Previous Events

Roundtable: The International Criminal Court in Times of Turmoil
Simon Grabrovec (Associate Legal Officer, ICC), Anni Pues (Glasgow), and Adam Bower (St Andrews)
Wednesday, 13 November, 17:00
Arts Lecture Theatre


Challenges to International Law and the Role of Academia in these Turbulent Times
A Conversation with Professor Stephen Toope (Vice-Chancellor, University of Cambridge) hosted by Professor Anthony Lang (St Andrews)
Friday, 8 November
Arts Lecture Theatre

You can listen to a recording of the conversation below:


Roundtable: International Courts in a Time of Populism
Taylor St John (St Andrews),  Jeff Dunoff (Temple University), Tony Lang Jr (St Andrews)
Thursday, 25 April
School I

Event summary by our intern Carolina Ernst: The CGC was delighted to welcome Dr Taylor St John, Professor Jeffrey Dunoff and Professor Tony Lang Jr. to discuss Dr St John’s recently published book, The Rise of Investor-State Arbitration: Politics, Law, and Unintended Consequences as well as modern international courts.

The talk commenced with an overview by Dr St John of the major themes of the book, and the development of investor-state arbitration into its current form. Investor-state arbitration is unique, giving firms and corporations the right to sue governments for perceived discrimination. Dr St John argued that the World Bank plays an active role in investor-state arbitration through the encouragement of an investor-friendly environment.

The talk continued with responses by Professor Dunoff and Professor Lang. Professor Dunoff structured his portion of the talk in terms of the past, present, and future. From a historical point of view, he discussed how investor-state arbitration challenges traditional accounts of the investment regime before moving on to the current threats and hostility to all international courts posed by populism. From a future perspective he addressed the plans of a new EU investment court, given that current regulations heavily favour investors, and the desire for increased transparency.


Laws of War: Current Challenges
Hyeran Jo (Texas A&M University)
Wednesday, 6 March
Arts Lecture Theatre

Event summary by our intern Mily Matthews: The Centre for Global Constitutionalism was honoured to welcome Professor Hyeran Jo from Texas A&M University. Her research deals with the working of international organizations, the design of international rules and agreements, and the question of compliance with international law by non-state actors. In keeping with these research interests, the talk centred around seven challenges to the laws of war and seven responses to these challenges.

Dr Jo began her talk by defining exactly what the term ‘laws of war’ means, defining it as ‘principles, norms and rules that regulate conduct of war to reduce suffering in conflict zones’. She then laid out what she sees as the seven most pressing challenges to these laws of war. These challenges were: civilian killing; use and recruitment of children; chemical weapons use; destroying cultural properties; returning ISIS fighters; armed un–manned vehicles and regulating warfare and writing wars. Each challenge was accompanied by interesting and insightful examples, which fully illustrated the scale of these challenges.

The second portion of the talk was dedicated to exploring a spectrum of seven solutions to these challenges, which ranged from soft measures, such as humanitarian engagement, to harder and more coercive solutions such as military interventions. The talk proper ended with a short quiz, and an invitation for the audience to suggest any pressing challenge to the laws of war that had not already been discussed. Those raised and discussed included artificial intelligence and nuclear weapons.

The talk then concluded with a question and answer session, during which Professor Jo dealt expertly with a range of topics. These included if sixteen-year olds serving in the British armed forces count as child soldiers (to which the answer is no!) and topics pulled straight from the news such as what should be done about non-combatants who have subscribed to radical ideology. She made it clear that there is a real need for emerging threats to be recognised and included in the laws and norms that govern laws. However, she seemed cautiously optimistic that this is something that existing bodies can accommodate.


