Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge

Speaker: Professor Mark Roe (Harvard Law School)Chair: Felix Steffek (University of Cambridge)Abstract: The notion of stock-market-driven short-termism relentlessly whittling away at the American economy’s foundations is widely accepted and highly salient. Presidential candidates state as much. Senators introduce bills assuming as much. Corporate interests argue as much to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the corporate law courts. Yet the academic evidence as to the problem’s severity is no more than mixed. What explains this gap between widespread belief and weak evidence?Bio: Mark J. Roe is a professor at Harvard Law School, where he teaches corporate law and corporate bankruptcy. His research interests cover bankruptcy (corporate bankruptcy and reorganization), corporate law and corporate finance. He wrote Strong Managers, Weak Owners: The Political Roots of American Corporate Finance (Princeton, 1994), Political Determinants of Corporate Governance (Oxford, 2003), and Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization (Foundation, 2014). Academic articles include: Stock-Market Short-Termism’s Economy-Wide Impact (forthcoming); Containing Systemic Risk by Taxing Banks Properly, 35 Yale Journal on Regulation 181 (2018), Financial Markets and the Political Center of Gravity, 2 J. Law, Finance, and Accounting 125 (2017) (with Travis Coan); Bankruptcy’s Three Ages, 7 Harvard Business Law Review 187 (2017); Corporate Structural Degradation Due to Too-Big-to-Fail Finance, 162 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1419 (2014); Corporate Short-Termism — In the Boardroom and in the Courtroom, 68 Business Lawyer 977 (2013); and Breaking Bankruptcy Priority: How Rent-Seeking Upends the Creditors’ Bargain, 99 Virginia Law Review 1235 (2013) (with Frederick Tung).3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

Speaker: Dr Oliver Butler, University of NottinghamAbstract: When automated decision-making technologies (ADM) are procured and used by public authorities, important design and implementation decisions are often delegated to the professional developers they sub-contract to co-produce such technology. This can undermine accountability, democratic oversight, and the allocation of public functions determined by legislative bodies. On the other hand, in some circumstances officials might appropriately defer to the expertise of developers. This presentation considers how the concept of non-delegation in public law could be reassessed in this context to improve accountable official decision-making and the proper retention of decision-making authority where ADM is co-produced for public purposes.Biography: Oliver Butler is an Assistant Professor at Nottingham University School of Law. He read law at the University of Cambridge and received a Distinction on the BCL at the University of Oxford, where he received the Faculty Prize in Constitutional Theory. He graduated from the LLM at Harvard Law School and was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 2013. He worked at the Law Commission of England and Wales as a research assistant on the Data Sharing between Public Bodies project before returning to Cambridge to undertake his PhD on the development of information law in the UK and Europe. He was Fellow at Wadham College, Oxford, jointly with a research fellowship at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights and has taught constitutional, administrative and human rights law on the BA and BCL and researched emerging digital rights.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminarsThis entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speakers: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) and Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS. Abstract: On 18 September 2023 the Group of 12 Experts from both France and Germany released their proposal ‘Sailing on High Seas: Reforming and Enlarging the EU for the 21st Century’. The Group make two proposals on the Rule of Law and five further proposals for institutional reform. Overall, the Group had three objectives to increase the EU’s capacity to act, to get the institutions ready for enlargement and strengthen democratic legitimacy and rule of law. This resulted in a series of proposals for inter alia treaty change. The proposals are all on a continuum but largely aim for reform rather than a recreation of the European Union. They align with other reform proposals and at times take up proposals that were made for EU reform in the past or indeed discussed during the EU Constitutional convention process in the early 2000s. The objective here was clearly reformation rather than revolution. This conversation discusses some of the individual reform proposals in the context of the practice of the Court of Justice – could these proposal mean the beginning of 'Europe’s Second Constitution'?For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Lecture summary: In 2015, the United States military dropped a bomb on a hospital in Afghanistan run by Médecins Sans Frontières, killing forty-two staff and patients. Testifying afterwards before a Senate Committee, General John F. Campbell explained that “[t]he hospital was mistakenly struck.” In 2019, while providing air support to partner forces under attack by ISIS, the U.S. military killed dozens of women and children. Central Command concluded that any civilian deaths “were accidental.” In August 2021, during a rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. military executed a drone strike in Kabul that killed ten civilians, including an aid worker for a U.S. charity and seven children in his family. The Pentagon later admitted it was a “tragic mistake.” In these cases and others like them, no one set out to kill the civilians who died. Such events are usually chalked up as sad but inevitable consequences of war - as regrettable “mistakes.”In this lecture, based on a forthcoming co-authored article, Professor Oona Hathaway will examine the law on “mistakes” in war. She will consider whether and when the law holds individuals and states responsible for “mistakes.” To see how the law works, or fails to work, in practice, she will examine the US military’s own assessments of civilian casualties. She will show that “mistakes” are far more common than generally acknowledged. Some errors are, moreover, the predictable - and avoidable - result of a system that does too little to learn from its mistakes. She will focus her remarks on the United States, both because of its global military operations and because of the power of its example to shape global practices. The United States is far from alone, however. Thus, lessons learned from its failures can be instructive for other states as well.

