Laws Events
UCL Laws Events Series
Past Laws Events
Other UCL Events

UCL Laws Events & CPD

Laws Events - Past Events 2011

Past Events
2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009

Wednesday 14 December 2011
UCL Judicial Institute, with the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, and BIICL
A British Interpretation of Convention Rights

Speaker: Lord Irvine of Lairg
Chair: Professor Dame Hazel Genn DBE QC, Dean of UCL Faculty of Laws & Co-Director of UCL Judicial Institute & Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell KCMG QC, Director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law
About this lecture:
This event will be the first time that Lord Irvine, architect of the Human Rights Act, has publicly commented on his intent behind Section 2, and its subsequent interpretation. 

Download a copy of the speech
Watch the lecture at :
Friday 9 December 2011
The Bentham Project
New Directions in Bentham Studies
Malik Bozzo-Rey (Catholic University of Lille), Marco Guidi (University of Pisa), Gianfranco Pellegrino (UCL), Vincent Emmanuel Mathon, Peter Niesen (Darmstadt University of Technology), Michael Quinn (UCL Bentham Project), Philip Steadman (UCL Bartlett), Philip Schofield (UCL Bentham Project)
Download the programme

About this symposium
To help mark the relaunch of the Journal of Bentham Studies in a new online home as part of UCL’s open-access repository of research, the Bentham Project is hosting a one-day international symposium exploring recent developments and new avenues of research in Bentham studies, at which several distinguished scholars will speak.

Tuesday 6 December 2011
UCL Centre for Law, Economics and Society
Competition Law and Policy in the Healthcare Sector: A Trans-Atlantic Perspective

Speaker: Prof. Fiona Scott Morton (Deputy Assistant Attorney General, US Dept. of Justice)
Commentators: Dr John Fingleton (Chief Executive, Office of Fair Trading) - TBC
Catherine Davies (Director, Co-Operation & Competition Panel)
Dr Pierre Regibeau (CRA / University of Essex)
Chair: Dr Ioannis Lianos (UCL)
Accreditation: 1.5CPD hours (SRA / BSB)
About this event
Much healthcare provision is accomplished through networks of providers such as physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and dentists. Common contract terms between the party organizing the network and the set of providers include non-discrimination terms like MFNs and network participation requirements. The talk will discuss theories of competitive effect and consumer harm resulting from such provisions, and cover empirical evidence of their impact in the healthcare sector.

Friday 2 December 2011
Centre for Law, Economics Society, IBIL, and Loyola University Chicago
Brand, Competition Law and IP Law
Speaker include: Christian Alhborn (Linklaters), Edward Anderson (Sainsbury), Tony Appleton (Proctor & Gamble), Simon Baxter (Skadden Arps), Deven Desai (Google, Inc), Dr Peter Davis (Compass Lexecon), Dr Amelia Fletcher (OFT), Prof. Johanna Gibson (QMUL), Prof. Sir Robin Jacob (UCL Laws), Dr Ioannis Lianos (UCL Laws), John Noble (British Brands Group), Prof. Spencer Weber Waller (Loyola University Chicago)
Accredited with 4.5 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB

About this conference
The aim of this conference is to reflect on the legal and economic understanding of brands by explaining what brands are and how they function, how trademark and competition law integrate brands in their framework and if this is satisfactory, and the role brands play in business competition. The conference will also delve into specific issues raised by branding in the 21st century business competition, such as the challenges raised by online business and the increasing role of private labels in distribution.

Thursday 1 December 2011
Current Legal Problems Lecture
Charities and the Modern Equality Framework: Heading for a Collision?
Debra Morris, Charity Law Unit, University of Liverpool
Chair: Alison McKenna, Principal Judge, First-tier Tribunal
Accredited with 1 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB
About this lecture
This lecture will examine the intersection of modern equality law and charity law. The renewed focus on equality law as a result of the enactment of the Equality Act 2010 means that charities will be examined more closely than ever before. It will be seen that, in some areas, their modus operandi may lead to conflict, either with anti-discrimination law itself, or at least, with its underlying principles of equality. This is all the more worrying, considered alongside charities’ (now enhanced) requirement to provide public benefit. This is an important, yet little understood area of law for charities and their trustees. As the state retracts in the Big Society and charities fill the gap in the provision of services, it is vital that they understand the impact of equality law. The primary focus of the lecture will be on the potential for conflict between equality law’s foundational anti-discrimination objectives and the objects of some charities. This occurs where the charities’ beneficiaries are limited to one or more classes of persons, based on personal characteristics, such as gender, age or religion, so that others, that have protection under the Equality Act 2010, are denied access to their benefits. The recent Catholic Care case should provide a warning to many other charities that may well be on a collision course, in which their public benefit credentials are found wanting when tested against the modern equality framework within which they must operate

About this speaker
Debra Morris is Reader in Charity Law & Policy at the University of Liverpool, UK, where she is also the Director of the Charity Law & Policy Unit. As Director of the Charity Law & Policy Unit, she leads research on various projects concerned with aspects of charity law. Current projects include the intersection of charities and discrimination law and the charitable status of schools. She has authored Schools: An Education in Charity Law, published by Dartmouth Press in 1996, and has been assistant editor of a leading text on charity law, Tudor on Charities, published by Sweet & Maxwell. She also assisted with the writing of the 4th edition of Picarda’s The Law and Practice Relating to Charities, published in 2010 by Bloomsbury Professional. She is Editor of Charity Law & Practice Review, the only UK journal specialising in charity law. She is a member of the International Advisory Board for the Non Profit Model Law project, based at the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies. She has written many articles in the area of charity law and has presented at conferences and seminars around the world

Wednesday 30 November 2011
The Constitutional State: A Critical Discussion
Nicholas Barber (Oxford)
Prof. Martin Loughlin (LSE)
Dr Grégoire Webber (LSE)
Chair: Dr Jeff King (UCL)
Accredited with 1.5 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB

About this lecture
Nick Barber's N.W. Barber's The Constitutional State (OUP 2010) is a recent monograph in constitutional theory in which the author explores the idea of the state, its composition, the role of constitutions, legal pluralism and constitutional pluralism – in addition to the very nature of constitutional theory itself. In this seminar, Professor Martin Loughlin (Professor of Public Law and Head of Department, London School of Economics), Dr. Grégoire Webber (Lecturer in law, London School of Economics) and Dr. Jeff King (Senior Lecturer in Law, University College London) will critically examine aspects of Mr. Barber's book, and Mr. Barber will be given an extended reply. There will be ample time left for general discussion afterwards. Those interested in legal and political theory, public law, human rights and politics will have a direct interest in the topic and book.
Tuesday 29 November 2011
Jivraj v Haswani and the scope of discrimination law before the Supreme Court
Prof. Christopher McCrudden (Queen's University Belfast / Blackstone Chambers)
Chair: Dr Nicola Countouris (UCL)
Accredited with 1 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB

About this lecture
In Jivraj v Haswani [2011] the Supreme Court redefined the personal and material scope of application of UK anti-discrimination law by reference to the EU Equality framework, and in particular Directive 2000/78. We are priviledge to host a public lecture by Professor Christopher McCrudden who, in addition to being one of the country's authorities in the area of equality and labour law, was directly involved as a barrister in the case discussed..
Thursday 24 November 2011
Rationalising Proprietary Remedies: Are We All Formalists Now?
Prof. Craig Rotherham, University of Nottingham
Chair: The Rt Hon Lord Dyson, The Supreme Court
Accredited with 1 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB

About this lecture
The task of determining the proper scope of the law of proprietary remedies has been described as the most difficult undertaking facing those seeking to rationalise the law of restitution. A matter of particular contention concerns the methodology that might legitimately be employed in analysing this area. In particular, there is a view that it is wrong to try, as many scholars have, to explain, justify or develop these remedies by reference to policy arguments that focus on the effects that awarding such relief have in insolvency. Not only is this perspective implicit in much judicial discussion, it has been articulated quite explicitly by some academic writers in recent years. This lecture explores the objections raised against justifying proprietary relief on the basis of whether its consequences in insolvency are deserved and asks whether, like it or not, we can really avoid a significant level of engagement with policy if debate in this area is to be rational.

About the speaker:
Craig Rotherham is Professor of Law at the University of Nottingham. He pursued his study of the law at the University of Canterbury (New Zealand), Yale University and Cambridge University and previously held posts at the University of Canterbury, the University of Sussex and Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. His primary research interests are restitution, proprietary remedies and ideas of property. His present research focus is on gain-based relief. In addition to a number of articles and contributions to edited collections, he is author of Proprietary Remedies in Context: A Study in the Redistribution of Property Rights (Hart, 2002).
Wednesday 23 November 2011
IBIL Annual Brand Seminar
Conor v Angiotech
On Appeal from the House of Lords and the District Court of the Hague

Before the Supreme Patent Court (Justice Rothstein of the Supreme Court of Canada)
Council for the Appellants:
The Rt Hon. Professor Sir Robin Jacob and members of the Audience
Council for the Respondents:
The Rt Hon Professor Lord Hoffmann and members of the Audience
Accreditation: 1.5CPD hours (SRA / BSB / IPReg)
About this event
Conor V Angiotech was a real case in which the House of Lords reversed concurrent findings of obviousness by the High court and Court of Appeal. It agreed with the Dutch court which had decided the parallel case in Holland.

The "moot" between Sir Robin Jacob and Lord Hoffmann will raise fundamental questions about the law of obviousness. The general form of the event will be a neutral introduction to the problem followed by legal argument from the two "counsel" (who gave the lead judgments in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords respectively). Member so the audience will be invited to join in the debate on one sider or the other. The "Judge", Justice Rothstein of the Canadian Supreme court will act as an 'international' arbitrator.

