Lectures, Seminars and Talks

The British Constitution, Capitalism and Constitutional Change

In this episode, Associate Professor Tanzil Chowdhury (Queen Mary University of London) discusses his latest book project, examining the transformation of the British Constitution over the last century. Tanzil’s argument is that we cannot understand significant changes to the British constitution without understanding the broader historical developments in capitalist social relations and the significant social antagonisms that have occurred throughout the last 100 or so years. Capitalism is a totality of different social relations and processes oriented around the value form; different social relations (economic, but also political, legal, cultural, moral etc) which are all important to the reproduction of that social totality. Contrary to heteronomous theories of constitutional change (including some Marxist ones), this project seeks to understand constitutions (the different institutional combinations of state and social power, subject formations, forms of mediation and characterisations of legality) as having an internal relation with capitalist social relations.

In that sense, constitutions cannot be abstracted from capitalist social relations and are in fact, as Tanzil argues, historically specific to capitalism. However, even though constitutions are internally related to capitalist social relations, that does not mean that capitalist societies are not fraught with all manner of tensions, contradictions and ruptures. This is not therefore a rigid economistic and deterministic theory of constitutional development, but one which takes seriously the historical distinctness of the legal form, constitutionalism, and the specific work they do (or not) in the reproduction of capitalist social relations. Constitutionalism operates at different levels within the contradictory totality of capitalist social relations. Changes to the British constitution are the results of specific forms of struggle over the reproduction of capitalist social relations. Tanzil sets out some examples of this theoretical approach, periodises the last century of the British constitution, and connects it to distinct historical forms of capitalist constitutionalism.

This seminar was chaired by Dr Martin Clark.

The ICJ's Climate Advisory Opinion: Initial Reflections and Responses

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its long-awaited Advisory Opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change on 23 July 2025. In this episode, Melbourne Law School experts Dylan Asafo, Rohan Nanthakumar, Professor Jackie Peel and Professor Margaret Young discussed the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion and its implications for international law.

The ICJ has provided legal clarity on the two questions it was asked by the General Assembly: (a) the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions, for States and for present and future generations; and (b) the legal consequences of these obligations for the States that have caused significant harm to the climate system, especially with respect to (i) injured or particularly vulnerable States such as small island developing states; and (ii) current and future generations.

This event was co-hosted by IILAH, the Melbourne Centre for Law and the Environment (MCLE), Melbourne Climate Futures (MCF), the Laureate Program on Global Corporate Climate Accountability and the Oceans and International Environmental Law Interest Group (OIELG) of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law (ANZSIL).

Useless for Fascism? Giorgio Agamben’s Covid Critique and the Homo Sacer Project

In this episode of the IILAH Podcast, Dr Daniel McLoughlin (UNSW) presents on Giorgio Agamben’s Covid Critique and the Homo Sacer Project. This seminar was chaired by Dr Richard Joyce.

On the 26th of February 2020, Giorgio Agamben published a short piece on his personal website, entitled ‘Invention of an Epidemic,’ which argued that the Italian state was exploiting the appearance of COVID-19 to govern by emergency decree. Over the following year, he went on to criticise the use of masks, compared the “Green Pass” to the Yellow Star, and argued that academics teaching online were the “perfect equivalent” of Nazi collaborators. Agamben’s work has been enormously influential in critical legal theory over the past two decades. However, these interventions generated a great deal of criticism, with commentators accusing him of peddling “critical-cum-conspiracy theory,” and urging us to “forget about Agamben.” This paper analysed Agamben’s interventions around the pandemic and their relationship to his philosophical critique of law and politics. It argued that they illustrate limits to his analysis of sovereignty and his concern with the politics of totalitarianism, as they have the potential to play into a politics that presupposes a virtuous liberal status quo that has been lost and needs to be restored. There are, however, two aspects of Agamben’s thought in the Homo Sacer project that mitigate against this conceptual danger: his deconstruction of the concepts that underpin the legitimacy of the modern democratic state; and his analysis of the relationship between liberal democracy, biopolitics, and governmentality. Daniel McLoughlin’s claim is that these issues, taken together, have generated the much-noted proximity between Agamben’s critique of the response to COVID, and that of the far right.

