CONCEPT NOTE

70^th Session, United Nations Commission on the Status of Women Side Event 

Women’s Equal Right to Participate in the Judiciary and Women’s Access to Justice: More Women, More Access

Tuesday 10 March | International Day of Women Judges | 6:15-7:30 pm

Location: Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, 425 Lexington Ave, New York, NY 10017 | Zoom Link

Food and beverages provided from 6pm

 Background

Access to justice is a fundamental human right,[1] and States are obligated to ensure access to justice for women and girls.[2] Globally, women and girls face numerous gendered barriers to justice, whether as claimants, witnesses, victims, or defendants. Relatedly, the right to equal and inclusive participation in decision making, including the judiciary, is a fundamental human right, and States have a responsibility to appoint women to judicial roles at all levels of the judiciary.[3] Yet, around the world, men often comprise the majority of judges in domestic, regional, and international courts, particularly in the most senior judicial roles.

Women’s equal and inclusive participation in the judiciary and access to justice for women and girls are linked in several ways. The CEDAW Committee has noted that ‘[w]omen’s equal participation in the judiciary is part of what makes access to justice meaningful’ and that ‘[i]f the judiciary lacks equal participation, the system’s credibility and legitimacy are compromised’.[4] Observing that ‘gender stereotyping by judges is a “core impediment” to access to justice,’[5] the Committee called for States Parties to remove barriers to access to justice, including by ‘confront[ing] and remov[ing] barriers to women’s participation as professionals within all bodies and levels of judicial and quasi-judicial systems and providers of justice-related services.’[6]

Similarly, the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers stated that ‘discrimination against women stems not only from certain explicit regulatory obstacles but also from institutional, structural and cultural barriers that lead to underrepresentation in public decision-making positions or confinement to certain areas of the judicial system.’[7]The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that ‘[i]ncreased representation of women within the police and the judicial system as well as mainstreaming gender within the judiciary can also improve their responsiveness to gender issues and make it easier for women to seek assistance or report their cases.’[8]

Further, UN Women has observed that ‘[w]omen’s representation in the judiciary is a matter of equality and fairness, but it is also important for maintaining public confidence in the justice system. There is evidence that women judges can create more conducive environments for women in courts and can make a difference to outcomes.’[9] UNDP and UN Women have together found that there is ‘evidence that women judges are less susceptible to corruption, and their effective representation in the judiciary increases trust in the system,’[10] and that ‘[t]he mere presence of women judges enhances the legitimacy of courts, sending a powerful signal that they are open and accessible to all who seek justice’.[11]

Against this backdrop, and recalling CSW 70’s priority theme of ‘[e]nsuring and strengthening access to justice for all women and girls, including by promoting inclusive and equitable legal systems, eliminating discriminatory laws, policies, and practices, and addressing structural barriers,’ this side event aims to converge States, UN bodies, international and regional organisations, civil society, and other key stakeholders to discuss the connections between increasing gender equality for the judiciary and increasing access to justice for women and girls. Building on our previous side events focused on achieving gender parity for judges at the International Court of Justice,[12] this event invites participants to commit to achieving women’s equal and inclusive participation in the judiciary, both as a fundamental human right in itself, and as a pathway for increasing access to justice for women and girls and strengthening the protection of human rights for all.    

Structure of the event:

This is an in-person roundtable dialogue moderated by Dr. Jessica Lynn Corsi and Professor Milena Sterio. Observers may join by Zoom (Link here), and all attendees are invited to contribute following the prepared interventions.

6:00 pm food and beverages provided

6:15 pm Welcome and introduction of the topic by Dr Jessica Lynn Corsi, Associate Professor of Law, City St George’s, University of London, and Co-founder and Co-Chair, Working Group on Gender Parity for the ICJ

6:30 pm Prepared interventions

1) Ambassador Jennifer Feller, Director General for Human Rights and Democracy, Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs

2) Catherine Amirfar, Partner & Co-Chair, International Dispute Resolution and Public International Law Groups, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

3) Ms. Akila Radhakrishnan, Legal Advisor, End Gender Apartheid Campaign

4) Professor Jelena Pia-Comella, Independent Expert, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

5) Amanda Chong, Counsellor (Legal), Permanent Mission of Singapore to the United Nations

6) Ms. Amie Lewis, Senior Program Officer and Lead, Women in Leadership in Law (WILIL) Initiative, International Association of Women Judges

7) Claudia M. Flores, Chair of the UN Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls

8) Lucía Solano, Legal Adviser to the Permanent Mission of Colombia

Roundtable dialogue:

Attendees are invited to make interventions and raise questions and discussion points.

7:15 pm: Concluding remarks:

Professor Milena Sterio, James A. Thomas Distinguished Professor of Law at Cleveland State University’s Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Managing Director at the Public International Law & Policy Group, Steering Committee Member, Working Group on Gender Parity for the ICJ

7:30 pm Drinks and mingle

Organised by the Working Group on Gender Parity for the ICJ and the ABILA Committee on Gender Justice in International Law

Co-sponsored by the Permanent Mission of Canada, the Permanent Mission of Colombia, the Permanent Mission of Kenya, the Permanent Mission of Mexico, the Permanent Mission of Singapore, the Permanent Mission of Sweden, and the International Association of Women Judges 

With support from UN Women UK

Kindly hosted by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Register here

[1] UDHR, Arts 8, 10; ICCPR Art 14.