Wednesday 23 November 2011
UCL Centre for Law, Economics and Society
Arbitration and EU Competition Law: Do Not Tilt the Balance

Speaker: Dr Assimakis Komninos (White & Case, Brussels)
Chair: Dr Ioannis Lianos (UCL)
Accreditation: 1.5CPD hours (SRA / BSB)
About this event
Arbitration is a generally accepted method for the resolution of international business disputes and, for antitrust enforcement purposes, it represents another forum for the application of the competition rules. There is nowadays no doubt that EU competition law disputes can be submitted to arbitration (they are arbitrable), notwithstanding their public policy (ordre public) nature. After modernisation, exactly like courts, arbitrators have full competence to apply the whole of Article 101 TFEU, including its third paragraph. If the Commission were to issue in the future a notice or another informal instrument on arbitration, for clarity it could explicitly state the above proposition. The neglect of arbitration in Regulation 1/2003 and in the accompanying ‘Modernisation Package’ is not in itself problematic; however, the European Commission should always remain open to cooperate with arbitration tribunals either in an informal or a more formal way. In the future, the Commission could consider publishing a Notice or some Guidelines on cooperation with arbitral tribunals. Such a Notice could provide for a more structured dialogue between arbitrators and the Commission, while increasing the transparency of the whole system of cooperation. It would also raise the EU competition law awareness of arbitrators and parties, but should strive not to encroach on the fundamental principles of flexibility, confidentiality and privity of the arbitral process. Arbitration is not an organ of the Member States and therefore Articles 4(3) TEU and 16 Regulation 1/2003 are not directly binding on it. However, arbitral awards can be reviewed by EU-based State courts on public policy (ordre public) grounds, and this constitutes the ultimate and most efficient safeguard for the respectful application of the EU competition rules by arbitrators. To the extent an arbitral award may be reviewed and set aside on such grounds, the arbitrators should exercise caution when applying EU competition law and should even proceed to apply it of their own motion (ex officio). In the extreme case where an arbitral tribunal is an internal structure of a cartel and its function is to ensure compliance and resolve ‘disputes’ within the cartel, the arbitration clause itself would be illegal and the ‘arbitrators’ would be liable to fines under Article 101 TFEU.
Wednesday 23 November 2011
UCL Public Policy / UCL Centre for Law and the Environment
Going Low-Carbon: The governance of climate change technologies

• Dr Chiara Armeni (UCL Laws)
• Professor Maria Lee (UCL Laws)
• Dr Simon Lock (UCL Science & Technology Studies)
• Professor Tadj Oreszczyn (UCL Energy Institute)
Chaired by Professor Yvonne Rydin (UCL Bartlett School of Planning and Director, UCL Environment Institute).
About this event
Technological innovation is likely to play a significant role in moving to a low carbon economy. Alongside the technological and scientific challenges, this presents considerable governance challenges.

There are currently major gaps in the ways in which UK high level political discourse on climate change technologies addresses governance. The focus tends to be on economic incentives; the full complexity of the governance challenges associated with capturing the carbon savings potential of technological innovation is barely acknowledged.

Furthermore, the ways in which different publics might engage with climate change technologies other than through economic incentives are rarely considered, and tried and tested governance frameworks (such as planning) are generally discussed (if at all) as barriers that must be overcome. But any technology is embedded in its social context, and the public in their diverse roles (as citizens, consumers, members of communities) play unavoidable and important roles in the adoption, proliferation and impact of climate change technologies.

This seminar will explore some of the diverse governance challenges thrown up by climate change technologies. Presentations will include:

  • Building Insulation – The challenges and intended consequences of insulating the existing housing stock
  • Wind Energy & the Public – NIMBYism, engagement or just a load of hot air?
  • Capturing the Opportunities and Challenges of Governing CCS Technologies
Tuesday 22 November 2011
UCL Judicial Institute
Achieving a Culture Change in Case Management
The Rt Hon Lord Justice Jackson
About this lecture
In this Special Lecture, Lord Justice Jackson will deal with case management reforms proposed in his Civil Litigation Costs Review Final Report and how it is intended that these reforms should be implemented. The lecture will stress the need for a true culture change in case management and suggest that lessons might be learnt from Singapore in that regard. This will be the fourth in a series of lectures which Lord Justice Jackson is giving with the intention of assisting practitioners and others to prepare for the anticipated civil justice reforms.
Tuesday 22 November 2011
Annual Mishcon Lecture
British Foreign Policy in a Changing World
Lord Malloch-Brown, Chairman, EMEA & Global Affairs, FTI Consulting Inc.
Chair: Joshua Rozenberg
About this lecture
The Mishcon Lectures were established at UCL in 1990 in honour of Lord Mishcon to mark his 75th birthday and in recognition of his achievements and service in the fields of law, education, religion, government and politics, both central and local. Read more about previous Mishcon lectures.

About the speaker:
Mark Malloch-Brown, Chairman, EMEA & Global Affairs, FTI Consulting Inc. As chairman of Europe, Middle East and Africa for FTI Consulting, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown has responsibility for all aspects of the firm’s business in the Europe, Middle East and Africa region. Mark Malloch-Brown served as a Minister in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s cabinet, where he had particular responsibility for strengthening relationships with Africa and Asia and the international system. The Prime Minster appointed him as his envoy for preparation of the London G-20 Summit. In addition, Lord Malloch-Brown has served as Deputy Secretary General and Chief of Staff of the United Nations under Kofi Annan and, for six years prior, as Administrator of the UN Development Programme, where he led UN development efforts around the world. Before that he was a Vice-President at the World Bank.
Friday 18 November 2011
London Roman Law Group
Dissimulation in Iniuria
Prof. Paul Mitchell

Friday 18 November 2011
Institute for Human Rights
Freedom of Expression and Private Life: How can we balance the competing interests?
Judge Jebens (formerly of the ECHR)
Judge Spielmann (ECHR)
About this lecture
Freedom of expression and respect for private life are both human rights that are protected in the European Convention on Human Rights. Freedom of expression does not only include the right to express opinions, but also the right to pass and to receive information. This aspect of the right to freedom of expression may sometimes involve other persons' reputation, and possibly their right to respect for private life. The Strasbourg Court has sometimes been invited to clarify the extent of the right to critical reportage against the rights of the individual. Furthermore, the right to freedom of expression is not limited to critical reportage; it covers any information, including sensations and mere gossip, which many people find interesting. However, such information can sometimes reveal secrets from a person's private life or may generally be seen as an intrusion of that person's private sphere. Judge Jebens and Judge Spielmann will address these issues and will engage in discussion with the audience.
Thursday 17 November 2011
Doing the Sustainable Development Dance: Stepping from the Education for Sustainable Development Movement to Environmental Justice in Legal Education
Prof. Jane Holder, UCL Faculty of Laws
Chair: Stephen Hockman QC
Accredited with 1 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB
About this lecture
We are nearing the end of the UN’s Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (2005-14). This has triggered important initiatives in schools and, increasingly, in higher and further education. In this lecture I critically examine the form of sustainability advanced by the ESD movement and question the role of legal education in furthering this. I am particularly concerned with how to relate sustainability and justice, including environmental justice – the fair and equal distribution of environmental ‘goods’ and ‘bads’, since combining these concepts seems to offer an important means by which law teachers can contribute to the ESD agenda and, possibly, reframe it in a more far-reaching and politically challenging manner. I illustrate these points with examples of radical ESD thinking and action, including the process of ‘greening’ UCL.

About the speaker:
Jane Holder has carried out research on environmental law since graduating from Warwick University in 1990. Her PhD was on environmental assessment, published as a book, Environmental Assessment: the Regulation of Decision Making in 2004. She has also worked on the law relating to hedgerows, town and village greens and, latterly, environmental justice issues and the education for sustainable development movement. Jane is co-chair of the Executive Board of UCL’s Sustainable Cities Grand Challenge and a Public Engagement Beacon Mentor.
Thursday 17 November 2011
UCL Faculty of Laws
Access to Justice and the Immunity of International Organisations before National Jurisdictions
Professor August Reinisch, University of Vienna
About this lecture
The talk will focus on issues of immunity of international organisations and the way these have been approached by domestic courts, utilising examples from practice drawn from the online database maintained by Oxford University Press Oxford Reports on International Law in Domestic Courts (

About the Speaker:
August Reinisch is professor of international and European law at the University of Vienna and professorial lecturer at the Bologna Center/SAIS of Johns Hopkins University. He currently serves as arbitrator on the In Rem Restitution Panel according to the Austrian General Settlement Fund Law 2001 on a pro bono basis and as arbitrator in various investment arbitrations. From 2004 to 2006 and as of 2010 he was/is Dean for International Relations of the Law School of the University of Vienna. His professional experience includes expert adviser in Austrian and foreign court litigation as well as international arbitration; he was a Member of the ILA Committee on International Law on Foreign Investment, and he is a member of the ILA Study Groups on Accountability of International Organisations, State Insolvency, and the Role of Soft-Law Instruments in International Investment Law. He is president of the Austrian Branch of the ILA, Executive Board member of the European Society of International Law and of the German Society of International Law, as well as member of ASIL, ACUNS and other professional associations in the field of international law.

Wednesday 16 November 2011
UCL Centre for Criminal Law
An Update on Hearsay and Anonymous Evidence
Speakers include:
Professor Ian Dennis (Director, UCL Centre for Criminal Law)
David Perry QC (6 King's Bench Walk)
Accredited with 1.5 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB
About this lecture:
This seminar will examine recent developments in the law relating to hearsay and anonymous evidence in criminal proceedings. It is hoped that by this date we shall have the long-awaited judgement of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom. There will be ample opportunity for questions and discussion.
Tuesday 15 November 2011
Centre for Ethics & Law
Tweeting to Topple Tyranny: Social Media and Corporate Social Responsibility
Professor Erika George, Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah
with Dr Nina Seppala (UCL)
About this lecture
This lecture will offer critical reflections on the role of social media in social change and outline how the obligation of corporations in the information communications technology sector to avoid complicity in rights violations may evolve over time. Exploring the Internet's potential to further democratic discourse and inclusion or foster discrimination and exclusion considering whether the Internet industry has an obligation to protect against hate propaganda. The lecture will consider discourse in the digital era--from political dissent to social discrimination, present escalating citizen-consumer expectations as a potential origin of obligation in the internet communications technology sector in the absence of binding law imposing particular obligations. In particular, it will explore the interplay of interest convergence between the industry and its consumers in unfree societies with illiberal laws pertaining to freedom of expression and access to information to outline appropriate standards aligned with international human rights standards. The lecture will also assess the efficacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives such as the Global Network Initiative.

About the speakers:
Erika R. George is Professor of Law at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law where she teaches constitutional law, international human rights law, international environmental law, and civil procedure. She earned her B.A. with honors at the University of Chicago and her J.D. at Harvard Law School, where she served as Articles Editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. She also holds an M.A. in International Relations from the University of Chicago.

Prior to joining the Utah faculty, Professor George served as a Law Clerk for Judge William T. Hart on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As a fellow and later consultant to Human Rights Watch, Professor George has conducted human rights investigations in South Africa on women’s rights, children’s rights, violence, the right to education and abuses related to the HIVAIDS epidemic. She wrote a book-length report titled Scared at School: Sexual Violence Against Girls in South African Schools which received widespread media coverage in South Africa and internationally. She serves as special counsel to the Women’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch.

