Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge

Lecture summary: Early March 1946 marked a rough midpoint in proceedings before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. The prosecution had closed its case, with France and the USSR just having presented most of the trial’s eyewitnesses – two of them women. The defense opened just as Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech. Elsewhere in Palace of Justice, personnel were going home even as others arrived, to prepare subsequent proceedings. These new ‘Nurembergers’ included more women, more people of colour, and more people who had not served in the world war then on trial. By centring such developments, this talk will offer a less-travelled account of the first international criminal trial.

An expert in international law and its subfields, including legal history and international criminal law, Diane Marie Amann has served as Regents’ Professor, Emily & Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law, and Faculty Co-Director of the Dean Rusk International Law Center at the University of Georgia School of Law, and is an Academic Affiliate at University College London Faculty of Laws. She was Special Adviser to International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda on Children in & affected by Armed Conflict, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and has held leadership posts in the American and European societies of international law. Amann is writing an Oxford University Press book about lawyers and other women professionals at the first Nuremberg trial.

Speaker: Dr Christopher Stothers, Partner at Freshfields in London and Dublin

Biography: Christopher Stothers is a partner at Freshfields in London and Dublin and an experienced patent litigator, managing strategic, cross-border disputes around Europe and beyond for over 20 years. He has acted as a legal practitioner in many oppositions and appeals before the European Patent Office and as a UPC Representative in several local divisions and the Court of Appeal. He supervised IP students at Downing and St Catharine’s between 2004-2007, and since then has taught part-time at UCL where he is an Honorary Professor of Practice.

Abstract: International patent law has undergone piecemeal harmonisation over many years, from WIPO’s Paris Convention of 1883 through the Strasbourg Convention of 1963, the Patent Cooperation Treaty of 1970, the European Patent Convention of 1973, the (never ratified) Community Patent Conventions of 1975 and 1989, the TRIPS Agreement of 1994, the London Agreement of 2000 and the UPC Agreement of 2013. Despite these efforts, patent porfolios are typically still maintained and enforced on a strategic territorial basis, which in bigger cases often leads to cross-border disputes, particularly over standard essential patents and important pharmaceutical patents. The last decade has seen the re-emergence of cross-border enforcement by courts, including retaliatory anti-suit, anti-anti-suit, anti-enforcement and now anti-interim licence injunctions. Christopher has been involved in cross-border patent enforcement for over 20 years and will talk about the changes he has seen (and what is coming in the future).

For more information see:

https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

Speaker: Dr Luca Sicignano (Lecturer in Business Law at the University of Naples L’Orientale)

Abstract: The effectiveness of corporate restructuring plans largely relies on solutions shared as widely as possible among relevant stakeholders. This explains the worldwide spread of procedures that presuppose a negotiation phase and the attainment of genuine agreements among all stakeholders involved, or at least among the majority of them. However, following Directive (EU) 2019/1023, the widespread introduction of cross-class cram-down mechanisms and more flexible value-allocation rules (the Relative Priority Rule), has profoundly altered the incentives that structure these negotiations. Through a comparative analysis of the main European systems, the paper shows that these tools - originally conceived to prevent opportunistic holdouts - often weaken the search for genuinely consensual solutions and encourage the formation of narrow negotiating coalitions that ultimately impose their preferred outcomes on dissenting creditors. This paper seeks to highlight the modern paradox (the so-called “imposed bargain”) represented by the spread of imposed plans and to investigate the motivations that are likely driving the growing reliance on non-consensual tools for resolving corporate distress.

Luca Sicignano is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Business Law at the University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” and a Lecturer in Business Law at the University of Naples “L’Orientale”. He graduated from Luiss “Guido Carli” University in Rome in 2017, where he currently serves as a Teaching Assistant. In 2022, he obtained a Ph.D. in Business Law and was admitted to the Italian Bar following a judicial clerkship at the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Appeal of Rome. He has held visiting research positions at the University of Cambridge, the University of Vienna, and the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, and has undertaken repeated research stays at the Institute for Comparative Law of Heidelberg University. During the academic year 2023–2024, he served as a Lecturer at Heidelberg University, teaching Introduction to Italian Company Law. His research focuses on Business Law, with particular emphasis on corporate, financial and insolvency law. He has authored over 25 publications in Italian and international journals and has presented his research at conferences in Dublin and Dubrovnik. He serves on the editorial board of Banca, Borsa e Titoli di Credito and is a member of the European Law Institute (ELI) and the Young Scholars section of the European Society for Banking and Financial Law (AEDBF).

3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.

For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:

http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

Lecture summary: The regulation of submarines has rarely been an issue of focus in international law. Their military utility has influenced states’ willingness to develop rules that restrict their operations, both historically and in contemporary settings. So much is evident in examining current controversies over navigational rights of warships. Yet the types and uses of submarines are continually evolving and are regulated—to varying extents—by a myriad of international law. With the development of autonomous submarines, we again need to think carefully about the existing rules, their gaps and ambiguities. Have we reached the point that these evasive underwater vehicles cannot and should not elude the reach of international law?

Dr Natalie Klein is Associate Dean (Academic) and a Professor at UNSW Sydney’s Faculty of Law & Justice, Australia. Professor Klein teaches and researches in different areas of international law, focusing on law of the sea. She was a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre in 2008 when she was working on Maritime Security and the Law of the Sea (OUP). She is co-author, with Kate Purcell and Jack McNally, of a forthcoming monograph, Submarines in International Law (CUP).

There is a sandwich lunch at 12.30 pm in the Old Library at the Centre. All lecture attendees welcome.

Chair: Prof Markus Gehring

The Friday Lunchtime Lecture series is kindly supported by Cambridge University Press & Assessment.

Speaker: Professor Morten Rasmussen, University of Copenhagen

Biography: Morten Rasmussen is Associate Professor at the SAXO Institute, University of Copenhagen and a leading expert on the legal histories of European integration and the League of Nations. He has published numerous articles and book chapters on these topics. The most recent publication is a general history of early period of European Union Law from 1950 to 1993. He is currently co-editing a Cambridge Handbook of the League of Nations and international law.

Abstract: Professor Rasmussen will present on his forthcoming publication 'The History of European Union Law - Constitutional Practice, 1950 to 1993'. The formative period of EU law witnessed an intense struggle over the emergence of a constitutional practice. While the supranational institutions, including the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament, as well as EU law academics helped to develop and promote the constitutional practice, member state governments and judiciaries were generally reluctant to embrace it. The struggle resulted in an uneasy stalemate in which the constitutional practice was allowed to influence the doctrines, shape and functioning of the European legal order that now underpins the EU, but a majority of member state governments rejected European constitutionalism as the legitimating principle of the new EU formed on basis of the Treaty of Maastricht (1992). The lecture traces the struggle and accounts for eventual stalemate over the constitutional practice and the fragile and partial system of rule of law that exists in the EU today.

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

CULS were honoured to host Justice of the Supreme Court, Lord Richards at Cambridge Thursday 5th February.

Lord David Richards is a Justice of the UK Supreme Court and a Cambridge law alumnus. He was called to the Bar in 1974, took Silk in 1992, and practised primarily in company law and corporate insolvency. He served as a High Court Judge (Chancery Division), chaired the Competition Appeal Tribunal, and was a Lord Justice of Appeal from 2015 to 2021. Appointed to the Supreme Court in 2022, Lord Richards has also sat on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and continues to work as an arbitrator and legal expert. He is a Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn and served as its Treasurer in 2020–21.

He discusses his career from the Chancery Bar all the way to the Supreme Court, and he reflects on some of the interesting cases he has worked on.

The lecture begins at 04:02

For more information see the CULS website at: https://culs.org.uk

Speaker: Professor Dirk Andreas Zetzsche (Professor of Financial Law, University of Luxembourg)

Abstract: Sustainability-oriented investors want to pay for impact, not compliance. We analyse the regulatory challenges and opportunities of impact investing. We find that advancing impact investing requires a departure from the EU Sustainable Finance Framework's (EUSFF) prevailing input-orientation and an adjustment of EU asset-management law towards an EU Impact Finance Framework.

In its current form, the EUSFF over-emphasises exclusion, using rule-based ex ante definitions of sustainable business (herein termed input). If a large share of global capital follows these rules, unsustainable firms’ capital costs will increase, furthering innovation of sustainable alternatives. However, the EUSFF alone cannot prevent global capital flows into unsustainable investments, and non-EU countries follow different approaches. Although the EUSFF encourages, in effect, the sale of unsustainable EU businesses to non-EU firms, its input orientation has not helped the planet: the same activities continue elsewhere, often under weaker environmental and social standards, leaving the planet worse off. Further, the EUSFF’s disregard for proven ex post impacts risks large-scale capital misallocation and “impact washing”. Worse, the input focus comes at the cost of investments paired with audited evidence of positive ESG impacts ex post.

We argue for shifting EU financial regulation from input to (proven) impact. Yet, rather than adding a new product category, we propose recognising positive impacts through five fine-tuned steps that simplify EU financial regulation, taking into account regulatory developments in the United Kingdom and Switzerland. These include abolishing the link between “do no significant harm” under the Taxonomy Regulation and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, simplified reporting aligned with product materials and the emerging IFRS Disclosure Standards, introducing a new proportionality threshold for mid-sized AIFMs, and revising ESMA’s rules on fund names.

Professor Zetzsche is Professor of Financial Law at the University of Luxembourg where he has held the ADA Chair in Financial Law (inclusive finance) since March 2016 and functions as the Head of the Department of Law since 2024. He is also coordinator of the Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance's House of Sustainable Governance & Markets and Co-PI of the Future FinTech National Centre of Excellence in Research and Innovation.

Professor Zetzsche has published more than 400 publications on inclusive and sustainable finance, corporate governance, FinTech and RegTech, and collective investment schemes. He has spoken at most of the leading universities globally and has advised many of the major regulators, eg the FSB, the BIS, the Basel Committee, the European Commission, the European Parliament, ESMA, EBA, the ESRB and the US SEC. In February 2023, he made the case for financial inclusion at the United Nations Social Commission, and spoke on inclusive and sustainable finance at COP27, 28, 29 and 30.

