Podcasts about private international law

Oh Thursday 6th February 2025 Professor Campbell McLachlan KC delivered his 1973 Professor Inaugural Lecture: 'On the Interface between Public and Private International Law'.The lecture begins at 05:18Abstract: Our understanding of the operation of law beyond the nation State has been deeply shaped by two great disciplines: public and private international law. Yet surprisingly little systematic attention has been devoted to the relationship between the two. In his inaugural lecture as Professor of International Dispute Resolution in the University of Cambridge, McLachlan argues that the neglect of this interface is highly consequential for our understanding of law's capacity to control the State and the corporation, which are, respectively, the principal holders of public/political and private/economic power in the world.Campbell McLachlan is elected as Professor of Law (1973) in the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Trinity Hall. He took up his chair in July 2024, specialising in International Dispute Resolution. A New Zealander, his career has spanned scholarship and practice in private and public international law. His principal works include: Foreign Relations Law (CUP 2014), International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (2nd ed, OUP 2017) and The Principle of Systemic Integration in International Law (2024). He is a Specialist Editor of Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws. He gave the General Course at The Hague Academy of International Law in January 2024. He is a member of the Institut de Droit International and of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.Photographs of the event are available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cambridgelawfaculty/albums/72177720323668326

Oh Thursday 6th February 2025 Professor Campbell McLachlan KC delivered his 1973 Professor Inaugural Lecture: 'On the Interface between Public and Private International Law'.The lecture begins at 05:18Abstract: Our understanding of the operation of law beyond the nation State has been deeply shaped by two great disciplines: public and private international law. Yet surprisingly little systematic attention has been devoted to the relationship between the two. In his inaugural lecture as Professor of International Dispute Resolution in the University of Cambridge, McLachlan argues that the neglect of this interface is highly consequential for our understanding of law's capacity to control the State and the corporation, which are, respectively, the principal holders of public/political and private/economic power in the world.Campbell McLachlan is elected as Professor of Law (1973) in the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Trinity Hall. He took up his chair in July 2024, specialising in International Dispute Resolution. A New Zealander, his career has spanned scholarship and practice in private and public international law. His principal works include: Foreign Relations Law (CUP 2014), International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (2nd ed, OUP 2017) and The Principle of Systemic Integration in International Law (2024). He is a Specialist Editor of Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws. He gave the General Course at The Hague Academy of International Law in January 2024. He is a member of the Institut de Droit International and of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.Photographs of the event are available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cambridgelawfaculty/albums/72177720323668326

Conflict of Laws This briefing document reviews the main themes and important ideas from the provided lecture excerpts, "Conflict of Laws: Resolving Multi-Jurisdictional Disputes." I. Introduction & Importance of Conflict of Laws Conflict of Laws, also known as Private International Law, is a critical legal field that provides the framework for resolving disputes involving multiple jurisdictions. In an increasingly globalized world, legal issues frequently involve parties, property, or transactions across borders. onflict of Laws is crucial for: Addressing jurisdictional complexity: Determining which court has the power to hear a case (jurisdiction) and which jurisdiction's laws should apply (choice of law) is essential in a world where commerce, communication, and personal interactions transcend borders. "Without these rules, disputes could result in conflicting outcomes depending on where the case is heard, leading to confusion and uncertainty." Ensuring fairness: Choosing the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship to the dispute helps prevent one party from being unfairly disadvantaged by the application of laws that are irrelevant to the circumstances. "Fairness is a core tenet of conflict of laws, as it prevents one party from gaining an undue advantage simply because of their choice of forum, also known as forum shopping." Facilitating international commerce: Businesses engaged in cross-border transactions require a predictable legal framework for resolving disputes. Knowing which laws will govern their contracts provides certainty and promotes international trade. "Companies need assurance that their contracts will be enforced consistently regardless of jurisdiction." Protecting individuals in family and personal matters: Family law cases, especially those involving international couples, often require conflict of laws principles to determine jurisdiction and applicable law for issues like divorce, child custody, and property division. "Conflict of laws principles ensure that the jurisdiction with the strongest interest in the matter can apply its laws to resolve the issues equitably." Human rights and cross-border disputes: Conflict of Laws plays a vital role in addressing human rights violations committed by multinational corporations in foreign countries, allowing victims to seek redress in jurisdictions with stronger human rights protections. "Conflict of laws principles are applied to determine whether victims can bring their cases in a jurisdiction like the United States or Europe, and which country's laws should govern the claims." II. Key Questions in Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction: Determining which court has the authority to hear the case involves: Personal Jurisdiction: Does the court have power over the people involved based on factors like their residence or business activities in the jurisdiction? Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Does the court have authority over the type of case, such as federal vs. state court jurisdiction? Forum Non Conveniens: A court may decline jurisdiction if there is a more appropriate forum elsewhere, considering factors like the location of witnesses and evidence. Choice of Law: Determining which jurisdiction's laws should apply to the dispute involves principles like: Lex Loci: The law of the place where the contract was made or where the tort occurred often governs. Significant Relationship Test: Courts consider which jurisdiction has the strongest ties to the dispute. Party Autonomy: In contracts, parties can choose which jurisdiction's law will govern through a choice-of-law clause. Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments: Will a court in one jurisdiction recognize and enforce a judgment from another jurisdiction? Factors include: Full Faith and Credit Clause (U.S.): Requires states to recognize judgments from other states. International Treaties (e.g., Hague Convention): Provide a framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Queen Aminata speaks 4 languages, has a Masters degree in Private International Law, and is the first-ever African born woman to be signed to a major wrestling company! Aminata shares the story of how she came to the United States, what made her want to pursue wrestling, how her culture and homeland inspired her character, and why her AEW signing made her cry. She talks about her friendship with Skye Blue, wrestling in Japan, and the life lessons she's learned from Kobe Bryant! AEW Unrestricted video episodes available Mondays at 1pm Pacific on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJ4e4Lb87XTzETPZyj7nZoJ4xPBjKdzgy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In episode 35 of the Law in the Family podcast, host and family law attorney Aaron Weems talks with Melissa Kucinski of MK Family Law. She provides insight into the remedies and prevention measures clients can take to avoid parental abduction cases. Melissa Kucinski, founder of MK Family Law in Washington, D.C., focuses on international family law cases and specializes in high-conflict, cross-cultural mediation and negotiation. She is a fellow of the American Bar Foundation, co-chair of the International Family Law committees for the American Bar Association International Law Section and New York State Bar Association, and consultant for the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Kucinski is a member of the U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law and Uniform Law Commission Joint Editorial Board for Uniform Family Law. Learn more about Kucinski: https://mkfamily.law/about/ *audio editing, voice over & music by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nick DeMatteo

Meaning of the term Private International Law

Alina Tryfonidou (Neapolis University Paphos) presented the main points of her work on the obstacles that rainbow families face on the road to equality in the European Union. The presentation was followed by comments from Ivana Isailović (University of Amsterdam) and Dimitry Kochenov (Central European University), who also chaired the debate. Ivana Isailović is Assistant Professor of EU law at the University of Amsterdam. She is co-leading the project on Gender & Private International Law at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg. Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov leads the Rule of Law Workgroup at CEU Democracy Institute and teaches at the Department of Legal Studies. Alina Tryfonidou is Professor of European Law at Neapolis University Pafos and Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Reading

Dr. Abir Haddad is my guest on Episode 166 of Inside Ideas with Marc Buckley. Dr. Abir Haddad is Director of the Institute for Legal Transformation, Capital 40 under 40, alumni of the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science, and teaches Modern Law of Arab States at the Institute for Private International Law at the University of Cologne, where she received her doctorate summa cum laude. Previously to that she developed transformative legal adaptations to address future challenges posed by climate change and exponential technologies at Resilience Frontiers Initiative, a forward-thinking project of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat, where she still is an advisor. As director of the Institute for Legal Transformation, she is now applying her "7 Steps to Legal Transformation" methodology to other areas of futures and disruptive change, exploring the law of the future with a thematic focus on anticipatory legal adaptations that promote sustainable living in balance with nature, and foresightful regulation of exponential technologies for a prosperous society. Together with other lawyers, Dr. Haddad founded the Network of Multicultural Lawyers, which provides a platform for German lawyers with a family history of immigration. In her academic career, Dr. Haddad has been selected as one of 20 scholars worldwide for the Falling Walls Foundation's Female Science Track 2022 and won the wildcard for the Women in Leadership program. Also, she is a founding and faculty member of the European Club for Leaders and Sustainable Innovation program. http://www.legaltransformation.io/