Nina Seppala is Director of the MSc in Management programme in the Department of Management Science and Innovation, UCL. Previously, she worked for the United Nations and International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) in the areas of democracy promotion and preventive diplomacy.Nina teaches leadership, business ethics, and international business. She has co-authored a text book in corporate social responsibility and speaks about business ethics education in international meetings and conferences.Her research interests are in the areas of behavioural ethics and corporate social responsibility. She has also published articles on the role of business in the protection and promotion of human rights. Nina is a member of UCL Institute for Human Rights and Centre for Ethics and Law.
Wednesday 9 November 2011
WTO Scholars' Forum
Approaching the Development of WTO Law in Light of Transnational Influences: The Merits of a Causal Explanation
Greg Messenger DPhil candidate, University of Oxford

About this lecture
The relationship between WTO law and domestic or regional trade law is a fertile one: domestic legal instruments have provided the inspiration for numerous WTO obligations while the rights and obligations under the covered agreements are frequently incorporated into the legal systems of the membership. It is, however, a deeply complex process comprising numerous different legal influences. It is suggested here that theories of causation provide key analytical tools to help understand this process and, in doing so, offer an explanatory insight into the development of WTO law.
Wednesday 9 November 2011
Institute for Brand and Innovation Law
Employees Inventions
Speakers include:
Andrew Lykiardopoulos (8 New Square)
Alistair McGregor QC (11 King's Bench Walk)
Dr Justine Pila (University of Oxford)
Accredited with 2 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB
About this lecture:
This Masterclass will explore the increasing important subject of employees’ inventions, which is of crucial importance to business. Issues that will be considered in this 2-hour Masterclass include:
  • Ownership of inventions made by employees
  • How much employees can claim by way of compensation where the employer is the owner of the invention
  • Protection of confidential information and trade secrets when employees leave a company

These issues have been the subject of recent case law, such as Unilever v Shanks, and the Masterclass will focus on both substantive law and the practicalities of procedure.

Friday 4 November 2011
UCL Faculty of Laws with the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law
The Role of the Parliament as the Guardian of Fundamental Rights: Swedish Perspectives
Prof. Iain Cameron and Prof. Thomas Bull, University of Uppsala, Sweden
Chair: Colm O'Cinneide, UCL Laws
About this lecture:
Sweden shares with the UK a strong commitment to representative democracy. It also is widely perceived to have an enviable human rights record. The Swedish Parliament has historically acted as the primary guardian of fundamental rights, while the courts have played at best a secondary role in this context. Professors Cameron and Bull will explore how this constitutional arrangement has shaped judicial culture in Sweden, and how the impact of European law is altering the status quo.
Thursday 3 November 2011
Current Legal Problems Lecture
The Role of Legitimacy in Trade Mark Law
Dr Ilanah Simon Fhima
Chair: The Hon Mr Justice Floyd
Accredited with 1 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB
About this lecture:
Far from being a 'monopoly right', the rights granted under a trade mark equate to the exclusive right to undertake a number of activities, and to prevent others from doing the same. However, even within the scope of those exclusive rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union has attempted to demarcate between permitted and non-permitted uses of those legislatively granted exclusive rights using the tool of 'legitimacy'.

This lecture attempts to map out the instances in which the concept of legitimacy has been used in trade mark law, and to determine when the CJEU does and does not consider a trade mark owner's reliance on its rights to be 'legitimate'. The lecture will also take a wider look at how legitimacy is understood in other areas of law and theory, comparing this to the CJEU's approach in its trade mark jurisprudence.

About the speaker:
Ilanah Simon Fhima is a lecturer and co-director of the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law at UCL Faculty of Laws. Her particular research interest is in European and comparative trade mark law, with a focus on the scope of protection. She has published extensively on both European and US trade mark law on both sides of the Atlantic. Her book on European and US trade mark dilution will be published in November 2011 by Oxford University Press.

Wednesday 2 November 2011
UCL Centre for Criminal Law
Current Issues in the Prosecution and Trial of Serious Fraud
Speakers include:
The Rt Hon Sir John Thomas (President, Queen's Bench Division)
Richard Alderman (Director, Serious Fraud Office)
Stephen Parkinson (Partner, Kingsley Napley)
Chair: Professor Ian Dennis (Director, UCL Centre for Criminal Law )
Accredited with 1.5 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB
About this lecture:
This seminar will discuss some current issues in the prosecution and trial of cases of serious fraud. The speakers will examine these issues from the perspectives of the judiciary, prosecution agencies and defence lawyers. There will be ample opportunity for questions and discussion.
Tuesday 1 November 2011
UCL Jurisprudence Review 2011
The Normative Value of Free Speech and Privacy
Speakers include:
The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Sedley
Prof. Leslie Green (University of Oxford)
Prof. Eric Barendt (UCL)
Charlotte Harris (Partner, Mishcon de Reya)
Chair: The Rt Hon Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (Master of the Rolls)
About this event
In light of topical social, political and legal debates upon the intersection of the rights of freedom of expression and respect for private life, the UCL Jurisprudence Review will be celebrating the launch of its 17th volume by hosting a panel discussion to address the normative value of freedom of expression and privacy. Questions addressed in this debate include:
  • the relationship between freedom of expression and freedom of the press privacy as a fundamental right
  • how rights to freedom of speech and privacy are balanced when both are engaged in a particular case
  • the duties that those who benefit from rights of free speech have in respect of what they say
  • whether the decline of injunctions and super-injunctions has encouraged further bad practices between the press, PR agents and those selling private information to newspapers or defending themselves against the publication of their private information

The event will bring together leading academics and practitioners to discuss such questions as the role of the media in a liberal democracy, whether the courts have reached the right balance between the two rights and the impact of the decline of injunctions upon media practices.

Tuesday 1 November 2011
UCL Lunch Hour Lecture
London: The Divorce Capital of the World. 'Big Money' Divorce Cases: Fairness, Gender and Judicial Discretion

Prof. Alison Diduck
Read more about Lunch Hour Lectures
About this lecture
The law gives the courts very broad discretion to determine ‘fair’ property and financial awards when couples divorce. While that discretion is exercised in all cases, it has been shaped by principles developed in the so-called ‘big money’ cases decided in the Appeal Courts since 2000 which have led to increased awards to homemaker wives. Many are unhappy with this turn of events and have said that London has now become the ‘divorce capital of the world’. Professor Diduck will review these leading cases, the principles on which they were based and their importance for promoting broader gender equit
Thursday 27 October 2011
Current Legal Problems Lecture
Identifying 'Exploitative Compromises': The Role of Labour Law in Resolving Disputes between Workers
Dr Anne Davies, Brasenose College, Oxford
Chair: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Elias
Accreditation: 1 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB
About this lecture
In recent years, labour law has been going through a period of deep introspection. Some commentators have gone so far as to pronounce the subject dead. One reason for the crisis is the realisation that labour law can exacerbate divisions between different groups in the workforce: between the employed and the unemployed, between those with stable jobs and those with 'atypical' jobs, between local workers and migrant workers, and so on. The 'interests of labour' are not, in reality, a unified set of interests to be pitted against those of capital. Whilst other writers are beginning to explore this set of issues at the policy level, my aim in this lecture is to consider how the law addresses conflicts between workers on particular occasions and in particular workplaces, and to begin the task of mapping out this neglected dimension of the subject on a more practical level.

About the speaker:
Anne Davies is Fellow and Tutor in Law, Brasenose College, and Reader in Public Law, Oxford University. Her research interests are in public law and labour law. She is the author of three books (Accountability: A Public Law Analysis of Government by Contract (OUP, 2001); Perspectives on Labour Law (CUP Law in Context series, 2004; 2nd edn., 2009); The Public Law of Government Contracts (OUP, 2008)) and numerous articles in both fields, and is currently working on a book on EU labour law. She is also General Editor of the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.

Thursday 27 October 2011
IUS Commune / Institute of Global Law Lecture
Non Discrimination in WTO: Revisiting the ALI Study
Prof. Petros Mavroidis (Columbia Law School)
Chair: Dr Ioannis Lianos
Accreditation: 1 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB
About this lecture
The project 'Principles of International Trade: the World Trade Organization' is an American Law Institute (ALI) study. Henrik Horn and Petros C. Mavroidis (Columbia Law School) are the Chief Reporters of the study, and Kyle W. Bagwell (Stanford, Economics), Gene M. Grossman (Princeton, Economics), Robert W. Staiger (Stanford, Economics) and Alan O. Sykes (Stanford Law School) are the reporters. Doug Irwin (Dartmouth, Economics) was an invited author. This event will briefly revisit the whole study, while focusing on the principle of non-discrimination with respect to domestic policies.

About the speaker:
Prof. Mavroidis, who worked in the WTO's legal division in the 1990s, has written extensively on the organization and its predecessor, GATT. Judging from the increasing enrollment in Prof. Mavroidis's courses on the WTO, there is also a growing appreciation of its relevance in the world today. Prof. Mavroidis has remained active with the WTO. While teaching at the University of Neuchatel in Switzerland, he spent several days each month as a pro bono lawyer at the WTO, helping developing countries to settle disputes. Prof. Mavroidis is also involved with the American Law Institute as a chief co-reporter on the principles of WTO law, which will lead eventually to a series of legal recommendations. He says he hopes to see the WTO succeed not against the wheels of governments but as a consensus-driven organization.

From summer 2011 Prof. Mavroidis will be teaching at European University Institute, Florence, Italy.

Wednesday 26 October 2011
UCL Institute for Human Rights Debate
Does Britain Need a Bill of Rights?

the panel includes:
- Chris Bryant MP - former Shadow Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform
- Saladin Meckled-Garcia, UCL Institute for Human Rights
- Aileen Kavanagh, University of Oxford
- Colm O'Cinneide, UCL
The chair will be taken by Joshua Rozenberg, Presenter of BBC's Law in Action

About this debate
In March 2011 the Coalition government launched a Commission to investigate the case for a British Bill of Rights, which would replace the Human Rights Act (HRA). The HRA was passed by the Labour government in 1998, giving legal effect to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and allowing domestic courts to rely on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The question of whether Britain needs a UK Bill of Rights and the precise role of the ECHR at domestic level, divides experts and members of the public alike. The UCL Institute for Human Rights invites you to a public debate on this important constitutional question.
Thursday 20 October 2011
Criminal Conversations
Prof. Ian Ward, Newcastle Law School, Newcastle University
Chair: The Rt Hon Lord Hope of Craighead
Accredited with 1 CPD hour by the SRA only

About this lecture
The interdisciplinary study of law and literature is not new. But it remains, in the opinion of some, controversial. The ‘strategies’ of law and literature are contestable and contested. These strategies, and these contestations, will provide the focus for the first part of this lecture. It will be argued that one of the virtues of ‘law and literature’ scholarship is an inherent facility for nurturing further inter-disciplinary work. In this spirit of evolving inter-disciplinarity, the second part of this lecture will concentrate on the closer relation of law, literature and history. It will proceed by means of a particular study of one relatively familiar genre of English literature, the woman’s novel of the mid-nineteenth century.

About the speaker:
Ian Ward is currently Professor of Law at Newcastle University. He is the author of a number of books and articles in the areas of law, literature and history, including Law and Literature: Possibilities and Perspectives, Shakespeare and the Legal Imagination and more recently Law, Text, Terror, all published by Cambridge University Press. His Law and the Brontes will be published later this year by Palgrave. He is presently writing a book entitled Sex, Crime and the Mid-Victorian Novel, to be published by Hart in 2013.
Thursday 13 October 2011
Current Legal Problems Lecture
What should we do about financial collateral?
Louise Gullifer, Harris Manchester College, Oxford
Chair: The Rt Hon Lady Justice Arden
Accreditation: 1 CPD hour by SRA and BSB

About this lecture
The use of securities and cash as collateral is widespread in all areas of finance. There have always been some differences in treatment of this sort of collateral, for example, fixed charges over shares and debt securities have never been registrable. More recently, however, the Financial Collateral Directive 2002, as enacted in the UK by the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No 2) Regulations 2003, has resulted in a nearly separate regime for the taking and enforcing of financial collateral; an incomplete regime, however, which is bolted onto the existing rules by disapplying some and modifying others. This lecture will examine why we treat financial collateral differently from other assets used as security or quasi-security, whether the reasons justify the differences and whether they throw any light on where the boundaries between the financial collateral regime and the residual rules should be drawn.

