Emerging Military Technologies Applied to Urban Warfare

21 & 22 March | Melbourne Law School

Conflict is increasingly taking place in urban settings and the development and deployment of new technologies in this context raises both challenges and opportunities.

In March 2018, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law (APCML) and the Program on the Regulation of Emerging Military Technologies (PREMT) convened the “Emerging military technologies applied to urban warfare” roundtable in Melbourne, Australia.

Bringing together government, military and academic experts from various disciplines, the roundtable examined three areas of emerging technology and their intersection with urban warfare: cyber capabilities, autonomous weapon systems and human modification technologies.

Prof. Alison Duxbury Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law
Dr Rain Liivoja University of Queensland
Leonard Blazeby Head of ICRC mission in Canberra
Ellen Policinski Editor, International Review of the Red Cross
Prof. Tim McCormack Melbourne Law School and University of Tasmania
Mr. Diwaka Prakash Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Prof. Eric Talbot-Jensen Brigham Young University
Prof. Michael Evans Australian Defence College (Canberra) and Deakin University in Melbourne
Tim McFarland post-doctoral fellow, Melbourne Law School
Dr. Jai Gaillot University of New South Wales
Natalie Nunn PhD candidate, University of Tasmania
Dr. Adam Henschke National Security College and Australian National University
Georgia Hinds ICRC
Dr. Suelette Dreyfus Melbourne School of Engineering
Christine Ernst A/g Senior Legal Officer, Office of International Law, Attorney-General’s Department

Human Rights and Accountability Mechanisms in NIAC

Lauren Neumann Aarhus University, Denmark 19 February | Melbourne Law School | Seminar

Displacement and armed conflict go hand-in-hand and those fleeing violence or persecution are among the most vulnerable to human rights abuses. Means of effective accountability for perpetrators appear at times to be few and far between. This seminar considered the capacity and jurisdiction of states and non-state armed groups to protect human rights in non-international armed conflicts. In particular, focus was on the formal and informal accountability mechanisms available to ensure positive protection of internally displaced people, as well as the prevention of rights abuses. These mechanisms, including courts of non- state armed groups, have varying degrees of compatibility with existing international law, and the flexibility of the legal system to accommodate them will therefore also be discussed.

Lauren Neumann is a PhD student at Aarhus University, Denmark. She did her undergraduate degrees at ANU in Canberra, and a Master of International Studies at Aarhus University. She is currently a visiting doctoral student at MLS. Her main research interests are in international law, specifically human rights, humanitarian law, and refugee law.

Creative Non-Fiction in Law: Philippe Sands in Conversation with Hilary Charlesworth

Professor Philippe Sands QC University College London

21 February | Melbourne Law School | Seminar

In his award-winning book, East West Street: On the Origins of Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide (Alfred Knopf/Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2016), lawyer and writer Philippe Sands QC explores how personal lives and history are interwoven. The book is part historical detective story, part family history, and part legal thriller. It explores the connections between Sands’ work on ‘crimes against humanity’ and ‘genocide’, the events that overwhelmed his family during the Second World War, and an untold story at the heart of the Nuremberg Trial.

In this conversation, Philippe Sands discussed the various types of writing in which he engages (book, stage, film, radio); how this turn came about; its relationship with more traditional forms of scholarship and legal writing; and how creative non-fiction can illuminate the law.

Philippe Sands QC is Professor of Law at University College London and a barrister and arbitrator at Matrix Chambers. He is the author of Lawless World (2005) and Torture Team (2008), of academic books on international law, and contributes to the New York Review of Books, Vanity Fair, the Financial Times and The Guardian. His latest book is East West Street: On the Origins of Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide (Alfred Knopf/Weidenfeld & Nicolson), winner of the 2016 Baillie Gifford (Samuel Johnson) Prize and 2017 British Book Awards Non-Fiction Book of the Year. It is accompanied by a BBC Storyville film, My Nazi Legacy: What Our Fathers Did. He is now writing the sequel. He is a vice president of the Hay Festival and a member of the board of English PEN