[2] CEDAW Arts 2, 15; UDHR Arts 2, 7.

[3] CEDAW Arts 7, 8; CEDAW GR 40 2024 paras 18, 49, 52, 53, 56, 72; CEDAW GR23 1997, paras 26, 29.

[4] CEDAW GR33 2015, para 1.

[5] CEDAW GR33 2015, para 26.

[6] CEDAW GR33 2015, para 15(f); see also CEDAW GR30 2013 para 56(c).

[7] A/76/142: Participation of women in the administration of justice – Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Diego García-Sayán, para 17.

[8] Women’s Rights are Human Rights, HR/PUB/14/2, 2014, p. 117.

[9] UN Women, Progress of the world’s women: In pursuit of justice, 2011, p. 61.

[10] UNDP and UN Women, Women in Justice in Africa, 2023, p. 4.

[11] UNDP and UN Women, Women in Justice in Africa, 2023, p. 6.

[12] CONCEPT NOTE, 79th Session, United Nations 6th Committee Expert Roundtable Side Event, More Women, But Not Enough Women: Achieving Gender Parity for Judges at the International Court of Justice, 24 October 2024, https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/79/pdfs/events/25_october_2024_7cn.pdf; CONCEPT NOTE, 80th Session, United Nations 6th Committee Expert Roundtable Side Event, The Right to Equal and Inclusive Participation and the International Court of Justice: Where are the Women?, https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/80/pdfs/events/31_october_2025_4cn.pdf.

The post EVENT – Women’s Equal Right to Participate in the Judiciary and Women’s Access to Justice: More Women, More Access appeared first on ABILA.

Monday, March 23, 2026

12:00 PM CST

Location: Zoom

This panel will briefly discuss the outcomes of the Preparatory Committee for the Crimes Against Humanity Convention, held from January 19-30, and the work of the ABILA Study Group on Crimes Against Humanity, which published a series of 14 proposals and position papers submitted to the Preparatory Committee during its first session. Panelists will discuss specific proposals on environmental harm, gender crimes, and starvation, as well as proposals to help make the treaty more effective, including inter-state dispute resolution, the possibility of a treaty monitoring body, and shoring up the prevention and capacity-building dimensions of the draft convention.

Moderator:

Professor Leila Nadya Sadat, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law

Speakers:

Professor Olympia Bekou, University of Nottingham School of Law & Human Rights Law Centre

Professor Tom Dannenbaum, Stanford Law School & Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation

Mr. Youssef Hitti, Permanent Mission of Lebanon to the United Nations 

Professor Christopher Lentz, University of Chicago Law School; Register of Damage for Ukraine

Ms. Akila Radhakrishnan, International Human Rights Lawyer

REGISTER HERE

The post Webinar: Towards an Effective and Universal Convention on Crimes Against Humanity appeared first on ABILA.

The observation that these are challenging times for international law and that armed conflict is the crucible in which so many of the challenges arise has graduated to the level of cliche and truism. On a more granular level, debate centers on whether the norms of International Humanitarian Law (the law of armed conflict) are still fit for purpose, and on whether there exists a critical mass of compliance and political will to enforce the law. The panel will explore these propositions in contemporary contexts, including the so-called “War on Terror,” Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Venezuela and U.S. drug boat strikes, among others.

Moderator:

Gabor Rona, Professor of Practice, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Chair, ABILA International Humanitarian Law Committee

Speakers:

Janina Dill, Dame Louise Richardson Chair in Global Security, Blavatnik School of Government; Fellow at Trinity College and Co-Director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict (ELAC)
Cordula Droege, Chief Legal Officer and Head of the Legal Division, International Committee of the Red Cross
Oona A. Hathaway, Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School; President-Elect, American Society of International Law
Mike Schmitt, Professor of International Law, University of Reading School of Law; Affiliate, Harvard Law School’s Program on International Law and Armed Conflict; Retired USAF Judge Advocate

Registration for this webinar is free and open to anyone. Only those who attend the live broadcast will be eligible for NY CLE. The application for NY CLE accreditation is currently pending.

Register HERE or by clicking the poster above.

The post CLE Webinar: A Report Card on the Laws of Armed Conflict appeared first on ABILA.

This blog is part of a series of reflections on ILW 2025 by our Student Ambassadors. Each Student Ambassador engaged with various panels and will share their experiences in the lead up to ILW-West 2026.

What is a state? Ostensibly, the answer is straightforward: defined by the declaratory approach in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. Indeed, the Montevideo Convention holds that a state is a “person of international law” if it has these four elements: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) a government; and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Others may point to alternative theories, such as the constitutive theory of statehood, which holds that only recognition by other states creates legal statehood, rather than a set of elements. While various ideas of statehood differ in theory, most have historically relied on the assumption that a state will occupy its own established sovereign territory.