The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is an intergovernmental organization in the area of private international law (also known as conflict of laws), that administers several international conventions, protocols and soft law instruments. The Hague Conference was first convened by Tobias Asser in 1893 in The Hague. In 1911, Asser received the Nobel Prize for Peace for his work in the field of private international law, and in particular for his achievements with respect to the HCCH. After World War II, the Hague Conference was established as an international organization. History. A permanent diplomatic conference. On the initiative of Tobias Asser, the First Diplomatic Session of the HCCH was convened in 1893. Its aim was, and remains, to "work for the progressive unification of the rules of private international law", including by creating, and assisting in the implementation of, multilateral conventions that promote the harmonization of the rules and principles of private international law (or conflict of laws). The First to Fourth Diplomatic Session of the HCCH took place in 1893, 1894, 1900 and 1904 respectively. They resulted in a number of multilateral treaties, the Hague Conventions, that unified the rules of private international law in the areas of Marriage (1902), Divorce (1902), Guardianship (1902), Civil procedure (1905), Effects of Marriage (1905), and Deprivation of Civil Rights (1905). After World War I, the Fifth and Sixth Diplomatic Sessions took place in 1925 and 1928 respectively. The result of those Diplomatic Sessions was the Protocol to recognize the competence of the Permanent Court of International Justice to interpret the Hague Conventions on Private International Law. Intergovernmental organization. After World War II, steps were taken to establish the HCCH as an intergovernmental organization, governed by its member states and administered by a secretariat, the Permanent Bureau. The treaty establishing the HCCH, the "Statute of the Hague Conference on Private International Law", was adopted during the Seventh Diplomatic Session of the HCCH in 1951, and entered into force on 15 July 1955. The acronym "HCCH" is derived from using the respective capitals of the phrases "Hague Conference" and "Conférence de La Haye". It represents the bilingual nature of the HCCH, which has both English and French as its working languages. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Last episode, we talked about the process of becoming a sworn translator in Brazil and Guatemala, and compared it to the concept of certified translations, since the role of a sworn translator does not exist in the United States. Considering that, this seems to be a good opportunity to go into more detail about what it means to certify a translation, go over a few misconceptions, and share some tips on how to provide a good service to direct clients who have a very concrete need for translation services. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/dHXw8qt5tZA *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* About the apostille process: U.S. Department of State ― Bureau of Consular Affairs HCCH (Hague Conference on Private International Law) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* 4-Chapter Course on How to Become Certified https://tinyurl.com/LEO-transexam *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* CHECK OUT THIS EPISODE'S SPONSOR: Centered ― Focus While Minding Your Work Join Rafa in this workspace for free www.centered.app/translations Use promo code TRANSLATIONS for 1-month free or $10 off a premium account *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Photo by Ron Lach from Pexels *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* By the way, if you're interested in checking out "Tools and Technology in Translation," here are some links: » Book » Online Class » YouTube Channel » Podcast » Webinars » Facebook Page » Twitter » Website » Email *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Stay tuned for weekly episodes and subscribe to Translation Confessional through your favorite podcast app. To learn more about Rafa's background as a translator and translation instructor, visit RafaLombardino.com. For feedback, ideas, and requests, email us at RLombardino@WordAwareness.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/translation-confessional/message

Last episode, we talked about the process of becoming a sworn translator in Brazil and Guatemala, and compared it to the concept of certified translations, since the role of a sworn translator does not exist in the United States. Considering that, this seems to be a good opportunity to go into more detail about what it means to certify a translation, go over a few misconceptions, and share some tips on how to provide a good service to direct clients who have a very concrete need for translation services. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/dHXw8qt5tZA *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* About the apostille process: U.S. Department of State ― Bureau of Consular Affairs HCCH (Hague Conference on Private International Law) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* 4-Chapter Course on How to Become Certified https://tinyurl.com/LEO-transexam *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* CHECK OUT THIS EPISODE'S SPONSOR: Centered ― Focus While Minding Your Work Join Rafa in this workspace for free www.centered.app/translations Use promo code TRANSLATIONS for 1-month free or $10 off a premium account *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Photo by Ron Lach from Pexels *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* By the way, if you're interested in checking out "Tools and Technology in Translation," here are some links: » Book » Online Class » YouTube Channel » Podcast » Webinars » Facebook Page » Twitter » Website » Email *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Stay tuned for weekly episodes and subscribe to Translation Confessional through your favorite podcast app. To learn more about Rafa's background as a translator and translation instructor, visit RafaLombardino.com. For feedback, ideas, and requests, email us at RLombardino@WordAwareness.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/translation-confessional/message