Crown and Sword: executive power and the use of force by the Australian Defence Force

Associate Professor Cameron Moore Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong

12 June | Melbourne Law School | Seminar

The Australian Defence Force, together with military forces from a number of western democracies, have for some years been seeking out and killing Islamic militants in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, detaining asylum seekers for periods at sea or running the judicial systems of failed states. It has also been ready to conduct internal security operations at home. The domestic legal authority cited for this is often the poorly understood concept of executive power, which is power that derives from executive
and not parliamentary authority. In an age of legality where parliamentary statutes govern action by public officials in the finest detail, it is striking that these extreme exercises of the use of force often rely upon an elusive legal basis.

This presentation presented the conclusions of the recently published book Crown and Sword, which seeks to find the limits to the exercise of this extraordinary power.

Cameron Moore is an Associate Professor at the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS) at the University of Wollongong. He is also a visiting Associate Professor with Centre for Military and Security Law and the Centre for International and Public Law at the Australian National University as well as a Senior Lecturer in the School of Law at the University of New England (UNE), Armidale, NSW. He has previously been the Academic Master of Robb College at UNE. His publications include the books Crown and Sword: Executive Power and the Use of Force by the Australian Defence Force (2017) and ADF on the Beat: A Legal Analysis of Offshore Enforcement by the ADF (2004) and other articles and chapters on the Australian Defence Force and maritime security. Between 1996 and 2003, Cameron was a Royal Australian Navy Legal Officer. His legal experience includes service at sea as well as advising at the strategic level on a number of ADF deployments, ongoing fisheries and border protection operations and the Tampa incident. Cameron is still an active Navy reservist. He had a brief deployment to Afghanistan in 2010. He completed a PhD thesis through the Australian National University in 2015 on the Australian Defence Force and the Executive Power and he was made a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society in the same year.

Re-examining the Lotus Case (France v Turkey) (1927)

Professor Douglas Guilfoyle Monash University

26 July | Melbourne Law School | Seminar

Why was the Lotus case litigated? The negligence of the French first officer of the SS Lotus caused the death of eight Turkish nationals, but on putting in at Constantinople he was sentenced to only 80 days in prison. Despite this leniency, France protested that Turkey’s actions were contrary to international law. Turkey was not yet a party to the PCIJ statute but nonetheless consented to submission of a case by compromis. Again, why?

This paper contextualised and examined what was at stake beyond the immediate jurisdictional point for the parties, their pleadings, and the personalities of the lead advocates. It also revisited PCIJ’s notorious Lotus dictum, that restrictions upon the independence of States cannot be presumed. It suggested that for Turkey, as a new ethno-nationalist State, formal sovereign equality (based on adherence to a European standard of civilization) was a crucial shield against external interference. The French approach was based, implicitly, on a legally hierarchical relationship between European powers and Turkey.

For modern international lawyers there are effectively two Lotus cases: one concerning first-principles understandings of international law; the other on the law of jurisdiction. The first is the more remembered but, this paper suggests, widely misunderstood. The Lotus dictum forms part of the Court’s attempt to navigate the turn from States as coexisting ‘national sovereigns’, to an international law of cooperation between formal equals.

Douglas Guilfoyle is a professor of law at Monash University. Prior to joining Monash in 2015 he was a Reader at the UCL Faculty of Laws. His principal areas of research are the international law of the sea, international and transnational criminal law, and maritime security. He is the author of Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea (CUP 2009) and International Criminal Law (OUP 2016). He has acted as consultant to various governments and international organisations, including as a legal advisor to Mauritius in the Chagos Archipelago (Maritus v UK) law of the sea arbitration.

The Role of Elected Members on the Security Council: Key Players or Lame Ducks?