About the speaker:
Louise Gullifer is Reader in Commercial Law at the University of Oxford and Fellow and Tutor of Harris Manchester College, Oxford. She writes widely in the areas of commercial law and corporate finance, and has recently published a book with Jennifer Payne Corporate Finance Law: Principles and Policy. She edited the 4th edition of Goode on Legal Problems of Credit and Security and she and her co-authors (Hugh Beale, Michael Bridge and Eva Lomnicka) are currently preparing a new edition of The Law of Personal Property Security.
Wednesday 12 October 2011
WTO Scholars' Forum
Consumer Preferences in WTO Disputes: Emerging environmental regulations prompt a new look at some old problems
Emily Lydgate, PhD Candidate, King's College London
About this lecture
Should consumers’ preference for ‘green’ products help justify, from a WTO perspective, emerging regulations such as restrictions on trade in non-sustainable biofuels? In WTO dispute settlement, consumer preferences create a methodological challenge. Import bans and restrictions associated with environmental or health regulations can make quantitative consumer data difficult to obtain. Dismissing consumers in such a situation is not a satisfying approach; however, neither is interpreting their preferences. Further, the dispute settlement bodies have, in the past, dismissed consumer preference data on the basis that it was influenced by a government regulation in dispute. However, such an approach risks being morally objectionable: should consumer views toward asbestos be dismissed in a country that has an import ban, for example, and considered in a country that imports it freely? Thus, there are also important questions about the nature of the relationship between consumers and government regulation, and its ethical implications. This talk will examine some of these questions, toward the goal of making the concept of consumer preference in the WTO more coherent.

About the speaker:
Emily began her PhD with the King's College London School of Law in 2009. Her thesis addresses new EU environmental regulations that respond to climate change, in particular biofuels sustainability criteria, and their interaction with international trade law. Previously, she managed Steelgrass Farm in Hawai'i, USA. She also consulted at the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Economics and Trade Branch, and represented UNEP at the negotiations of the World Trade Organization's Committee on Trade and Environment. Emily acted as the Grants and Programmes Administrator for the Conservation Land Trust family of organizations in San Francisco, California. She holds an MSc (Distinction) in Environmental Policy from University of Oxford, and a BA (Hons) in English Literature, with a correlate in Environmental Science, from Vassar College in New York. As part of her degree work, she spent time in Brazil studying impacts of ethanol production, and in East Africa studying agricultural land -use of the Maasai people. Her research is supported by the King's International Graduate Scholarship, Overseas Research Students Award, and School of Law Studentship.
Tuesday 11 October 2011
UCL Laws Legal Education Debate with LexisNexis
Do Lawyers Need to be Scholars?
Professor Philippe Sands QC (UCL Faculty of Laws / Matrix Chambers)
Rebecca Huxley-Binns (NTU and winner of Law Teacher of the Year 2010)
Professor Stephen Mayson (Director of Legal Services Policy Institute, College of Law)
Sir Mark Potter (Chair, LETR Panel)
Professor Richard Moorhead (Cardiff Law School)
David Bickerton (Managing Partner, Clifford Chance)
About this lecture
This event brings together a panel of speakers who will discuss the value of academic legal education to the legal profession. In the current climate this is both timely and important and we hope you will join us to participate in what promises to be a lively discussion.
Monday 3 October 2011
UCL Energy Institute
Energy Cultures, Behaviour, Climate, and Law
Prof. Barry Barton, University of Waikato

About this lecture
Energy efficiency laws and policies have great ability to improve economic wellbeing and human health, while reducing the adverse effects of energy use on climate and the environment generally. But the field is one where human behaviour is important; people often make decisions that are not rational from a strict economic perspective. Professor Barton will discuss work under way in the cross-disciplinary project "Energy Cultures" based at the University of Otago, and its attempts to understand household energy efficiency behaviour. From such studies it may be possible better to understand the role of conventional regulatory instruments, and to devise more sophisticated policy measures, borrowing for example from behavioural economics. He particularly refers to legal developments in New Zealand, California, and Germany.

About the speaker:
Barry Barton is a Professor of Law at the University of Waikato in New Zealand. His field of research is energy, natural resources and environmental law. In energy law, the issues of climate change, energy policy and energy security hold a growing importance, and present special legal challenges. Barry has worked on energy regulation and the relationship between regulation and effective markets; and has reassessed the popular view that market liberalization obstructs energy sustainability. He has examined the regulatory work of the Electricity Commission and Commerce Commission. At present his focus is on energy efficiency, especially through the project Energy Cultures that has been funded by the Foundation of Research Science and Technology. This interdisciplinary project seeks to understand the drivers of energy use behaviour in the household, in order to devise more effective law and policy in the field.
Wednesday 13 July 2011
UCL Centre for Law, Economics and Society
Competition Law and Distributive Justice: A Critical State of Play
  • Professor Herbert Hovenkamp, Ben and Dorothy Willie Chair, College of Law, University of Iowa


  • Professor Kai-Uwe Kühn
    Chief economist, DG Competition, European Commission
  • Dr Amelia Fletcher
    Chief Economist, OFT
  • Dr. Jorge Padilla
    Senior Managing Director and Head of Compass Lexecon Europe
  • Professor Richard O. Zerbe
    Daniel J Evans Professor of Public Affairs, University of Washington
  • Dr. Ioannis Lianos
    City Solicitors' Educational Trust Reader in European and Competition Law; Director, Centre for Law, Economics and Society, Faculty of Laws, UCL

Accredited with 3 CPD hour by the SRA and BSB

About the event
The debate over the objectives of competition law statutes has recently intensified. There are many reasons for this: First, competition law has expanded globally to different forms of economies and societal bases, thus leading to different conceptions over its scope and aims. Second, the expansion of competition law has led to tensions between different legal regimes regulating the conduct of corporations in global markets. Thirdly, more and more State activities are now infused with a form of competition culture: competition law is applied to previously exempted economic activities and even to some State activities, competition advocacy has also developed. Equity considerations are explicitly integrated as objectives of several competition legislations around the world, and more specifically EU competition law in the area of state aids control, alongside efficiency (total welfare). Some could also envision the standard of consumer welfare as a distributive justice standard, in the sense that it focuses on wealth transfers from consumers to antitrust law infringers. This raises questions over the deep meaning of competition law and its interaction with other public policies, including policies aiming at wealth redistribution. Fourthly, economic analysis and evidence has become an essential ingredient of competition law discourse. Economic rhetoric emphasises efficiency considerations, but does not suppress the need for distributive choices. The recent work of the Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress and the OECD happiness index illustrate this trend. Recent work has also highlighted the importance of equality concerns and distributive justice in public policy more generally (e.g. "The Spirit level"). More generally, there are fundamental questions raised by the application within the legal system of the principles of welfare economics, in view of the Stiglitz-Atkinson theorem and more generally the consideration of distributive justice by welfare economics. The concept of distributive justice also has considerably evolved over time. To be sure, its content is not the same as in the 1930s'. Finally, the recent emphasis of competition law worldwide on fostering consumer interest requires difficult choices from policy makers, competition authorities and the courts. They must set priorities over the long v. short term consumer interest (thus including intertemporal trade offs), trade off the interest of some classes of consumers versus others, adopt - explicitly or implicitly - a specific conception of the consumer (marginal versus infra-marginal, neoclassical versus behavioural...). The objective of this workshop will be to reflect on these fundamental issues in competition law and policy by inviting contributions from competition lawyers, economists, historians of economic thought, philosophers and sociologists.
Monday 4 and Tuesday 5 July 2011
UCL Current Legal Issues Colloquium
Law and Language

Accredited with 6.5 CPD hour per day by the SRA and BSB
About this Colloquium
The 2011 programme on Law and Language has been convened by Professor Michael Freeman and Dr Fiona Smith of UCL's Faculty of Law.

This interdisciplinary colloquium celebrates the wide and diverse relationship between Law and Language. Language and law are inextricably linked in many ways: rules are expressed, understood, and interpreted in language; legislation too is a special form of expression, as is a judge’s opinion. We might think too about the way we speak about the varied and complex relationship between language and law:

  • How does the language of rights or the language of power harness, constrain and change our perceptions of law?
  • How language works to shape and enrich our understanding of law is also important: for example, semantics, hermeneutics, linguistics, logic, semiotics, psycholinguistics, syntax, pragmatics, each reveal deeper ideas.
  • Analytic techniques from many other disciplines like Literature, Philosophy, Neuroscience, Economics, Geography, Anthropology and Psychology (to name but a few) each reveal new insights into the way we perceive language and law in general.
  • How we work with language in law and how we might understand the place of language in specific areas of law, including Contract, Tort or International Law for example.
  • The relationship between law and language extends to broader notions of language as communication too, like the crucial role of silence and non-verbal communication.

The ideas expressed here only touch on the many diverse ways law and language interact. The 16th Annual Colloquium of Current Legal Issues covers a broad spectrum of ideas and disciplines on the relationship between law and language.

Wednesday 29 June 2011
UCL WTO Scholars' Forum
Tobacco or Trademarks? Australia's Plain Packaging of Cigarette Products and the WTO
Speaker: Associate Professor Andrew D Mitchell, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne

About the event
Next month the Australian Government will introduce legislation to require the plain packaging of tobacco products by 1 July 2012. It will remove branding logos and other promotional elements from packaging, which will be standardised with olive brown colouring and the brand name appearing in a plain white font. It will be the world’s first tobacco plain packaging scheme, and given the restrictions on other forms of marketing, will shut down one of the last remaining avenues for the advertising of tobacco in Australia. Predictably, the tobacco industry has taken issue with the initiative. Their objections include a claim that it violates Australia’s WTO obligations, in particular the minimum obligations for the protection of intellectual property rights under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. With governments in the UK and a number of other jurisdictions also considering introducing plain packaging to reduce the use of tobacco products, this presentation will critically examine the claims of the tobacco industry.
Monday 27 June 2011
Centre for International Courts & Tribunals - co-sponsored with The Grotius Centre of the Leiden Law School and Foley Hoag LLP
The Nicaragua Case 25 Years Later: Its Impact on the Law and the Court
  • Judge Bruno Simma of the International Court of Justice;
  • Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf of the International Court of Justice;
  • Judge (ret.) Mohammed Bedjaoui of the International Court of Justice;
  • Prof. Payam Akhavan, McGill University;
  • Prof. James Crawford, University of Cambridge;
  • Prof. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Graduate Institute of International Development Studies, Geneva;
  • Prof. Michael Glennon, The Fletcher School, Tufts University;
  • Prof. Marcelo Kohen, Graduate Institute of International Development Studies, Geneva;
  • Prof. John Norton Moore, University of Virginia School of Law;
  • Prof. Alain Pellet, University Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense;
  • Mr. Paul Reichler, Partner, Foley Hoag LLP;
  • Prof. Philippe Sands, University College London;
  • Prof. Nico Schrijver, Leiden University Law School;
  • Prof. Brigitte Stern, University of Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne; and
  • Prof. Alan Boyle, University of Edinburgh
About the event
In June 1986, the International Court of Justice issued its historic ruling in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Republic of Nicaragua v. the United States of America). The decision has had a lasting impact on a wide range of legal issues and on the role of the Court itself. This conference brings together current and former ICJ Judges, promminient academics and practitioners, and member of the two legal teams in a discussion of this seminal decision and its ongoing impact.
Wednesday 22 June 2011
UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law
Sir Hugh Laddie Annual Lecture 2011:
Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg: too many trademarks?

