BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Law School: Events - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://law-events.sydney.edu.au
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Law School: Events
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Australia/Sydney
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+1100
TZOFFSETTO:+1000
TZNAME:AEST
DTSTART:20210403T160000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+1000
TZOFFSETTO:+1100
TZNAME:AEDT
DTSTART:20211002T160000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+1100
TZOFFSETTO:+1000
TZNAME:AEST
DTSTART:20220402T160000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+1000
TZOFFSETTO:+1100
TZNAME:AEDT
DTSTART:20221001T160000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+1100
TZOFFSETTO:+1000
TZNAME:AEST
DTSTART:20230401T160000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+1000
TZOFFSETTO:+1100
TZNAME:AEDT
DTSTART:20230930T160000
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Australia/Sydney:20220916T130000
DTEND;TZID=Australia/Sydney:20220916T140000
DTSTAMP:20260504T105845
CREATED:20240913T000020Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240913T010816Z
UID:1700-1663333200-1663336800@law-events.sydney.edu.au
SUMMARY:Underutilisation of ADR in ISDS: Resolving Treaty Interpretation Issues
DESCRIPTION:Underutilisation of ADR in ISDS: Resolving Treaty Interpretation Issues\nOnline event \nOver the years\, it has become evident that arbitration is the favoured dispute resolution mechanism over conciliation/mediation in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). This is due to the benefits of arbitration (binding process with final\, enforceable award) over the shortcomings of conciliation/mediation (non-binding process with non-enforceable settlement agreements). Therefore\, incentives\, such as the recent adoption of the Singapore Convention on Mediation and proposed amendments by ICSID\, are deemed promising developments for the promotion of more alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms in ISDS. \nThis study advances a hypothesis that\, apart from the non-enforceability of settlement agreements\, there may be an additional and\, as a matter of fact\, the principal cause for the underutilisation of conciliation in ISDS. The common formulation of ISDS clauses\, that carry advance consent to conciliation and arbitration in investment treaties\, suggests that the choice between these two may have conflicting interpretations. Under one interpretation\, disputants have an option to choose conciliation and then proceed with arbitration; the other interpretation suggests that selection of conciliation is to the exclusion of arbitration. This is also supported by anecdotal evidence where claimants have had an impression that the ‘fork in the road’ principle applied to the choice between conciliation and arbitration\, and that\, therefore\, recourse to conciliation regardless of the outcome would jeopardise their right to subsequent arbitration. Based on these observations this study argues that the adoption of the Singapore Convention on Mediation will most probably not be enough to promote more ADR in ISDS. In particular\, recourse to investor-state conciliation (and mediation) will not increase unless mediation/conciliation are made mandatory before arbitration\, and the source of conflicting interpretations of the choice between conciliation and arbitration is eliminated. \nUbilava\, A. (2022). Underutilization of ADR in ISDS: Resolving Treaty Interpretation Issues. UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs\, 26(2). \nAbout the speaker: \nDr Ana Ubilava is a lecturer in International Law at the University of Sydney Law School. \nDiscussant: Associate Professor Stacie Strong\, the University of Sydney Law School and Co-Director of the Sydney Centre for International Law. \n—————-\nWebinar via Zoom: Friday\, 16 September\, 1-2pm (AEST)\n \nOnce registered\, you will be provided with Zoom details closer to the date of the webinar. \n—————- \nCPD points = 1 \nThis webinar is presented by the Sydney Centre for International Law at the University of Sydney Law School.
URL:https://law-events.sydney.edu.au/event/underutilisation-of-adr-in-isds-resolving-treaty-interpretation-issues/
CATEGORIES:CPD eligible events,Interdisciplinary,International and Asia-Pacific law events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://law-events.sydney.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Law-Business-ol6bZ2.tmp_.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Australia/Sydney:20220921T180000
DTEND;TZID=Australia/Sydney:20220921T191500
DTSTAMP:20260504T105845
CREATED:20240913T000021Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240913T010801Z
UID:1701-1663783200-1663787700@law-events.sydney.edu.au
SUMMARY:Repatriating Cultural Heritage: Conflict of Laws\, Archaeology\, and Indigenous Studies
DESCRIPTION:Repatriating Cultural Heritage: Conflict of Laws\, Archaeology\, and Indigenous Studies\nFrom the intersection of conflict of laws\, archaeology\, and indigenous studies\, this multidisciplinary webinar will explore legal and practical challenges and solutions in repatriating cultural heritage in Australia\, China\, the EU\, and the USA. \nExamples include an Australian repatriation project with the Anindilyakwa Land Council and Traditional Owners on Groote Eylandt\, the world-wide Return of Cultural Heritage (RoCH) program established by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies\, legal battles in repatriating the Chinese statue of Zhāng Gōng ZÇ” ShÄ« (a budda statue with a mummy inside)\, sovereign immunity issues in recovery of World War II-era stolen art and other heritage\, and participation of local communities in protecting and repatriating cultural heritage. \nSpeakers (listed in the surname alphabetic order): \n\nDr. Evelien Campfens\, member of the International Law Association Cultural Heritage Law Committee based at Leiden University\, the Netherlands\, and former director to the Dutch Restitutions Committee for Nazi looted art\nProfessor Anne (Annie) Clarke\, Chair of Archaeology Discipline and Member of Museum and Heritage Studies Program\, the University of Sydney\, Australia\nProfessor Zheng Xin Huo\, China University of Political Science and Law\, China\nProfessor Charles T. Kotuby Jr.\, University of Pittsburgh School of Law and Honorary Professor of Law\, Durham Law School\, the USA and UK\nMr. Craig Ritchie\, an Aboriginal man of the Dhunghutti and Biripi nations and the Chief Executive Officer at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)\, Australia\nProfessor Jennifer Barrett\, Pro-Vice-Chancellor\, Indigenous (Academic) and Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Strategy and Services) at the University of Sydney.\n\nModerator: \n\nAssociate Professor Jie (Jeanne) Huang\, the University of Sydney Law School and Co-Director of Center for Asian and Pacific Law\n\n\nWebinar via Zoom: Wednesday 21 September 6.00-7.15 pm (AEST)\n \nOnce registered\, you will be provided with Zoom details closer to the date of the webinar. \n  \nThis webinar is jointly presented by the American Society of International Law Private International Law Interest Group\, Centre for Asian and Pacific Law and the Center for International Law at the University of Sydney Law School.  \n  \nImage source: Canva
URL:https://law-events.sydney.edu.au/event/repatriating-cultural-heritage-conflict-of-laws-archaeology-and-indigenous-studies/
CATEGORIES:CPD eligible events,Interdisciplinary,International and Asia-Pacific law events
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR