Podcasts about optional protocol

Menschenrechtliche Diskurse drehen sich oft primär um die sogenannten politischen und bürgerlichen Rechte: Meinungsfreiheit, Religionsfreiheit und Privatsphärenschutz stehen (primär) als Abwehrrechte für die Begrenzung staatlicher Gewalt. Insbesondere im internationalen Menschenrechtsschutz sind darüber hinaus aber auch wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte fest etabliert. Erik Tuchtfeld spricht in dieser Folge mit Ibrahim Kanalan über die Kritik an ihrer Rechtsqualität, ihre Einklagbarkeit und ihre Wirkung im nationalen Recht. Im Grundlagenteil stellt Isabel Lischewski den Internationalen Pakt über wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte (UN-Sozialpakt) vor und erklärt, dass auch gegen europäische Länder immer wieder erfolgreiche Individualbeschwerden vorgebracht werden. Wir freuen uns über jede Rückmeldung! Wie immer sind natürlich Lob, Anmerkungen und Kritik auch an podcast@voelkerrechtsblog.org herzlich willkommen. Abonniert unseren Podcast via RSS, über Spotify oder überall dort, wo es Podcasts gibt. Es gibt die Möglichkeit, auf diesen Plattformen den Völkerrechtspodcast zu bewerten, wir freuen uns sehr über 5 Sterne!   Hintergrundinformationen: Kanalan, Die universelle Durchsetzung des Rechts auf Nahrung gegen transnationale Unternehmen, 2015. Pinto, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in: United Nations: Audiovisual Library of International Law, 2020. Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, Internationaler Pakt über wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte Djazia/Bellili v. Spain (Right to Adequate Housing), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Views adopted under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights with regard to communication No. 5/2015, UN Doc: E/C.12/61/D/5/2015.   Moderation: Erik Tuchtfeld, LL.M (Glasgow) & Philipp EschenhagenGrundlagen: Dr. Isabel LischewskiInterview: PD Dr. iur. Ibrahim Kanalan & Erik Tuchtfeld, LL.M (Glasgow) Schnitt: Daniela Rau   Credits: Stephan Harbarth, Urteilsverkündung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, tagesschau: 20:00 Uhr, 05.11.2019

A Clare disability activist is hopeful that new legislation can be the catalyst for employers to change policies surrounding the employment of people with disabilities. This week the government announced the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will come into effect at the end of the month, having been acceded on October 8th. This legislation will allow people with disabilities to report alleged breaches of rights under the Convention directly to the United Nations. Disability activist and Clare Leader Forum member Dermot Hayes says its equally important that people living with disabilities recognise the independence that can be achieved by gaining employment.

It's claimed a landmark moment has been reached for Clare's disabled community. The Government has confirmed it will ratify the optional protocol of the United Nation's Convention on the rights of people with disabilities, over 6 years after the main body of the legislation was passed in Dáil Eireann. The measure will ensure a system is in place for people with disabilities to take complaints directly to the UN if they feel they're suffering a human rights violation in Ireland. Ennistymon Fine Gael Senator Martin Conway believes it's a major step forward, but admits much more barriers must be broken down to achieve equality.

Are you ready to meet a woman who's reshaping the world, one conversation at a time? This episode features the inspiring podcaster, Linda Hunt, host of the Accessibility Solutions podcast. Listen as they dive into Linda's podcasting journey, exploring how she used her show to establish authority on the critical topic of accessibility. Linda narrates the evolution of her audience through her first season and how her podcast has been pivotal in growing her business. She shares how she reimagined her podcast in her second season, for a broader audience. Listen in as Linda shares valuable insights, experiences, and tips from her podcasting journey.Don't miss:> The reason and the why behind Linda starting her podcast> Why Linda re-envisioned the podcast for season two> The impact of sharing personal narratives and lived experiences> Changes in season 2> Finding guests for the show> The importance of having a mission-based podcast> Getting over the fear of podcasting.> Reimagining season two of the podcastAbout Linda HuntLinda Hunt Is an Award-Winning Accessibility Consultant, Speaker and Author. She is the CEO of Accessibility Solutions and an Advocate for all things related to accessibility. Linda is the Treasurer of Citizens with Disabilities – Ontario a member of the Rick Hansen Foundation Accessibility Professional Network and a Certified Community Champion on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol. Linda first became a person with a disability in 2004 since then she has been an active and engaging speaker to groups on a variety of accessibility topics.In addition, Linda is a business owner. Along with her husband Greg they have operated Grelin Apparel Graphics for over 30 years.Connect with Us:Website – www.solutions4accessibility.comLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibility-solutions/Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/solutions4accessibilityYouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRBqblsq_vxrKbdvEp2IOWQResources:Get the #1 Blueprint to Grow a Podcast into a Networking Powerhouse HERE: www.amplifyou.com/blueprintAbout the Host:Michelle Abraham - Podcast Producer, Host and International Speaker.Michelle was speaking on stages about podcasting before most people knew what they were, she started a Vancouver based Podcasting Group in 2012 and has learned the ins and outs of the industry. Michelle helped create and launched over 30 Podcasts in 2018 and has gone on to launch over 200 shows in the last few years, She wants to launch YOURS in 2022!14 years as an Entrepreneur and 8 years as a Mom has led her to a lifestyle shift, spending more time with family while running location independent online digital marketing business for the last 9 years. Michelle and her family have been living completely off the grid lakeside boat access for the last 4 years!Check Us Out on:Facebook:...

“Child prostitution is prostitution involving a child, and it is a form of commercial sexual exploitation of children. The term normally refers to prostitution of a minor, or person under the legal age of consent. In most jurisdictions, child prostitution is illegal as part of general prohibition on prostitution. Child prostitution usually manifests in the form of sex trafficking, in which a child is kidnapped or tricked into becoming involved in the sex trade, or survival sex, in which the child engages in sexual activities to procure basic essentials such as food and shelter. Prostitution of children is commonly associated with child pornography, and they often overlap. Some people travel to foreign countries to engage in child sex tourism. Research suggests that there may be as many as 10 million children involved in prostitution worldwide.[1] The practice is most widespread in South America and Asia, but prostitution of children exists globally,[2] in undeveloped countries as well as developed.[3] Most of the children involved with prostitution are girls, despite an increase in the number of young boys in the trade. All member countries of the United Nations have committed to prohibiting child prostitution, either under the Convention on the Rights of the Child or the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. Various campaigns and organizations have been created to try to stop the practice. Several definitions have been proposed for prostitution of children. The United Nations defines it as "the act of engaging or offering the services of a child to perform sexual acts for money or other consideration with that person or any other person".[4] The Convention on the Rights of the Child's Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography defines the practice as "the act of obtaining, procuring or offering the services of a child or inducing a child to perform sexual acts for any form of compensation or reward". Both emphasize that the child is a victim of exploitation, even if apparent consent is given.[5] The Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999, (Convention No 182) of the International Labour Organization (ILO) describes it as the "use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution".[6] According to the International Labour Office in Geneva, prostitution of children and child pornography are two primary forms of child sexual exploitation, which often overlap.[2] The former is sometimes used to describe the wider concept of commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC). It excludes other identifiable manifestations of CSEC, such as commercial sexual exploitation through child marriage, domestic child labor, and the trafficking of children for sexual purposes.[7] The terminology applied to the practice is a subject of dispute. The United States Department of Justice states, "The term itself implies the idea of choice, when in fact that is not the case."[8] Groups that oppose the practice believe that the terms child prostitution and child prostitute carry problematic connotations because children are generally not expected to be able to make informed decisions about prostitution. As an alternative, they use the terms prostituted children and the commercial sexual exploitation of children.[9] Other groups use the term child sex worker to imply that the children are not always "passive victims".[9]. Some victims are runaways from home or State institutions, others are sold by their parents or forced or tricked into prostitution, and others are street children. Some are amateurs and others professionals. Although one tends to think first and foremost of young girls in the trade, there is an increase in the number of young boys involved in prostitution. The most disquieting cases are those children who are forced into the trade and then incarcerated. These children run the possible further risk of torture and subsequent death.” --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/support

In this week's episode of The Five Minute Advocate, Julie discusses Australia's resistance to complying with the United Nation's Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT). This stance raises questions about our powers, and reluctance to scale back on cruelty.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: By failing to take serious AI action, the US could be in violation of its international law obligations, published by Cecil Abungu on May 27, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. “Long-term risks remain, including the existential risk associated with the development of artificial general intelligence through self-modifying AI or other means”. 2023 Update to the US National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan. Introduction The United States is yet to take serious steps to govern the licensing, setting up, operation, security and supervision of AI. In this piece I suggest that this could be in violation of its obligations under Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). By most accounts, the US is the key country in control of how quickly we have artificial general intelligence (AGI), a goal that companies like OpenAI have been very open about pursuing. The fact that AGI could carry risk to human life has been detailed in various fora and I won't belabor that point. I present this legal argument so that those trying to get the US government to take action have additional armor to call on. A. Some important premises The US signed and ratified the ICCPR on June 8 1992.[1] While it has not ratified the Optional Protocol allowing for individual complaints against it, it did submit to the competence of the Human Rights Committee (the body charged with interpreting the ICCPR) where the party suing is another state. This means that although individuals cannot bring action against the US for ICCPR violations, other states can. As is the case for domestic law, provisions of treaties are given real meaning when they're interpreted by courts or other bodies with the specific legal mandate to do so. Most of this usually happens in a pretty siloed manner, but international human rights law is famously non-siloed. The interpretive bodies determining international human rights law cases regularly borrow from each other when trying to make meaning of the different provisions before them. This piece is focused on what the ICCPR demands, but I will also discuss some decisions from other regional human rights courts because of the cross fertilization that I've just described. Before understanding my argument, they're a few crucial premises you have to appreciate. I will discuss them next. (i) All major human rights treaties, including the ICCPR, impose on states a duty to protect life In addition to the ICCPR, the African Charter, European Convention and American Convention have all give states a duty to protect life.[2] As you might imagine, the existence of the actual duty is generally undisputed. It is when we get to the specific content of the duty where things become murky. (ii) A state's duty to protect life under the ICCPR can extend to citizens of other countries The Human Rights Committee (quick reminder: this is the body with the legal mandate to interpret the ICCPR) has made it clear that this duty to protect under the ICCPR extends not only to activities which are conducted within the territory of the state being challenged but also to those conducted in other places – so long as the activities could have a direct and reasonably foreseeable impact on persons outside the state's territory. The fact that the US has vehemently disputed this understanding[3] does not mean it is excused from abiding by it. (iii) States' duties to protect life under the ICCPR require attention to the activities of corporate entities headquartered in their countries Even though the US protested the move,[4] the Human Rights Committee has been clear that the duty to protect extends to protecting individuals from violations by private persons or entities,[5] including activities by corporate entities based in their territory or subjec...