The Hon Mrs Justice Fidelma Macken, Irish Supreme Court
Chaired by The Rt Hon Lord Justice Mummery
Thursday 16 June 2011
UCL Italian Dept.
Migration, Law and Image

Speaker: WJT Mitchell
Respondents: Prof. Parvati Nair (QMUL) and Dr Ingrid Boccardi (UCL Laws)
Chaired by Dr Federica Mazzara (UCL Italian)
About this debate
This lecture aims at the convergence of three disciplines: 1) the law, with its entire edifice of judicial practice and political philosophy; 2) migration, as the movement and settlement of living things, especially (but not exclusively) human beings, across the boundaries between distinct habitats; 3) iconology, the theory of images across the media, including verbal and visual images, metaphors and figures of speech as well as visual representations. Examining a range of examples from science fiction narratives of alien species, to stories of conquest, colonization, and ethnic cleansing, to the development of contemporary practices of detention and border policing, the lecture will argue that immigration in our time has ceased to be a merely transitional phase in human life, and threatens to become a permanent condition for growing numbers of people. This poses a radical challenge to liberal notions of universal human equality, which depend, paradoxically, on philosophies of exclusion and the policing of borders to protect actually existing liberal polities. The “veil of ignorance” about particular human identities (race, class, gender, and ethnicity) that philosopher John Rawls regarded as foundational to liberal notions of justice and equality comes under new kinds of stress in a time when the borders between peoples have become zones of increasing violence and despair.
Monday 13 June 2011
UCL Centre for International Courts & Tribunals and Baker & McKenzie LLP
Annual Lecture on International Law and Litigation:
The Function of Litigation in the International Community

Professor Vaughan Lowe (University of Oxford)
About this lecture
On 13 June 2011 at Middle Temple Hall in London, Professor Vaughan Lowe of Oxford University, will deliver the First Annual UCL and Baker & McKenzie Lecture on International Law and Litigation. The Function of Law in the International Community - to take the title of Hersch Lauterpacht's classic study - is to establish a framework for international dealings. But what is the function of litigation in the international community? Development of the law? The peaceful settlement of disputes? Or something different? And how does the function of the international litigation relate to the function of law?
Wednesday 8 June 2011
UCL Jevons Institute
Annual Colloquium: Stability and Competition in Banking after the Financial Crisis
with Sir John Vickers (ICB), Gert-Jan Koopman (DG Competition, European Commission), John Fingleton (OFT), Prof. Charles Goodhard (LSE), Vicky Pryce (FTI), Abel Mateus (New University of Lisbon), Clive Maxwell (OFT)
Accreditation: 2.5 CPD hours - SRA and BSB (pending)
About this event:
The recent deep financial crisis has resulted in the search for measures that could reduce the risk of a recurrence. Many have looked at whether banks tend to take on risks that the general public ends up bearing and whether regulations should reduce these negative externalities. Some have called for breaking banks up, raising capital standards, charging them for the risks they create, or impose various rules that prevent banks from creating too much systemic risk. Others have questioned whether the extent to which banking practices were really responsible for the crisis or whether the proposed constraints on banks impose more costs on banks than they are worth such as perhaps reducing bank lending that stimulates economic group. While financial regulators have been most focused on reform competition authorities are also increasingly focused on banking and, among other things, are considering the relationship between market structure, business practices, and system risk.

The recently released interim report by the Independent Commission on Banking, chaired by Sir John Vickers, is one of the latest attempts to consider these difficult issues. It proposed significantly increased capital requirements on banks and some fencing off of retail banking from riskier operations.

This conference was be opened by Sir John Vickers the chairman of the Independent Commission on Banking and brought together antitrust and financial regulation experts, including key current or former regulators from the UK and EU, to discuss these issues.

Tuesday, 24 May 2011
UCL Faculty of Laws with the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law
The Rule of Law in Southern Africa
Speaker: Professor Hugh Corder, Cape Town University
Discussant: Professor Sandra Fredman, Oxford University

About the speaker:
Hugh Corder has been Professor of Public Law at University of Cape Town since 1987. A graduate of the universities of Cape Town, Cambridge and Oxford, his main teaching and research interests fall within the field of Constitutional and Administrative Law, particularly judicial appointment and accountability and mechanisms to further administrative accountability. Professor Corder has been widely involved in community work since his student days, concentrating on popular legal education, race relations, human rights and the abolition of the death penalty. He served as a technical adviser in the drafting of the transitional Bill of Rights for South Africa. He has written two books and edited a further three, and has contributed many articles and chapters in books.
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
WTO Scholars Forum Research Student Network Event:
'Putting the "Trade" Back in Free Trade: Protecting and Promoting Consent in Trade Agreements'
Speaker: Professor Frank J. Garcia, Boston College Law School

About the event / Abstract:
In order for free trade as a policy to deliver fully on its social promise, it must be both “free” and “trade.” In fact, it must be free, in the sense of voluntary, to be trade at all. In other words, for normative and practical reasons, free trade requires that global economic relations be structured through agreements which reflect the consent of those subject to them. The neoliberal trading system today only imperfectly lives up to this obligation. In this essay, I will examine the role of consent in trade agreements, drawing on examples from CAFTA as representative of important trends in multilateral and hemispheric integration systems. I will argue that an investigation into the nature of trade as a human experience reveals that many aspects of current trade law and policy mix what is ostensibly free trade with something else: exploitation, coercion or predation. This has normative implications for the justification of the neoliberal trading system, and practical implications for the analysis and structure of trade agreements and the stability and security of our foreign relations.

Friday 20 May 2011
Institute for Human Rights
Who will be the ultimate guardian of human rights in Europe?

Speakers include Andrew Duff MEP, Johan Callewaert (ECHR), Steve Peers (Essex), Hannes Kraemer (Euroepan Commission), Sir Stephen Sedley, Paul Craig (Oxford), Takis Tridimas (QMUL), Sir Konrad Schiemann (ECJ), Angelika Nusberger (ECHR), Tobias Lock (UCL), and George Letsas (UCL),
About this lecture
This conference will delve into one of the most exciting topics in European Law in recent years: who is the ultimate guarantor of human rights in the EU? The Union’s own court (the European Court of Justice), the European Court of Human Rights or the highest national courts? With the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the envisaged accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights there is ample reason for re-visiting this question: both might completely change the landscape of human rights protection in Europe.

The conference brings together distinguished speakers from academia, legal practice and the European institutions. They will discuss the intricate questions arising from these developments from various angles (see programme for details). This way the conference will offer a unique perspective on recent and forthcoming developments in the protection of fundamental rights in Europe.

The conference will be rounded up by a panel discussion at the German Embassy (ambassodor’s residence) involving judges from the two European courts, and national justices. This event is by invitation only due to limited space at the Embassy. Participants can express their interest to be invited on the booking form. Places are generally allocated on a first come first serve basis, but the Embassy reserves a right to refuse inviting participants.

Thursday 19 May 2011
Institute for Human Rights / Euqal Rights Trust
What should we expect from a progressive equality jurisprudence? The case of South Africa

Professor Kate O'Regan (former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa)
About this lecture
South Africa is a society where for most of the twentieth century, government policy was premised on racist principles that treated people unequally on the grounds of race. Apartheid policy and practice, coupled with South Africa's earlier history of colonial dispossession, has resulted in one of the most unequal societies in the world. It is not surprising then that "the achievement of equality" should be one of the founding principles of the new constitutional order that commenced in 1994. Nor is it surprising that the new Constitution specifically permits measures designed to protect or advance people disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.

Yet the first fifteen years of constitutional democracy in South Africa have not witnessed a dramatic reduction in social inequality. Nor has there been a flood of equality litigation. Is the equality jurisprudence failing? Or are we expecting too much of equality law?

Thursday 19 May 2011
Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees' Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously

Professor Lionel Bentley, University of Cambridge
Accredited with 1 CPD hour
Wednesday 18 May 2011
UCL Institute for Global Law / IUS Commune Lecture
Global standards for national democracies?

Professor Sabino Cassesse, University of Rome
Accredited with 1 CPD hour
Download the full programme for this series
Thursday 12 May 2011
Current Legal Problems Lecture
Obscenity Without Borders

Professor Leslie Green, University of Oxford
Chaired by Professor John Tasioulas, UCL
Accredited with 1 CPD hour
Wednesday 11 May 2011
Centre for Ethics and Law
Media Ethics Workshop
Baroness Buscombe (PCC), Roy Greenslade (City), Jan Tomalin, Joshua Rozenberg (Legal Commentatory), Stephen Whittle (Oxford), Paul Kenyon (BBC), Ian Walden (QMUL), Martin Moore (Media Standars Trust), Lorna Woods (City), Jackie Harrison (Sheffield), Tim Luckhurst (Kent), Eric Barendt (UCL)
Accredited with 5.5 CPD hour
About this event
This one-day seminar will cover Ethics Issues of Investigative Journalism: Entrapment; Privacy; Transparency and Independence of the Media; and Ethical Issues concerning War and Conflict Reporting.
Friday 6 May 2011
UCL Institute for Global Law / IUS Commune Lecture
Foundations of Private International Law in Intellectual Property
Speaker: Professor Jürgen Basedow, Director, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg
Chair: Dr. Ioannis Lianos, UCL
Download the full programme for this series
Thursday 5 May 2011
UCL Institute for Human Rights
Forced Evictions and Human Rights: Launch of a Report and discussion of how land and housing evictions violate economic an social rights
Speakers: Professor Yves Cabannes (UCL Development and Planning Unit, co-author of report); Sylvia Guimaraes (Building & Social Housing Federation, co-author), Cassidy Johnson (UCL Development and Planning Unit, co-author); Malavika Vartak; Cesare Ottolini (International Alliance of Inhabitants and Zero Eviction Campaign); Saladin Meckled-Garcia (UCL Institute for Human Rights); George Letsas (UCL Institute for Human Rights); Facilitated by Gautam Bhan
About the event
A new report examining how people and communities around the world face forced eviction has been published by a prominent group of researchers, led by UCL academics. This event has been set up by the Institute for Human Rights to discuss the relationships of forced evictions to economic and social rights, and their status as violations.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
WTO Scholars Forum Research Student Network Event:
'Empowering Developing Countries in the WTO: Cross-Retaliation, Compensation and the Outcome of US - Cotton'
Speaker: Geraldo Vidigal Neto, PhD student, University of Cambridge
About the event
This talk will examine how Brazil managed to effectively use this authorisation to credibly threaten American interests, despite the US economy being seven times larger. The case was settled in 2010 with the US offering financial and commercial compensation to Brazil, benefiting Brazilian farmers in particular, pending changes to the subsidies scheme in the 2012 Farm Bill. My talk will also discuss the implications of this outcome for developing countries in general, and whether these countries can obtain leverage in the way that Brazil did. In particular, collaboration between smaller and larger developing countries may provide the best option to increase the former's capacity to use TRIPS retaliation as leverage against developed countries. This may require, however, that the 2005 amendment to TRIPS enter into force -- something which today depends essentially on its formal acceptance by small developing countries.
Presentation presented here: [pdf]
Friday 8 & Saturday 9 April 2011
SLS Annual Seminar 2011
Landmark Cases in Equity
Convened by Professor Charles Mitchell and Professor Paul Mitchell
Time: 9am - 6pm
Venue: UCL Faculty of Laws
Accredited with 12 CPD hour
View the programme and booking form on the conference website:

About this conference
The SLS Annual Seminar for 2011 will consider a series of landmark cases in the historical development of equitable doctrine, running from the C17th to recent times. The range, breadth, and social importance of equitable principles, as these affect commercial, domestic, and even political matters, are well known. By focussing specifically on the historical development of these principles we hope not only to understand them better but also to gain insights into the processes of legal change through judicial innovation.
Wednesday 6 April 2011
UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law
Do Patents Incentivise or Inhibit Innovation? A scientific and legal panel discussion
Sydney Brenner, 2002 Nobel Laureate for Physiology or Medicine, Professor Sir John E. Sulston (2002 Nobel Laureate for Physiology or Medicine, Chair of Institute for Science, Ethics & Innovation, University of Manchester), Professor Salvador Moncada (Director, Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, UCL), The Rt Hon Lord Justice Jacob (Sir Hugh Laddie Professor of Intellectual Property Law, UCL), Patrick Vallance (Senior Vice President, Medicines Discovery and Development, GlaxoSmithKline)
Chaired by Joshua Rozenberg (Presenter, BBC's Law in Action)
Accredited with 1.5 CPD hour

Monday 4 April 2011
UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law is hosting The Directors' Roundtable Institute, in cooperation with AIPPI UK
A Dialogue with David Kappos, Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office
- David Kappos US PTO
- Avril Martindale, Parter at Freshfields
- Richard Vary, Director of European Litigation, Nokia
- Lord Justice Jacob, Sir Hugh Laddie Professor of Intellectual Property, University College London.
Accredited with 1.5 CPD hours (BSB, SRA, IPReg)
About this talk
The top official of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office will discuss key policies of the US Government regarding intellectual property including current patent filing and approval rules, and trademark regulations. In addition, the speakers will analyse multi-national patent and trademark rights and litigation.
Thursday 31 March 2011
The UCL Institute for Human Rights and Article 1
Statehood and Secession: Sudan, Northern Ireland, Eritrea and other challenges
Lord Alderdice, Chair of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords
Professor Peter Woodward, Reading University
Saifeldin Nemir, Darfur Development Agenda
Olivia Warham, Director, Waging Peace
Saladin Meckled-Garcia, UCL (Chair)
About this lecture
With over 98% of southerners voting for independence in Sudan’s referendum, Africa’s largest country looks set for secession, and for the world’s newest country to be born this July. However, delays and disputes between the parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement ensure that the most difficult elements are yet to be confirmed. There is sporadic conflict still in some parts of Sudan which threatens to escalate if the northern National Congress Party and the south’s Southern People’s Liberation Movement cannot make progress in negotiations on issues such as oil, border demarcation and debt.

The event will provide an opportunity to discuss recent developments in Sudan, possible consequences of the referendum outcome and lessons learnt from other secessionist movements in Northern Ireland, Eritrea and Kosovo.

Wednesday 23 March 2011
UCL Institute of Brand and Innovation Law
Trade Marks: The Future of the Advertising Function
Jerome Gilson (Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione), Dr Ilanah Simon Fhima (UCL) and Prof. Dr Annette Kur (Max Planck Institute of IP)
Chaired by The Hon Mr Justice Arnold
Accredited with 2 CPD hour
Friday 18 March & Saturday 19 March 2011
Global Competition Law Series
Competition Law & the State:Comparative and International Perspectives
Venue: The University of Hong Kong

Speakers include:

  • Gregory So (Under-Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Hong Kong SAR Government)
  • John Fingleton (Chairman, UK Office of Fair Trading)
  • William Kovacic (Commissioner, US Federal Trade Commission)
  • Yena Lim Hua Yen (Chief Executive, Competition Commission of Singapore)
  • Dhanendra Kumar (Chairman, Competition Commission of India)
  • Eduardo Pérez Motta (President, Federal Competition Commission, Mexico)
  • Zhu Zhong Liang (Anti-Monopoly Bureau, MOFCOM)
  • Michiyo Hamada (Commissioner, Japanese Federal Trade Commission (JFTC))
  • Gert-Jan Koopman (Deputy Director General (State Aids), DG Comp, European Commission)
  • Simon Milnes (Infrastructure, Competition and Consumer Division, the Australian Treasury)
  • Frederic Jenny (Cour de Cassation and Chairman, OECD Competition Committee)
  • Willard Tom (General Counsel, US Federal Trade Commission)
  • Assimakis Komninos (Commissioner, Hellenic Competition Commission)
  • Mark Whitener (Senior Counsel, Competition Law & Policy, General Electric)
  • And many others including academics, in house and practitioner lawyers and economists.

Accredited with 12 CPD hours (BSB and Law Society) and 14.5 CPD hours by the Hong Kong Law Society / 2 ALE hours by the Hong Kong Bar Association

About this conference:
The recent adoption of competition law statutes in East and South Asia, culminating with the enactment of the Indian Competition Act and the Chinese Antimonopoly Law, mark a significant development to the global business community. Merger control, the application of competition law to unilateral conduct such as distribution agreements, competition issues in intellectual property rights, and state activities in the economy create important challenges in the enforcement of competition law in these crucial markets for policymakers, multinational corporations, law firms and economic consultancies. A number of panels and roundtables will examine these issues, composed by the international and local leaders of the competition/regulatory law and M&A practice.

It will explore the important topic of government restrictions to competition, including

  • anti-competitive action by the State;
  • state-owned enterprises and competition law;
  • competition law and foreign state activities;
  • self-regulation and competition law;
  • competitive neutrality regulation;
  • competition advocacy;
  • the evolving role of government in markets and competition law; and
  • the interaction between competition law and regulatory alternatives in sectors such as utilities (energy, telecoms) broadcasting regulation, financial services, digital media, healthcare, the environment.

    View the conference website to see the programme and speaker biographies
  • Thursday 17 March 2011
    Current Legal Problems Lecture
    Current Dilemmas in Equality Law

    Professor Aileen McColgan, King's College London
    Accredited with 1 CPD hour
    Wednesday 16 March 2011
    Annual Colloquium in Legal & Social Philosophy
    Justice for Hedgehogs - chs.9, 10 and 11
    Professor Ronald Dworkin
    Chaired by Professor John Tasioulas, UCL Laws

    Download the brochure for this series
    The paper for this talk will be available to download from this site prior to the lecture
    Tuesday 15 March 2011
    Centre for Commercial Law
    Reforming and Restating Insurance Contract Law
    Prof. John Birds, University of Manchester
    Accredited with 1.5 CPD hour by the SRA / BSB

    Download the flyer for this series of lecture
    About this talk
    The lecture will consider the Law Commissions’ project on insurance contract law in the light of progress to date and in the context of moves at a European level for a possible “28th regime”, providing an optional alternative approach to insurance contract law. It will include examination of issues such as whether the distinction between consumer and non-consumer insurance (seemingly favoured by the Law Commissions) is a better approach than that between insuring “mass risks” and “large risks” (as proposed by the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law) and whether, in a UK context, a general reform is to be preferred to what appears likely to a piecemeal approach.
    Tuesday 15 March 2011
    Centre for Law and Governance in Europe
    Fighting the public debt crisis. An unexpected revision of the Lisbon Treaty
    Prof. Jean-Victor Louis, Free University of Brussels (ULB)
    Chair: Dr Ioannis Lianos, UCL
    Accredited with 1.5 CPD hour

    About this lecture
    At its meeting of 16/17 December 2010, the European Council has agreed on the text of a draft decision amending the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, by adding a paragraph to Article 136, a provision specific to Member States whose currency is the euro. The purpose of the revision, as intended by the promotors of the amendment of the Treaty, is to give an uncontroversial legal basis in the Treaty to the establishment of a "stability mechanism". This mechanism will be activated "if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole". It may include "any required financial assistance" and will be made subject “to strict conditionality”. The decision, adopted under the simplified procedure of Article 48 TEU, will enter into force on 1 January 2013, after having been ratified by all the EU Member States. The decision will be completed by an intergovernmental arrangement setting up the future European Stability Mechanism (ESM) that will succeed to the present European Financial Stability Facility (EFSM) and the European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM), both created in June 2010. This decision is remarkable for a number of reasons. Its adoption is due to a political game typical of the present balance of power within the Union. It contributes to a further recognition of the individuality of the euro area. It opened or developed the debate on other possible ways to strengthen the monetary union as, in particular, the euro bonds, the extension of the competences and the means of the mechanism of assistance. It provoked a controversy on restructuring public debts by the participation of the private sector.
    Thursday 10 March 2011
    UCL Lunch Hour Lecture
    Sex, Drugs, the Internet and Juries

    Professor Cheryl Thomas, UCL Faculty of Laws
    Time: 1.15 - 1.55pm
    Venue: UCL Darwin Lecture Theatre, UCL Central Campus
    Free and open to anyone on a first-come first-served basis. Lectures are also streamed live online or can be downloaded after the event.
    Read more about UCL's Lunch Hour Lecture Series
    About this lecture
    Is it true that juries rarely convict defendants in rape cases and are more likely to convict ethnic minority defendants than White defendants? And why can’t jurors resist going home at night and googling the defendant or tweeting about the case – against the express instructions of the judge. This lecture reveals the truth behind a number of widely held beliefs about juries in this country and examines why the internet may now be the biggest threat to our jury system.
    Wednesday 9 March 2011
    Centre for Commercial Law
    The value of legal certainty to business and where to find it
    Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, Royal Dutch Shell plc
    Accredited with 1.5 CPD hour by the SRA / BSB