But how do we define a state when its established territory disappears before our eyes? What happens when a state’s former territory is destroyed and essentially uninhabitable? While there may be answers to these questions under international rules of war and conquest, can we say the same for climate change-induced sea-level rise? At International Law Weekend 2025, the panel entitled “Keeping Sinking States Afloat: The Crisis of Climate Change-Induced Sea-Level Rise and the International Legal Framework” tackled this complex issue. The panel of experts, including Michael Gerrard, Benjamin Salas Kantor, Vui Gemma Nelson, Eran Sthoeger, and Patrícia Galvão Teles, led by moderator Claire Robertson, discussed the future of recognition under international law for states at risk of losing territory to climate change. In particular, this panel sought to analyze whether climate change-induced sea-level rise should serve as a “catalyst” for changes to traditional frameworks of statehood. However, while discussing theoretical approaches to state territory loss, the panelists never lost sight of the human aspect of this issue. While states are at risk of losing power and standing on the international stage, it is the people living in these states who will lose the most.

Notably, Salas Kantor began his assessment by calling for a departure from strict adherence to the Montevideo Convention’s statehood framework. His key concern involving the current Montevideo system was that there are no definitional legal statehood criteria for states that permanently lose their territory. Instead, the Montevideo Convention treats the territory a state occupies as almost a key anchor in its claim to legal statehood. Articles 1, 9, and 11 all make direct references to a state’s territory in connection with its legal claim to statehood. It is almost as if the convention assumes that a state will not make a legal claim to statehood without territory. Instead of a declaratory approach, Salas Kantor posited that the international community should follow the “effectiveness” theory of state recognition. In this theory, a state’s effective control over factors such as its population or government will be the key to determining whether a state exists, rather than strict adherence to the four Montevideo factors. Under the effectiveness theory, a state would not lose statehood if its territory became inaccessible due to climate change. Sthoeger also described his assessment of the current international legal standards for statehood. In his view, when the traditional statehood factors are no longer met, this might not result in an automatic loss of statehood. In fact, there may be a transitional period in which the state retains its status while no longer controlling a territory.

In contrast, Nelson emphasized the importance of fighting to preserve existing state territories, particularly for certain island nations. Nelson called specific attention to the cultural significance of the land for Samoa and the Samoan people. Samoa is an island state that is in danger of losing its territory to climate change, either through rising sea levels or related habitat loss. The word for “land” and for “blood” is the same in Samoan (‘ele’ele), Nelson noted, remarking on the deep cultural significance of the land to the Samoan people. Losing the island state’s territory to the effects of climate change would not only damage Samoa’s legal claim to statehood but also irreparably harm its people culturally. While forward-looking legal analyses of continuing statehood are useful, the international community should not abandon efforts to combat climate change’s effects and preserve existing state territory. According to Nelson, Indigenous rights and heritage should remain a priority for policymakers when making decisions related to continuing statehood.

Galvão Teles then discussed key takeaways from the International Law Commission’s (ILC) recent report on sea-level rise in relation to international law. The ILC began studying this topic after the U.N. General Assembly acknowledged and passed resolutions describing the existential threat of climate change-induced rising sea levels in several sessions between 2015 and 2024. The ILC concluded that state continuation practice, especially those related to climate change, is still developing. As a result, Galvão Teles noted, it is challenging to reach concrete legal conclusions regarding how this practice may operate in the future. Galvão Teles also observed that the Montevideo recognition factors describe a state’s creation, not necessarily specific state continuation practices when its territory is lost. As such, there is no international legal principle stating that states cannot continue to exist as legal entities even with partial or total submersion of land territory.

Following the discussion on the ILC report, Gerrard reflected on states’ continuity options for their populations in light of partial or total land submersion. One option would be to move the state’s population to another state that allows them to live within its territory. The submerged state’s citizens would have to somehow assimilate into the host country’s society and cease to be citizens of their country of origin. This would not be a continuation of the submerged state, but it would allow the state’s former citizens to survive. An example of this concept in practice, Gerrard stated, was in the 1980s, with many individuals from the Marshall Islands permanently resettling in Arkansas due to economic and environmental strife. Many of these individuals became U.S. citizens or otherwise assimilated into American culture to survive after being displaced from their home state.

Another method, Gerrard noted, would be for a willing host state to cede some of its territory to the displaced state. The displaced state would then move its citizens into this ceded territory and reestablish itself. Separately, Gerrard also reminded the audience of the concept of association with another state, in which two states merge their territories to create a single state combining both territories. Gerrard cited Zanzibar and Tanganyika’s 1964 unification as an example of this concept in action.

Gerrard’s proposed state continuation options prompted several responses from fellow panelists. Sthoeger highlighted the dependence of several continuity approaches on the goodwill of host states toward displaced populations. Galvão Teles and Nelson expressed concerns about inadequate protections for migrants, with Galvão Teles emphasizing the need to reform nationality laws and humanitarian visa processes. Nelson also raised questions about territorial equity, positing that host countries would relegate displaced populations to inferior lands, particularly noting that former colonizers would likely offer inequitable arrangements. As an alternative approach, Salas Kantor suggested implementing land lease agreements rather than permanent territorial transfers for resettlement areas.

Closing out the panel, Nelson reminded the audience of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) July 2025 Advisory Opinion. This opinion establishes that all states have a legal duty to mitigate climate change and prevent significant harm to the climate. In that sense, it is the legal responsibility of all states to collaborate and prevent these states from disappearing. Rather than focusing solely on post-displacement solutions, the international community must prioritize its collective obligation to address the root causes of climate change. The ICJ opinion ultimately underscored that while the legal frameworks for state continuation analyzed by the panelists deserve serious consideration, states’ primary responsibility remains preventing territory loss altogether.