Speaker: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024)Abstract: As an AG Professor Sharpston worked on religious discrimination and employment matters, delivering an opinion in one of the first two hijab cases (Bougnaoui) and then the ‘shadow opinion’ in Wabe and Müller, which she posted via Professor Steve Peers’ EU law blog after leaving the Court. She has already compared Achbita and Bougnaoui to the decisions in Egenberger and the Caritas hospital case (IR v JQ) in her festschrift contribution for Allan Rosas. Unsurprisingly, she has been keeping an eye open for further developments in that case law (WABE and Müller, S.C.R.L (Religious clothing) and, most recently, Commune d’Ans (Grand Chamber, 28 November 2023). Additionally, she has also been looking at what the Court has been saying in relation to ritual slaughter of animals (as required for meat-eating observant Jews and Muslims). Notable cases include Liga van Moskeeën, Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) and Centraal Israëlitisch Constistorie. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights also addresses these issues: Eweida v UK on religious symbols in the workplace, and the very recent decision (13 February 2024) in Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v Belgium on banning ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The cases are constitutionally important in terms of the deference shown to Member States; and in some respects, they are troubling for anyone who is religious and non-Christian.Discussion chaired by Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

On 9th April 2024 the European Court of Human Rights delivered Grand Chamber rulings in three cases relating to climate change:Carême v. France - https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233261Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others - https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233174Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland - https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233206In this video, Dr Stefan Theil discusses the extent to which the ECHR is prepared to dictate how countries might implement their own climate change policies.Stefan Theil is Assistant Professor in Public Law and a Fellow and Director of Studies at Sidney Sussex College. In Stefan's recent book 'Towards the Environmental Minimum' (Cambridge University Press, 2021) he argues for the recognition of a comprehensive framework that addresses the relationship between human rights and environmental harm.For more information about Dr Theil, please refer to his profile at:https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/s-theil/6578Law 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.

Lecture summary: This lecture examines the treatment of marine genetic resources (MGR) in the negotiations and the text of the new Treaty on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). The Treaty provides a coherent governance framework for MGR including an unexpected techno-fix to the most longstanding problem of biodiversity governance, some normative novelty on principles, and a trendsetting approach to valuation of aggregate usage of genetic resources. Yet, this painstakingly formed framework continues to be buffeted by self-interested attempts to redefine and relitigate the value of genetic resources; particularly around decoupling use from access to genetic resources, dematerialisation from physical resources and dis-enclosure under legal frameworks, all of which are now stable features in this and other Treaty-making contexts. How can we better characterise the success of the BBNJ Treaty in a way that helps resist de facto erosion following ratification?Relevant papers:S Thambisetty ‘The Unfree Commons: Freedom of Marine Scientific Research and the Status of Genetic Resources Beyond National Jurisdiction (Dec 4, 2023) LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 24/2023 87 Modern Law Review (2024) ForthcomingS Thambisetty, P Oldham, C Chiarolla, The Expert Briefing Document: A Developing Country Perspective on the Making of The BBNJ Treaty (September 21, 2023). LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 30/2023, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4580046 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4580046P Oldham, Paul C Chiarolla, S Thambisetty, Digital Sequence Information in the UN High Seas Treaty: Insights from the Global Biodiversity Framework-related Decisions (January 30, 2023). LSE Law - Policy Briefing Paper No. 53, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4343130 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4343130

This is the second interview with Mrs Charity (Cherry) Hopkins, Life Fellow of Girton College, University of Cambridge. Mrs Hopkins was interviewed for the second time on 16 October 2023 in the Squire Law Library.For more information, see the Squire Law Library website at:http://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent-scholars-archive

On Friday 22nd March 2024, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Data Protection Reform'.This session:Session 4 – Reforming Data Protection – Enforcement PerspectivesChair: Dr Jennifer Cobbe, CIPILDr Orla Lynskey, London School of EconomicsDr Johnny Ryan, Irish Council for Civil LibertiesDr Luca Tosoni, Norwegian Data Protection AuthorityProfessor Gloria Gonzalez Fuster, Vrije Universiteit BrusselFor full information about this event, please see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-eventscipil-spring-conference/cipil-spring-conference-2024

On Friday 22nd March 2024, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held its Annual Spring Conference entitled 'Data Protection Reform'.This session:Session 3 – Reforming Data Protection – Substantive Perspectives (Keynotes) Chair: Professor David Erdos, CIPILDr Winfried Veil, Data Protection LandscapeProfessor Bert-Jaap Koops, Tilburg UniversityProfessor Nadja Purtova, Utrecht UniversityFor full information about this event, please see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-eventscipil-spring-conference/cipil-spring-conference-2024