    Download the flyer for this series of lecture
    About this talk
    Judges and Legislators often show little understanding that the predictability of the outcome of a business’s exposure to the law is often more important than the fairness of the outcome. Where businesses have an opportunity to arrange their affairs on the basis of the assumed state of the law, they should be able to do with a high degree of certainty that their aims will be achieved. Similarly, if a business is exposed to the risk of criminal prosecution, or civil penalty imposed by a regulator, it should be able safely to ignore the risk of capricious legal interpretation and with confidence that it has available all of the material that will enable it to make informed decisions about compliance.
    Tuesday 8 March 2011
    WTO Scholars' Forum
    Interpretation of Service Schedules: A Perspective from China-Audiovisual Services
    Professor Heng Wang, Southwestern University of Political Science and Law, China
    About this talk
    Service schedule interpretation is attracting more attention in the WTO disputes and may affect service negotiations and domestic policy. The presentation takes the Appellate Body report of China-Audiovisual Services as an example to analyse the following issues: Is there a common intention in schedules? Should schedules be interpreted in the same way as treaty text? Is the static or evolutionary interpretation preferred?
    Monday 7 March 2011
    UCL Student Human Rights Programme / UCL Institute for Human Rights
    In the Land of the Free

    Film screening and talk by Robert King
    About this lecture
    The UCL Student Human Rights Programme and the UCL Institute for Human Rights will be screening 'In the Land of the Free', a documentary about the incarceration of three members of the Black Panther Party in the Louisiana State Penitentiary. We are also pleased to host Robert King, who is the only one of the 'Angola 3' to have been released after more than 30 years. Mr King will speak after the film screening about his experiences and take questions from the audience.
    See for more information about the film.
    Friday 4 March 2011
    UCL Institute for Global Law / IUS Commune Lecture
    IP Rights and the Fashion of TV Show Formats

    Speaker: Professor Stefan Bechtold, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
    Chair: Dr. Florian Wagner von Papp, UCL
    Accredited with 1 CPD hour

    Download the full programme for this series
    About this lecture
    Over the last years, a vibrant global market for TV show formats has emerged. Newly created game show, casting, magazine, soap, telenovela, documentary and other formats are often sold to broadcasting stations in dozens of countries, leading to a worldwide multi-billion dollar trading industry. Except for trademark protection, TV show formats are difficult to protect by intellectual property rights. While the industry has developed some tools to combat format "piracy", both industry and some scholars are arguing to increase intellectual property protection for TV show formats. This paper raises doubts on these arguments. The TV show format market is subject to fashion cycles and difficulties in assessing the future success of a new format. This paper shows how an emerging industry can benefit from an environment of low intellectual property protection and exemplifies this with data drawn from a database of the global TV show format trade.
    Thursday 3 March 2011
    Current Legal Problems Lecture
    Collective responsibility for atrocities: fairness, justice and approaches to commission in international criminal law

    Dr Douglas Guilfoyle, University College London
    Accredited with 1 CPD hour
    About this lecture
    One of the theoretical challenges for international criminal law is how to account for and adequately label the responsibility of highest-ranking leaders, often far removed from the actual physical commission of crimes. This can be called a problem of collective responsibility, because normally the responsibility is seen as shared among those in a position of military and political control within an armed movement, a regional government or a State. It is also coupled with a problem of labelling. Most legal systems will distinguish between the person who directly committed a crime (the perpetrator or principal) and a person who assisted in the commission of the crime less directly (an accessory). The classification may make no difference to the final verdict (both principal and accessory may be convicted of murder) or even to sentencing. Nonetheless, given the perceived truth-telling function of international criminal trials, judges appear to feel a strong compulsion to label leaders as direct perpetrators who have committed the crime itself and not as accessories who have ordered or incited or failed to prevent it. This requires an expanded concept of commission, a project that immediately raises questions of theory, black letter scholarship and fairness. Once we uncouple the idea of commission from the direct physical perpetrator, where do the boundaries of commission fall? If our basic moral intuition is that describing the leadership of a regime that commits atrocities as mere accessories is to under-state their culpability, then the challenge is to devise a theory of criminal responsibility that appropriately describes their role but which places convincing boundaries on the concept of commission. A too diffuse theory of commission may inappropriately stigmatise ‘small fish’, labelling them as being equally as culpable as high-ranking leaders.

    There is now an open dispute between the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the theorisation of commission in collective responsibility cases. The paper will consider the origins, claims and limitations of each approach.

    Wednesday 2 March 2011
    UCL Alumni Only: Bentham Association Presidential Address and Dinner
    Swindlers (including the Master of the Rolls?) not wanted: Bentham and Justice Reform

    The Rt. Hon. The Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls
    Read the Presidential Address
    Wednesday 2 March 2011
    Annual Colloquium in Legal & Social Philosophy
    Some problems with consequentialist arguments for moral rights
    Professor Samuel Freeman, Pennsylvania
    Chaired by Professor John Tasioulas, UCL Laws
    Read the paper for this talk
    Tuesday 1 March 2011
    Institute of Brand and Innovation Law
    Remedies Masterclass
    Speakers include:
    • The Rt Hon Lord Justice Jacob
    • Michael Block QC (Wilberforce Chambers)
    • Alistair McGregor QC (11 King's Bench Walk)
    • Mark Engelman (Hardwicke Chambers)
    • Mark Bezant (FTI Consulting)
    • Benet Brandreth (11 South Square)
    • Alan Bryson (Wilberforce Chambers)

    The masterclassses will be chaired by:

    • The Hon Mr Justice Flolyd
    • Daniel Alexander QC (8 New Square / UCL IBIL)
    • John Hull (Memery Crystal / UCL IBIL)
    • Dr Matt Fisher (UCL IBIL)
    About the masterclass
    In this high level short course, the first of its kind in the UK, speakers drawn from the judiciary, the bar and private practice will provide a comprehensive overview of the different types of remedies open to those seeking to enforce their IPRs, from pre-action remedies to final injunction and everything in between.

    Over four weeks, expert speakers will take an in-depth look at the various types of monetary remedies and injunctions, their strengths and weaknesses, latest developments and predictions for the future.

    Each session will be held at the UCL Faculty of Laws, from 6 - 8pm on Tuesday evenings during the month of March 2011. The course is accredited with 8 CPD hours by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board.

    Thursday 24 February 2011
    Current Legal Problems Lecture
    Law After Lisbon: The Legalization and Delegalization of European Integration
    Professor Kenneth Armstrong, Queen Mary, University of London
    Chaired by Professor Joanne Scott, UCL
    Accredited with 1 CPD hour
    Wednesday 23 February 2011
    Centre for Commercial Law
    'Common Sense': The dark matter of business law
    Nick Gould, Collyer Bristows LLP
    Accredited with 1.5 CPD hour by the SRA / BSB

    Download the flyer for this series of lecture
    About this talk
    A key aim, stated, of the Companies Act 2006 was to make this area of law easier to understand, in particular for the owners and managers of small and medium sized companies.

    However the continuous outpouring of company regulation as well as the feedback received from numerous SMEs, as well as larger groups, suggests that this has not worked as well as it should. Is there too much company law as well as too much law affecting companies, not necessarily the same question? Is much of that law too complex for those to whom it is directed and if so, why? Allied to this are the complexities of the current tax regime, difficulties in obtaining funding and a host of other regulatory hurdles stopping the expansion of SMEs. The government should be particularly concerned as we are told, continuously, that the growth of these types of companies is a key to future economic prosperity. It is accepted that some parts of the new legislation work well; however much of it does not.

    What seems to be lacking, according to many owners and managers of SMEs, is a good dose of common sense. This is not something generally mentioned in the same breath as company law and regulation. May be it should. Using practical examples I would like to explore some of these themes from the standpoint of smaller companies.

    Wednesday 23 February 2011
    Annual Colloquium in Legal & Social Philosophy
    Transnational Justice, Democracy and Human Rights
    Professor Rainer Forst, Frankfurt
    Chaired by Professor John Tasioulas, UCL Laws
    Download the brochure for this series
    Read the paper for this talk
    Tuesday 22 February 2011
    Labour Rights Institute
    The Equality Act 2010: An Appraisal
    Professor Sir Bob Hepple QC
    Chaired by Dr Nicola Countouris, UCL
    Accredited with 1 CPD hour
    Tuesday 22 February 2011
    Centre for Law and Governance in Europe Lecture
    The European Union: From Dual to Cooperative Federalism

    Dr Robert Schütze, Durham Law School
    Chair: Dr Ioannis Lianos, UCL
    Accredited with 1 CPD hour
    About this lecture
    What is the federal philosophy inspiring the structure of European law? The federal principle stands for constitutional arrangements that find "unity in diversity". The two most influential manifestations of the federal principle emerged under the names of "dual" and "cooperative" federalism in the constitutional history of the United States of America. Dual federalism is based on the idea that the federal government and the State governments are co-equals and each is legislating in a separate sphere. Cooperative federalism, on the other hand, stands for the thought that both governments legislate in the same sphere. They are hierarchically arranged and complement each other in solving a social problem. Can the European Union be understood in federal terms? The book's general part introduces three constitutional traditions of the federal idea. Following the American tradition, the European Union is defined as a Federation of States as it stands on the "middle ground" between international and national law. But what federal philosophy has the European Union followed? The special part of the book investigates the structure of European law. Three arguments are advanced to show the evolution of the European legal order from dual to cooperative federalism. The first looks at the decline of constitutional exclusivity on the part of the Member States and the European Union. For almost all objects of government, the Union and its States operate in a universe of shared powers. The second argument analyses the decline of legislative exclusivity. European and national legislation - increasingly - complement each other to solve a social problem. The third argument describes the "constitutionalisation" of cooperative federalism in the form of the principle of subsidiarity and the idea of complementary competences. A final Chapter is dedicated to Europe's foreign affairs federalism. It analyses, whether the external sphere must be regarded as subject to different constitutional or federal principles. The book concludes that cooperative federalism will benefit both levels of government - the Union and the Member States - as the constitutional mechanism of uniform European standards complemented by diverse national standards best expresses the federal idea of "unity in diversity".
    Thursday 17 February 2011
    UCL Laws Faculty Forum
    Juggling International Law of the Southern Ocean: Pursuing Japan's Whaling in the ICJ, or Sea Shepherd in the Australian courts, or both?