*Vibha Bangarbale is a rising 2L at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. She is a recipient of the Hugo Grotius International Law Fellowship scholarship and has served as a researcher at the Cox International Law Center. She holds an M.A. in International Affairs with a concentration in International Law and Organizations from The George Washington University and a B.A. in Global Affairs from George Mason University. At the CWRU School of Law, Vibha has taken on leadership roles, serving as Vice President of the South Asian Law Students Association and Secretary of the International Law Society.

The post ILW25 Panel Reflection: Keeping Sinking States Afloat: The Crisis of Climate Change-Induced Sea-Level Rise and the International Legal Framework appeared first on ABILA.

This blog is part of a series of reflections on ILW 2025 by our Student Ambassadors. Each Student Ambassador engaged with various panels and will share their experiences in the lead up to ILW-West 2026.

From the growing wave of states renegotiating bilateral investment treaties to critics decrying the expanding powers of arbitral tribunals, the international arbitration landscape is undergoing rapid transformation. Meanwhile, international bodies like the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development push for multilateral treaty reforms, and a surge in renewable energy cases against European countries further fuels the debate. With these developments reshaping the conversation, four esteemed panelists gathered at International Law Weekend to tackle a critical question: Does investment arbitration, as it stands, hinder or help efforts to combat climate change?

David Attanasio, partner at Womble Bond Dickinson and Co-Chair of ABILA’s International Investment Law Committee, opened the discussion by providing context on recent criticisms of investment treaties and the European Union’s efforts to modernize the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Given the ECT’s role in providing “a multilateral framework for energy cooperation,” he underscored the importance of these reform efforts in combating climate change by reducing protections for hydrocarbon investments and expanding exceptions for regulatory measures aimed at environmental protection, which in turn helps counter regulatory chill. Additionally, the reforms aim to terminate the ECT’s protections for new fossil fuel investments while phasing out protections for existing investments. According to Mr. Attanasio, these substantive modifications were implemented with the understanding that investment arbitration poses a significant barrier to climate change mitigation. The rationale is clear: investors challenge climate change regulation through investment arbitration, thereby discouraging states from enacting legislation in this area.

Having set the stage for an engaging discussion, Sven Volkmer, a partner with White & Case’s international arbitration practice, provided an overview of the types of climate-related state actions that have given rise to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases. Mr. Volkmer’s discourse centered on three notable categories of disputes. The first category involves disputes arising from states’ efforts to phase out fossil fuels, as exemplified by Rockhopper v. Italy. Brought under the ECT, this case concerned a ban on oil production off the Italian coast and a subsequent denial of the British claimant’s oil concession, despite the claimant having completed exploration and steps to secure the concession. While the tribunal in this case ultimately sided with the claimant, it acknowledged the tension between the state’s right to regulate and its obligations under the ECT.

The second category addressed disputes arising from states’ decisions to scale back renewable energy incentives, such as in the recent cases against Spain. The third, albeit smaller, category concerns disputes triggered by inadequate state action to protect the environment and address climate change. An illustrative example is Allard v. Barbados, in which the claimants, who had invested in an ecotourism project, argued unsuccessfully that the state had failed to uphold its environmental protection commitments.

In light of the growing number of climate-related investment disputes, Jovana Crnčević, Special Counsel (International Arbitration and Public International Law) at Withers LLP,  weighed in on whether the ISDS mechanism is fit for purpose. She highlighted the paradox of expecting states to take decisive action on climate change while risking paying investors billions of dollars in damages. Moreover, with ICSID reporting record numbers of international arbitration disputes, an increasing share of which pertain to the oil and mining sectors, there is little doubt that investment tribunals will be continuously summoned to adjudicate these disputes. Ms. Crnčević then examined efforts to address the asymmetry between investors and states, particularly through host state counterclaims. She noted that the requirement of a manifest factual connection, as well as some treaty language supporting counterclaims, has produced mixed results in enabling states to bring counterclaims against investors.

She continued, citing several notable examples: the tribunal in Urbaser v. Argentina confirmed that states can bring counterclaims, while in Burlington v. Ecuador and Perenco v. Ecuador, the arbitral tribunals factored investors’ environmentally detrimental actions into their cost assessments. These cases, she concluded, suggest a likely increase in states’ use of counterclaims. Another effort by states involves embedding, in new bilateral investment treaties, explicit rights for states to regulate on environmental matters, reinforcing states’ continued cooperation on climate change mitigation. These actions also have the secondary effect of giving investment tribunals practical experience with climate-related and environmental issues. As a result, arbitral tribunals may increasingly be called upon to address unique and intricate factual situations, making investment arbitration better suited to adjudicating climate-related disputes.

Afterwards, Daniel Reich, partner at Paul Weiss’s international arbitration practice, opined on whether the wider community should be concerned about ISDS and how international arbitration can contribute to combating climate change. He noted that, despite its flaws, the ISDS system does more to support climate change action than to hamper it. In addition to its traditional goals of avoiding conflict and promoting economic development, and contrary to the regulatory chill criticism, he stressed that climate change can, in fact, encourage green investment. Tackling climate change requires investing in the green economy, and for states to attract the foreign capital necessary to meet their climate objectives, investors must be confident that their investments will be protected. Mr. Reich argued that ISDS remains the most effective mechanism for providing such protections and observed that it has not resulted in substantial regulatory chill. He emphasized that, although ISDS can lead to sizeable awards, this should be viewed in context: states prevail in the majority of disputes, and they typically adhere to their international legal obligations without triggering arbitration. Moreover, with no feasible alternatives currently available to address the urgent climate crisis, systemic reform is necessary.

In a bid to tie their contributions together, the panelists discussed the impact of the International Court of Justice’s recent advisory opinion, which reiterates states’ duty to undertake actions to curtail the harmful effects of climate change. They concluded that this opinion, although not binding, exacerbates tensions between states’ obligations under investment treaties and their international climate responsibilities. The panelists also explored how national law can impede state responses to climate change, citing Vattenfall v. Germany as an example. In this case, the German constitutional court held that the government’s rapid policy shifts in the area of nuclear energy policy violated the investor’s legitimate expectations, similarly to the protection guaranteed under investment treaties. The Vattenfall case, according to the panelists, emphasized the broader implications of state responses to climate change, illustrating that domestic legal systems can offer investor safeguards similar to those provided by investment treaties in the context of climate change.

Having covered several salient points on whether investment arbitration facilitates or hinders climate change efforts, the panelists opened the floor for questions that spanned the breadth of their contributions. Their responses resounded with a clear message: so long as investment plays a key role in addressing climate change, an efficient ISDS system is essential. In the words of Mr. Reich, “reform is important, and we need to get it right.”

*Chioma Menankiti is an LLM candidate at Harvard Law School. She previously earned a Master’s in Economic Law from Sciences Po Paris, specializing in Global Business Law and Governance, as well as a Bachelor’s degree in Politics and International Relations from the same university. Her professional experience at law firms and international institutions—including the OECD, UNCTAD, and ICSID—along with her participation in the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot, has deepened her interest in international arbitration and investment law, particularly in investment treaty reform.

The post ILW25 Panel Reflection: Does Investment Arbitration Impede Climate Change? appeared first on ABILA.

2025 Student Ambassadors and ABILA Membership Officer Julia Liston

On Thursday, October 23, 2025, before the Presidential Opening Plenary, the Emerging Voices session was held at the New York City Bar Association. Mark Janis (William F. Starr Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law) acted as the discussant, and Christine Carpenter (PhD Candidate, University of Cambridge) moderated the session. The speakers were Kazım Berkay Arslan (Associate, Kabine Law Office LLP), Annika Knauer (Research Fellow and PhD Candidate, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg), Emmanuel U. Osayande (dual JD-PhD Candidate, Columbia Law School and Harvard University), and Naida Softić (PhD Candidate and Teaching Instructor, Loyola University, Chicago).

2025 Emerging Voices

The Presidential Opening Plenary was held on Thursday evening, October 23, 2025. Amity Boye (President-Elect, ABILA), Leila Nadya Sadat (Chair, ABILA), and Muhammad U. Faridi (President, New York City Bar Association) gave welcome remarks. The Presidential Opening Plenary interviewee was Ana Peryó Llopis, Principal Legal Officer at the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs. Michael P. Scharf (President, ABILA) interviewed Ms. Peryó Llopis about her career, the United Nations funding crisis, and recently issued Advisory Opinions. An audience question-and-answer session and a drinks reception for all attendees followed her interview.

Ana Peryó Llopis and Michael P. Scharf; Amity Boye

On Friday, October 24, 2025, the day began with a Women’s Networking Breakfast, co-sponsored by ArbitralWomen, the American Society of International Law’s Women in International Law Interest Group, Arnold & Porter LLP, and Low & Kinnear Dispute Resolution. The Friday Keynote was titled ‘The Future of International Arbitration,’ and featured Meg Kinnear (Co-Founder, Low & Kinnear Dispute Resolution), Lucinda Low (Co-Founder, Low & Kinnear Dispute Resolution), and Mélida Hogdson (Partner, Anrold & Porter LLP; President, ASIL). Joseph Landau (Dean and Paul Fuller Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law) gave welcome remarks.

Meg Kinnear, Lucinda Low, and Mélida Hodgson; Joseph Landau

On Friday, October 24, 2025, the panels were:

• Customary International Law: What Role Can It Play in Responding to Contemporary Global Crises? (chaired by Brian D. Lepard)
• UN Roundtable: Leading Diplomats Reflect on the UN at 80 (chaired by Floriane Lavaud; sponsored by Withers LLP)
• The Digital Divide in International Cyber Law (chaired by Christine Carpenter)
• Crisis, Courts, and Sovereigns: Rethinking Immunity and Enforcement in a Shifting Global Order (co-chaired by Alec Albright and Beatrice Walton)
• Planning a Career in International Law (chaired by Taylor Kilpatrick)
• International Tribunals and Cultural Heritage Destruction: War Crimes, Persecution, Genocide & Discrimination (chaired by Anne-Marie Carstens)
• The International Criminal Court: Surviving the Onslaught? (chaired by Patrick J. Keenan)
• The WTO and the Pandemic Agreement: A Simulation of the TRIPS Council During a Pandemic Emergency (chaired by Matthew Carvalho)
• General Counsel Roundtable: Local Practice on a Global Scale (chaired by Randel Young; sponsored by Womble Bond Dickinson LLP)
• From Ambition to Action? The Sustainable Development Goals Ten Years On (chaired by Perpétua Chéry)
• A “New” Role for the International Court of Justice? (chaired by Francesco Messineo)
• Negotiating the Future Crimes Against Humanity Treaty: Paradigm Shift or Half-Measure? (chaired by Leila Nadya Sadat)
• Towards “Un-Crisis” Thinking in Global Migration Law (chaired by Monica Iyer)
• Taking Stock of the World Trading System (chaired by Richard H. Steinberg)
• International Organization Secretariats as Crisis Managers and Change-Makers (chaired by Michael J. Moffatt)
• AI and International Humanitarian Law: Emerging Norms (chaired by Duncan Hollis)
• Creative Solutions for Accountability for Gender-Based Violence and Other Crimes in International Law (chaired by Esti Tambay)
• The Second Century of the Federal Arbitration Act (chaired by H. Christopher Boehning)
• Narrative Strategies in International Environmental Law (chaired by Megan Corrarino)

International Tribunals and Cultural Heritage Destruction: War Crimes, Persecution, Genocide & Discrimination; The Second Century of the Federal Arbitration Act

On Friday evening, October 24, 2025, the Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations in New York City hosted a Reception at 466 Lexington Avenue. Leila Nadya Sadat, Valerie Oosterveld (Professor and Research Chair in International Criminal Justice, University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law), and Beatrice Maille (Minister-Counsellor and Legal Adviser, Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations in New York City) gave remarks.

Beatrice Maille; the Canadian Mission

Saturday, October 25, 2025, opened with a Member’s Meeting and the ABILA Annual Award Presentations. Brenda Hollis received the ABILA Outstanding Achievement Award, and her colleague, JC Johnson, accepted the award on her behalf. Read her remarks here. Houston Putnam Lowry received the Charles Siegal Distinguished Service Award. The ABILA Book of the Year Award went to José E. Alvarez and Judith Bauder for Women’s Property Rights Under CEDAW (OUP); the ABILA Award for a Book on a Practical or Technical Subject went to Sir Michael Wood and Omri Sender for Identification of Customary International Law (OUP); the ABILA Book Award for a First-time Author went to Erin Pobjie for Prohibited Force: The meaning of “Use of Force” in International Law (CUP); and the ABILA Best Edited Volume Award went to Alejandro Chehtman, Alexandra Huneeus, and Sergio Puig for Latin American International Law in the Twenty-First Century (OUP). Read more about their awards here.

JC Johnson accepting Brenda Hollis’ Outstanding Achievement Award; Erin Pobjie accepting the ABILA Book Award for a First-time Author

Sir Howard Morrison (Former Judge with the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; UK Advisor on war crimes to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General) gave the Saturday lunch keynote over Zoom. William Aceves (Chief Justice Roger Traynor Professor of Law, California Western School of Law).

William Aceves introducing Sir Howard Morrison

On Saturday, October 25, 2025, the panels were:

• Public Health and Human Rights: New Tensions and Synergies (chaired by Warren Binford)
• What Today’s Wars Mean for Tomorrow’s International Legal Order (chaired by Gabor Rona)
• Toward a Regional Human Rights Framework in the Middle East: Aspirations, Realities, and Lessons from Comparative Regionalism (chaired by Harout Ekmanian)
• Global Energy Governance – Strategic Weapon or Tool for Peace? (chaired by Frédéric Sourgens)
• Keeping Sinking States Afloat: The Crisis of Climate Change-Induced Sea-Level Rise and the International Legal Framework (chaired by Claire Robertson)
• Combatting State Hostage-Taking through International Law (chaired by Beatrice Maille)
• Global Business at a Crossroads: Navigating a New Fragmented Reality (chaired by William Burke-White)
• The Role of Civil Society in the Face of the Crisis of the International Legal Order (chaired by Margaret E. McGuinness)
• Does Investor-State Arbitration Impede Responses to Climate Change? (chaired by David L. Attanasio)
• Crimes Against the Environment, Nature, and Biodiversity – Progresses and Gaps in the Law of International and Transnational Crimes (chaired by Milena Sterio)
• Jessup Compromis/Q&A (chaired by Michael Peil)
• State Capture and Kleptocracy: Reimagining International Law On Anti-Corruption in an Age of Kleptocracy (chaired by Belén Aguinaga)
• The Force of Law for Good: Renewing the Global Commitment to Pro Bono (chaired by Amity Boye)
• Charting the Deep: An Oxford-Style Debate on the Future of Seabed Governance (chaired by Konstantine Kopaliani)
• Hot Topic: The Legality of Military Strikes on Drug Traffickers (chaired by Michael P. Scharf)
• Pathways to Employment in International Law (co-chaired by Angela Benson and Michael Peil)

Global Energy Governance – Strategic Weapon or Tool for Peace?; International Law Weekend 2025 audience

The American Branch extends its gratitude to the 2025 ILW Program Committee, composed of: William Aceves (Co-Chair, California Western School of Law), Amity Boye (Co-Chair, ABILA), Jessica Peake (Co-Chair, UCLA Law), Christine Carpenter (University of Cambridge), Perpétua Chéry (ABILA), Megan Corrarino (Just Security), Julia K. Eppard (Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP), M. Imad Khan (Winston & Strawn LLP), Konstantine Kopaliani (White & Case LLP), Brady Mabe (International Committee of the Red Cross), S. Priya Morley (NYU School of Law), Douglas Pivnichny (United Nations), Lisa Reinsberg (International Justice Resource Center), Christine Ryan (Columbia Law School), Alveena Shah (University of Pittsburgh School of Law), Milena Sterio (Cleveland State University College of Law), Peter Tzeng (Foley Hoag LLP), and Elisabeth Wickeri (Fordham University School of Law).

Michael P. Scharf, M. Imad Khan, Jessica Peake, William Aceves, Amity Boye, Leila Nadya Sadat, Lisa Reinsberg, and Freya Doughty-Wagner

The American Branch also gratefully acknowledges the generous support of the following sponsors of ILW 2025: American Bar Association International Law Section, the American Society of International Law, ArbitralWomen, University of Baltimore School of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Brill Publishing, California Western School of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Chaffetz Lindsey LLP, University of Chicago Law School, Columbia Law School, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Ford & Paulekas LLP, Fordham University School of Law, Freshfields LLP, Georgetown Law, University of Georgia School of Law Dean Rusk International Law Center, Harvard Law School, the International Law Students Association, Just Security, King & Spalding LLP, New York University School of Law, University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law, University of Pittsburgh Law, Seton Hill Law School, The Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Toppan Merrill, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, and Winston & Strawn LLP.

The post International Law Weekend 2025 Overview appeared first on ABILA.

Acceptance Remarks

Delivered 25 October 2025 (reward accepted by JC Johnson)

Thank you for honoring me with this award. It is an honor to be recognized in this way, but even more of an honor to have been nominated by outstanding professionals who are deserving of the award based on the contributions each has made to the development of international criminal law. And to stand in the company of such distinguished former recipients, who have made immeasurable contributions to the advancement of international law.

I write to you from Ukraine, where the men and women of the investigative and prosecutorial branches of the Ukrainian government continue to advance the rule of law in most challenging times. So, to my regret, I cannot be with you to thank you in person.  Jim Johnson, my longtime friend and colleague, is accepting the award on my behalf. Jim has himself made significant contributions to international criminal law, and I thank you, Jim, for standing in for me today.

It is of particular significance to me that  I receive this honor at a conference dedicated to exploring how crises can shape international law.  My involvement in investigation and prosecution of international crimes has been possible because of the international community’s response to crises – those arising from the horrific crimes of the Nazis in WWII, those carried out against the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Ukraine, Palestine and Israel, and of too many other countries.

The response to each of these crises, and the efforts of the exceptional men and women who ensured the effective implementation of these responses,  has shaped international criminal law as we know it today.

I accept this honor with great humility, for many reasons. First and foremost because I am being given an award for work I have been privileged to do, both as an Air Force officer and judge advocate who prosecuted crimes, and as a prosecutor at several international criminal tribunals and courts. It is my great and continuing privilege to be part of the effort to bring some measure of justice to victims of life altering crimes, and some measure of accountability to those responsible for these crimes.

Also, because throughout my career in the Air Force and at the international criminal courts and tribunals, I have had the privilege of working with gifted, dedicated women and men.  Women and men who have remained steadfast in their commitment to the rule of law, and to the most critical component of justice and accountability measures  – independent, impartial investigation and prosecution based on facts and law, not on political affiliations or beliefs.  I accept this award on their behalf.

Finally, and most importantly, I accept this award with great humility because the true recipients of the award are the victims of these horrific crimes, who have been subjected to wrongs the magnitude of which we cannot imagine.  Old and young, male and female –  killed, tortured, raped, mutilated, displaced, suffering individual harm and witnessing the horrors inflicted on family members, friends and communities – and forced to pick up their lives after experiencing such suffering.  Their strength and resilience are indeed humbling. I dedicate the award to them.

Thanks once again to all of you.  Keep up the critical work of enforcing universal norms of behavior, and speaking out and acting against those who violate those norms and inflict such suffering and chaos globally.

The post 2025 ABILA Outstanding Achievement Acceptance Remarks – Brenda Hollis appeared first on ABILA.

The right to equal participation in decision making is a fundamental human right enshrined in international law, including in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic Social, and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. In its General Recommendation 40 (GR40) issued in October 2024, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (the CEDAW Committee) made it clear that this right applies to international judiciaries. GR40 notes that despite the fundamental nature of this right, States do not enforce it. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is one such example. In the almost 80 years of the court, only 5.22% of its permanent judges have been women, the rest men, and no data is known regarding other genders. Justice systems should reflect the diversity of the societies they serve, and the ICJ is no exception. Known as the ‘World Court’, the historical and ongoing overrepresentation of one gender on its bench demonstrates its lack of representativeness.

This panel discussion will focus on the need for gender parity on the ICJ bench from a human rights lens with a special focus on the right to equal participation in decision making and in the international judiciary. Panelists will discuss the causes and consequences of women’s absence from the ICJ bench and assess barriers to ICJ judicial gender parity and how to overcome them. The discussion will address gender-based discrimination and gendered barriers to the fulfillment of other human rights that may impede the effective exercise of judicial participation rights for women. One year on from GR40, and one year away from the November 2026 ICJ judicial election, it is time to turn the recommendation into reality.

Moderators:

Jessica Corsi: Dr. Jessica Lynn Corsi is a Senior Lecturer in Law at The City Law School and a founding faculty member at City’s interdisciplinary Violence and Society Centre. At the Centre, she is a Co-Investigator on VISION, a 5 year £7.1 million multi-institution consortium grant from the UKPRP. VISION focuses on how improving measurement and data can contribute to reducing violence and health inequalities in society and support the recovery of victims of violence. Co-Chair of the ABILA Gender Justice in International Law Committee.

Milena Sterio: Milena Sterio, the James A. Thomas Distinguished Professor of Law at Cleveland State University’s Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and Managing Director at the PILPG. She is a leading expert on international law, international criminal law and human rights. Sterio leads PILPG’s Thought Leadership Initiative. Co-Chair of the ABILA Gender Justice in International Law Committee.

Speakers:

J. Jarpa Dawuni: J. Jarpa Dawuni is a Full Professor of Political Science at Howard University, Washington DC. She is a qualified Barrister-at-Law before the Ghana Superior Courts. She holds a Doctorate in Political Science from Georgia State University. Her primary areas of research include judicial politics, women in the legal professions, gender and the law, international human rights, women’s civil society organizing, and democratization.

Margaret M. deGuzman: Margaret M. deGuzman is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Institute for International Law and Public Policy at Temple University Beasley School of Law. She also serves as a judge of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, where she currently sits on the Trial Chamber in The Prosecutor v. Félicien Kabuga. Professor deGuzman’s research focuses on international criminal law, international humanitarian law, human rights, and transitional justice.

Claudia Martin: Professor Claudia Martin is Professorial Lecturer in Residence and Co-Director of the Academy on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. In addition, she is the Co-Director of the LL.M. Program in International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. She teaches and specializes in international law, international human rights law, and the Inter-American Human Rights System. She is also a founding member of GQUAL, a campaign to promote gender parity representation in international court and organs, and serves as a member of the campaign’s Secretariat.

Valerie Oosterveld: Valerie Oosterveld is a Professor at Western Law and Western Research Chair in International Criminal Justice (2024-2028). Her research and writing focus on gender issues within international criminal justice and she has published widely in this field, including on the concept of gender in international criminal law and the interpretation of sexual and gender-based crimes by international criminal courts and tribunals. She also researches outer space law, particularly international environmental space law, space mining, state responsibility in space, armed conflict in space, a feminist analysis of space law, and Canadian space law.

REGISTER HERE

The post The Right to Equal Participation in the Judiciary and the International Court of Justice: Where are the Women? – a Pre ILW Webinar appeared first on ABILA.

The post The Rule of Law in International Relations – A Pre ILW Webinar appeared first on ABILA.

ABILA Outstanding Achievement Award

The ABILA Outstanding Achievement Award was established to recognize outstanding contributions in the field of international law. Such contributions might include, but are not limited to service to an international organization, a State, or an international court or tribunal; or to teaching, research, or scholarship in the field of international law. While candidates are reviewed comprehensively, factors considered may include consideration of an individual’s specific extraordinary service initiatives and/or sustained superior contributions to the field of international law over a number of years, as well as visionary and innovative leadership.

2025 Recipient: Brenda Hollis

Brenda Hollis is currently serving as Principal Trial Lawyer (D-1 level), Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court, in which capacity she leads the investigation into possible international crimes committed in Ukraine, reporting directly to the ICC Prosecutor. Prior to assuming her duties with the ICC OTP, Ms. Hollis served as the International Co-Prosecutor of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia from July 2019 until July 2022, having been the Reserve International Co-Prosecutor from April 2015. Prior to her appointment as the ECCC’s International Co-Prosecutor, she was the Prosecutor of both the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (2010–2019). After serving as a legal consultant to the SCSL Prosecutor in 2002, 2003 and 2006, in February 2007 she became lead prosecutor in the case against former Liberian President, Charles Taylor and continued to lead the prosecution of that case until the appeal was concluded in 2013.

From 1994 to 2001, Ms. Hollis held various positions in the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, including that of Co-Counsel in the Duško Tadić case, the first litigated case in an international criminal tribunal since the Nuremberg trials, lead prosecutor in both the reopening of the Furundžija case, in which rape was charged as torture, and the preparatory stage of the case against former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević. Ms. Hollis has trained judges, prosecutors, and investigators in Cambodia, Indonesia, and Iraq. She also assisted victims of international crimes in Colombia and in the Democratic Republic of Congo to prepare submissions requesting investigations by the International Criminal Court. Before entering the international arena, Ms. Hollis was a US Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa, and served as an officer in the US Air Force, initially as an Air Intelligence Briefing Officer and then as a Judge Advocate, the latter primarily as a prosecutor at the trial and appellate level, retiring with the rank of Colonel.

The post 2025 ABILA Award Winners appeared first on ABILA.