Roundtable: UN Peace Operations in a Changing Global Order
Cedric de Coning (NUPI/ACCORD), Catherine Jones, Norrie MacQueen, and Mateja Peter (all St Andrews)
Wednesday, 27 February, 5pm
Arts Lecture Theatre

Over the past 70 years, more than one million soldiers and police officers from more than 110 nations have participated in 70 UN peacekeeping missions around the globe. It is a remarkable achievement, but at a time when multilateral institutions are increasingly asked to justify their relevance, the future of peace operations is less certain. The global order is changing, with new actors and issues rising to prominence which hold profound implications for the world’s biggest international organisation and its flagship activity. This roundtable brought together experts to discuss the current challenges and opportunities facing the UN as it seeks to adapt its approach to peacekeeping in a rapidly changing international environment. The participants grappled with the following dilemmas: How is the rebalancing of relations between states of the global North and the global South impacting UN decision making? How is the rise of regional organisations as providers of peace impacting the primacy of UN peace operations? How have violent extremism and fundamentalist non-state actors changed the nature of international responses and what does this mean for existing longer-term approaches to conflict resolution? How are demands from non-state actors for greater emphasis on human security impacting the UN’s credibility, and is the UN even able to prioritise people-centred approaches over state-centred ones?


Roundtable: China and the Twenty-First Century Global Order
Beverley Loke (Exeter), Catherine Jones (St Andrews), and Konrad Lawson (St Andrews)
Thursday, 7 February, 5pm
Arts Lecture Theatre

Event summary by our intern Steph Coulter: Attendees were treated to a comprehensive debate at the Centre for Global Constitutionalism’s first event of the semester- a roundtable on “China and the 21st Century Global Order”. Three guest speakers from various academic backgrounds gave their thoughts on one of the most pressing contemporary questions in International Relations; what does China want? University of Exeter’s Dr Beverly Loke asserted that China was far from the revisionist, Maoist power it once was but was still intent on juxtaposing itself from the US-based global order. A salient theme throughout her address was that Donald Trump’s decision to retreat from international institutions may allow China the space to take greater ownership with regards to global governance. Historian Dr Konrad Lawson brought his own unique take to proceedings, using personal anecdotes to elucidate how Chinese students and thinkers currently have much greater access to ideas than in previous years and questioning whether such resources could be used to establish China as a “moral power” in the international sphere. Lastly, Dr Catherine Jones made the claim that China’s intentions remain somewhat opaque but stressed its ability to alter the environment that states make decisions in, with particular reference to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The ensuing discussion saw attendees quiz the panel on related issues, with queries pertaining to China’s role in global academia and technological conflicts with the West drawing enlightened responses from our guests. The discussion was followed by a wine reception, where those in attendance got the chance to further discuss modern political phenomena with our speakers.


Old and new models of post-conflict justice: Experiences from international(ised) courts
Beti Hohler (International Criminal Court)
Wednesday, 21 November, 5pm
Arts Lecture Theatre

Event summary by our intern Taylor Hendrickson: The Centre for Global Constitutionalism was honoured to welcome Beti Hohler, an Associate Trial Lawyer in the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, who discussed both the evolution of post-conflict criminal prosecution in a variety of judicial settings. Ms. Hohler began by providing an overview, explaining that the international community may step in when states cannot or will not prosecute crimes committed in their territory during conflict.  Such intervention happens through prosecution in two types of judicial organs. First, the more familiar type is an international court (for criminal cases, the ICC). In recent years, there has been the rise of the second type: internationalised courts. These are temporary and perform criminal judicial functions through a mix of international and national material jurisdiction, while applying both international and municipal law.

Focusing on the evolution of international and internationalised courts, Ms. Hohler framed the next portion of her talk around three important years (1948, 1998, 2018) and their associated eras. Starting with 1948, Ms. Hohler discussed the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, their limitations, and how they established three of the four crimes covered by the ICC: crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Ms. Hohler then moved to 1998, which followed a decade of change from military tribunals to civilian courts with the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Such tribunals and states’ desire to strengthen humanitarian law, Ms. Hohler argued, laid the groundwork for the International Criminal Court, the Statute of which was adopted in 1998. Returning to 2018, Ms. Hohler described the recent shift to new models of justice with the rise of internationalised courts like those in Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and Kosovo.