    Professor Donald R Rothwell, Professor of International Law, ANU College of Law
    Chair: Dr Douglas Guilfoyle, UCL

    Wednesday 16 February 2011
    Centre for Commercial Law
    A Way Through The Labyrinth
    Securitisation Transactions and Accountability: Complex Structures, Simple Questions
    Prof. David Ramos Munoz, University Carlos III de Madrid
    Accredited with 1.5 CPD hour by the SRA / BSB

    About this talk
    Securitization, for long the darling of financial markets, has fallen into disrepute. After the financial crisis stroke, subsequent inquiries showed numerous examples of questionable judgment or disregard for investors’ interests on the side of parties planning or executing the transaction. Simple questions, such as “what happened?”, “who is to blame?”, or “how can we avoid this in the future?” quickly come to mind. Finding quick answers is yet another thing. In their zeal to insulate risks, manage cash flow and avoid insolvency, arranging parties created sophisticated structures with elaborate flowcharts involving multiple roles and contract devices. Yet try to ask the simplest questions about liability and responsibility, and those flowcharts suddenly resemble an intricate maze where nothing is what it seems. Trying to make sense of securitization structures and web of relationships is the subject matter of this presentation. Known rules and principles must be applied to new situations and relationships, in order for SPVs and their directors, collateral managers, trustees, rating agencies, sponsors and underwriters to fall into place in a proper system of governance and accountability, and thereby make sense of securitization transactions and enhance their value.
    Friday 11 February 2011
    UCL Institute for Global Law / IUS Commune Lecture
    EU Citizenship: post-national or Post-nationalist?
    On the Rottman case (2010) and its Implications

    Professor Mario Savino, Universita della Tuscia di Viterbo
    Chair: Dr Ioannis Lianos, UCL
    Download the full programme for this series
    Thursday 10 February 2011
    Centre for Ethics and Law
    Performance vs. Compliance: A Global Leader's Guide to Managing Business Conduct
    Professor Lynn Paine, Harvard Business School

    About this lecture
    Managers working outside their home environments often confront local practices that are inconsistent with their company’s practices back home. If forced to choose, leaders often frame their dilemma as a choice between doing as the locals do or doing as they do at home. But there are other normative benchmarks that could be referenced in these situations. In this session, Lynn Paine will present key findings from research that she and her colleagues have conducted on standards of conduct for multinationals in several major markets of the world. This research suggests that leading companies will increasingly need to conform their behavior to a set of emerging global standards and that success in doing so will require leaders to think of business conduct not just in terms of compliance and remediation but also in terms of performance and continuous improvement.
    Thursday 10 February 2011
    Centre for Law and Governance in Europe Lecture
    Europe and the Challenge of the Economic and Financial Crises: Implications for Reform

    Professor Loukas Tsoukalis, Special Adviser to the President of the European Commission; Jean Monnet Professor of European Organisation, University of Athens; President, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, Professor College of Europe, Bruges
    Chair: Dr Nicola Countouris, UCL
    About this lecture
    The financial crisis, and the ensuing economic recession, have undoubtedly triggered a reality check in a number of national and supranational policy making institutions and regulations. The EU has been no exception. Just months after the ratification and entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, heralded in some quarters as 'the best way to prepare for the challenges of the 21st century' (EUInsight, 2009), there are renewed calls for political and institutional reforms for a Union that is visibly struggling in safely navigating all its components out of the recessions tumultuous waters. The recent financial crisis has also exposed the limits of fiscal and economic policy integration in the eurozone and raised questions about the role and future of the euro. Especially since the Greek 'bail-out' in May 2010, suggestions have ranged from bold calls for the EU to 'implement ... institutional reforms, including the necessary fiscal framework, that should have been made when the euro was launched' (Stiglitz, 2010), to suggestions in favour of the creation of a 'European Monetary Fund' (Schäuble 2010), to more modest proposals for 'a permanent and robust framework for crisis management' (Barroso, 2010). At the same time, the European Commission and a number of Member States explore the possibility of a drastic reform of the regulation of banks and other financial institutions. It is clear that the global economic recession, and its regional repercussions in Europe, have triggered a renewed appetite for further reform of the European project. What is less clear is what type of reforms are necessary to address the emerging economic and political challenges, which actors ought to be involved, what mix of supranational and intergovernmental responses will be needed, and, ultimately, what sort of Europe will emerge from the current crisis. The lecture seeks to explore precisely the aforementioned questions and offer original and interdisciplinary perspectives on what is a constantly evolving debate.

    Download the full programme for this series
    Wednesday 9 February 2011
    Annual Colloquium in Legal & Social Philosophy
    The Idea of Cosmopolitan Constitutionalism
    Professor Mattias Kumm, NYU and Social Science Research Center and Humboldt University, Berlin
    Chaired by Professor John Tasioulas, UCL Laws

    Download the brochure for this series
    Download the paper for this lecture
    Wednesday 9 February 2011
    Labour Rights Institute
    Labour Administration, Labour Inspection and the ILO: Current Regulatory Perspectives
    Dr Guiseppe Casale, International Labour Organization (ILO)

    Thursday 3 February 2011
    UCL Jurisprudence Review
    'Morality of the Financial Crisis' Panel Discussion
    Professor Alan Dignam, Professor of Corporate Law at QMUL; Daniel
    Leighton, Head of the Public Interest Programme at DEMOS, a think-tank
    focused on power and politics; and Dr Saladin Meckled-Garcia, Director of
    the UCL Institute for Human Rights and Lecturer in Human Rights and
    Political Theory
    Chair: John Springford, Senior Researcher at Social Market Foundation
    About this event
    This discussion aims to address such questions as who should bear the costs of the financial crisis and determine whether the financial crisis has impinged on any of our social or economic rights. The distinguished panel of speakers will address these questions from social, political and legal perspectives. This event is of universal relevance and interest as the austerity measures currently being implemented by governments globally will have lasting impacts upon our society's social, moral and political landscape.
    Wednesday 2 February 2011
    Annual Colloquium in Legal & Social Philosophy
    Speech Rights and Mediated Communication
    Baroness Onora O'Neill, University of Cambridge
    Chaired by Professor John Tasioulas, UCL Laws

    Download the brochure for this series
    Download the paper for this lecture
    Thursday 27 January 2011
    Centre for Law and Governance in Europe 'Hot Topics in EU Law' Lecture
    The Rule of Law as a Rule of Law in the EU

    Dr Laurent C Pech, NUI Galway
    Chair: Dr Ioannis Lianos, UCL
    Accredited with 1 CPD hour

    Download the full programme for this series
    About this lecture
    The rule of law is commonly viewed as not justiciable in itself. In other words, the principle of the rule of law is not traditionally used as a rule of law. Indeed, if the rule of law were treated as a rule of law, it would potentially run afoul of its own requirements for the simple reason that the rule of law itself is not entirely clear or certain in meaning. This is not to say that the rule of law is or should not be treated as a legal principle or that it completely lacks legal effect. This lecture will focus on the case law of the EU courts. It will be shown that the rule of law has been used as a source from which more narrowly defined and judicially cognisable principles have been derived. The EU courts’ reliance on the rule of law as a “primary” interpretative principle will also be discussed.
    Wednesday 26 January 2011
    Annual Colloquium in Legal & Social Philosophy
    Describing Laws' Foundations
    Professor John Finnis, University of Oxford
    Chaired by Professor John Tasioulas, UCL Laws
    Download the brochure for this series
    Download the paper for this lecture
    Friday 21 January 2011
    Centre for Ethics & Law Lecture
    Perception and Reality: The Compensation Culture
    The Rt Hon Lord Young of Graffham PC DL
    Accredited with 1.5 CPD hours
    About the talk
    Lord Young of Graffham, following a Whitehall-wide review of the operation of health and safety laws and the growth of the compensation culture, launched his report 'Common Sense, Common Safety' in October 2010.
    Thursday 20 January 2011
    Current Legal Problems Lecture
    As Italian as Sophia Loren: Taking Stock of Jewishness in Race Relations Law
    Professor Didi Herman, University of Kent
    Accredited with 1 CPD hour
    About this lecture:
    This lecture considers Jews and Jewishness in light of UK race relations law and culture. Didi Herman will explore how parliamentarians made use of the abstracted Jewish victim in both sides of the debates on race relations legislation. She will consider the case law, both cases where individual Jewish people claimed to have been discriminated against on the basis of their Jewishness, and cases where there were no Jewish claimants, but nonetheless discussions of Jewishness were present. She will argue, first, that the question of whether Jewishness was even covered by the Race Relations Act 1976 has never been the subject of direct legal reasoning. Rather, an abstracted Jew has facilitated the development of the law in relation to other minority groups. And, second, that despite the abstracted Jew being at the centre of legal developments in relation to the ‘ethnic group’ category, no ‘real’ Jew, until 2009, had ever been successful in a reported Race Relations Act 1976 case, and this one success, paradoxically, came in a claim against fellow Jews. When combined with the ways in which Jewish persons are blamed by judges for bringing negative treatment upon themselves, she will argue that this area of law reveals a great deal of myth-making. She will conclude the lecture with a discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision in the JFS case, one of the most comprehensive judicial engagements with Jewishness in English case law in the last one hundred or so years.
    Wednesday 19 January 2011
    UCL Judicial Institute
    A Seminar to Launch the book:
    Representing Justice: Invention, Controversy, and Rights in City-State and Democratic Courtrooms
    Prof. Judith Resnik and Prof. Dennis Curtis, Yale Law School
    with commentary on the book by:
    Lady Hale, Justice of the UK Supreme Court
    Antoine Garapon, Institut des Haute Estudes sur la Justice (Paris)
    Professor Dame Hazel Genn, Dean UCL Faculty of Laws
    About the book
    By mapping the icon of Justice (a woman with scales and sword) and by tracing the development of public spaces dedicated to justice (courthouses), the authors explore the evolution of adjudication into its modern form as well as the intimate relationship between courts and democracy.  
    Monday 17 January 2011
    UCL Institute for Global Law / IUS Commune Lecture
    National legal studies in the European legal area

    Professor Dr. Armin von Bogdandy, Max-Planck Institut
    Chair: Dr Ioannis Lianos, UCL
    About the lecture
    The continuing European integration poses fundamental and probing questions to legal studies within the Member States. These issues are explicated in a first step, which shows how the political project of a European scientific area, the dynamic of the European legal area, and the leading US law schools impact these. A second step sketches strategies for dealing with these challenges, namely through the intensification of comparative legal studies, the Europeanization of legal method, and the Europeanization and diversification of disciplinary 

    Download the full programme for this series
    Thursday 13 January 2011
    Current Legal Problems Lecture
    Is private law meaningless?

    Professor Steve Hedley, University of Cork, Ireland
    Chaired by Professor John Lowry, UCL
    Accredited with 1 CPD Hour
    About this lecture:
    Is private law meaningless? - In other words, when we look at the cases, the statutes, the theories mentioned time-and-again in relation to private law, are we just looking at a maze of technical reasoning, or can we give some overall shape or meaning to the law? Many writers think they can. Some are thinking of a moral meaning - private law makes sense as a statement of personal responsibilities, and is in that sense rather more than a mass of technical rules. Others are thinking rather more in economic terms: private law embodies peoples' rights and entitlements in the market-place, it defines what they can buy and sell, and sets out the implications of each, and protects their choices to trade or not to trade. Others still have some doctrinal meaning in mind, a clear legal-theoretical perspective to impose order on the apparent chaos, whether it is an order they think is already implicit in the law (a 'taxonomy') or one that should be imposed on it (by a code, whether national or regional). These various over-arching theories are the subject of this talk. By looking at what these theories can tell us and what they cannot tell us, the ways in which they can give meaning to the law and the ways in which they muddy the waters yet further, I hope to give a better picture of where private law is going, and where it might go in this new century.
    This page was last modified on 24 March, 2014