In this week's episode of The Five Minute Advocate, Julie shares some recent revelations about Australia's failure to implement the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. After signing the OP-CAT almost 5 years ago, Australia is now in breach of this protocol. Due to this, it will likely be placed on the UN's Non-Compliance list, otherwise known as the Article 17 List, and would be the first country in the OECD to be placed on it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Linda Hunt did not start out knowing about or in any way dealing with disabilities or accessibility. She grew up primarily in Canada. While getting her college degree she began a 15-year career with the Superior Court in her town. Along the way she married a man who worked for a screening company that silkscreened t-shirts and other products.   Eventually, Linda's husband started his own screening company and after 15 years Linda began doing work for the new company. In 1999, because Linda began feeling tingling in her extremities, she consulted a physician and was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. As it turned out, after ten years she became one of the 50% whose disease progressed until Linda began using a wheelchair. Of course, Linda then became much more interested in the whole concept of accessibility and she began doing more work with organizations and companies in the field.   I asked her about how she remained so positive and how she was able to deal with the unexpected changes in her life. Her answer will show you why I regard her and her actions as unstoppable. Linda's story will show you that no matter what befalls us we can move forward.     About the Guest:   Linda Hunt Is an Award-Winning Accessibility Consultant, Speaker, Podcaster and Author.   She is the CEO of Accessibility Solutions an accessibility consulting firm that aids businesses and organizations to remedy barriers for people with disabilities. Their mission is Making the World Accessible.   Linda is the Treasurer of Citizens with Disabilities – Ontario. A member of The Rick Hansen Foundation – Accessibility Professional Network. A Certified Community Champion on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and it's Optional Protocol.   Linda was elected to Brantford City Council in 2022. She is the first person with a physical disability to be elected as a Brantford City Councillor.   Linda first became a person with a disability in 2004 since then she has become an advocate for all things related to accessibility.    Linda has more than 30 years of experience in senior management roles in the public, private and not-for profit sectors.   Based in Brantford, ON Linda and her husband Greg have operated their own business Grelin Apparel Graphics for over 30 years.     Free Gift– 1:1 meeting with Linda https://calendly.com/accessibilitysolutions/meeting-with-linda-hunt     Accessibility Solutions – Social media links https://www.facebook.com/solutions4accessibility   https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibility-solutions   https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRBqblsq_vxrKbdvEp2IOWQ   Accessibility Solutions – Podcast site https://accessibility-solutions.captivate.fm/listen   Website www.solutions4accessibility.com   Email linda@solutions4accessibility.com   Phone 519-753-1233           About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog.   Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards.   https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/   accessiBe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/       Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below!   Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can also subscribe in your favorite podcast app.   Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts.     Transcription Notes Michael Hingson  00:00 Access Cast and accessiBe Initiative presents Unstoppable Mindset. The podcast where inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. Hi, I'm Michael Hingson, Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe and the author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, Thunder dog, the story of a blind man, his guide dog and the triumph of trust. Thanks for joining me on my podcast as we explore our own blinding fears of inclusion unacceptance and our resistance to change. We will discover the idea that no matter the situation, or the people we encounter, our own fears, and prejudices often are our strongest barriers to moving forward. The unstoppable mindset podcast is sponsored by accessiBe, that's a c c e s s i  capital B e. Visit www.accessibe.com to learn how you can make your website accessible for persons with disabilities. And to help make the internet fully inclusive by the year 2025. Glad you dropped by we're happy to meet you and to have you here with us.   Michael Hingson  01:29 Today we have Linda Hunt as our guest, Linda is an award winning accessibility consultant. She's a podcaster. She's an author, and she now is a politician. She's a member of a city council. We're going to have to learn more about that. And she also happens to be a person with a physical disability. So we have lots that we can talk about. And we hope that this will inspire and educate. And I'm certainly looking forward to it. I hope all of you are as well. So Linda, welcome to unstoppable mindset.   Linda Hunt  02:00 Oh, thank you, Michael. And thank you so much for having me.   Michael Hingson  02:03 Well, it's really a pleasure. Let's start, as I love to do tell me a little bit about you growing up and just where you came from, and kind of what got you to what you do as an adult?   Linda Hunt  02:16 Yes. So I'm, I'm a Scottish loss. Actually. I was born in Scotland and I emigrated to Canada when I was about two with my parents. And they came to Canada with me as a two year old had two other children. And then my, my mum was homesick. So we moved back to Scotland and I actually started school here. I started kindergarten here. But when I went back to Scotland, I went to school for a few years and came back when I was in grade three. So I've I've been here ever since I was about eight years old. And as far as you know, growing up, did the traditional school, I graduated high school in the depression of the early 80s. And my parents couldn't afford to send me to post secondary education. So I got a job. Well, I had a job in high school that became a full time job. And and then I started working actually for superior court when I was only 19 years old. So following that, I decided to pursue post secondary education. So I have a degree in business administration, which took me 10 years to get before the days of online learning. I had to commute almost an hour each way to actually attend university. So that's, you know, that's kind of what got me as far as my post secondary education. I have two children, they are grown. They're 25 and 30. Now and wow, that was a that was a forget my own birthdays. My son turning 30 was was a milestone for me, which was just at the end of November. But so and professionally, I mentioned I spent 15 years working in superior court. My husband and I had opened our own business in 1990, which we've had for just coming up on 33 years. I myself spent a significant amount of time working as a business consultant for the federal government, and then went on to be executive director of a national health charity here in Canada until 2009 When I gave up what I called the commute down the highway for the commute down my office or sorry, down the hallway to my office. which is how I ended up starting accessibility solutions, which is an accessibility consulting firm that AIDS businesses and organizations to remedy barriers for persons with disabilities. So that kind of got me to where I am now, from a professional perspective, you've mentioned that I have a physical disability, and yes, I do, I am in a power wheelchair. I was diagnosed in 1999, with multiple sclerosis. For the first five years, I could still jog and high heels. And then we eventually started to see some disability progression. To the point between early 2006 and late 2007, I went from one cane to two canes to a walker to a scooter to a wheelchair in the span of about 18 months. So adapting, adapting adapting to disability progression as we moved along. So that's my history in a nutshell, as we will say,   Michael Hingson  06:07 Well, I like the idea of going down the hall to the office. And so do I very much enjoy it, I think it's a great thing, I think there's a lot of value in being able to work at home, as long as you are able to do it and keep up with what it is that you need to do. It's it takes a lot of discipline to work at home and some cases, more than even working in an office of the when you're in an office, there's a lot of gossip and talking and interaction that takes place and some of that's valuable. But working at home is a lot more of a discipline. And it it has its own challenges.   Linda Hunt  06:46 It does. I know when I first started working from home I that was in as I said in 2009, which I mean, since the pandemic remote working is become a norm for a lot of people. But in 2009, a lot of people thought if you worked from home, what did that mean? You you went on your computer, and then you went and watched, you know, TV or did something along those lines. But I did miss the as you said the watercooler the gossip, I miss the interacting with other adults. And so I've really embraced, especially since the pandemic zoom, and being able to connect with people like yourself, who we would never be able to connect in person just because of geography. But it's certainly become the norm for a lot of people to be working from home. And you're right. I do tend to take a little bit of a break around 430. But I quite often am back in my office at about six o'clock till maybe eight o'clock. So one of the things that I find about working from home is is almost like you live at work, because for me the temptation to go into your office and maybe do something or catch up on something that you didn't finish earlier in the day is just right there.   Michael Hingson  08:21 And that can be a good thing. And it could also be a thing that you have to watch, of course, but I've in my career had several jobs where I have done a lot of things remotely as it were. I remember starting out working well my first job was actually involved with a device called the Kurzweil Reading Machine for the blind. And literally, I traveled all over the country for 18 months, where we in the National Federation of the Blind place machines in various places. So right from the outset, I did everything kind of remotely. So I would interact with people where we put machines, but the other people within the organization, and within the process of my job responsibilities within the organization was all remote. So I got used to that. And then I went to work for Kerswell in an office. And that was great until I was asked to relocate to California to help Kerswell integrate with Xerox on the West Coast. And there I was, again in a situation where pretty much for three years my office was really an room in my home. So I got used to that pretty early. But I do like both settings. I think there's value for both. So I'm I'm glad that you're you're able to succeed at doing it. You seem to be pretty comfortable working down the hall as it were.   Linda Hunt  09:55 Yes. Yes, I really I really am and it and I do a lot of work with companies around inclusive hiring and it makes a big difference from an inclusive hiring perspective. To have to have your workforce be able to work remotely.   Michael Hingson  10:17 Yeah. So when you worked for the Superior Court, what did you do?   Linda Hunt  10:22 I was a, I started out as the Deputy Clerk of small claims court, which is basically, I think at the time when I first started, it was small claims under $1,000. And I think it went to $3,000. In today's, you know, realm, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $25,000. But it was basically civil litigation. So I was a court services, representatives. So basically, in a, in an environment where no one was happy to be there. But the other thing that Superior Court in Ontario, Canada, at least does is trials that get basically bumped from Provincial Court. So things like murders and that kind of thing. So Superior Court. While we do a lot of civil litigation, there, also has a very high end criminal components. So I would do a lot of the work around juries. And basically, it's paperwork that has anything to do with the court system, or anything to do with law or legal work has, has lots and lots and lots of paperwork.   Michael Hingson  11:48 I have too busy.   Linda Hunt  11:50 Yeah, yeah. And I mean, I, as I said, I started there when I was 19. I mean, I left. When I left there, my daughter was only two. So you know, I really grew up in that role. And as I said, the that was the timeframe that I was also commuting to get my degree. So when my you know, I would be working, you know, nine to five at the courthouse and then leaving to drive to university for a lecture two nights a week. So yeah, it certainly kept me busy back then.   Michael Hingson  12:30 What made you decide to leave that and start your own business?   Linda Hunt  12:34 Well, my so my husband was the production manager for a screen printing company for 12 years. And it was the decision to start our business was more a result of his business expertise. And he was working in a family business, he was fairly young. He wasn't quite 30 yet, but he was working in a family business where at the age of 30, he realized that he was never going to go any higher than he was because it was all family members above. So we talked about it and, and then we had a good friend of ours that worked for a company that was looking for a new screen printer, so it was kind of a it was good timing. It was you know, maybe I can do this. And then almost like a ready made customer base, if you want to call it that. That presented the opportunity. So we did so we decided that he would start that now keeping in mind at the time I worked at Superior Court, so I always had the backup full time job will say so it wasn't it wasn't the total leap of faith. I mean, I had the job with the benefits and but anyway, we did our business has been very, very successful. So other than when I left Superior Court and my daughter, as I said was, well she wasn't quite too. There was a maybe a five year span in there that I worked full time in the business but at that point, we had two locations. 16 employees and things were you know, very, very busy. And then I decided to when when my daughter went to school is when I decided to to go and work elsewhere, which is when I went to as I said I went to work for the federal government as a business consultant.   Michael Hingson  15:00 So, now when you talk about the business being a screen printer, what exactly is that? Well,   Linda Hunt  15:05 if you can imagine you've probably got a t shirt with a logo on the front of it. Ah, that would have been printed in a screen printing facility. Got it?   Michael Hingson  15:14 Okay. Yeah. So then you went to work for the federal government? What did you do for them,   Linda Hunt  15:21 I was a business consultant, I ran a program called the self employment benefits program. And I basically took people that wanted to be entrepreneurs, all the way through the business planning, market research, marketing plan, getting their business started, and then mentored them through their first year of business. And I can pleased to say in the, in the, my, probably about the four years that I did that I probably had a hand in launching 200 to 230 small businesses. And I found that I found that very rewarding. So that was really for me, it was, first of all, my experience of starting my own business, or, in my case, my, the business that my husband was, was running full time. But it was also my, my education. So I have a degree in business administration. So but but really, that that lived experience of being that entrepreneur that had to write the business plan, and, you know, go through all of the steps of becoming a business. And I'm pleased to say, I did that in the early 2000. And there I know, because I've used them, I know of quite a few of the businesses that I helped launch during that timeframe that they're still in business today. And we're talking 15 to 20 years later. So I like to think that I had a hand in giving them a great start.   Michael Hingson  17:12 So how long did you do that?   Linda Hunt  17:15 I did that for four years in the early 2000s. And at the time, I was sitting on the provincial board of directors for, as I said that the national health charity that I that so what ended up happening is that they approached me because they were recruiting for an executive director. So I have a degree in business administration basically was sitting on the provincial board of directors and had the was given the opportunity then at that point to be considered for the executive director position. So I was successful, applied and was the successful candidate and left that left that position with the federal government to go and work as executive director for for that, that organization, which anybody that's worked in the not for profit world knows that that executive director level, it's a lot like running a business. So you've got customers or clients to keep happy and you've got funders to to keep happy and you've got payroll to make and marketing to do and you know, all of that kind of stuff. So it is a lot like running the business.   Michael Hingson  18:35 So you did that until when,   Linda Hunt  18:39 until 2009 which is as I said when I gave up the commute down the highway to the commute down the hallway. And so in 2009 was when I saw I started accessibility solutions in 2010 2009 was a tough year. Health wise. We had my dad my father died and then my father in law died a month apart. And we had health wise I was I was struggling so 2009 was a tough, tough year.   Michael Hingson  19:21 Now were you in a chair by that time.   Linda Hunt  19:25 In 2009, I was still shuffling in the house with a walker Okay, or what I call a furniture surfing. So shuffling for one piece of furniture to another but no couldn't couldn't walk independently at that time. At that time I was using a wheelchair outside so I would leave the house get in my wheelchair leave the house go down the ramp and the garage get into my 2009 was when I bought my wheelchair accessible man so I still to this They drive from a wheelchair accessible van that has a side ramp. But yes, so I was still living we were still living in, you know the two story, four bedroom house at that point we installed. So we talked about adapt, adapt, adapt, right. So you adapt to your circumstances can't do that anymore. So what do I need to do so that we can do that so that at some point in 2006, I believe I decided that I could no longer climb this flight of 13 stairs to go from the main level of our house all the way up to the bedrooms. So we installed a stair lift at that point. So when I say I was shuffling with a walker, I was shuffling with a walker on the main level, and then I'd get on the stair lift and go upstairs and shuffle with another Walker. Around the the upstairs the bedroom, my office was upstairs at that time. We Yeah, so in 2010, was when I started accessibility solutions, which at the time was primarily related to compliance with the EO da, which is provincial legislation, somewhat similar to your ADA in the United States. So we were helping businesses comply with new legislation that was that was coming on stream for businesses in Ontario. And while we still do that, we you know, we've we've really grown into quite a few other areas of helping businesses embrace the will say, embrace the culture of, of inclusion and realize that persons with disabilities are is really a market that no business can afford to ignore. And so we have a series of webinars now that we run called Accessibility is good for business. We have some partners with the local Chamber of Commerce and you know, that kind of things. So that's that's really my my passion now is I'm I'm a very strong advocate for accessibility. In no kind of every, every aspect of, of life, I guess is, you know, well,   Michael Hingson  22:36 tell me tell me more about your your concepts of accessibility or inclusion really ought to be part of the cost of doing business?   Linda Hunt  22:46 Well, it's it well, we actually frame it as that accessibility is good for business. So you can enhance your bottom line by being accessible. Why? Well, 22% of the population has a disability. So and then we talk about the sphere of influence of those people. So I, I'm in a wheelchair, so I'm one of the 22%. But if we're going out for dinner, or we're going shopping, then that sphere of influence might be me and a couple of girlfriends or in the case of my family, my husband's family is fairly large. So I think our Christmas dinner was 34 people. So when we set out to decide where we're going to go for dinner for 34 people, the number one concern is is that business accessible, because if it's not accessible, me and the 33 other people in my husband's family are not going there for dinner. So that's, that's real dollars. Right? That's, that's, you know, that's, like I said, that's real dollars and cents. But the other, the other thing that we that we really talk about is the fact that 22% of the population has a disability, but that percentage over the age of 65 is obviously 40% of the population. So everybody, whether you're in Canada or United States is well aware of what we call the silver tsunami. And and as the population ages there are more and more people that have a disability and if you're not accessible, and then you're then you're you're you know those people are not coming to your business or in the you know, they're not coming to your website if it's not accessible to someone like yourself that is blind or For us, as vision loss, we the other thing that that we do a lot of work around right now is inclusive hiring strategies because the world is short staffed, and the most underutilized labor market out there are people with disabilities who want to work, but need need to work in organizations that have embraced a culture of inclusion. And so out of necessity, believe it or not, a lot of businesses are recognizing the fact that accessibility and inclusion needs to be part of their business strategy.   Michael Hingson  25:49 So one of the conundrums I think, that we face, although we don't necessarily talk about it, is that while we have a significant number of people who happen to have a disability, you said, 22%, I've actually heard higher numbers doesn't matter, though. The problem is, we have a lot of different disabilities. And so yes, you have issues where you can't gain access to buildings, and I may have issues where we can't access the menu at a restaurant or read material, but they're different. How do we get people within the minority to work together? Or do they?   Linda Hunt  26:36 Well, I think they do. Recognizing, and, you know, when we talk about universal accessibility, we're talking accessible for everyone. So not just a person with the physical disability, or as you said, not someone that's able to, to read, read a menu, or hear the waitress, for example, you know, giving you the specials of the evening at, at a restaurant, it's, it's really all about how, how a business can accommodate different types of disabilities, and how they, how they can do it, but the culture, that culture of inclusion really starts at the top. So that there has to be a will, for them to want to be able to be inclusive to people of all disability, you know, of all types of disabilities. So, you know, I always start with the, you know, how can I help? It's as simple as that, how can I help? What do you need, and, and then we, and then we go from there, but we, you know, I work with a lot of businesses that that are, they're just, they don't know what they don't know, right. And so, a lot of times what we think are, you know, fairly simple fixes, until there, if you, if you don't have a disability, or until somebody points something out to you, then then you're not even aware. So that awareness for one is definitely, you know, just being aware that you need to be accessible, or you want your business to be accessible. But then also being able to recognize that in order to be inclusive for everyone, that there are different ways that you that you need to make your business successful.   Michael Hingson  28:59 Well, I, I like what you say about it is good for doing business. But I also do think that we need to have more of a discussion about the reality that accessibility and inclusion issue is and should be part of the cost of doing business as well, because we do so many things in business. We do so many things for one group or another, or for most employees, for example, we have lights so that people can see where they're going, and so on. Although some of us don't need it. We have coffee machines to make employees happy and so on. And we regard that typically in a business environment as part of the cost of doing business. But if and we hit when we provide computer monitors, but if somebody comes along and says I need a screen reader to hear what's on the screen. First of all, they may not even get hired because oh that's we don't have budgets for that rather than in reality. It's no different than needing a computer monitor, or it is an issue of what's your priority. And so we at some point have to decide that inclusion really is part of the cost of doing business. And that's a good thing.   Linda Hunt  30:19 Yeah, I agree. And that, I mean, a lot of times I feel like I'm preaching to the converted, right? Because once once they've decided to seek out the services of an accessibility consulting firm, and I'm sure you deal with this, as well, that, you know, once they've decided that they're going to make their website accessible, and they've come to, to see or talk to you about, about your services. You know, they've made that conscious decision that they want to build accessibility and inclusion into their business, which is great. There are though, at least in the province of Ontario, Canada, where we are, there are laws that require businesses to be accessible. And unfortunately, that legislation is probably one of the most non compliant pieces of legislation out there. Because it's what I call the carrot and the stick, right, like people, first of all, they don't know, I've had so many businesses say to me, why don't think that legislation applies to me? And I say, well, actually, it applies to every business in the province of Ontario that has at least one employee. Or they'll say, Well, we don't have customers, well, that doesn't really matter. I mean, you're Purolator delivery guy could have a hearing impairment, and that qualifies as, or your website's not accessible, or, you know, whatever, whatever it is. So it's not about the legislation was, was actually passed in 2005, to make the province of Ontario fully accessible by 2025. Well, we've got under two years to go. And we are nowhere near where where we were supposed to be. And a lot of that you're right has to do with businesses who don't realize that building in accessibility and inclusion is is the cost of doing business.   Michael Hingson  32:34 How do we get speaking of the whole issue in Canada? How do we get that to be more of a national initiative? Why is it a provincial one? I know that I've had discussions with people in various provinces about guide dog access, and some provinces do better at that than others. But why is it that we are not able to get this to be more of a national movement?   Linda Hunt  33:00 Yeah, we, we just in 2019, actually passed the accessible Canada Act. Unfortunately, though, the accessible Canada Act, which was, which was also a very welcomed piece of legislation, but it's only it only regulates federally regulated industries, such as banking for airline trance, transportation, or, you know, those kinds of federally regulated industries. So they're provincially regulated industries. And I'm lucky that we're in Ontario, because we were actually the first that that brought out legislation, and ours is called the Accessibility for Ontarians. With Disabilities Act, which is initially was comprised of five standards. We have two other ones that are working their way through being being adopted now, but the, you know, to answer your question, how do we, you know, I sit on, I sit on the board of citizens with disabilities, Ontario, we do a lot of work around advocating for, first of all, just compliance with the legislation that we do have in the province of Ontario. But then, yeah, you cross the border, and you go into another province, and in some cases, there are some provinces in Canada that don't have accessibility legislation. Yeah. But then there's then there's the whole question is why do we need legislation like for those of us in that who work in the disability space? It should just be you know, Nobody should be allowed to put up barriers. I mean, you know, you've got our on our disability legislation is actually companion legislation with the Ontario Human Rights Code. So the complaint mechanism is is kind of tied with being able to file an Ontario Human Rights Complaint. If someone's not complying with, with the legislation, so you know, which is, which is a long drawn out process for something that should just never happen. And that's where we get into disability rights. And you know, people have a right to, to housing, they have a right to, you know, the same services that are available to, to persons who don't have the same disability as them, you know, that that type of thing. But you know, that, you know, I think you and I are probably going to be long gone for this work from this world before. Everybody gets on the same page and realizes that accessibility and inclusion should just be built into everything from the start. Yeah.   Michael Hingson  36:18 It certainly would be less expensive, if it were, which is I know, something that you think about that you talk about building inaccessibility, as opposed to having to deal with a later and certainly   Linda Hunt  36:32 why one of my comments, or one of my quotes that I its accessibility is cheaper to build it in than it is to bolt it on.   Michael Hingson  36:42 Well, absolutely. And it is an issue where, if you, for example, especially for physical disabilities, where mobility is involved, if you have to modify a building or a structure after the fact, it's extremely expensive, and my wife, what I and I built houses to avoid a lot of those costs. So our most expensive home from a standpoint of adding an accessibility that is to a home we built was when we moved to New Jersey, we had to spend an additional $15,000 to put an elevator in because all the homes in the area where two story homes. But even that became a selling point when we sold the house and moved back to California. But in reality, like the home we're in now that I'm in now, my wife actually passed away in November. So we were going to be married for two years on the 27th of November, we missed it by 15 days. But when we built this, when we built this house up, there were no real extra costs because of the fact that you design it in. And that's in general, true. I work for excessive be a company that makes products that help make websites more accessible. And accessible, I will tell you that if people would design in the inclusion to make websites accessible from the outset, if the basic manufacturers of those tools would design in accessibility and inclusion, it would be less expensive. But that isn't the way we work today. And so we do have to have solutions that work like accessibility to make sure that websites are usable, and include all people.   Linda Hunt  38:39 Exactly. And I and you know, I'm totally in agreement with you in terms of housing. I mean, we've I've done some work with the accessible housing network here in Ontario. And there is a there's a there's a true crisis in accessible housing. And then while there's a crisis in affordable housing, yeah, the crisis and accessible affordable housing is just you know, that's, that's a whole other whole other thing. And the thing is that the accessible housing network will tell you the exact same thing that you just referred to as building a single family home is that it doesn't cost any more to build it with 36 inch doors and you know, whatever accessibility features you need at the outset, well, it's the same if you're building an apartment building. It doesn't cost any more when you're building an apartment building to build it with 36 inch doors and you know, those types of accessibility features. But what people always seem to think accessibility is is like a little add on or something we have to do and that's something that needs to change. So I've just been elected to municipal council, but I'm one of the ones that will push that challenge as to We're building a 45 unit, affordable housing complex and four of the units are going to be barrier free. So I will ask the question, why don't we make all 45? You know that that was going to be my question? Yeah. Because it's not going to cost any more when you're building it. And I don't know anybody that doesn't need a 36 inch door that has a problem walking through one. So, you know, accessibility doesn't offend people. And from that perspective, you know, why aren't we building? As I said, all 45 units with that accessibility feature?   Michael Hingson  40:42 How do we change the basic conversation? I mean, we hear all about diversity. And diversity is always about sexual orientation, gender, race, and so on. disabilities are not included in that, traditionally, while the minority group of persons with disabilities is much larger than any of those except for gender. When you're dealing with male and female, but like LGBTQ and so on, certainly from a percentage standpoint, that population is incredibly, significantly less than the population of persons with disabilities. But we never get that included into the discussion. Why is that? And what do we do about it?   Linda Hunt  41:35 Yeah, it's, it's funny, because he asked you, you'll talk to, well, large businesses that have, you know, the diversity, you know, inclusion and equity. Some of them have entire departments built into their business. But, you know, when you talk about diversity and inclusion, you're right, we we are not just talking about, you know, gender, race, you know, if you're, if you have a inherent bias within your, within your culture against persons with disabilities, then you know, that that's, that's going to get forget any diversity, inclusion or equity department or policies or procedures that you have, there's, there's still the inherent bias. No, I have actually seen the word are the words diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. Those are those are ones that are more forward thinking,   Michael Hingson  42:45 well, a little bit, but I'm not sure it helps a lot. Because what do we mean by accessibility? And we're not still not dealing with the issue? And I think you're absolutely right. If we look at it, at its most basic level, the answer to my question about why we're not included in the conversation is bias and fear. For many years, in this country, the Gallup polling organization, doing surveys of people's fears found that one of the top five fears people said they had in this country was blindness wasn't even disabilities. Now, that's many years ago. But still, the biases are there, and whether it's just blindness or all disabilities. We haven't gotten beyond that fear and that bias, and that's the reason that I think we have this issue of not being included in the conversation. Yeah, and if we are, it's just all for the motivation, the inspiration of one person, one one time, one group one time, but the bias, the basic prejudice hasn't changed.   Linda Hunt  43:55 Yeah, and that's, you know, you're right, like the the culture of inclusion. And whether it be any marginalized group needs to needs to be, you know, built, it's like anything else that needs to be built into the, the, the, you know, whether it be the business, their corporate culture, from the leadership level, and then it flows all the way down throughout a business. But if you if you can't get that that bias addressed at the leadership level, then unfortunately, that that kind of toxic type of type of thinking pre mediates the entire business culture. So, I mean, I'll use an example you mentioned that I was that I was a elected to Brantford City Council in in October, but I actually I faced what I'll call, you know, bias at the door with a very nice gentleman he was he was elderly, but he didn't understand how I could possibly be a city councilor because I was in a wheelchair. So the fact that my legs don't work had him somewhat out somehow thinking, the rest of me had deficits that would not allow me to position.   Michael Hingson  45:36 And what did you do about that? How did you address that?   Linda Hunt  45:40 Yes, I had a very nice discussion with them. And I basically said that my legs don't work. But that I, that I'm in a, that I'm in a, you know, I, my educational background, my, you know, my, you know, the fact that I run to businesses, the fact that even as he was speaking to me, I was in as, as you can well imagine, being in a wheelchair, made door to door canvassing, which is knocking on individual doors challenge challenging, but here I was knocking on his door. And, you know, so we, we, we basically had the discussion. And it it was it was just an inherent, I mean, I don't think he was doing he wasn't, in fact, I know, he wasn't doing it to be rude or disrespectful, even though it came across that way. But it's it, I almost felt like I needed to educate them. Yeah. As as we were having the conversation that, you know, assuming that just because I'm in a wheelchair, I'm not capable of making decision making processes at the municipal council level is wrong.   Michael Hingson  46:58 How did the conversation end up?   Linda Hunt  47:00 I think I got his vote.   Michael Hingson  47:03 Well, there you go. What can you ask for?   Linda Hunt  47:05 Because and you know, what I tell people we've got, you know, I do a signature talk on overcoming barriers to leadership, but but sometimes when you're faced with, you know, that kind of thing head on it, it is a lot of times, you know, as you said, like, people don't know what they don't know. And you need to address the, you know, the, whether it be the stigma or the, you know, the incorrect assumption that, you know, that you are somehow inferior, because you have a disability,   Michael Hingson  47:45 right. And that's why education is so important. And that's why among other things, we used to hear terms like mobility impaired, and I still hear visually impaired, which is wrong on so many levels. And we have to get beyond that, rather than equating how much of one thing someone has, as opposed to someone else, recognizing that what we have are characteristics. And certainly low vision makes a lot more sense to say than visually impaired, first of all, visually doesn't make sense. And as far as I'm concerned, you're, you're blind, impaired or your light dependent. Yeah, that's just probably a more polite way to put it. But the the reality is, I think, in answering my question, it is about education. And we have to do it, but we also have to get so many others across the board to become more advocates for this as much as they are for other kinds of things. Yes. And that's where the real challenge begins.   Linda Hunt  48:55 At I and I and the other thing is, is is educating, educating our younger population, so I absolutely love it. When because I always say all the little boys love me because I'm in a wheelchair and they love wheels. So they'll they'll, you know, they'll tell me, you know, how come you're in a wheelchair? I had a little boy, actually, when I was out a couple of weeks ago that said, Does that have a horn? And it does have a horn does the horn forum and he was just totally enthralled. But I welcome that kind of curious initiative of, of children like that. And I think that you know, that, like so many other thing was in schools, that, that learning that not everyone is the same and people are different. Is you know should apply to persons with disabilities as well. Not just not just whether it be race or, or gender or any of that kind of stuff that yeah, it because that's, that's really the, versus trying to change the way of thinking of older people that, you know, as they become adults, if children grew up thinking that disability was just a normal part of life, there are people that have disabilities in our, in our society. And there's, you know, there's nothing wrong with with them or with with that, and that we need to just be inclusive for everybody.   Michael Hingson  50:57 Of course, you probably didn't tell that little boy that the horn wasn't the greatest thing in the world. It's not all that loud.   Linda Hunt  51:06 I got a new wheelchair about two years ago, and this one is actually not bad. But the ones that I had before that my, in fact, my husband, one day was like, I don't even know if the person in front of you at the grocery store can even hear that one. Yeah. fireless, you know, trying to get, you know, a group of people in a crowd to move out of your way. But, but anyway, I don't use it all that often. Yeah, I like the Escort in front of me. That's kind of saying, Excuse me, excuse me. She's coming through.   Michael Hingson  51:39 My wife's last chair was the pride mobility line of sight share. So it's three years old. And the horns still wasn't all that great, as you said, as far as being able to be heard in a crowded area. On the other hand, you really can't put an air horn on on a chair either. So it's a compromise. Yeah. You know, for for you. You have a very positive attitude, you've undergone a lot of changes over the years. How, how do you? Or how did you end? Do you keep up a positive mental attitude about everything? Well,   Linda Hunt  52:16 you know what, Michael, I tell people all the time, if I didn't have a positive attitude, I'd be sitting in the corner crying somewhere. Yeah, I was I was diagnosed on March the ninth and 1999, which was all the internet was fairly new at the time. So I went back to my office after being diagnosed, and at the time I did work. My husband and I was I did have an office in our, in our facility. And my husband came into my office and said, you know, well, what did he say? And I said, Oh, he said, I have that in us. And at the time, my symptoms were tingling in my feet and my fingers. So I was convinced that I had some kind of a tumor pressing on my spine, because he kept talking about peripheral nerve damage, and that there was something causing, you know, this peripheral nerve damage. So honestly, a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis was kind of like, oh, I don't think I can die from that. So I literally drove back to my office and was I was sitting in my office when my husband came in, and I said, Oh, he said, I have MS. But you know what, I really don't know what that means. And I will tell you though, after now 25 years of having Ms. This is a disease that does not have a roadmap. So there's there's no way of knowing from onset to 25 years later. All he did say to me was that 50% of the people need some assistance walking within 10 years. And that could be a cane to a wheelchair. And as I said earlier, in our discussion, I went from one cane to two canes to a walker to a scooter to a wheelchair in the span of about 18 months. But my positive attitude. I think, honestly, it's it's out of necessity. I mean, I you know, I was diagnosed with with children that were like two and seven, like I didn't have time to wallow in any kind of self pity. And the other thing is, is when I was first diagnosed, other than an exacerbation that that would, you know, kind of get me down for maybe about six weeks, which you know, they give me some steroids and I'd be up and going again, but, you know, like I said, I you know, just, you know, I was working full time we had you know, we had a business I had two children you know, so my, you know, I say the the positive attitude really is what has kept me going like to this day, here we are 25 years later,   Michael Hingson  55:05 you made the choice. Yeah, you that's the important part that you, you could have gone the other way.   Linda Hunt  55:12 Well, there and there, unfortunately, there are a lot of people that do go there. And it doesn't matter what kind of diagnosis or not, I'm sure you're an exactly. I mean, you're a very positive person. You know, with that has dealt with a disability, yourself for you know, so it's, to me, it's, it's a part of life. And as I said, you know, unfortunately, having a very good support system. So my husband knows men, I mean, we were married 10 years when I was diagnosed. So we're coming up on 35 years, but you know, it very much is a, you know, a family disease. My, my daughter, I don't think she remembers much. Before I was actually, you know, using starting to use mobility devices, whether it be, you know, a cane or whatever, my son I think remembers more. But having that positive attitude is what's enabled me to, you know, to continue to do the work that I do. I've just never, I've never let my, my, well, we'll call it disability, but I've never liked flat the fact that I can't walk like everyone else. And that's really what it is. Impact, you know, my decision to do whatever I want. So I still drive I still, I still travel a fair bit. I mean, I do a lot of research before I go places to make sure that they're, you know, I'm going to be able to use my left and my wheelchair is going to get where it needs to go. And that kind of thing. Air travel can always be a little bit of a challenge. But you know, yeah, you just, like I said, you just carry on. And it's I think I've always had that attitude, though. It's like, if something gets you down, you just pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and you carry on. So   Michael Hingson  57:30 it's, it's as unstoppable as it gets.   Linda Hunt  57:32 Yeah, there you go.   Michael Hingson  57:36 I understand you're an author. I am love to hear about that.   Linda Hunt  57:40 Yeah, so I have the, it's funny, I never thought of myself as an author. Because the first couple of the first couple of published documents that I had, were more what I would consider to be documents, they were policy pieces or so I developed a developed the leadership code for the organization that I was executive director of, so I, you know, writing that kind of stuff, but I had the opportunity to, to be part of a collaborative book a couple of years ago, which my, my chapter was actually on overcoming barriers to leadership, which is one of my signature talks, and, you know, we've had that which kind of feeds into that poll, positive attitude, and you know, that that type of thing. And so, yeah, you know, and that book is on Amazon, I use it, use it in my business as a, as a, you know, a gift, give it away at networking events, that kind of thing. I'm actually working on another book now, which will be which is around the concepts of accessibility is good for business and why. So we've, you know, we've got a couple of kind of chapters that are that are being flushed out on that. And I had somebody you know, that said to me once when I was starting out my podcast was to think of your podcast episodes as chapters of a book, which was an interesting concept, because, you know, my, my podcast accessibility solutions, making the world accessible is is really aimed at that business, that business target market and understanding that that accessibility is good for business. So, you know, we're, hopefully, by later on this year, then we'll have a, I'll have another published book out specifically about how accessibility is good for business.   Michael Hingson  1:00:15 Are you self publishing or going through a publisher? No,   Linda Hunt  1:00:19 I'm using the the Kindle Direct Publishing, through Amazon works.   Michael Hingson  1:00:24 Yeah. Running with Roselle. My second book is as published through Kindle Direct Publishing, so you understand it? And that's, that's great. Is your husband still doing the screen printing business?   Linda Hunt  1:00:37 He is. Although I was after him to retire, but then when I got elected, he's like, oh, yeah, you're after me to retire. And you have four years of city council? Yeah, I would like to Yeah, it is a very much a going concern. He, as I said, he works from the, we have a full production facility, which is off off site about five minutes from our home, which is where him and all of our production staff work. And I'm actually in the process now of bringing on some, I'm trying to replace myself, I'm trying to work myself out of a job, Michael?   Michael Hingson  1:01:18 Well, if you can do that successfully Good on you, as they say, down under it, and it's good to be forward thinking enough to know when it's time to do that.   Linda Hunt  1:01:30 Yes, yes. And I think that's also a key, the key milestone to achieve in order for us to really be able to successfully sell the business, because anybody buying a business that is then operated, you know, by sole proprietor or in our case, you know, a husband and wife team for as long as we have is likely going to want to keep somebody along for the transition. Whereas I tell I tell everybody, when the when the deals done, I am no longer growing girl. So if I've handed off the majority of the work that I do for the day to day operations of the business and have staff in place, then that's, that's part of succession planning and   Michael Hingson  1:02:20 transitions. Well, Linda, this has been absolutely fun. And it's been everything. I hoped that it that it would be and I really appreciate your time, if people want to reach out to you. Talk with you, perhaps or maybe even if you have them available here speeches and so on, how do they do that. And I think you also said that you have a free gift.   Linda Hunt  1:02:43 I do have a free gift. So my free gift is and I'm sure you'll put it in the show notes. We shall, yeah, you can book a time to just talk with me. And I invite anyone to talk with me that it whether it's accessibility, you want to talk about accessibility. If I'm I'm very open to being guests on other people's podcasts or other people's stages, I've done a fair bit of that kind of that kind of talking over the years, conferences, that type of thing. Or if a if you just want to reach out and find out more about what it is that we do, then that link to be able to book that free consultation. Can you   Michael Hingson  1:03:30 say the link?   Linda Hunt  1:03:32 The link is? It's a Calendly link? It's   Michael Hingson  1:03:36 where can people get to through your website?   Linda Hunt  1:03:39 People can get to it through my website there. And you're going to embed it in your show notes.   Michael Hingson  1:03:44 Yeah. What's your website?   Linda Hunt  1:03:46 They can see it there it is. Solutions, the number 4 accessibility.com. And they can also always reach me via email, which is Linda at solutions for accessibility.com.   Michael Hingson  1:04:01 Well, cool. Well, I again, very much appreciate you being willing to come on and have a good in depth and I think good substantive discussion about all of this. And I hope that we're making a difference. I think we are and the more we talk about the conversation, and the more we converse about the conversation, the more conversation we have, which is what we really need to do.   Linda Hunt  1:04:26 I agree and I so very much appreciate you having me on. I'm a big fan of your show.   Michael Hingson  1:04:33 Well, thank you. Well, I hope that everyone listening feels the same way and we'd love to hear from you. So if you would, we'd appreciate you letting us know you can reach me at Michaelhi at accessibe A C C E S S I B E.com. Or you can go to my podcast page which is www dot Michael hingson h i n g s o n.com/podcast. And we'd love to hear from You please give us a five star rating. When you're listening to this, we appreciate your ratings and your views very much. And we hope that this has been educational and gives you some things to think about and Linda once more. I want to thank you for being with us today and we'd love to have you come back and visit some more. Thank you.   Michael Hingson  1:05:24 You have been listening to the Unstoppable Mindset podcast. Thanks for dropping by. I hope that you'll join us again next week, and in future weeks for upcoming episodes. To subscribe to our podcast and to learn about upcoming episodes, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com slash podcast. Michael Hingson is spelled m i c h a e l h i n g s o n. While you're on the site., please use the form there to recommend people who we ought to interview in upcoming editions of the show. And also, we ask you and urge you to invite your friends to join us in the future. If you know of any one or any organization needing a speaker for an event, please email me at speaker at Michael hingson.com. I appreciate it very much. To learn more about the concept of blinded by fear, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com forward slash blinded by fear and while you're there, feel free to pick up a copy of my free eBook entitled blinded by fear. The unstoppable mindset podcast is provided by access cast an initiative of accessiBe and is sponsored by accessiBe. Please visit www.accessibe.com. accessiBe is spelled a c c e s s i b e. There you can learn all about how you can make your website inclusive for all persons with disabilities and how you can help make the internet fully inclusive by 2025. Thanks again for listening. Please come back and visit us again next week.