Professor Zetzsche's paper Towards an EU Impact Investing Framework is available on SSRN.

3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners.

For more information see the Centre for Corporate and Commercial Law website:

http://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/

Speaker: Prof Tamsin Paige, Deakin Law School

Lecture summary: Stories serve an integral role in society as, among other things, a meaning making tool. As a method of meaning making, stories are relational and allow the storyteller to assist their audience in understanding ideas, concepts, and experiences that lie beyond their lived experiences. Using this understanding and starting point, I ask what happens if we read international law as an iterative archive of stories about global society? I will start by exploring the meaning making function that storytelling serves in society, and then consider how international law, be it treaties, custom, case law or other legal instruments, can be read as official stories of the society that produced them.

Tamsin Phillipa Paige is an Associate Professor with Deakin Law School. Her work is interdisciplinary in nature, using qualitative sociological methods to analyse international law (with a focus on application of law and the impact it has on society). She also does law and literature research using popular fiction to understand social perceptions of the law. Her work has examined (among other things) Somali piracy, UN Security Council decision making, the impact of international law on queer lives, and conflict based sexual violence. In a former life, she was a French trained, fine dining pâtissière.

Chair: Dr Lena Holzer, Centre Fellow

This lecture was delivered on 20 February 2026 and is part of the Friday Lunchtime Lecture series.

Speaker: Professor Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen, UIB, Norway

Biography: Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen is professor of European law at the University of Bergen, Norway. Besides his Norwegian law degree, he holds the degrees of Mag.Jur. and Dr.Jur. from the University of Göttingen (Germany) as well as a PhD from the University of Bergen. Member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. Co-Director of the Bergen Centre of the Europeanization of Norwegian law. Editor-in-chief of the Norwegian Law Journal. Member of the 2022-2024 ‘EEA Review Committee’ that assed Norway’s current affiliation to the European Union.

Abstract: For more than three decades, the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) has integrated Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway into the better part of the EU internal market. Over the years, the Agreement has been supplemented by numerous other agreements between Norway and the EU, creating a complex patchwork of agreements commonly referred to as ‘the Norway model’. Notwithstanding the model’s democratic problems, the general view in Norway is that it has worked well as a compromise between those in favour of membership of the Union and those very much opposed to this idea. However, the EU’s strive for ‘strategic autonomy’ in the current geopolitical situation makes it more complicated to remain part of the internal market without being part of the customs union and the common commercial policy. The seminar will discuss the legal challenges confronting ‘the Norway model’ as well as possible remedies.

For more information see:

https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Dr Penelope Ridings, International Law Commission

Lecture summary: In the last several decades, scholarly views of due diligence in international law have shifted from due diligence as a primary obligation under customary international law, to due diligence as a standard of conduct attached to a primary obligation. Thus, for example, due diligence is required to meet a State’s obligation of protection (of the environment) or of prevention (of genocide). The International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on Climate Change adopted such an articulation and stated that due diligence is a standard of conduct and States have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence. The Court not only reinforced the importance of the customary international law obligation not to cause significant harm to the environment but placed this within the ‘no harm’ principle, as expressed in the Corfu Channel case. However, the Court did not expressly articulate whether there was a broader obligation of due diligence that applies not only to the prevention of environmental harm, but also to the prevention of other harms to the rights and interests of States. Due diligence is thus as a crossroads. Has the ICJ essentially sought to bridge the gap between on the one hand the notion of due diligence as an obligation on a State not to permit activities subject to its jurisdiction or control which causes harm to the rights and interests of other States, and on the other hand the notion of due diligence as a standard of conduct attached to a primary obligation? Has the Court opened the door to finding a general customary international law obligation not to cause harm to the rights and interests of other States? Or has it confined due diligence to its status as a standard of conduct attached to a primary obligation? This lecture will discuss this pivotal point which is central to the elucidation of the foundation and scope of the due diligence obligation under international law.

Dr Penelope Ridings is a Member of the International Law Commission and New Zealand Barrister practising in the field of public international law. In 2025 she was appointed the ILC Special Rapporteur for the topic ‘Due Diligence in International Law’. She was formerly New Zealand’s Chief International Legal Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and a New Zealand diplomat. She was Agent for New Zealand before the International Court of Justice in Whaling in the Antarctic: Australia v Japan, New Zealand Intervening and before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea in the Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission.

After moving to the New Zealand Bar, she has advised governments and international organisations on public international law including law of the sea, fisheries, environmental law, trade and investment, international security and international dispute settlement. She was Chair of the 2025 arbitration under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (UK-Sandeel) and Chair of the WTO appeal arbitration China – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement. She has served on several ICSID ad hoc Annulment Committees, including as Chair, and as an independent panellist in disputes before the WTO. She has lectured in international law and contributed to several books and written articles on various aspects of international law.

This lecture was delivered on 13 February 2026 and is part of the Friday Lunchtime Lecture series.