An International Law Perspective
Professor Nico Schrijver Professor of Public International Law, Leiden University

14 August | Melbourne Law School | Seminar

Apart from the five permanent powers (P-5), the Security Council consists of ten elected members (E-10). They serve a term of two years only and hence they are also called the non-permanent members. Furthermore, unlike the P-5 they are not vested with the right of veto. At the same time, the E-10 play an indispensable role in the decision-making process: the Security Council can only take decisions if least 9 members vote in favour, with none of the P-5 casting a veto. The E-10 represent five different regions of the world. Apart from an equitable geographical distribution, they are also elected in view of their contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security and the other purposes of the UN. Both Australia and the Netherlands have served five times on the Council since 1945.

While fully realizing that the E-10 never form a homogeneous group, it is pertinent to identify and explore their joint strengths. What role for the E-10 is foreseen by the Charter, and how has this role evolved in practice? What are their chances and opportunities to employ what is in the toolbox of the Security Council? Are there any particular ‘niches’ for the E-10 in the Security Council, such as, for example, taking initiatives on rule of law issues, engaging in conflict prevention and debating the potential effects of climate change on peace and security? Can they serve as agents of the international community and norm setters? The lecture also discussed the reform of the Security Council, in particular from the perspective of the E-10. Should their position be strengthened, e.g. by increasing their number or by extending the term of two years? Is there any room for strengthening their position by informal changes that do not require Charter amendment?

Dr. Nicolaas Schrijver is Professor of Public International Law at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, Leiden University. Furthermore, since September 2017 he serves as State Councilor in the Council of State of the Netherlands, which is the highest administrative court of the Netherlands and the principal legal advisory body of the government and parliament. Previously, he was Senator in the Dutch house of parliament (2011-2017), where he served as the Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Development Co-operation and Defence and leader of the Dutch delegation to the Parliamentary Assemblies of the Council of Europe and the OSCE. Currently, Nicolaas Schrijver is also the President of the Institut de droit international, one of the most renowned institutes in the field of international law. He is a former Chair of the Academic Council on the United Nations System (2000-02) and also served as the President of the International Law Association (2010-2012) and President of the Royal Netherlands Society of International Law (2003-2011). Furthermore, he is member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Curatorium of the Hague Academy of International Law. During 2009-2016 he served as independent expert member on the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including as vice-chair during 2010-2012. Since 1995 he is also honorary visiting professor of The European Union and Co-operation with Developing Countries at the Universite libre de Bruxelles.

Professor Nicolaas Schrijver appeared as legal counsel before the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and as an expert before various international investment and law of the sea tribunals. In the early 1990s he also served as Legal Officer in the Office of the Legal Counsel, United Nations, New York.

The Human Right of Property

Professor José Enrique Alvarez Herbert and Rose Rubin Professor of International Law, New York University School of Law

24 August | Melbourne Law School | Seminar

Despite the absence of a comprehensive global pact on the subject, the human right to property protection – a right of property but only rarely to specific property – exists and is recognized in 21 human rights instruments, including some of the most widely ratified multilateral treaties ever adopted. The Cold War’s omission of property rights in the two principal treaties on human rights, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, has been overtaken by events. But that reality continues to be resisted by legal scholars, including human rights advocates, as well as by many across the political spectrum from many on the left (who associate property rights with misguided “Western” models for economic development) to some on the right (who see it as yet another intrusion on sovereign discretion sought by global elites). It is also resisted by U.S. courts which continue to assert that international law regulates the treatment of foreign property but not of “domestic takings” involving actions directed at a state’s own citizens.

This talk, based on a recent article, surveyed the reality of internationalized property rights protections outside the usual context in which it is addressed, namely to protect the property of foreign investors in the host states in which they operate. It canvassed the policy and jurisprudential objections to the idea of a treaty-based human right of property, addresses how human rights treaties respond to these objections, and advances a non-instrumentalist defense of the human right to property protection based on “moral intuitions” of what human dignity requires.

Professor Alvarez, the Herbert and Rose Rubin Professor of International Law at New York University Law School, was previously the Hamilton Fish Professor of International Law and Diplomacy and the executive director of the Center on Global Legal Problems at Columbia Law School. Professor Alvarez is a member of the Institut de Droit International and was the special adviser on public international law to the International Criminal Court’s first prosecutor. Alvarez is the former President of the American Society of International Law (2006-2008) and has recently completed his term as co-editor in chief of the American Journal of International Law.