In this episode, Giulia Dedej speaks with Dr. Aphrodite Papachristodolou (Postdoctoral Researcher at the ICHR) on her important research on maritime migration and human rights. To keep up to date with developments from the Central Mediterranean, you can follow: Sea-Watch International SOS Mediterranee Open Arms Alarm Phone MSF Sea InfoMigrants Lighthouse Reports IOM Libya Dr. Aphrodite Papachristodolou's articles: Aphrodite Papachistodoulou “The recognition of a right to be rescued at sea in international law” (2022) 35 Leiden Journal of International Law 337 Aphrodite Papachristodoulou, “Mediterranean Maritime Migration: The Legal Framework of Saving Lives at Sea” (2020) 20 University College Dublin Law Review 87 Aphrodite Papachistodoulou and Richard Collins, “Pulling Back Navies and Pushing Back Migrants: Questioning the EU's International Legal Responsibility in the Mediterranean Sea” (2020) UCD Working Papers in Law, Criminology & Socio-Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1 / 2020 Further information on the numbers of migration in the Mediterranean: IOM Missing Migrants Project UNHCR Refugees Data Portal | Mediterranean Reports on Italy's influence over the Libyan Coast Guard: Forensic Oceanography: MARE CLAUSUM, Italy and the EU's declared strategy to stem migration in the Mediterranean Forensic Oceanography: reconstruction of S.S. and Others v Italy incident Cases: Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy (2012) App no 27765/09 (ECtHR 23 February 2012) S.S. and Others v Italy, Application No. 21660/18; communicated in June 2019 UNHRC, A.S., O.I., D.I. and G.D. v Italy “Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning Communication No. 3042/2017*'**'***” (27 January 2021) UN Doc CCPR/C/130/D/3042/2017 This episode was produced by Giulia Dedej and Grainne McGrath. Intro music: "Smarties Intro - FMA Podcast Suggestion" by Birds for Scale (Attribution-ShareALike 4.0 International Licence) Outro music: "Smarties Outro - FMA Podcast Suggestion" by Birds for Scale (Attribution-ShareALike 4.0 International Licence) Other: "Uneasy" by Blue Dot Sessions (Attribution-ShareALike 4.0 International Licence), "This Passage" by Blue Dot Sessions (Attribution-ShareALike 4.0 International Licence), "Uncertainty" by Blue Dot Sessions (Attribution-ShareALike 4.0 International Licence)