The Concept of International Law Reform and the Case of Negotiated Settlements in Foreign Bribery Matters

In this episode of the IILAH Podcast, Dr Radha Ivory presented on the topic of international law reform and the case of negotiated settlements in foreign bribery matters. This seminar was chaired by IILAH member and ANZSIL President, Professor Alison Duxbury.

The concept of reform is present in its absence in the literature on international lawmaking and legal theory. The international legal system is subject to pressures for change. Its actors respond to those pressures with projects for legal improvement. Scholars comment on those malfunctions and attempted fixes, some elaborating general frameworks for appraisal, others conceiving of transnational law-making processes and yet others deconstructing the very discourse of international legal progress.

However, as a group, international lawyers have baulked at the concept of reform. That aversion has been attributed to our discipline’s defensive posture and the international legal system’s lack of machinery for efficiently replacing outdated principles and rules. ‘Reform’ implies an admission of deficit and an orderly and authoritative change process that would not seem to be in keeping with typical pathways of legal change beyond the state.

This article seeks to reverse that trend by proposing a two-part concept of international law reform. The procedural part of that concept enables legal scholars to discern and describe instances of quasi-legislative change in the international legal space. The substantive part prompts them to select and apply criteria for assessing the merits of a particular textual change or proposal.

The resultant concept of international law reform is necessary, Radha argues, in a legal system that lacks centralised legislative processes and comprehensive rules for demarcating and legitimating authoritative normative developments. Through a detailed case study from international anticorruption law, the article shows how international law reform is an essential framework for analysis.

Radha's published paper can be read here.

‘Architects of the Better World’: Democracy, Law, and the Construction of International Order (1919-1998)

In this episode of the IILAH Podcast, Daniel Quiroga-Villamarin, presents on his book project, 'Architects on the Better World'. This seminar was chaired by Dr Laura Petersen.

Even before the Unitedstatesean President Truman urged the attendants of the 1945 United Nations Conference on International Organization to see themselves as “architects of the better world,” the field of global governance has proven to be a fertile ground for metaphors drawn from architecture. Indeed, in the collective imagination of practitioners and scholars alike, the international legal order appears as a vast and towering edifice: a veritable “architecture” that overlooks “areas” of governance sustained by normative “pillars.” But international law’s castles, of course, were not built solely in the air. For the metaphorical use of architectonical language only hides international law’s profound lack of engagement with the material and concrete spaces in which the “international” is produced, contested, and disputed. Conversely, Daniel's book project, takes the “architecture of international cooperation” as a relevant question for international legal history. Instead of taking purpose-built environments for granted, Daniel traced the birth of what he calls the “international parliamentary complex” during international law’s “move to institutions” in the short twentieth century (1919-1998). With this, Daniel refers to the emergence of buildings that claimed to serve as “international parliaments” throughout this period —especially those linked to universal or regional International Organizations. He follows this arc from “interwar” Geneva to the end of the Cold War, studying the ways in which this tendency to “parlamentarize” interpolity relations has mutated throughout the century. Daniel does so by drawing from multilingual archival materials related to buildings erected in Geneva, New York City, Bogotá, Addis Ababa, Vienna, and Rome. By historicizing space and spatializing history, he explores the intersections between international law, democracy, and architecture in our unending quest to construct a just, and hopefully “better,” international order.

Examining the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the Legality of Israel’s Occupation of Palestinian Territory

On Wednesday 31 July 2024, the Institute for International Law and the Humanities (IILAH) at Melbourne Law School hosted a panel discussion examining the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on the Legality of Israel’s Occupation of Palestinian Territory.