The talk concluded with Ms. Hohler’s discussion of the present state of post-conflict justice. She advocated the continued use of both international and internationalised courts, depending on the conflict, as neither type alone can handle all crime in conflict. The variety of paths of prosecution—municipal, internationalised, and international courts—mean the widest possible number of crimes can be prosecuted. Ms. Hohler also discussed the current situations in Syria and Myanmar, the jurisdictional possibilities for each, and the challenges each present. This theme of the present and future of post-conflict justice was carried into the question and answer session, where Ms. Hohler spoke about the relationship between the ICC and politics and issues of state (non)cooperation.


The new global politics of climate change in the Trump era
Diarmuid Torney (Dublin City University)
Wednesday, 7 November, 5pm
Arts Lecture Theatre

Event summary by our intern Carolina Ernst: Throughout his talk at the Centre for Global Constitutionalism, Dr. Diarmuid Torney from Dublin City University addressed the current unsustainable carbon dioxide emissions, the catastrophic consequences for climate change, and the possibilities of addressing these issues. While collective action is essential to address current climate trends, the current global order creates several difficulties for this.

To begin, Dr. Torney outlined the current status of CO2 emissions, which are currently higher than at any other point in the last 400,000 years. Previous goals of a 2 degree temperature increase above pre-industrial levels has shown to not be enough, and the Paris Climate Agreement concluded that the increase in global temperature had to be held to well below 2 degrees. However, this movement has faced backlash, with the Trump Administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, and Brazil’s President-Elect having previously pledged to also withdraw Brazil from the Agreement, although this pledge has now been withdrawn.

Dr. Torney outlined a series of factors that make effective climate action difficult, despite the necessity for such action. Firstly, unlike the top-down arrangement of the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Climate Agreement is built on nationally determined contributions, meaning that the members of the agreement outline their own efforts to combat climate change. Secondly, Dr. Torney referred to Ostrom’s polycentric governance, arguing that the many independent decision-makers create challenges for effective collective action, which is needed to reduce the immense ecological footprint of developed countries.

In conclusion, Dr. Torney’s talk addressed the current trends in carbon emissions, and their consequences for climate change, while outlining the challenges of effectively mitigating these changes.


The future of global constitutionalism: launch Handbook on global constitutionalism
Antje Wiener (Hamburg), Anthony Lang (St. Andrews), Neil Walker (Edinburgh) and Jill Harries (St. Andrews)
Thursday, 11 October, 5pm
Arts Lecture Theatre

Event summary by our intern Teoman Kucuk: On Thursday the 11th of October, the Centre for Global Constitutionalism hosted the roundtable discussion on the future of global constitutionalism, where Professors Anthony Lang, Antje Wiener, Jill Harries and Neil Walker joined Co-Director of the CGC, Dr Mateja Peter, to launch the Handbook on Global Constitutionalism. The work combines a variety of takes on the idea of global constitutionalism written by experts from fields as diverse as history, legal studies and IR. That diversity was represented on the stage as well, with the authors voicing their support for interdisciplinary conversation on the issue and stressing the importance of one another’s varied perspectives in the project.

Yet one may find themselves asking what exactly global constitutionalism is, and the answer to that would seem to be ‘exactly’. Prof. Wiener stressed the youth of the project, which brings with it both ambiguity and great potential. She told the audience that “No one can be a global constitutionalist”, as in her estimation, this was a field which still needed to be complicated, further examined and only then, potentially, consolidated into something more precise.

A quote from the handbook itself links constitutionalism with four principles: “the rule of law, a balance or separation of powers, constituent power, and rights”. Mentioning these principles, Prof. Lang nevertheless echoed his co-editor’s sentiment, stating that parts even of this were up for reinterpretation, agreeing that global constitutionalism was not to be seen as a point on a one-dimensional line of ‘civilisation’, but as a mode of governance that can be achieved from all starting points. For them, then, the handbook is not supposed to act as a guide for precise political action, or even a defined attitude for political engagement, but as a guide for the questions to be asked, and for certain ideals to shine through these questions nevertheless.’


‘Deciding how we are allowed to kill each other: Controlling weapons in international law’
Richard Moyes (Article 36)
Wednesday, 26 September – 5pm
Arts Lecture Theatre

Event summary by our intern Karen Katiyo: ‘What are the ways in which we are not allowed to kill each other’? Though rhetorical, and what simply could be attributed to mere semantics, Richard Moyes’ reframing of the evening’s topic at the beginning of his lecture unwittingly conveyed the difficulty non-diplomats face in advocating common-sense resolutions within the nuances of political and international spaces. Mr Moyes explained his role as the Managing Director and co-founder of the UK-based NGO Article 36, an organisation which works on weapons, armed violence, civil society coalitions and international humanitarian law. This particular lecture addressed the use of cluster munitions and nuclear weapons, weapons which have an indiscriminate area effect. Both carry significant economic costs related to contamination, clearance and risk reduction activities, with nuclear weapon exchanges specifically having an extensive global reach.

These are facts. Commonly known and true.

However, until 2008 and 2017 there was previously no treaty’s prohibiting neither cluster munitions nor nuclear weapons respectively. In advocating for these changes, by design and necessity, Mr Moyes elaborated that the focus had to be intentionally weighed towards the distinct humanitarian effects of such weapons. Considerable danger to civilians is posed by the use of these weapons long after a conflict. This is through large remnants of unexploded bombs being left behind, radiation exposure, as well as the damage caused to the interconnected services and infrastructure of the affected area. The active participation of survivors affected by these weapons in talks to introduce regulation was both powerful and compelling. As a result, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, an international treaty prohibiting the use, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster bombs, was adopted on 30 May 2008. To date it has 103 signatory states. Nearly a decade later, the legally binding Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was passed on July 7th, 2017 (for which Mr Moyes as a member of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) won a Nobel Peace Prize). As of September 2018, 67 states are signatories to this treaty and 19 have ratified it.

Aptly put by Mr Moyes mid-lecture, common sense suggests we ban these weapons and just not kill each other. However, the global reality riddled with political and power plays in which this issue resides, insists we agree on what cannot be used to kill each other -at least as a start.


‘When States Come Out: Transnational Movements and the Diffusion of LGBT Rights in Europe’
Dr Phillip Ayoub (Drexel University)
Wednesday, 18 April – 5pm
Arts Lecture Theatre

Event summary by our intern Sarah Gambrall: Dr Philip Ayoub, author of the book When States Come Out: Europe’s Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility, was the guest lecturer for the CGC this month and his topic addressed transnational movements in relation to the diffusion of LGBT rights in Europe. Dr Ayoub began his talk by posing intriguing questions related to his extensive research, such as Why Europe? And why do certain states adopt international norms related to LGBT rights and not others? Further leading to his main research question posed regarding the reasons why the movement of LGBT recognition varies across state lines. Dr Ayoub argued that states within the European community care about their image, but in order for states to comply with norms they need to be able to see them. Therefore, theorizing the notion of ‘visibility channels’ is central in supporting his argument and he accomplished this through extensive data analysis that he accumulated from 25 months of fieldwork. Dr Ayoub was then able to adopt ground-breaking conclusions surrounding trends in the adoption of LGBT laws and transnational movements, using Poland specifically as a case study throughout parts of his research. This talk concluded with an emphasis on the contestation, adaptation, and resiliency that comes with politically based discussions surrounding LGBT rights internationally, as well as domestically. Dr Ayoub and his topic successfully drew in an excellent audience who subsequently posed engaging questions related to his politically relevant research.


‘Mobilizing Under Uncertainty in Civil War’
Dr Anastasia Shesterinina (University of Sheffield)
Tuesday, 6 February, 5pm
Arts Lecture Theatre

Event summary by our intern Ronan McLaughlin: Dr. Shesterinina’s talk addressed the question of how ordinary people navigate the uncertainty of war’s outset to arrive at different mobilisation decisions, from fleeing to fighting. In tackling this issue, Dr. Shesterinina presented her findings from over 8 years working on the Abkhaz-Georgia conflict, research which includes data gathered from over 180 in-depth interviews with participants and non-participants in the Abkhaz mobilisation. Dr. Shesterinina began by highlighting some of the common approaches to understanding mobilisation in civil wars. She discussed factors such as socio-economic grievance, security calculations and community norms, and emphasised the particular inadequacy of rational risk assessment approaches which fail to account for the uncertainty and limited information which typically characterise the outbreak of conflict. Returning to her research, Dr Shesterinina then went on to explain her theory of mobilisation under uncertainty, a three-stage approach which focuses on the formation of conflict identities, collective threat framing and the importance of identity during and after conflict. A key theme throughout this talk was the importance of considering mobilisation in historical perspective, often many of the factors which influence the mobilisation decisions of an individual or group have deep foundations which pre-date the onset of war. In addition to Dr Shesterinina’s fascinating lecture, this event was equally successful in terms of audience engagement, with insightful questions and comments ranging from the role of women in mobilisation, to the application of this research to other contexts and conflicts around the world. Overall, a great opportunity for all who attended to engage with a leading academic, and to learn more about important research on an understudied, yet intriguing, area of the world.


‘Islamic Statehood and the Origins of Arab Self-Determination (1916-2016)’
Professor Malik R. Dahlan (Quraysh)
Thursday, 30 November, 4pm
Old Class Library, 65 South Street

Event summary by our intern Kathrina Dabdoub: Throughout the last two decades, several pivotal events have shaken the Arab world and caused regional instability, notably the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS. Such phenomena have revealed the current crisis of governance within Islam, incited polarized debate worldwide, and raised questions of how to resolve regional conflict. Professor Malik Dahlan addressed these issues in a recent lecture based on his upcoming book The Hijaz: Integration, Islamic Statehood and the Origins of Self-Determination. Professor Dahlan posits that a reconceptualization of legal and political approaches can give insight into the problems afflicting the Middle East. The core of Prof Dahlan’s thesis is the Hijaz, the geographical region on the coast including Mecca and Medina, which has historically held political and religious significance within the Middle East. Focusing on the diplomatic affairs of the period between World Wars I and II, Prof Dahlan noted that the West acknowledged the political autonomy of the Hijaz as an independent, Islamic state and highlighted its role during the peace conferences of the era. This overview demonstrated that the Hijaz played an important role one hundred years ago when the idea of the nation state was evolving, as it did one thousand years ago during the rise of Islam. Thus, Prof Dahlan proposes an analysis of the nation state and governance through a new lens, one which takes into account Islamic principles and the value of the Hijaz. This idea can be pushed forward, toward the end of political development and regional stability.


Roundtable – ‘Biases in International Justice’
Dr Andrea Birdsall (Edinburgh), Dr Adam Bower, Dr Henry Lovat (Glasgow), Prof Kurt Mills (Dundee), Dr Mateja Peter
Wednesday, 22 November, 4pm
School II


‘Transitional Justice and Reconciliation: Conceptions and Misconceptions’
Paul Seils, International Centre for Transitional Justice
Wednesday, 27 September, 5pm
Arts Lecture Theatre
Co-sponsored with the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies


‘Brazil and International Conflict Mediation: Can this Rising Power Innovate?’
Dr Adriana Erthal Abdenur, Igarape Institute and Brazilian National Council for Technological and Scientific Development
Wednesday, 5 April 2017, 5-6:30pm
School I