Acknowledgement of Country// Headlines// Saw Lwin Oo currently serves as President for the Australian Karen Organisation (AKO), which was established in 1996 and seeks to serve the social and political concerns of the Karen community in Australia. AKO held their first national conference in Sydney in 1998. Today Saw Lwin Oo joins us to discuss their work for the AKO, recent events in Myanmar and the demands of the Myanmar community in response to inaction from the Australian government following the reimposition of the military junta in February last year.// We hear a two-part conversation between Bunjilinee (Robbie Thorpe) and his nephew Alister, who caught up to discuss the Victorian treaty process and its issues on Wednesday the 26th of October during Bunjil's Fire on 3CR. You can listen back to the full 50-minute discussion here - the audio will be available on demand until next Wednesday the 2nd of November. Tune in to Bunjil's Fire at 11AM every Wednesday on 3CR. More information about the Victorian treaty process is available here, as well as on the Yoorrook Justice Commission's website.// Steven Caruana, coordinator of the Australia OPCAT Network, joins us to discuss serious concerns about Australia's breach of its obligations as a party of the United Nations' Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. The Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture or SPT visited Australia earlier this month but was forced to suspend its visit early due to a lack of cooperation and obstructions to carrying out its mandate, noting particular difficulties with the Queensland and New South Wales state governments. Steven mentioned a range of resources listeners can access for further information, including the OPCAT section of the AHRC website, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's  OPCAT page, an article Steven co-authored with Associate Professor Laura Grenfell titled ‘Are we OPCAT ready? So far, bare bones', and Steven's Churchill Fellowship report on best practice inspection methodologies for bodies tasked with overseeing the implementation of OPCAT.// Songs// Black Lives Matter - Birdz// R.I.P. - JK-47 ft. JON DO£ and Jarulah// Come Back - Barkaa ft. Mi-kaisha// Diyama - Ripple Effect Band//LOVE TOO SOON - Tasman Keith//