In private international law, the public policy doctrine or ordre public ("public order") concerns the body of principles that underpin the operation of legal systems in each state. This addresses the social, moral and economic values that tie a society together: values that vary in different cultures and change over time. Law regulates behavior either to reinforce existing social expectations or to encourage constructive change, and laws are most likely to be effective when they are consistent with the most generally accepted societal norms and reflect the collective morality of the society. In performing this function, Cappalli has suggested that the critical values of any legal system include impartiality, neutrality, certainty, equality, openness, flexibility, and growth. This assumes that a state's courts function as dispute resolution systems, which avoid the violence that often otherwise accompanies private resolution of disputes. That is, citizens have to be encouraged to use the court system to resolve their disputes. The more certain and predictable the outcome of a court action, the less incentive there is to go to court where a loss is probable. But certainty must be subject to the needs of individual justice, hence the development of equity. A judge should always consider the underlying policies to determine whether a rule should be applied to a specific factual dispute. If laws are applied too strictly and mechanically, the law cannot keep pace with social innovation. Similarly, if there is an entirely new situation, a return to the policies forming the basic assumptions underpinning potentially relevant rules of law identifies the best guidelines for resolving the immediate dispute. Over time, these policies evolve, becoming more clearly defined and more deeply embedded in the legal system. Fundamental principles: Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The fundamental policy in the operation of a legal system is that ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse). It would completely undermine the enforcement of any law if the person potentially at fault was able to raise as a successful defense that he or she had not been aware of the particular law. For this reason, all the main legislatures publish their laws freely whether in hard copy or on the Internet, while others offer them for sale to the public at affordable prices. Because everyone is entitled to access the laws as they affect their personal lives, all adults are assumed responsible enough to research the law before they act. If they fail to do so, they can hardly complain if their acts prove unlawful, no matter how transient they may be within the jurisdiction. The only exception to this rule excuses those of reduced capacity, whether as infants or through mental illness (for example, see the principle of doli incapax which raises an irrebuttable presumption in criminal law that an infant is incapable of committing a crime). --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Conflict of laws in the United States is the field of procedural law dealing with choice of law rules when a legal action implicates the substantive laws of more than one jurisdiction and a court must determine which law is most appropriate to resolve the action. In the United States, the rules governing these matters have diverged from the traditional rules applied internationally. The outcome of this process may require a court in one jurisdiction to apply the law of a different jurisdiction. New approaches in the United States. Until the 20th century, traditional choice of law rules were based on the principle that legal rights vest automatically at legally significant and ascertainable times and places. For example, a dispute regarding property would be decided by the law of the place the property was located. Disputes in tort would be decided by the place where the injury occurred. During the first half of the 20th century, the traditional conflict of laws approach came under criticism from some members of the U.S. legal community who saw it as rigid and arbitrary; the traditional method sometimes forced application of the laws of a state with no connection to either party, except that a tort or contract claim arose between the parties in that state. This period of intellectual ferment (which coincided with the rise of the legal realism movement) gave birth to a number of innovative new approaches. Renvoi. Courts may look for a provision in the law of the choice of law state that permits the court to use the lex fori, for example law of the forum state. For example, suppose State X has a rule that says that if property located in State X is conveyed by a contract entered into in any other state, then the law of that other state will govern the validity of the contract. Suppose also that State Y has a rule that says that if a contract entered into in State Y conveys property located in any other state, then the law of that other state will govern the validity of the contract. Now suppose that party A conveys land located in State X to party B through a contract entered into in State Y. If a lawsuit arising from that transaction is brought in State X, the law of State X requires the courts of that state to apply the law of the state where the contract was made, which is state Y. However, the courts of State X might note that a court in State Y would apply the law of State X, because that is where the land is located, and the law of State Y follows the land. Most U.S. states frown upon renvoi in a choice of law situation. In this example, they would insist that the only law the courts of State X should look at is the law of contracts of State Y, not the "whole law" of State Y, which includes that state's law governing choice of law. The basic criticism of renvoi is that it can lead to an endless circle. In the above example, it could be argued that if the law of State Y points back to State X, then the law of State X would only once again require application of the law of State Y, and so forth and so on without end. Significant contacts test. The significant contacts test evaluates the contacts between the states and each party to the case, and determines which state has the most significant contacts with the litigation as a whole. This test has been criticized for failing to respect the sovereignty of the state in which the cause of action arose, and because courts can tip the balance in one way or another in deciding which contacts are significant. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdictions, such as sovereign states, federated states (as in the US), or provinces. The outcome of this process is potentially to require the courts of one jurisdiction to apply the law of a different jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from, say, family law, tort, or contract. The law which is applied is sometimes referred to as the "proper law." Dépeçage is an issue within choice of law. Sequence of events in conflict cases in Common Law jurisdictions: 1. Jurisdiction. The court selected by the plaintiff must decide both whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the case and, if it has, whether another forum is more suitable (the forum non conveniens issue relates to the problem of forum shopping) for the disposition of the case. Naturally, a plaintiff with appropriate knowledge and finance will always commence proceedings in the court most likely to give a favorable outcome. This is called forum shopping and whether a court will accept such cases is always determined by the local law. 2. Recognition of foreign judgments. Even where a conflict of laws exists, the court will recognize the validity of a foreign judgment in most cases. Under U.S. law, this authority is part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under international law, this authority is part of the doctrine of comity. The court will invoke comity by its discretion and will usually look to two factors before using its discretionary powers: did the foreign court have jurisdiction, and were fair procedures used in adjudicating the case? Under English law, it is the doctrine of obligation. Within the European Union the Brussels Recast Regulation determines jurisdiction and recognition. 3. Characterization. The court then allocates each aspect of the case as pleaded to its appropriate legal classification. Each such classification has its own choice of law rules but distinguishing between procedural and substantive rules requires care. The court may have adopted a rule of law which prevents it from applying any procedural law other than its own. This can include the court's own choice of law rules. A danger exists if the choice of law requires that a case be heard elsewhere due to the forum's lack of expertise in deciding an issue of foreign law. 4. The court then applies the relevant choice of law rules. In a few cases, usually involving family law, an incidental question can arise which will complicate this process. The United States has adopted a law that almost universally eliminates incidental questions involving family law. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) requires states to apply the law of the "home state;" that is, the forum which originally determined custody and maintenance. A state court will only apply its own law when no parent retains a connection with the original jurisdiction and when substantial evidence is available in its forum to make a custody or maintenance determination. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