Event summary by our intern Katarina Rebello: In her recent lecture, Dr Adriana Erthal Abdenur explored the diverse contributions of Brazil in matters of international security and conflict mediation. As a ‘rising power’, Brazil has historically encouraged the development of multi-polarity while equally building legitimacy for its regional and global ambitions through engagement with international conflict resolution and post-conflict development. Dr Abdenur argued that these efforts have primarily unfolded within multilateral institutions like the Union of South American States (UNASUR) and the United Nations. Dr Abdenur also elaborated on Brazilian appeals for systemic change across the international community, promoting peaceful conflict resolution in lieu of military interventionism as well as advocating for broader reform of the United Nations Security Council. Many of these foreign policy objectives have come under increasing pressure from the ongoing economic recession and recent political turbulence in Brazil. Drawing on her extensive fieldwork, Dr Abdenur shared unique insight into the roles that Brazil has played (and has not played) within the ongoing Colombian peace process with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). While Brazil was not a prominent actor in the negotiations of the recent FARC peace agreement, Brazilian officials have expressed their willingness to contribute towards the implementation of the Colombian peace process, specifically advancing the benefits of technical assistance through agriculture and economic development in the region. Dr Abdenur argued that these contributions reflect a broader appreciation for the links between development and security. On this basis, Dr Abdenur contended that Brazil possesses normative power, further referring to the contributions of Burges (2008; 2015) who frames Brazil as a ‘consensual hegemon’. In different ways, this lecture opened up the possibility that Brazil will continue building its capacities for international conflict mediation while at the same time renegotiating the very meaning of ‘interventionism’ in the contemporary world.


‘Anarchism and Republicanism’
Professor Ruth Kinna, Loughborough University
Wednesday, 1 March 2017, 5-6.30pm
School I

Event summary by our intern Owen Brown: Professor Ruth Kinna, from Loughborough University, gave a lecture on her current project – reviving the arguments of anarchists against republicanism. Kinna noted authors such as Marx, Proudhon, and Tolstoy, painting a picture of the anti-statist position. Freedom, Kinna advocated, is free from domination. Delving into the project, Kinna argued that it would be a mistake for anarchists to reject constitutionalisation because it ‘stifles normative change,’ regardless of the activity of the social body. The arguments brought forth were clear, and entirely sobering. Kinna noted the arguments of Tolstoy and Proudhon, who were writing at the time of the abolition of slavery in the 19th Century. Proudhon argued that new forms of slavery were taking the place of the traditional form. While the master could no longer send a slave down the cesspool to clean, they could simply pay the unfortunate person who was willing to do it to avoid starvation – a new kind of slavery. In such highly structured contemporary governments and societies, such as those that exist in the Western world, it is often difficult to conceptualize anarchistic forms of governance. Being used to governments enforcing arbitrary laws, spying on citizens, and inflicting judgement from ‘above’ – it is indeed difficult to know how things might be without an ‘above’, a point Kinna made eloquently. However, if freedom means freedom from domination, then it is the only way to have true freedom. The presentation shed light on how anarchistic societies may govern themselves, and more specifically how avoiding constitutionalisation is a fundamental mistake for anarchists who wish to do so.


‘Resisting the International Criminal Court: Analysing African Anti-impunity Antipreneurialism’
Dr Kurt Mills, University of Glasgow
Tuesday, 7 February 2017, 5-6.30pm
School III

Event summary by our intern Ally Sinjab: In his recent talk, Dr Kurt Mills delivered a novel analytical framework for capturing African ‘antipreneurialism’ towards the anti-impunity norm advanced by the International Criminal Court (ICC). If a norm entrepreneur seeks to change some normative status in an issue area, then a norm antipreneur seeks to preserve the status quo and frustrate entrepreneurial initiatives. Anti-impunity, non-exemption from punishment, is a norm the ICC and state parties to the Rome Statute represent. African antipreneurialism, then, means a resistance to this norm. Resistance takes two forms: (a) tactical resistance involving calls for mass withdrawal from the ICC, or (b) strategic resistance by the invocation of other norms to displace the anti-impunity norm. These include the state sovereignty, anti-imperialism, Afrocentrism and ‘African solutions for African problems’ norms. Both forms of resistance take place in ‘sites of contestation,’ which include the United Nations Security Council and the African Union. However, the codification of norms in treaties, such as anti-impunity in the Rome Statute, does not de facto render them the normative status quo. Rather, adopting a constructivist approach, Dr Mills argued that actors are able to decide when norms apply as to selectively preserve their interests. Dr Mills also cautioned that entrepreneurs and antipreneurs are not pure, self-contained or dichotomous categories. Rather, they are opposites on a continuum of attitudes about, and behaviours towards, norms. Thus, African antipreneurialism towards the anti-impunity norm is not absolute. Rather, it is a resistance to the anti-impunity norm being a prescriptive norm, and an interest in it being a permissive norm. This would enable more discretion on when and how to apply it in African states as to preserve their interests – albeit in a way which may yield some impunity.