The panellists:

• Dr Adil Hasan Khan (Chair) - Senior Postdoctoral Research Fellow, MLS
• Dr Sophie Rigney - Senior Lecturer, RMIT
• Mr Haris Jamil - PhD Candidate, MLS
• Dr Julia Dehm - Senior Lecturer, La Trobe University
• Dr Ntina Tzouvala - Associate Professor, ANU
• Dr Shahd Hammouri - Lecturer, Kent Law School

The Principle of Distinction in International Humanitarian Law

In this episode, Julian A. Hettihewa presents on ‘The Principle of Distinction in International Humanitarian Law’. According to the principle of distinction, the parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Described as one of the cardinal principles of international humanitarian law, the principle thus requires that civilians are never made objects of attacks. Underneath these seemingly objective and neutral concepts are real human beings. Available data indicates that the vast majority of victims of direct conflict are young men. Against this background, this talk seeks to examine the relevance of the principle of distinction for young people. It suggests that youth as a social category is constructed by international law as dream/nightmare and that this may inform decisions on targeting. The talk concludes with an invitation to use existing critical approaches to explore further areas of international law with a sensibility for young people and youth. The episode is an edited recording of a seminar presented on 5 December 2023, chaired by Dr Carrie McDougall and hosted by IILAH.

Julian A. Hettihewa is a research assistant and PhD candidate at the Institute for Public International Law, University of Bonn. His research focusses on the relationship between youth and international law and forms part of what may be called Young Approaches to International Law.

Community: culture, identities, and memories

The Amsterdam Center for International Law and IILAH present Unpacking Transitional Justice: International Law, Memory, and Power, convened by Dr Eliana Cusato (ACIL) and Valeria Vázquez Guevara (MLS). The aim of the Series is to bring together scholars from around the world employing interdisciplinary and critical approaches to the study of transitional justice and international law, broadly understood.

This episode is the second seminar of a four-part series on Unpacking Transitional Justice. Our speakers include Professor Lucas Lixinski (UNSW) and Dr Maria Elander (La Trobe). This seminar focuses on how transitional justice institutions and international law shape post-conflict societies by giving meaning, or organising in particular ways the meanings, to culture, cultural heritage, victimhood and victims, broadly speaking.

Lucas Lixinski is a Professor at the Faculty of Law and Justice at UNSW Sydney. He researches and teaches across a range of fields in international law, primarily international cultural heritage law and international human rights law.

Maria Elander is a senior lecturer at La Trobe Law School. Her research is primarily in the broader field of international criminal justice, and engages with theories in cultural and feminist legal studies.

The Political Economy of International Law

This episode is the third seminar of a four-part series on Unpacking Transitional Justice. Our speakers include Associate Professor Christine Schwöbel-Patel (Warwick) and Dr Hannah Franzki (Bremen). This episode discusses 'Justice: The political economy of international law'.

Dr Christine Schwöbel-Patel is an Associate Professor at the University of Warwick School of Law. Her research spans areas of international law, global constitutionalism, governance, and critical pedagogy.

Dr Hannah Franzki is a Research Fellow in the Transnational Force of Law Project since 2015. Her research interests include legal theory and philosophy, international political economy with a particular focus on transnational investment law and international criminal law.

The Challenge of Spiritual(In)Security

The modern study – and practice – of security has been largely concerned with the protection, preservation and sustaining of the material, the tangible and the visible. For many people around the world, however, feelings of security also derive from understandings of an individual or community’s relationships with invisible and spiritual forces. Religious devotion and divine protection represent a central plank of security for many, just as fears of divine retribution, demonic possession or witchcraft feature as a central dimension of insecurity for many others. This remains, however, a conceptual and empirical blindspot in much of Critical Security Studies.

Drawing on fieldwork undertaken in north-western Uganda, this study reflects critically on the provenance and implications of this central oversight and argues for an expanded scholarly and practitioner understanding of what “counts” as (in)security – one which better captures how the phenomenon is experienced. In doing so, the article emphasizes the global character of spiritual (in)security and the challenges such an understanding of (in)security poses to longstanding scholarly and practitioner associations of (in)security with state authority.

Jonathan Fisher is Reader in African Politics in, and Director of, the International Development Department of the University of Birmingham. His research focuses on the intersections between conflict, (in)security and authoritarianism in Africa, and he has a particular interest in Eastern Africa.

Propoganda Art in the 21st Century

Listen to Jonas Staal who delivered a lecture on 'Propaganda Art in the 21st Century