Acknowledgement of Country// Headlines// 7:15 - Lorraine Finlay// Australian Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay joins us to discuss Australia's lack of progress on its obligations as a party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. This conversation follows a national symposium on OPCAT last week, which brought together human rights experts to discuss key areas of concern in the lead up to a visit from the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture to Australia planned for late 2022.//  ​7:30 - Andy Hall//Andy Hall, Migrant Worker Rights Specialist and Journalist, on the case being brought in the US against Ansell subsidiary in relation to forced labour in Malaysia. Andy spoke with Jiselle from Asia Pacific Currents with an update of the case - APC - News and labour updates from the Asia Pacific region. Saturdays from 9am. // 7:45 - Maree McCabe//Maree McCabe AM is the CEO of Dementia Australia and a member of the organisation's Board. A recognised leader in the health and aged care sector Maree brings more than twenty years' experience across the health, mental health and aged care sectors to her current role. She joins us today in the lead up to Dementia Action Week 2022 (Monday 19 September to Sunday 25 September), to speak on this year's theme ‘A little support makes a big difference'.// 8:15 - Texta Queen//Texta Queen is queer, disabled, non-binary Goan Indian second-generation settler, living on Wurundjeri land, known for using the humble fibre-tip marker to draw out complex politics of gender, race, sexuality and identity. They examine existence and empowerment in dis/connection to our own and others' ancestral lands, investigating these themes via photography, drawing, painting, printmaking, video, performance, self-publishing, curating, music, writing and murals. Today, Texta joins us to speak about their creative practice, the monarchy, as well as their project in the works 'TheySwarm' and upcoming exhibitions. Instagram: @textaqueen. Donate to TheySwarm!// Songs: Taal Se Taal (JYOTY Remix) We Won't Cry - Archie Roach & Unlce Jack CharlesDance Ritual II - Auntie Flo featuring Anbuley//

Feminist Question Time Aus/NZ July's webinar is a presentation by COAL - The Coalition of Activist Lesbians Australia (COAL) was formed in Australia in 1994 to work towards the end of discrimination against lesbians. COAL lobbies the Australian Commonwealth and other state and territory Governments to remove discrimination against lesbians. COAL lobbied at the UN 4th World Conference on Women, Beijing, 1995, and co-hosted the first international lesbian-space tent at the 1995 NGO Forum. Among a number of other organisations, COAL successfully lobbied for the Australian Government to sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). They are Australia's national lesbian advocacy organisation and the only United Nations accredited lesbian non-government organisation. Women's Declaration International (WDI) Feminist Question Time is our weekly online webinars. It is attended by a global feminist and activist audience of between 200-300. The main focus is how gender ideology is harming the rights of women and girls. You can see recordings of previous panels on our YouTube Channel. WDI is the leading global organisation defending women's sex-based rights against the threats posed by gender identity ideology. There is more information on the website womensdeclaration.com where you will find our Declaration on Women's Sex-based rights, which has been signed by more 30,000 people from 157 countries and is supported by 418 organisations. This week's speakers: Professor Emerita of Transnational Studies Bronwyn Winter, lives on the land of the Gadigal and Wangal peoples of the Eora Nation. She is a long time feminist, lesbian and trade union activist in France, Australia, briefly in the UK, and transnationally. My interdisciplinary academic work has covered various themes, but addressing various forms of violence against women has always been a core preoccupation. Susan Hawthorne is a writer, poet, & political commentator. She is Co-founder & director of independent feminist publisher Spinifex Press Disclaimer: Women's Declaration International (WDI) hosts a range of women from all over the world on Feminist Question Time (FQT) and Radical Feminist Perspectives (RFP) and on webinars hosted by country chapters – all have signed our Declaration or have known histories of feminist activism - but beyond that, we do not know their exact views or activism. WDI does not know in detail what they will say on webinars. The views expressed by speakers in these videos are not necessarily those of WDI and we do not necessarily support views or actions that speakers have expressed or engaged in at other times. As well as the position stated in our Declaration on Women's Sex-based Rights, WDI opposes sexism, racism and anti-semitism. For more information see our Frequently Asked Questions or email info@womensdeclaration.com For more information: www.womensdeclaration.com