‘Dangerous Trade: Humanitarian Arms Export Governance and International Reputation’
Dr Jennifer Erickson, Boston College
Wednesday, 23 November 2016, 5-6:30pm
School I

Event summary by our intern Rory Weaver: In her fascinating talk entitled Dangerous Trade: Humanitarian Arms Export Governance and International Reputation, Dr Erickson of Boston College highlighted the often underappreciated scale of the international arms trade, and the surprise decision by major arms exporters to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in 2009. Why did these countries suddenly decide to approve a treaty that had the potential to be so costly to a key tool of foreign policy and economic growth? Based on analysis of arms export data and interview with key actors in policy-making and the defence industry, Dr Erickson finds that in the top arms-exporting democracies, public pressure and concern for human rights do not offer adequate reputations explanations for this change. Instead, she offers a convincing explanation that international social– the importance of being seen as a good ‘international citizen’ – was the driving force behind the ATT. Because the appearance of commitment, and not compliance or enforcement, was the overriding concern of signatory states, and because the ATT has no mechanisms for enforcement or punishment, compliance will depend on NGO and public pressure, which has mostly been lacking. Dr Erickson also offered an interesting twist on what is often seen as conventional wisdom – the UK defence industry does not necessarily always get its way in policy decisions, and was caught off-guard by New Labour’s commitment to arms control in the late 1990s. The Obama administration, despite its positive image, continued to export arms in a similar way to its predecessors. Most importantly, her talk highlighted that genuine compliance with a reputation-driven treaty is unlikely in the absence of significant pressure from the public and NGOs.


‘The EU and its Member States in Global Governance: Stronger Together?’
Dr Joris Larik, University of Leiden
Wednesday, 2 November 2016, 5-6.30pm
School I

Event summary by our intern Blake Atherton: On Wednesday evening, November 2, Dr. Joris Larik, Assistant Professor of Comparative, EU, and International Law at Leiden University and Senior Researcher at the Hague Institute for Global Justice, presented a lecture for St Andrews and the Centre for Global Constitutionalism. Dr. Larik began by contextualizing the aggregate power, level of interconnectedness, and core legal principles of the European Union. Larik elucidated how, legally, power is shared among disparate member states and how this arrangement may constrain or benefit members depending on context. Dr. Larik then presented two case studies, trade and security, to juxtapose the relative success the EU has enjoyed in the realm of trade (in terms of solidarity) and the relative difficulty it has encountered in the realm of collective defense. In view of these case studies, Dr. Larik turned his attention to the future of the EU in the wake of Brexit and prospects for continued improvement in coordination among member states, emphasizing that a more synchronized and systematic approach to security objectives in the EU is or paramount importance.


‘Conceptualizing International Rights to Resist’
Professor Antonio Franceschet, University of Calgary
Wednesday 12 October 2016, 5-6.30pm
School I


‘Justice and Reconciliation in International Relations’
Professor Catherine Lu, McGill University, Canada
Monday, 18 April 2016, 5pm Arts Lecture Theatre.
Co-sponsored with the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies.


‘Contested Norms in International Encounters: The “Turbot War” as Prelude to Fairer Global Fisheries Governance’
Professor Antje Weiner, University of Hamburg, Germany
Monday, 4 April 2016, 5pm Arts Lecture Theatre


‘Protest and Politicization. Critical Theory in Times of Resistance’
Professor Christian Volk, University of Trier, Germany
Tuesday, 8 March 2016, 5 pm-7pm,
Arts Building, Seminar Room 2