His books include The Public International Law Regime Governing International Investment (2011) (based on his course at The Hague Academy of International Law); The Impact of International Organizations on International Law (2017) (based on his general course given at the Xiamen Academy of International Law); and International Investment Law (2018) (part of the American Classics Series). For a fuller biography, access to publications and a full curriculum vitae, visit his faculty profile at NYU School of Law.

The Case That Never Was: Al Bashir and the Great Unsaid

Dr Mia Swart Research Director, Democracy and Governance Unit

24 August | Melbourne Law School | Seminar

The 2009 arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir for charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes had important implications for South Africa. The fact that South Africa failed to arrest Al Bashir when he visited South Africa in 2015 triggered litigation against the South African government. It was expected that the case would be taken on appeal to the Constitutional Court and that that Court would have the final word on the question of whether Al Bashir was protected by head of state immunity. The litigation path of the Al Bashir case however ended at the Supreme Court of Appeal. The fact that the case never reached the Constitutional Court has important implications. It means that the Constitutional Court never had the opportunity to make authoritative pronouncements on South Africa’s obligations under the Rome Statute and customary international law and meant that the Court could not resolve the question of whether sitting heads of state charged with international crimes are protected by immunity. Mia Swart’s paper examined the flaws in the SCA case and speculatively considered the arguments the Constitutional Court could have made in this regard. In highlighting the flaws in the SCA case, the paper focused on the SCA’s thin and inadequate treatment of the norm of jus cogens. The SCA’s emphasis on section 232 of the Constitution was further considered, particularly the question of whether it is desirable that an Act of Parliament should always trump customary international law.

Mia Swart is research director of the Democracy and Governance Unit of the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC). Her research focus is on transitional justice, international criminal law and comparative constitutional law. She is currently a Visiting Professor at the University of the Witwatersrand and a non-resident fellow at Brookings Doha Center and a fellow of the Helen Suzman Foundation Before joining HSRC, she worked as Professor of International Law at the University of Johannesburg and Associate Professor at the University of the Witwatersrand. She previously worked as Assistant Professor of Public International Law and Global Justice at Leiden University from which she earned her PhD in 2006. She received research grants from the Alexander von Humboldt foundation in 2007 and 2009. In 2012, she worked at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law in London. Her work has been cited by South African courts as well as by the International Criminal Court. Her co-edited book The Limits of Transition: The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission 20 Years After was published in 2017.

Mia has consulted for UNDP in Palestine and for Amnesty International in Southern Africa. Her work on Palestine focuses on reconciliation in the inter-Palestinian context as well as the Palestinian judiciary. She chairs the Complementarity committee of the International Law Association. She is a regular contributor to South African and international media outlets.

It Stays With You: Use of Force by UN Peacekeepers in Haiti

Panel Discussion & Documentary Film Screening
30 August | University of Melbourne

Professor Siobhán Wills Ulster University
Associate Professor Jennifer Balint University of Melbourne
Dr Dolly Kikon University of Melbourne
Professor Bruce Oswald University of Melbourne

The film documents the eye-witness testimonies of survivors of heavily militarised UN peacekeeping operations in Cité Soleil in 2005. Survivors say that fire came from helicopters and penetrated the roofs of their corrugated iron dwellings. Children were amongst the fatalities. To date, there has been no independent or transparent investigation into the scores of deaths, injuries and demolitions.

Following the screening of It Stays With You: Use of Force by UN Peacekeepers in Haiti there was a panel discussion with Associate Professor Jennifer Balint, Dr Dolly Kikon, Professor Bruce Oswald APCML Director and film director Professor Siobhán Wills.

