://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk

The Lauterpacht Centre for International Law (LCIL), University of Cambridge hosts a regular Friday lunchtime lecture series on key areas of International Law. Previous subjects have included UN peacekeeping operations, the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the crime of aggression, whaling, children and military tribunals, and theories and practices for proving individual criminal responsibility for genocide and crimes against humanity. This lecture, entitled 'How Does Customary International Law Change? The Case of State Immunity'', was delivered at the Lauterpacht Centre on Friday 10 May 2013 by Dr Pierre-Hugues Verdier, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law, and chaired by Dr Michael Waibel, University Lecturer in Law, Cambridge. Please note, the question and answer sections of LCIL lectures are omitted to facilitate a free and frank discussion with participants. Contributors appear in their own individual capacity. Any views expressed are their own and do not necessarily reflect of the views of the Lauterpacht Centre or other related institution. For more information about the series, please see the Lauterpacht Centre website at http://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk This entry provides an audio source for iTunesU.