In conflict of laws, renvoi (from the French, meaning "send back" or "to return unopened") is a subset of the choice of law rules and it may be applied whenever a forum court is directed to consider the law of another state. The procedure for conflict cases. 1. The court must first decide whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the case (which will involve addressing the question of whether the plaintiff is attempting to manipulate the judicial system by forum shopping). 2. Characterization. The court must analyze the case as pleaded and allocate each component to its appropriate legal classification, each of which will have one or more choice of law rules attached to it. 3. The court will then apply the choice of law rules. In a limited number of cases, usually involving Family Law issues, an incidental question may arise which will complicate this process. In the Roman conflict of laws, an incidental question is a legal issue that arises in connection with the major cause of action in a lawsuit. The forum court will have already decided that it has jurisdiction to hear the case (resolving any issue relating to forum shopping) and will be working through the next two stages of the conflict process, namely: characterisation and choice of law. For example, the court may classify the cause as "succession", but it notes that the plaintiff brings the claim for relief as the deceased's widow. Before the court can adjudicate on the main issue, it must first decide whether the plaintiff actually has the status claimed, i.e. the incidental question would be the validity of the claimed marriage. The inconvenient reality is that many lawsuits involve a number of interdependent legal issues. In purely domestic cases, this poses no difficulty because a judge will freely move from one domestic law to another to resolve the dispute. But in a conflict case, the question is whether the incidental question is resolved by reference either to its own choice of law rules, or to the same law that governs the main issue (the lex causae). States have not formulated a consistent answer to this question. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Characterization, in conflict of laws, is the second stage of the procedure to resolve a lawsuit that involves foreign law. The process is described in English law as Characterisation, or classification within the English judgments of the European Court of Justice. It is alternatively known as qualification in French law. It is used to determine the correct choice of law rules based on the circumstances of the case, primarily relating to matters of property. This is to reconcile differences between laws of different legal jurisdictions. The objective of characterization is to determine the nature of the action brought by the defendant in order to determine what relevant rules of applicable law apply. This may result in applying laws which differ from the lex fori. Additional factors make this determination not necessarily a simple process as the incidental question and renvoi can make determining the initial point of reference difficult. The leading authority in England and Wales is Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust plc (number 3) . Overview. Characterization is one of the key elements in demarcating the choice of law and jurisdiction issues. The first stage is for the court to determine if it has jurisdiction, if appropriate, to avoid forum shopping. Once the forum court decides that it has jurisdiction to hear the case, it must characterize or classify the causes of action, this relates to choice of law matters. That is regarded as the most important and difficult problem in conflict of laws as trade and travel between states has become the norm. The effects of broken promises, defective goods, traffic accidents and marital squabbles are no longer confined to the sovereign territory of one particular state or nation. This is especially complicated because domestic laws usually operate to satisfy domestic interest. Various causes in actions and their respective remedies differ depending on the state. This derives from historical and political circumstances. The addition of the Rome 1 and Rome 2 Regulations to the European Union conflict of laws regime is designed to determine the choice of law which applies to situations where commercial or civil matters of broken promises, defective goods, traffic accidents, etcetera. with a party which is domiciled in a Member State. The role of characterization within an international private law adjudication might be highlighted if understood within the simplest example of the sale of a bicycle by A to B. The transaction has both contractual and proprietary elements. Different jurisdictions will characterize the matter in different ways depending on their own laws. As is crucial within the international private law context, it is the responsibility of the adjudicating court to determine the proper law and subsequently apply it. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

International Law Talk partnered for this episode ‘Value Judgement: Expedited Procedures in International Arbitration (EAPs)' with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb). Mercy McBrayer, Research and Academic Affairs Manager at CIArb invited Prof. Dr. Mohamed Abdel Wahab, Founding Partner & Head of International Arbitration, Construction and Energy Groups at Zulficar Partners and also Professor of International Arbitration and Private International Law at Cairo University to talk about Value Judgement: Expedited Procedures in International Arbitration (EAPs). More information about Expedited Procedures in International Arbitration is available on Kluwer Arbitration Practice Plus. This podcast episode is a result of a collaboration with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb). Wolters Kluwer will bring you insightful analysis, commentary and discussion from thought leaders and experts on current topics in the field of International Arbitration, IP Law, International Tax Law, Competition Law and other international legal fields. Music tune: Scuba, Metre. #internationallawtalk