The existence of child soldiers has not been reported on much of late, but has been raised by the US State Department in its 2020 Trafficking in Persons Report, and by the UN in its report on human rights violations in Yemen (the UN report”).[1] The use of children as soldiers is commonplace. The UN in 2016 reported that: An upsurge in global conflicts and brutal war tactics continues to make children extremely vulnerable to recruitment and use by armed groups to work as porters, messengers, and cooks, and also in armed conflict as combatants and in sexual slavery, causing the children lifelong trauma. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court classifies the recruitment of children into fighting forces as a war crime and a crime against humanity. The International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 182 defines child soldiering as one of the worst forms of child labour. The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child outlaws child soldiering, and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child established 18 as the minimum age for children’s participation in hostilities. In the UK You must be at least 16 years old to join the Army as a soldier. You can start your application when you're 15 years and 7 months. In Australia, you can join the Army at 17 but can start your application earlier if you wish. As mentioned in the UK sixteen-year-olds are allowed to join the Army, but under the terms of the UN Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, known as the ‘child soldiers treaty’, the UK does not send under-18s to warzones although there have been incidences where it has happened. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as being every human being below the age of 18 years. This, arguably, begs the question is the west in some cases sending mixed messages by recruiting 16 and 17 year olds to their armed forces? The argument is that the armed forces offer young people exemplary career opportunities and that may be so in the UK and Australia. The reality in the likes of Somalia is very different. In those parts of the world where the UN conventions and protocols are not so readily respected, children can be illegally abducted and forced to join up. Or, it may be that due to the impact of conflict on their communities, children join 'voluntarily' (often under pressure from family or members of the group) in order to secure food, to escape an abusive relationship, for revenge if many of their family members have been killed or for safety and money. As well as live combat, the role of a child soldier can include working as a spy, planting landmines, performing domestic duties and delivering messages. Child soldiers are highly vulnerable to abuse with reports of sexual exploitation, and being used as human shields on the front line of fighting. If they manage to escape, former child soldiers often live in fear of retaliation against themselves or their families. Turning to the UN report, it calls on the Security Council to refer alleged actions by all parties in the conflict, including the Houthis rebels and Saudi Arabia, to the International Criminal Court for possible war crimes prosecutions. The UN report also urges the Security Council to expand sanctions against individuals involved in the conflict and to establish a criminal investigations body. The UN report authors said there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that the Yemeni government and the Iran-backed Houthis, along with the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, were responsible for a range of rights violations, including unlawful deaths, disappearances and imprisonment, along with sexual violence and the use of child soldiers.[2] If the UK and Australia for argument’s sake lifted the minimum age for joining the armed forces to 18 it would unlikely make any difference to the plight of child soldiers in countries where conventions and protocols are not respected. The UN report calls for: [the parties to the conflict to] Cease and prevent the recruitment and use of children in the armed conflict; further, ensure the demobilization and effective disarmament of boys and girls recruited or used in hostilities, and the release of those captured; implement effective programmes for their rehabilitation, physical and psychological recovery, and reintegration into society. All decent and same people would agree with that call, but is it worth the paper it is written on? The tragic reality is that the child soldiers have rights written on paper but no means to enforce them. The UN report recognises that “No right exists without a remedy” yet calls on the warring parties who recruit child soldiers and exploit them in the worst possible way to do the decent thing. The challenge for the UN and the international community is to enable the child soldiers to have the means of access to the remedy. There can be no means of access to justice if the child is dependent on the warring parties viz his/her abuser. In relation to Yemen, the UN report calls for “the creation of a special tribunal such as a “hybrid tribunal” to prosecute cases of those most responsible” for the various atrocities. That may be right and proper but how does that look from a child soldier’s perspective? Maybe, the UN and the international community when asking itself what should be done when children’s rights are abused should ask children? If they do, maybe, answers and solutions will be found that do provide a remedy… If you would like to learn more about sexual abuse claims, be sure to visit the sexual abuse page on hughjames.com.    [1] Situation of human rights in Yemen, including violations and abuses since September 2014 https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/GEE-Yemen/2020-09-09-report.pdf [2] “Whether and how a Yemeni boy or girl was recruited depended on which party to the conflict controlled a child’s home territory and on his/her age, gender and economic status. Across all verified cases, poverty and hunger were powerful push factors, rendering children vulnerable to monetary incentives and manipulation by recruiters and peers.”

With Dr Matthew Pringle. In 2018, Matti established the Canada OPCAT Project and is now working with civil society towards the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture to prevent abuse in care homes, prisons and other places where people are deprived of liberty in Canada.Matti is a human rights specialist who has been active in the field for over 21 years. Matti’s deep interest in torture prevention originates in the decade or so he spent working for the Association for the Prevention of Torture in Geneva, Switzerland. During this time he worked intensively on the ratification and implementation of the OPCAT in at least a couple of dozen countries. In the episode we discuss the OPCAT and how it can help countries prevent human rights abuse in places of detetnion. Matti explores the situation in Canada and why it has been slow to fulfil a promise to implement the treaty.Links from the show:Canada OPCAT Project: https://canadaopcatproject.ca/You can find Matti at: Linkedin: linkedin.com/in/matthew-pringle-86a7b1159Twitter: https://twitter.com/Matthew28333927?s=20 recommended links:Penal Reform International: https://www.penalreform.org/Dignity: https://www.dignity.dk/en/Amnesty International: https://www.amnesty.org/en/ Support Human Rights, Win a PicassoTo enter the Peace Brigades International UK raffle to win an original Picasso linocut, go to https://www.peoplesfundraising.com/raffle/picasso-for-pbi.If you enjoyed the show, please help us keep going. Use the link below and buy me a coffee!Support the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/HRiC)

The Convention celebrates human diversity and human dignity. Its main message is that persons with disabilities are entitled to the full spectrum of human rights and funda- mental freedoms without discrimination. This is reflected in the Convention’s preamble and throughout its articles. In prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability and establish- ing that reasonable accommodation shall be provided to persons with disabilities with a view to ensuring equality, the Convention promotes the full participation of persons with disabilities in all spheres of life. In establishing the obligation to promote positive percep- tions and greater social awareness towards persons with disabilities, it challenges customs and behaviour based on stereotypes, prejudices, harmful practices and stigma relating to persons with disabilities. In establishing a mechanism for complaints, the Convention’s Optional Protocol ensures that persons with disabilities have an equal right to redress for violations of the rights enshrined in the Convention.

Familia! esperamos esten de lo mejor, aquí les dejamos una pequeña investigación sobre los feminicidios de Ciudad Juárez, en realidad este es uno de esos episodios muy difíciles de hacer, pues la información para lograrlo es muy limitada, intentamos hacer lo mejor que pudimos, sepan que los queremos y que este si fue un caso muy triste para las dos!..NO SE OLVIDEN DE SEGUIRNOS EN NUESTRAS REDES SOCIALES INSTAGRAM @juegodeasesinos_podcastFacebook: juego de asesinos podcast..Fuentes utilizadas para la realización de este episodio:.1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d "Mexico: Justice fails in Ciudad Juárez and the city of Chihuahua". Amnesty International. Archived from the original on 3 March 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2012.2. ^ Jump up to: a b Widyono, Monique (2008). "Conceptualizing Femicide" (PDF). Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability: 7–25. Retrieved 14 March 2012.3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Simmons, William (2006). "Remedies for the Women of Ciudad Juárez through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" (PDF). Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights. 4 (3): 492517. Retrieved 19 March 2012.4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Livingston, Jessica (2004). "Murder in Juárez: Gender, Sexual Violence, and the Global Assembly Line". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 25 (1): 59–76. doi:10.1353/fro.2004.0034. JSTOR 3347254.5. ^ Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (April 2002). "Serial Sexual Femicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993-2001" (PDF). Debate Feminista. 25. Retrieved 14 March 2012.6. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Pantaleo, Katherine (2010). "Gendered Violence: An Analysis of the Maquiladora Murders". International Criminal Justice Review. 20 (4): 349365. doi:10.1177/1057567710380914.7. ^ "Ten years of abductions and murders of women in Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua: Developments as of September 2003". Amnesty International. Retrieved 19 March 2012.8. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Ortega Lozano, Marisela (24 August 2011). "130 women killed in Juárez this year; Chihuahua AG says fight for women's rights painful and slow". El Paso Times. Archived from the original on 22 January 2013. Retrieved 14 March 2012.9. ^ Jump up to: a b "Annual Report: Mexico 2011". Amnesty International. Retrieved 14 March 2012.10. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (2008). "An Analysis of Feminicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993–2007" (PDF). Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability: 78–84. Retrieved 14 March 2012.11. ^ Jump up to: a b "Molly Molloy: The Story of the Juarez Femicides is a 'Myth'". The Texas Observer. 2014-01-09. Retrieved 2019-10-18.12. ^ "Molly Molloy - LibGuides at New Mexico State University". nmsu.libguides.com.13. ^ "Juárez murders: Impunity regardless of gender : Grassroots Press". Retrieved 2019-10-18.14. ^ Albuquerque, Pedro H.; Vemala, Prasad (2015-11-09). "Femicide Rates in Mexican Cities along the US-Mexico Border: Do the Maquiladora Industries Play a Role?". Rochester, NY. SSRN 1112308. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)15. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Olivera, Mercedes (2006). "Violencia Femicida : Violence Against Women and Mexico's Structural Crisis". Latin American Perspectives. 33 (104): 104–114. doi:10.1177/0094582X05286092.16. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (April 2002). "Serial Sexual Femicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993-2001" (PDF). Debate Feminista. 25. Retrieved 14 March 2012.17. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Wright, Melissa M. (2006). "Public Women, Profit, and Femicide in Northern Mexico". South Atlantic Quarterly. 1054 (4): 681–698. doi:10.1215/00382876-2006-003.18. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Sokhi-Bulley, Bal (2006). "The Optional Protocol to CEDAW: First Steps". Human Rights Law Review. 6 (1): 143–159. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngi029. Retrieved 14 March 2012.19. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Mexico - Amnesty International Report 2010". Amnesty International. Retrieved 19 March 2012.20. ^ Jump up to: a b "Ten years of abductions and murders of women in Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua: Developments as of September 2003". Amnesty International. Retrieved 19 March 2012.21. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m Simmons, William (2006). "Remedies for the Women of Ciudad Juárez through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" (PDF). Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights. 4 (3): 492517. Retrieved 19 March 2012.22. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Pantaleo, Katie (2006). "Gendered Violence: Murder in the Maquiladoras" (PDF). Sociological Viewpoints. Retrieved 1 April 2012.23. ^ "Matan a la activista que pedía justicia por su hija". Informador.com.mx. Retrieved 31 December 2013.24. ^ "Matahan a activista Marixsela Escobedo". El Universal. digital edition. 16 December 2010. Retrieved 31 December 2013.25. ^ Jump up to: a b c Wright, Melissa W. (December 2002). "A Manifest against Femicide". Antipode. 33 (3): 550–566. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00198. PMID 19165968.26. ^ Blanco, Lorenzo; Sandra M. Villa (October 2008). "Sources of crime in the state of Veracruz: The role of female labor force participation and wage inequality". Feminist Economics. 14 (3): 51–75. doi:10.1080/13545700802075143.27. ^ Vulliamy, Ed (2014-05-04). "Painted back to life: Brian Maguire's portraits of the victims of Mexico's 'feminocidio'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-10-18.28. ^ "TWIABP: 'January 10, 2014'".29. ^ Alicia Gaspar de Alba (2010-10-15). "Home - Desert Blood: The Juarez Murders". Desert Blood. Retrieved 2012-11-06.30. ^ Rodríguez, Teresa; Montané, Diana; Pulitzer, Lisa (2007). The Daughters of Juárez: A True Story of Serial Murder South of the Border. Atria Books. pp. passim. ISBN 978-0-7432-9203-0.31. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Daughters_of_Ju%C3%83_rez/2bUAIrwHJjkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover32. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/ramona-morales-wears-a-photo-of-her-16-year-old-daughter-news-photo/5157661733. https://rfkhumanrights.org/news/silvia-elena-rivera-morales-et-al-v-mexico-case-summarmusica: Lonesome Journey' by Keys of Moon Music is under a Creative Commons license (CC BY 3.0)Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: https://youtu.be/p5cWMxzzMdAContact links:Keys of Moon Music https://soundcloud.com/keysofmoonBreakingCopyrightTwitter: https://twitter.com/BreakingCopy