Siobhán Wills is a professor of law at the Transitional Justice Institute, Ulster University. She was awarded a British Academy Mid-Career Fellowship 2015-2016 to research use of force by Chapter VII mandated peacekeepers operating in situations where there is no Professor Siobhán Wills armed conflict and was subsequently awarded an AHRC research grant 2016-2017 to make a documentary film, jointly with Prof McLaughlin (QUB), about peacekeeping in Haiti. She is a member of the International Law Association Committee on the Use of Force and of the Royal Irish Academy Social Sciences Committee. Prior to her appointment at Ulster University she held the Ariel Sallows Visiting Chair in Human Rights at the University of Saskatchewan. She has also taught at University College Cork, where she was Co-Director of the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights. She has been a visiting fellow at the School of Advanced Studies, University of London; a Fulbright Fellow; a Hauser Global Fellow at NYU; and a Fellow on the Harvard Human Rights Program. She has published widely on international humanitarian law issues, peacekeeping, and protection of civilians.

Typology of Crimes of Political Parties in Armed Conflicts

Assistant Professor Aleksandar Marsavelski Zagreb Law Faculty

4 September | Melbourne Law School | Seminar

Atrocities in armed conflicts are usually attributed to individuals, states and (in recent times) corporations. Case studies undertaken for the ‘Responsibility of Political Parties for Criminal Offenses research project suggest that some of the most serious crimes that mankind could imagine were acts largely committed, instigated or condoned by ruling political parties. These crimes are usually referred to in the literature as state crimes. When political parties in opposition commit atrocities, mostly terrorism, they appear as non-state actors.

Since the Nuremberg trial against organizations of the Nazi Party, one of the hidden challenges of international justice was how to condemn political parties for the international crimes attributable to them, and until now no permanent solution has been adopted. Still, the experiences of international criminal justice, in particular the factual findings of international criminal tribunals, reveal that political parties are actually organizational architects of the worst crimes of atrocities in the history of mankind: Ottoman Empire’s Committee of Union and Progress (Armenian genocide), Cambodia’s Communist Party of Kampuchea (Cambodian genocide), Rwanda’s Coalition for the Defence of the Republic (Rwandan genocide), Republika Srpska’s Serbian Democratic Party (Bosnian genocide), Workers’ Party of Korea behind the crimes against humanity in North Korea etc.

Political parties also engage in war profiteering schemes where they support enrichment of persons who financially support their political campaigns. Still, in jurisdictions worldwide and in international law, political parties bare the least accountability for the crimes they commit. Finally, this lecture discussed the possibilities of holding political parties criminally liable for international crimes as part of post-conflict transitional justice plan.

Aleksandar Marsavelski is an Assistant Professor in the Zagreb Law Faculty (Chair of Criminal Law). He graduated summa cum laude from the University of Zagreb, where he received the Dean´s Award for Excellence and Rector´s Award for Best Paper. After graduation, he worked as junior assistant in the Ministry of Justice of Croatia, and then became a member of the Law Commission that drafted the Criminal Code of Croatia. Since 2010 he has taught at the University of Zagreb, and has been a member of the Executive Committee of the Croatian Unit of UNESCO Chair in Bioethics. In 2011 he was a member of the Law Commission that drafted the Law on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes of War Profiteering in Croatia. He was also one of the initiators of the Law on the Rights of Victims of Sexual Violence during the War in Croatia.

He earned his LL.M. from Yale Law School, where he served as editor of the Yale Journal of International Law. He received the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law’s doctoral scholarship in 2014-2015 for his joint PhD on criminal responsibility of political parties at the University of Freiburg (summa cum laude). Since 2014 he has been a member of the Max Planck Partner Group for “Balkan Criminology” and has been involved in the TransCrim project. Since 2016 he has been a member of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Commission on Corporate Responsibility and Anti-corruption, advisor of the Korean Transitional Justice Working Group, and a foreign secretary general of the Research Center for EU Criminal Law at the Institute of Law, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences in China. In 2017 he was a visiting fellow at the Australian National University, where he studied political party regulation. He is also a collaborator on the Peacebuilding Compared project, and a member of the European Criminology Group on Atrocity Crimes and Transitional Justice (ECACTJ).