Follow us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/40833847/admin/ Check out or new website: TalesOfTheTribunal.com For Feedback, comments or submissions contact TalesOfTheTribunal@Gmail.com News: HK and Mainland China Enforcement Update, Here New CIETAC Rules, Here Sixth Circuit Ruling, Here ISDS Navigator, Here IBA Committee Toolkit, Here Opportunities: Akerman LLP is seeking International Arbitration Litigation Associate Attorney to join its Miami, Florida office; Here Lalive is seeking an associate to join an International Arbitration Group based in Geneva, Zurich or London; Here Madison Pearl is seeking an Intl. Arbitration Associate with 3 to 7 years of post-qualification experience in Dubai; Here DLA Piper is seeking an Associate for its New York offices; Here Shipping and Trading company, Bunge, is seeking Legal Counsel for its Geneva, Switzerland offices; Here The Hague Conference on Private International Law is seeking a temporary vacancy to start in July 2021; Here.   Events/Webinars: YAWP Futures in Law Event, Here  Africa Day, Here Bucharest Arbitration Days, Here None of the views shared today or any episode of Disputes Digest is presented as legal advice nor advice of any kind.  No compensation was provided to any organization or party for their inclusion on the show nor do any of the statements made represent any particular organization, legal position or view point.  All interviewees or organizations included appear on an arms-length basis and their appearance should not be construed as any bias or preferred affiliation with the host or host’s employer.  All rights reserved.

Introduction to The Hague Conference on Private International Law and Its Work

Segment 1: The Legal WireProminent Athens, GA lawyer John Noell discusses the attention-grabbing, headliner case of Claud “Tex” McIver, famed Atlanta attorney who was convicted of felony murder of his affluent wife, Diane Smith and is now being sued for his wife's wrongful death by her estate. He recently argued before the GA Court of Appeals that the case should be dismissed since only he has the right to sue himself under the law. Does the law support his contention?Segment 2: Your Legal Travel GuideIn this episode, with Georgia on our minds, we are traveling to the Peach State, where whistling while you work the graveyard shift and cussing over phone may be illegal.Segment 3: International SpotlightJoão Ribeiro-Bidaoui, First Secretary of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, gives us his insight into the historic signing by North Korea of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, an event that he was closely involved with when he worked at the United Nations UNCITRAL.

What is statelessness? What does it mean to be stateless? And why should we care? In this first episode of The Paperless People Podcast, we will be exploring these questions and more. We talk to human rights activists and experts working to try and address the global and worrying issue of statelessness. This podcast series, produced by the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, with the support of the Knowledge Platform for Security and the Rule of Law (Knowledge Management Fund), explores how the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals needs to be re-thought in order to effectively address statelessness challenges. Share your questions and reflections on the issues raised via @institute_si / info@institutesi.org With thanks to the following people for their participation in this episode:Tendayi Achiume, UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intoleranceJoshua Castellino, Professor of Law at Middlesex University and Executive Director of Minority Rights Group International (MRG)Gerard-Rene de Groot, Emeritus Professor of Private International Law at the University of Maastricht, specialising in comparative nationality lawKhalid Hussain, Council of Minorities in Bangladesh - and formerly stateless activist for citizenship rightsBronwen Manby, Visiting Senior Fellow at the London School of Economics, specialising in citizenship and legal identity issues in AfricaMusic from Blue Dot Sessions and Podington Bear under Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution License. Support the show (https://www.geef.nl/en/donate?charity=8695&type=e)

The Divorce Chronicles Episode #4 Melissa KucinskiThe Impact of International Family Law Issues During the Divorce Process With Guest Melissa KucinskiMelissa Kucinski is a family law attorney and mediator practicing in the DC and Maryland area. She has created a unique niche in the family law area and brings a wealth of knowledge and experience in international family law. She has served as a consultant to the Hague Conference on Private International Law and has written a dozen articles on international children's issues and mediation of complex cross-border custody and abduction cases. There is no one better than Melissa to share the ins and outs of the Hague Treaty. Melissa has also presented at nearly 30 national and international conferences on international children's issues. She is a Fellow of the International Academy of Lawyers. She is also a professor at the George Washington University School of Law where she has been teaching international family law since 2010. She is the author of A Practical Handbook for the Child's Attorney: Effectively Representing Children in Custody Cases. It's an honor to have her on the show today.You can find Melissa here:MK Family LawMelissa Kucinski on LinkedInMK Family Law on Facebook@mkucinski on TwitterA Practical Handbook for the Child's Attorney: Effectively Representing Children in Custody CasesShow Notes:[03:01] Melissa has been through the divorce process herself. It was in a state where she was not licensed to practice law. Each state has slightly different laws.[03:37] Going through her own divorce gave Melissa a different perspective.[05:59] Melissa practices all family law in Washington DC and Maryland, but she has a particular interest in focusing on families who have cross jurisdictional or international issues. [06:31] She has had an interest in working with diverse people with diverse ways of life, ever since college.[07:13] It's very complex dealing with laws in multiple jurisdictions. She is practicing true law.[08:10] Melissa was fortunate to connect with family law at an early stage in her education. Working with international families was a wonderful experience.[11:06] Families going through restructuring who have international connections need to talk to a lawyer who understands these complex issues.[12:15] The process for dealing with international issues. There needs to be a collaboration of lawyers in all of the different jurisdictions.[16:26] How are orders enforced either overseas or in the US? It depends on the issue and the country of enforcement.  [18:48] Dealing with property issues in different jurisdictions. A complicating factor of overseas assets is that the laws in other countries are very different.[23:53] Child abduction and parents taking their children overseas. Children are often taken by people they know like a parent or family member.[24:24] There is always the question of whether another country will honor an order given in the United States.[25:11] There are some laws in the United States that make taking a child overseas a crime. The criminal path is the worst-case scenario.[26:18] There are civil remedies. One of these is the

  There is a higher law than human law, one from which the authority and justice of man’s law flows into bountiful life. Accordingly, we often see Christian legal theories in terms of knowledge about law, so that what we know of the higher law informs what we should affirm or deny about human law. But Dean Eric Enlow says that another important kind of Christian knowledge about law is how to praise God in relation to it. This praise stirs up and responds to the joy which Christians experience in law, just as praise does when it recognizes and replies to God’s presence in other parts of creation. Dean Enlow gave two addresses on this topic at the 2017 Christian Legal Society national conference in Newport Beach, encouraging those in attendance to learn to praise God in law.  His first presentation was Joyful Jurisprudence: God's Presence in Law and Man's Praise of God, the keynote for the annual Christian Legal Scholars' Symposium, sponsored by CLS friend and partner Trinity Law School. It was an inspiring presentation and discussion, and the conversation spilled over into the conference bookstore afterwards.  This episode of Cross & Gavel allows listeners to sit in on that conversation, with host Mike Schutt, Dean Eric Enlow, and our friend Byron Borger, owner of Hearts and Minds Bookstore.  Enjoy the conversation! Dean Enlow graduated from Yale University and Washington University School of Law. During law school, Professor Enlow served on the editorial boards of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy and the Washington University Law Quarterly. He has clerked in the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and he was in private practice in intellectual-property, international, and appellate law. In addition to being dean of the Handong International Law School, Enlow teaches Christianity and Law, International Intellectual Property, Patents, Private International Law, and Torts.  Byron Borger has been talking books almost his whole life, and doing it well and for the good of Christ's kingdom. Since the early 80's, he and his wife Beth have, through Hearts and Minds Books in Dallastown, PA, lived out a mission to see the body of Christ encouraged and the world around them flourish. They believe that ideas matter and that books are an important part of Christian discipleship-- "a disciple is learner, after all," says Byron. Whether you're in his store, on the phone with him, or at one of the many conferences at which he and Beth serve, it is always a treat to talk books with Byron. Subscribe to his amazing Booknotes here. (He mentions this podcast in the latest edition).  Cross & Gavel Audio is a project of the Institute for Christian Legal Studies, a cooperative ministry of Regent University School of Law and Christian Legal Society. Mike Schutt is associate professor at Regent and director of ICLS and Law Student Ministries for CLS. 

CULS is delighted to present Professor Paul Craig and Professor Christopher Forsyth. On the 4 February 2016 in the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, they explored what principles underpin judicial review in the UK in a dialogue. Professor Paul Craig is Professor of English Law at Oxford and a Vinerian scholar. Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law at Cambridge. For more information on the event see https://www.facebook.com/events/553390161490285/ This event was kindly sponsored by Clifford Chance. For more information see the CULS website at: https://culs.org.uk

The conviction of Oscar Pistorius for committing culpable homicide in relation to the shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp made worldwide news. In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth reflects on his previous comments about the original conviction, and describes how the Supreme Court of Appeal interpreted the South African law on intent to kill. Although the Court complimented Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa on her handling of the case under intense media scrutiny, they reversed her decision (as Professor Forsyth originally suggested they might), and and replaced the verdict with one of murder. Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

The conviction of Oscar Pistorius for committing culpable homicide in relation to the shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp made worldwide news.In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth reflects on his previous comments about the original conviction, and describes how the Supreme Court of Appeal interpreted the South African law on intent to kill. Although the Court complimented Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa on her handling of the case under intense media scrutiny, they reversed her decision (as Professor Forsyth originally suggested they might), and and replaced the verdict with one of murder.Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The conviction of Oscar Pistorius for committing culpable homicide in relation to the shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp made worldwide news. In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth reflects on his previous comments about the original conviction, and describes how the Supreme Court of Appeal interpreted the South African law on intent to kill. Although the Court complimented Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa on her handling of the case under intense media scrutiny, they reversed her decision (as Professor Forsyth originally suggested they might), and and replaced the verdict with one of murder. Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The conviction of Oscar Pistorius for committing culpable homicide in relation to the shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp made worldwide news.In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth reflects on his previous comments about the original conviction, and describes how the Supreme Court of Appeal interpreted the South African law on intent to kill. Although the Court complimented Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa on her handling of the case under intense media scrutiny, they reversed her decision (as Professor Forsyth originally suggested they might), and and replaced the verdict with one of murder.Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp aroused worldwide media interest. From the beginning Pistorius claimed that he had no intent to kill Reeva because when he fired the fatal shots her he thought he was firing at an intruder. And so whether he had the necessary intent to kill became a crucial issue in his trial. In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth describes the South African law on intent to kill and explains how it differs from the relevant English law. In particular he explains how South African law rejects all forms of “transferred malice” and the significance of this for the Pistorius trial. Although Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa in her judgment gives an exemplary account of the South African law, there is a curious departure from orthodoxy in her application of the law which may render her judgment vulnerable to appeal by the prosecution. Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp aroused worldwide media interest. From the beginning Pistorius claimed that he had no intent to kill Reeva because when he fired the fatal shots her he thought he was firing at an intruder. And so whether he had the necessary intent to kill became a crucial issue in his trial. In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth describes the South African law on intent to kill and explains how it differs from the relevant English law. In particular he explains how South African law rejects all forms of “transferred malice” and the significance of this for the Pistorius trial. Although Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa in her judgment gives an exemplary account of the South African law, there is a curious departure from orthodoxy in her application of the law which may render her judgment vulnerable to appeal by the prosecution. Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp aroused worldwide media interest. From the beginning Pistorius claimed that he had no intent to kill Reeva because when he fired the fatal shots her he thought he was firing at an intruder. And so whether he had the necessary intent to kill became a crucial issue in his trial. In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth describes the South African law on intent to kill and explains how it differs from the relevant English law. In particular he explains how South African law rejects all forms of “transferred malice” and the significance of this for the Pistorius trial. Although Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa in her judgment gives an exemplary account of the South African law, there is a curious departure from orthodoxy in her application of the law which may render her judgment vulnerable to appeal by the prosecution. Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp aroused worldwide media interest. From the beginning Pistorius claimed that he had no intent to kill Reeva because when he fired the fatal shots her he thought he was firing at an intruder. And so whether he had the necessary intent to kill became a crucial issue in his trial. In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth describes the South African law on intent to kill and explains how it differs from the relevant English law. In particular he explains how South African law rejects all forms of “transferred malice” and the significance of this for the Pistorius trial. Although Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa in her judgment gives an exemplary account of the South African law, there is a curious departure from orthodoxy in her application of the law which may render her judgment vulnerable to appeal by the prosecution. Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

The trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp aroused worldwide media interest. From the beginning Pistorius claimed that he had no intent to kill Reeva because when he fired the fatal shots her he thought he was firing at an intruder. And so whether he had the necessary intent to kill became a crucial issue in his trial. In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth describes the South African law on intent to kill and explains how it differs from the relevant English law. In particular he explains how South African law rejects all forms of “transferred malice” and the significance of this for the Pistorius trial. Although Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa in her judgment gives an exemplary account of the South African law, there is a curious departure from orthodoxy in her application of the law which may render her judgment vulnerable to appeal by the prosecution. Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

The trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp aroused worldwide media interest. From the beginning Pistorius claimed that he had no intent to kill Reeva because when he fired the fatal shots her he thought he was firing at an intruder. And so whether he had the necessary intent to kill became a crucial issue in his trial. In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth describes the South African law on intent to kill and explains how it differs from the relevant English law. In particular he explains how South African law rejects all forms of “transferred malice” and the significance of this for the Pistorius trial. Although Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa in her judgment gives an exemplary account of the South African law, there is a curious departure from orthodoxy in her application of the law which may render her judgment vulnerable to appeal by the prosecution. Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

The trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp aroused worldwide media interest. From the beginning Pistorius claimed that he had no intent to kill Reeva because when he fired the fatal shots her he thought he was firing at an intruder. And so whether he had the necessary intent to kill became a crucial issue in his trial. In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth describes the South African law on intent to kill and explains how it differs from the relevant English law. In particular he explains how South African law rejects all forms of “transferred malice” and the significance of this for the Pistorius trial. Although Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa in her judgment gives an exemplary account of the South African law, there is a curious departure from orthodoxy in her application of the law which may render her judgment vulnerable to appeal by the prosecution. Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

The trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp aroused worldwide media interest. From the beginning Pistorius claimed that he had no intent to kill Reeva because when he fired the fatal shots her he thought he was firing at an intruder. And so whether he had the necessary intent to kill became a crucial issue in his trial. In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth describes the South African law on intent to kill and explains how it differs from the relevant English law. In particular he explains how South African law rejects all forms of “transferred malice” and the significance of this for the Pistorius trial. Although Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa in her judgment gives an exemplary account of the South African law, there is a curious departure from orthodoxy in her application of the law which may render her judgment vulnerable to appeal by the prosecution. Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.