Familia! esperamos esten de lo mejor, aquí les dejamos una pequeña investigación sobre los feminicidios de Ciudad Juárez, en realidad este es uno de esos episodios muy difíciles de hacer, pues la información para lograrlo es muy limitada, intentamos hacer lo mejor que pudimos, sepan que los queremos y que este si fue un caso muy triste para las dos!..NO SE OLVIDEN DE SEGUIRNOS EN NUESTRAS REDES SOCIALES INSTAGRAM @juegodeasesinos_podcastFacebook: juego de asesinos podcast..Fuentes utilizadas para la realización de este episodio:.1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d "Mexico: Justice fails in Ciudad Juárez and the city of Chihuahua". Amnesty International. Archived from the original on 3 March 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2012.2. ^ Jump up to: a b Widyono, Monique (2008). "Conceptualizing Femicide" (PDF). Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability: 7–25. Retrieved 14 March 2012.3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Simmons, William (2006). "Remedies for the Women of Ciudad Juárez through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" (PDF). Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights. 4 (3): 492517. Retrieved 19 March 2012.4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Livingston, Jessica (2004). "Murder in Juárez: Gender, Sexual Violence, and the Global Assembly Line". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 25 (1): 59–76. doi:10.1353/fro.2004.0034. JSTOR 3347254.5. ^ Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (April 2002). "Serial Sexual Femicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993-2001" (PDF). Debate Feminista. 25. Retrieved 14 March 2012.6. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Pantaleo, Katherine (2010). "Gendered Violence: An Analysis of the Maquiladora Murders". International Criminal Justice Review. 20 (4): 349365. doi:10.1177/1057567710380914.7. ^ "Ten years of abductions and murders of women in Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua: Developments as of September 2003". Amnesty International. Retrieved 19 March 2012.8. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Ortega Lozano, Marisela (24 August 2011). "130 women killed in Juárez this year; Chihuahua AG says fight for women's rights painful and slow". El Paso Times. Archived from the original on 22 January 2013. Retrieved 14 March 2012.9. ^ Jump up to: a b "Annual Report: Mexico 2011". Amnesty International. Retrieved 14 March 2012.10. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (2008). "An Analysis of Feminicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993–2007" (PDF). Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability: 78–84. Retrieved 14 March 2012.11. ^ Jump up to: a b "Molly Molloy: The Story of the Juarez Femicides is a 'Myth'". The Texas Observer. 2014-01-09. Retrieved 2019-10-18.12. ^ "Molly Molloy - LibGuides at New Mexico State University". nmsu.libguides.com.13. ^ "Juárez murders: Impunity regardless of gender : Grassroots Press". Retrieved 2019-10-18.14. ^ Albuquerque, Pedro H.; Vemala, Prasad (2015-11-09). "Femicide Rates in Mexican Cities along the US-Mexico Border: Do the Maquiladora Industries Play a Role?". Rochester, NY. SSRN 1112308. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)15. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Olivera, Mercedes (2006). "Violencia Femicida : Violence Against Women and Mexico's Structural Crisis". Latin American Perspectives. 33 (104): 104–114. doi:10.1177/0094582X05286092.16. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (April 2002). "Serial Sexual Femicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993-2001" (PDF). Debate Feminista. 25. Retrieved 14 March 2012.17. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Wright, Melissa M. (2006). "Public Women, Profit, and Femicide in Northern Mexico". South Atlantic Quarterly. 1054 (4): 681–698. doi:10.1215/00382876-2006-003.18. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Sokhi-Bulley, Bal (2006). "The Optional Protocol to CEDAW: First Steps". Human Rights Law Review. 6 (1): 143–159. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngi029. Retrieved 14 March 2012.19. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Mexico - Amnesty International Report 2010". Amnesty International. Retrieved 19 March 2012.20. ^ Jump up to: a b "Ten years of abductions and murders of women in Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua: Developments as of September 2003". Amnesty International. Retrieved 19 March 2012.21. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m Simmons, William (2006). "Remedies for the Women of Ciudad Juárez through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" (PDF). Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights. 4 (3): 492517. Retrieved 19 March 2012.22. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Pantaleo, Katie (2006). "Gendered Violence: Murder in the Maquiladoras" (PDF). Sociological Viewpoints. Retrieved 1 April 2012.23. ^ "Matan a la activista que pedía justicia por su hija". Informador.com.mx. Retrieved 31 December 2013.24. ^ "Matahan a activista Marixsela Escobedo". El Universal. digital edition. 16 December 2010. Retrieved 31 December 2013.25. ^ Jump up to: a b c Wright, Melissa W. (December 2002). "A Manifest against Femicide". Antipode. 33 (3): 550–566. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00198. PMID 19165968.26. ^ Blanco, Lorenzo; Sandra M. Villa (October 2008). "Sources of crime in the state of Veracruz: The role of female labor force participation and wage inequality". Feminist Economics. 14 (3): 51–75. doi:10.1080/13545700802075143.27. ^ Vulliamy, Ed (2014-05-04). "Painted back to life: Brian Maguire's portraits of the victims of Mexico's 'feminocidio'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-10-18.28. ^ "TWIABP: 'January 10, 2014'".29. ^ Alicia Gaspar de Alba (2010-10-15). "Home - Desert Blood: The Juarez Murders". Desert Blood. Retrieved 2012-11-06.30. ^ Rodríguez, Teresa; Montané, Diana; Pulitzer, Lisa (2007). The Daughters of Juárez: A True Story of Serial Murder South of the Border. Atria Books. pp. passim. ISBN 978-0-7432-9203-0.31. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Daughters_of_Ju%C3%83_rez/2bUAIrwHJjkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover32. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/ramona-morales-wears-a-photo-of-her-16-year-old-daughter-news-photo/5157661733. https://rfkhumanrights.org/news/silvia-elena-rivera-morales-et-al-v-mexico-case-summarmusica: Lonesome Journey' by Keys of Moon Music is under a Creative Commons license (CC BY 3.0)Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: https://youtu.be/p5cWMxzzMdAContact links:Keys of Moon Music https://soundcloud.com/keysofmoonBreakingCopyrightTwitter: https://twitter.com/BreakingCopy

Familia! esperamos esten de lo mejor, aquí les dejamos una pequeña investigación sobre los feminicidios de Ciudad Juárez, en realidad este es uno de esos episodios muy difíciles de hacer, pues la información para lograrlo es muy limitada, intentamos hacer lo mejor que pudimos, sepan que los queremos y que este si fue un caso muy triste para las dos! . . NO SE OLVIDEN DE SEGUIRNOS EN NUESTRAS REDES SOCIALES INSTAGRAM @juegodeasesinos_podcast Facebook: juego de asesinos podcast . .Fuentes utilizadas para la realización de este episodio: . 1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d "Mexico: Justice fails in Ciudad Juárez and the city of Chihuahua". Amnesty International. Archived from the original on 3 March 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2012. 2. ^ Jump up to: a b Widyono, Monique (2008). "Conceptualizing Femicide" (PDF). Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability: 7–25. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Simmons, William (2006). "Remedies for the Women of Ciudad Juárez through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" (PDF). Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights. 4 (3): 492517. Retrieved 19 March 2012. 4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Livingston, Jessica (2004). "Murder in Juárez: Gender, Sexual Violence, and the Global Assembly Line". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 25 (1): 59–76. doi:10.1353/fro.2004.0034. JSTOR 3347254. 5. ^ Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (April 2002). "Serial Sexual Femicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993-2001" (PDF). Debate Feminista. 25. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 6. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Pantaleo, Katherine (2010). "Gendered Violence: An Analysis of the Maquiladora Murders". International Criminal Justice Review. 20 (4): 349365. doi:10.1177/1057567710380914. 7. ^ "Ten years of abductions and murders of women in Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua: Developments as of September 2003". Amnesty International. Retrieved 19 March 2012. 8. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Ortega Lozano, Marisela (24 August 2011). "130 women killed in Juárez this year; Chihuahua AG says fight for women's rights painful and slow". El Paso Times. Archived from the original on 22 January 2013. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 9. ^ Jump up to: a b "Annual Report: Mexico 2011". Amnesty International. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 10. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (2008). "An Analysis of Feminicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993–2007" (PDF). Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability: 78–84. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 11. ^ Jump up to: a b "Molly Molloy: The Story of the Juarez Femicides is a 'Myth'". The Texas Observer. 2014-01-09. Retrieved 2019-10-18. 12. ^ "Molly Molloy - LibGuides at New Mexico State University". nmsu.libguides.com. 13. ^ "Juárez murders: Impunity regardless of gender : Grassroots Press". Retrieved 2019-10-18. 14. ^ Albuquerque, Pedro H.; Vemala, Prasad (2015-11-09). "Femicide Rates in Mexican Cities along the US-Mexico Border: Do the Maquiladora Industries Play a Role?". Rochester, NY. SSRN 1112308. Cite journal requires |journal= (help) 15. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Olivera, Mercedes (2006). "Violencia Femicida : Violence Against Women and Mexico's Structural Crisis". Latin American Perspectives. 33 (104): 104–114. doi:10.1177/0094582X05286092. 16. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (April 2002). "Serial Sexual Femicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993-2001" (PDF). Debate Feminista. 25. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 17. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Wright, Melissa M. (2006). "Public Women, Profit, and Femicide in Northern Mexico". South Atlantic Quarterly. 1054 (4): 681–698. doi:10.1215/00382876-2006-003. 18. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Sokhi-Bulley, Bal (2006). "The Optional Protocol to CEDAW: First Steps". Human Rights Law Review. 6 (1): 143–159. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngi029. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 19. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Mexico - Amnesty International Report 2010". Amnesty International. Retrieved 19 March 2012. 20. ^ Jump up to: a b "Ten years of abductions and murders of women in Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua: Developments as of September 2003". Amnesty International. Retrieved 19 March 2012. 21. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m Simmons, William (2006). "Remedies for the Women of Ciudad Juárez through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" (PDF). Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights. 4 (3): 492517. Retrieved 19 March 2012. 22. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Pantaleo, Katie (2006). "Gendered Violence: Murder in the Maquiladoras" (PDF). Sociological Viewpoints. Retrieved 1 April 2012. 23. ^ "Matan a la activista que pedía justicia por su hija". Informador.com.mx. Retrieved 31 December 2013. 24. ^ "Matahan a activista Marixsela Escobedo". El Universal. digital edition. 16 December 2010. Retrieved 31 December 2013. 25. ^ Jump up to: a b c Wright, Melissa W. (December 2002). "A Manifest against Femicide". Antipode. 33 (3): 550–566. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00198. PMID 19165968. 26. ^ Blanco, Lorenzo; Sandra M. Villa (October 2008). "Sources of crime in the state of Veracruz: The role of female labor force participation and wage inequality". Feminist Economics. 14 (3): 51–75. doi:10.1080/13545700802075143. 27. ^ Vulliamy, Ed (2014-05-04). "Painted back to life: Brian Maguire's portraits of the victims of Mexico's 'feminocidio'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-10-18. 28. ^ "TWIABP: 'January 10, 2014'". 29. ^ Alicia Gaspar de Alba (2010-10-15). "Home - Desert Blood: The Juarez Murders". Desert Blood. Retrieved 2012-11-06. 30. ^ Rodríguez, Teresa; Montané, Diana; Pulitzer, Lisa (2007). The Daughters of Juárez: A True Story of Serial Murder South of the Border. Atria Books. pp. passim. ISBN 978-0-7432-9203-0. 31. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Daughters_of_Ju%C3%83_rez/2bUAIrwHJjkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover 32. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/ramona-morales-wears-a-photo-of-her-16-year-old-daughter-news-photo/51576617 33. https://rfkhumanrights.org/news/silvia-elena-rivera-morales-et-al-v-mexico-case-summar musica: Lonesome Journey' by Keys of Moon Music is under a Creative Commons license (CC BY 3.0) Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: https://youtu.be/p5cWMxzzMdA Contact links: Keys of Moon Music https://soundcloud.com/keysofmoon BreakingCopyright Twitter: https://twitter.com/BreakingCopy

Familia! esperamos esten de lo mejor, aquí les dejamos una pequeña investigación sobre los feminicidios de Ciudad Juárez, en realidad este es uno de esos episodios muy difíciles de hacer, pues la información para lograrlo es muy limitada, intentamos hacer lo mejor que pudimos, sepan que los queremos y que este si fue un caso muy triste para las dos! . . NO SE OLVIDEN DE SEGUIRNOS EN NUESTRAS REDES SOCIALES INSTAGRAM @juegodeasesinos_podcast Facebook: juego de asesinos podcast . .Fuentes utilizadas para la realización de este episodio: . 1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d "Mexico: Justice fails in Ciudad Juárez and the city of Chihuahua". Amnesty International. Archived from the original on 3 March 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2012. 2. ^ Jump up to: a b Widyono, Monique (2008). "Conceptualizing Femicide" (PDF). Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability: 7–25. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Simmons, William (2006). "Remedies for the Women of Ciudad Juárez through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" (PDF). Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights. 4 (3): 492517. Retrieved 19 March 2012. 4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Livingston, Jessica (2004). "Murder in Juárez: Gender, Sexual Violence, and the Global Assembly Line". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 25 (1): 59–76. doi:10.1353/fro.2004.0034. JSTOR 3347254. 5. ^ Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (April 2002). "Serial Sexual Femicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993-2001" (PDF). Debate Feminista. 25. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 6. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Pantaleo, Katherine (2010). "Gendered Violence: An Analysis of the Maquiladora Murders". International Criminal Justice Review. 20 (4): 349365. doi:10.1177/1057567710380914. 7. ^ "Ten years of abductions and murders of women in Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua: Developments as of September 2003". Amnesty International. Retrieved 19 March 2012. 8. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Ortega Lozano, Marisela (24 August 2011). "130 women killed in Juárez this year; Chihuahua AG says fight for women's rights painful and slow". El Paso Times. Archived from the original on 22 January 2013. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 9. ^ Jump up to: a b "Annual Report: Mexico 2011". Amnesty International. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 10. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (2008). "An Analysis of Feminicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993–2007" (PDF). Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability: 78–84. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 11. ^ Jump up to: a b "Molly Molloy: The Story of the Juarez Femicides is a 'Myth'". The Texas Observer. 2014-01-09. Retrieved 2019-10-18. 12. ^ "Molly Molloy - LibGuides at New Mexico State University". nmsu.libguides.com. 13. ^ "Juárez murders: Impunity regardless of gender : Grassroots Press". Retrieved 2019-10-18. 14. ^ Albuquerque, Pedro H.; Vemala, Prasad (2015-11-09). "Femicide Rates in Mexican Cities along the US-Mexico Border: Do the Maquiladora Industries Play a Role?". Rochester, NY. SSRN 1112308. Cite journal requires |journal= (help) 15. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Olivera, Mercedes (2006). "Violencia Femicida : Violence Against Women and Mexico's Structural Crisis". Latin American Perspectives. 33 (104): 104–114. doi:10.1177/0094582X05286092. 16. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (April 2002). "Serial Sexual Femicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993-2001" (PDF). Debate Feminista. 25. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 17. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Wright, Melissa M. (2006). "Public Women, Profit, and Femicide in Northern Mexico". South Atlantic Quarterly. 1054 (4): 681–698. doi:10.1215/00382876-2006-003. 18. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Sokhi-Bulley, Bal (2006). "The Optional Protocol to CEDAW: First Steps". Human Rights Law Review. 6 (1): 143–159. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngi029. Retrieved 14 March 2012. 19. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Mexico - Amnesty International Report 2010". Amnesty International. Retrieved 19 March 2012. 20. ^ Jump up to: a b "Ten years of abductions and murders of women in Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua: Developments as of September 2003". Amnesty International. Retrieved 19 March 2012. 21. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m Simmons, William (2006). "Remedies for the Women of Ciudad Juárez through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" (PDF). Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights. 4 (3): 492517. Retrieved 19 March 2012. 22. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Pantaleo, Katie (2006). "Gendered Violence: Murder in the Maquiladoras" (PDF). Sociological Viewpoints. Retrieved 1 April 2012. 23. ^ "Matan a la activista que pedía justicia por su hija". Informador.com.mx. Retrieved 31 December 2013. 24. ^ "Matahan a activista Marixsela Escobedo". El Universal. digital edition. 16 December 2010. Retrieved 31 December 2013. 25. ^ Jump up to: a b c Wright, Melissa W. (December 2002). "A Manifest against Femicide". Antipode. 33 (3): 550–566. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00198. PMID 19165968. 26. ^ Blanco, Lorenzo; Sandra M. Villa (October 2008). "Sources of crime in the state of Veracruz: The role of female labor force participation and wage inequality". Feminist Economics. 14 (3): 51–75. doi:10.1080/13545700802075143. 27. ^ Vulliamy, Ed (2014-05-04). "Painted back to life: Brian Maguire's portraits of the victims of Mexico's 'feminocidio'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-10-18. 28. ^ "TWIABP: 'January 10, 2014'". 29. ^ Alicia Gaspar de Alba (2010-10-15). "Home - Desert Blood: The Juarez Murders". Desert Blood. Retrieved 2012-11-06. 30. ^ Rodríguez, Teresa; Montané, Diana; Pulitzer, Lisa (2007). The Daughters of Juárez: A True Story of Serial Murder South of the Border. Atria Books. pp. passim. ISBN 978-0-7432-9203-0. 31. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Daughters_of_Ju%C3%83_rez/2bUAIrwHJjkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover 32. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/ramona-morales-wears-a-photo-of-her-16-year-old-daughter-news-photo/51576617 33. https://rfkhumanrights.org/news/silvia-elena-rivera-morales-et-al-v-mexico-case-summar musica: Lonesome Journey' by Keys of Moon Music is under a Creative Commons license (CC BY 3.0) Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: https://youtu.be/p5cWMxzzMdA Contact links: Keys of Moon Music https://soundcloud.com/keysofmoon BreakingCopyright Twitter: https://twitter.com/BreakingCopy

In today’s episode no. 25, Edward Santow, Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner speaks to Reimagining Justice about one of many projects he is responsible for, namely the Commission’s Human Rights and Technology project. Whether you know a little or a lot about human rights or artificial intelligence, you will gain something from listening to our conversation about the most extensive consultation into AI and Human Rights anywhere in the world. Ed explains exactly what human rights are and why they should be protected, how technology is both enhancing and detracting from human rights and the best approach to take in regulating emerging technology in the future. We talked about protecting the rights of the most marginalized people, automated decision making and how to combat bias and something I found particularly fascinating, the tension between the universality of human rights, ubiquitous technology and how differing cultural contexts and historical experiences are shaping the principles that will guide both the development and application of technology. Ed Santow has been Human Rights Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission since August 2016 and leads the Commission’s work on technology and human rights; refugees and migration; human rights issues affecting LGBTI people; counter-terrorism and national security; freedom of expression; freedom of religion; and implementing the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT). Australian Human Rights Commission AHRC Human Rights and Technology Project Australian Government AI and Ethics principles Australian Law Reform Commission Future Program 2020-25 Lex Narro Neota Logic Andrea Perry-Petersen – LinkedIn - Twitter @winkiepp – andreaperrypetersen.com.au Twitter - @ReimaginingJ Facebook – Reimagining Justice group

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

The United States now faces three cases before the International Court of Justice: two instituted by Iran and one by Palestine. With new cases pending against the U.S. in the ICJ, the Trump Administration announced its decision to withdraw from the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights with Iran and the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. What are the implications of the ICJ’s decision on provisional measures in Iran v. United States? Will the U.S. drop out of the case? Were the treaty withdrawal decisions an overreaction or are they justified? Guest John Bellinger discusses his perspectives on the ICJ cases against the United States and U.S. foreign policy and decision-making considerations for treaty withdrawals. Guest: John Bellinger, partner at Arnold & Porter and former Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State and Senior Associate Counsel to the President and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council.

Following a difficult and protracted process, in 2014 the UNGA adopted Resolution 68/268 which set out to strengthen the UN human rights treaty body system. It mandated a further review in 2020. The proposals which are emerging for that review have the potential to radically change the nature of the UN human rights system - but whether for better or worse is keenly contested. In his talk, Malcolm Evans, who has been a participant in these developments, will outline the background to the proposals and offer a personal assessment, from a treaty body perspective, of their significance for the future of the machinery of international human rights protection. Malcolm Evans is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Bristol, UK where he has taught since 1988. His areas of legal specialism include both international human rights protection and the international law of the sea. In the field of human rights his particular interests concern torture and torture prevention and the protection of religious liberty under international law, on both of which he was written extensively. He became a member of the UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture (the SPT) in 2009 and since 2011 has been serving as its Chair. From 2014-2015 he was the Chairperson of the Meeting of Chairs of UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. From 2002 – 2013 he was a member of the OSCE ODIHR Advisory Council on the Freedom of Religion or Belief. He is also a member of the UK Foreign Secretary’s Human Rights Advisory Group. He has acted as an independent advisor and consultant for numerous international organisations over many years. From 2003-5 he was Head of the School of Law and from 2005-2009 Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law at the University of Bristol. From 2016-2018 he was a member of the Commission on Religious Education established by the Religious Education Council. Since 2015 he has been a Member of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales (IICSA). He is General Editor of the International and Comparative Law Quarterly and Co-Editor in Chief of the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion. Major published works include: Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe (CUP, 1997), Preventing Torture (OUP, 1998), Combating Torture in Europe (Council of Europe, 2002), Manual on the Wearing of Religious Symbols in Public Areas (Council of Europe/Brill, 2009), The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OUP, 2011), The Changing Nature of Religious Rights under International Law (ed) (OUP, 2015), Preventing Torture in Europe (Council of Europe, 2018). He is Editor of International Law (OUP, 5th ed, 2018) and Blackstone’s International Law Documents (OUP, 13th ed, 2017).

On the second episode of the Law and Justice Podcast, Jane Mulcahy catches up with Fulbright Scholar, Kim Thomas, Professor Malcolm Evans discusses the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT), Deirdre Kelleher talks about the rights of cohabitants in Ireland and chairperson of the ACJRD, Maura Butler, talks Brexit.