Aleksandar Marsavelski’s main area of current research is political party crime and regulation. He presented his research results at a number of international conferences, including Annual Conferences of the European Society of Criminology (ESC) and joint sessions of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR). He received the Annual Best Young Scientist’s Paper Award from the Society of University Professors, Scholars and Other Scientists in Zagreb in 2015 for the article Responsibility of Political Parties for Criminal Offences: Preliminary Observations, Challenges and Controversies.

Responsibility of Political Parties for Crimes in Armed Conflicts: Regulatory Challenges and Solutions

Assistant Professor Aleksandar Marsavelski Zagreb University
Melbourne Law School | 26 September | Seminar

Some of the worst atrocities known in human history are attributable to political parties: from the Armenian genocide committed under the leadership of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) to Rwandan genocide orchestrated by the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic (CDR). At the same time, the political processes of most countries today are dominated by one or more political parties. Regardless of the type of government in which they operate, political parties have the formal duty to conform their activities with the law, while their material duty is to act for the citizen’s welfare. But can they conform with these duties in armed conflicts? What are the consequences if they fail to do so? Could a political party regulatory scheme be used to prevent armed conflicts?

Answering these questions could improve governance because it is not only about regulating armed conflicts. It is about developing policies to regulate political parties in a responsive way to their unlawful activities and acts that are totally against citizen’s welfare. It includes regulation of political parties in peacetime to prevent crimes such as corruption and hate speech because widespread corruption and hate speech in times of economic turmoils are capable of cascading into atrocious armed conflicts. By allowing criminal liability of political parties, including party bans in exceptional cases, according to responsive regulation theory, all other regulatory instruments will become more effective. This seminar presented different models and levels of liability of political parties in response to their crimes in wartime.

Melbourne@Defence - Civil War, Intervention, and International Law

Professor Anne Orford Melbourne Law School
Monday 5 March | Campbell Park CP2 Level 4 Conference Room | Canberra

Whether, and under what conditions, external actors can lawfully intervene in civil wars continues to be a pressing question for international law and international relations. The intensity of recent debates about the legality of interventions in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine illustrates the urgency of this question and the difficulty of finding general principles to address it.

This seminar explored whether and how legal arguments in support of interventions in civil wars to protect civilians or defeat non-state terrorist groups have reshaped the foundational legal principles concerning prohibition of force and non-intervention over the past two decades. In so doing, it sought to unsettle the growing cynicism about international law that is produced by the use of the rhetoric of legality by all sides in civil wars. American military lawyers have developed the concept of ‘lawfare’ to describe the tactical deployment of international legal arguments as part of political battles, and scholars have sought to develop accounts of international law that recognise the potential for law to be used as a weapon and a strategic partner in warfare as well as a restraint on violence and an ethical yardstick. This seminar did not seek to dismiss the recognition that international law is political, but rather sought to avoid a cynical reaction to that recognition. Rather than treating the inability of law to remain ‘above’ the political battle as a problem, the seminar considered whether it is possible to develop a foundation for contemporary public debates about the legality of intervention that takes conflicts over empirical evidence and normative arguments, or facts and values, seriously.

Anne Orford is Redmond Barry Distinguished Professor, Michael D Kirby Chair of International Law, and an Australian Laureate Fellow at Melbourne Law School. She is an elected Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, and a past President of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law. Her work has been recognised by the award of the Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate Fellowship by the Australian Research Council (2015-20), a Future Fellowship awarded by the Australian Research Council (2012-15), an Australian Professorial Fellowship awarded by the Australian Research Council (2007-2011), the Woodward Medal for Excellence in Humanities and Social Sciences awarded by the University of Melbourne (2013), and honorary doctorates of laws awarded by Lund University (2012), the University of Gothenburg (2012), and the University
of Helsinki (2017). She has held numerous visiting positions, including as Raoul Wallenberg Visiting Chair at Lund University, Hedda Andersson Visiting Research Chair in History at Lund University, Visiting Professor at University Paris 1 (Panthéon-Sorbonne), Torgny Segerstedt Visiting Professor at the University of Gothenburg, and Senior Emile Noël Research Fellow at New York University.

Professor Orford is currently directing a major five-year research program at Melbourne Law School funded by the Australian Research Council’s Laureate Fellowship scheme from 2016 to 2020. The Laureate Program in International Law has established a new interdisciplinary research team of scholars in law, the social sciences, and the humanities to work on a major project entitled Civil War, Intervention, and the Transformation of International Law. The Laureate Program combines historical research, legal analysis, and critical theorising to grasp the changing patterns and practices of international intervention, and make sense of the evolving role and responsibility of foreign actors in civil and proxy wars. It brings together leading scholars in international law, global history and international relations, world-class early career researchers, and innovative practitioners to explore the place
of international law in contemporary social, economic, and political transformations.

Her major publications include International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect (Cambridge University Press 2011), Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2003), and, as co-editor, The Oxford Handbook of the Theory of International Law (Oxford University Press 2016). She has delivered keynote and plenary addresses at annual conferences of the American Society of International Law, the Australian Historical Association, the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law, the European Society of International Law, the French Society of International Law, and the Korean Society of International Law, and presented her research by invitation to governments, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and university audiences in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Melbourne@Defence - A Call to Arms: Why the Need to Publish State Practice and Opinio Juris has Reached a Critical Point

Dr Carrie McDougall Melbourne Law School
Thursday 27 September | Defence Legal, Campbell Park, NODE B, CP2-4-092 | Canberra

The Coalition’s operations against Daesh in Syria illustrate that the jus ad bellum has adapted to meet the challenges posed by sophisticated transnational organised armed groups – but that lawyers have struggled to find answers to parallel questions arising under the jus in bello. This presentation examined why the jus in bello has been less adaptive. It also examined why, in an era of challenge to the international rules-based order, it is important for Australia and its allies to shrug off the shroud of secrecy in which they cloak military operations. If they don’t, customary international law is going to be shaped by others – either non- State entities that tend to favour humanitarian considerations over military necessities, or States that have different strategic outlooks to ours. The result may not be consistent with Australia’s national security interests. Hence the need to do more to shape the debate now.

Dr Carrie McDougall re-joined Melbourne Law School in 2018, after nearly a decade working for DFAT. While at DFAT, she served first as Assistant Director of the International Law Section and then as Legal Adviser at Australia’s Mission to the United Nations in New York, where she was elected as Vice-President of the Bureau of the United Nations General Assembly’s Sixth Committee. Carrie holds a PhD in international law and is the author of The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press, 2012). Her primary areas of research are the jus ad bellum, international criminal law and international humanitarian law.

Melbourne@Defence - Adjudicating the Human Rights of Military Personnel

Professor Alison Duxbury Melbourne Law School
Tuesday 13 November | Campbell Park, CP2, Level 4 Conference Room | Canberra

The application of international human rights law to the actions of military personnel has been the subject of extensive debate, including commentary and reports by international and non-governmental organisations. However, there is much less literature examining the application of human rights law to military personnel as bearers of rights. To the extent that the human rights of military personnel have been discussed, it has tended to be in the context of due process rights, for example, the right to fair trial in military justice systems. This presentation aimed to examine recent jurisprudence on the human rights of military personnel to determine if there is any common threads that can be found in the discussions of the rights of members of the armed forces in national and international courts.

Alison Duxbury is a Professor at Melbourne Law School and an Associate Director of the Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law. She is a member of the Council of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law and the Executive Council of the Asian Society of International Law. Alison’s major teaching and research interests are in the fields of international law, international institutional law, human rights law and public law. Her publications include The Participation of States in International Organisations: The Role of Human Rights and Democracy (Cambridge, 2011), a co-edited collection, Military Justice in the Modern Age (Cambridge, 2016), and a forthcoming co-authored book, Can ASEAN Take Human Rights Seriously?, to be published by Cambridge University Press.

The Asia-Pacific Centre for Military Law is operated by the University of Melbourne and it is not an agent of, nor affiliated with, or part of, the Australian Government or the Department of Defence.