The signature topic of “beyond national jurisdiction” stems from the recognition that there are still significant governance gaps in the international legal system. Given that human activity is now extending into different geographic areas as well as into the “virtual environment” of cyberspace, the need arises to coordinate and potentially to regulate such activity.

Welcome to what promises to be a great panel. My name is Jill Goldenziel and I am associate professor of international law and international relations at Marine Corps University – Command and Staff College. My views today are my own and do not represent those of my University or any arm of the U.S. government. We are fortunate to have such esteemed panelists here today to discuss this important topic in one of the meeting's premier rooms.

It is a tremendous honor being here today and participating in this esteemed panel on the “Law (and Politics) of Displacement,” which Jill Goldenziel has organized. I would like to share some research Umut Özsu and I are working on. This is a work in progress, but I still think its outlines are worth discussion, by way of historical background. I hope the project also demonstrates quite well why several of us at the International Migration Law Interest Group at the American Society of International Law have been thinking that migration should become more central to the discipline of international law; as central, say, as international humanitarian law.

Today, the world is facing the highest numbers of internally displaced persons and refugees since at least World War II. Addressing this crisis involves several challenges regarding the law and politics of displacement. To see how this plays out, it is helpful to zero in on a particular case. The case of the Rohingya minority from Myanmar who have been pushed out into Bangladesh is a particularly acute case, one involving atrocity crimes and ethnic cleansing.

Alice Farmer discussed the UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) long-standing and strengthening work to address forced migration from Central America within the context of the current international legal regime. In keeping with the panel's theme, she noted that international refugee law was written in the wake of World War II, in a time when the nature of persecution looks very different than it does today. With 68.5 million forcibly displaced people in the world—an all-time high—many of the solutions that the UNHCR has used in the past are not viable anymore. The numbers we are seeing now will be dwarfed in a few decades as climate change displacement rises. Fixing our stressed legal regime is urgent.

For a start, I would like to thank Veronika Fikfak for the invitation and initiating this panel. In my brief remarks, I aim to do three things. First, I would like to discuss briefly the development of the relationship between “cities and international law” and consequently the formation of a new research field. I will illustrate this formation by mentioning briefly two projects I am leading with friend and colleague Helmut Aust (Berlin): the ILA Study Group on “The Role of Cities in International Law” and a research handbook on the theme of cities and international law. I will end with some remarks regarding a paper I am currently working on: “The Urban Pushback”. The relationship between cities and international law is complex and multi-faceted. For the purpose of this Conference's Panel, my remarks focus on how international law has become an instrument of cities.

I am going to say a few brief words this afternoon about one of the great myths in American constitutional law. That is the myth that the federal government has exclusive power over foreign affairs, the myth that the United States is always required to speak internationally with one voice. That myth is flat wrong. It is belied by the constitutional text, by subsequent practice, and by the functional purposes of federalism. Consider each in turn.

I am going to discuss today three issues relating to the One Voice Doctrine arising from “Brexit” which is short for the British Exit from the European Union.

The scale and impact of disasters is rising exponentially, with insurance sector cost estimates for “natural” disasters increasing from $188 billion (2016) to $300 billion (2017). In response, the global shift since the 1990s, reflected in the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (2015–2030), has been toward concentrating resources on disaster prevention and mitigation, including through improved preparedness and response mechanisms.

As the purpose of this panel is to explore the critical need for embedding international legal instruments within paradigms provided by disaster risk reduction (DRR), the area of international cultural heritage law could be a significant test-case in this regard. First, as experienced by several other branches of international law, it is possible to recognize an increasing attention paid by relevant specialized institutions, in this case the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), to challenges posed by DRR, and finally permitting to: (1) integrate DRR concerns in the institutional and lawmaking agenda of this international organization, in order to inform and guide activities to be carried out by member states who face threats posed by disasters against their cultural heritage; and (2) provide an evolutionary and contextual interpretation of the existing commitments in this area in light of DRR paradigms. Second, a cross-fertilization phenomenon could also be recognized, as for the emerging recognition of cultural concerns in the same DRR system, through a process which has subsequently permitted UNESCO to additionally foster action in this area.

It is a privilege to be with you today here at ASIL, in my current capacity as a Project Lead with the North American Humanitarian Response Initiative (NAHRI). At the heart of my comments today are essentially two main themes. First, all of our Initiative efforts over the past twenty-four months remain deeply intertwined with the ethic of Sendai and continue to be so. Second, while I hesitate to use the word “law” when I am working within the project—it can make those who are not in law a bit nervous—you will see with regard to NAHRI that the fundamental challenges that we have been attempting to work through are in fact legal challenges, and in the end I believe the solutions are also legally based. It is within this spirit that I will give my presentation.

In 2010, Haiti's 7.0 magnitude earthquake resulted in more than 200,000 deaths and more than one million homeless. This event recaptured the attention of international society regarding disaster-related governmental policies and legislation. In 2011, Resolution 7 of the International Conference of the Red Cross reiterated the urgency for states to be prepared to facilitate and regulate any international disaster assistance, using the Guidelines for the domestic facilitation and regulation of international disaster relief and initial recovery assistance (also known as the “IDRL Guidelines”). The International Conference adopted these guidelines in 2007; nevertheless, several countries did not implement the recommendations of the IDRL guidelines before the Haiti earthquake. Such was the case of Ecuador, which, after 2010, began to work on the implementation of the IDRL guidelines. In the beginning, public officials were very skeptical about the IDRL Guidelines as a tool for mitigating the consequences of disasters.

Emerging in the English language during the 1590s, the etymological origins of the word “disaster” are found in désastre from Middle French (1560s) and disastro from Italian, meaning “ill-starred,” with “dis-,” a pejorative and “astro” meaning “star” or “planet”—from the Latin astrum and from the Greek ástron. The notion was of “an unfavorable aspect of a star or planet,” a “malevolent astral influence,” or a “calamity blamed on an unfavorable position of a planet.”

Over the past two years, we have really seen the Trump administration make treaty withdrawal something of a signature move, from the Treaty of Amity with Iran to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, to the Optional Protocol for the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The administration has taken steps to remove the United States, rightly or wrongly, from a wide array of longstanding international legal obligations. And while it is far from unprecedented, the administration has done so at a little bit of a faster pace than certain prior administrations have—and has embedded a lot of these moves within a consistent critique of international institutions and international commitments that promises further change on the horizon.

Welcome to the Fourth Annual Detlev F. Vagts Roundtable on Transnational Law. The purposes of the Roundtable are to promote scholarship by gifted younger academics, to support exchanges of ideas across jurisdictions, and to maintain connections between scholars and the practicing bar in the field of international and transnational law. The Roundtable is supported by a generous gift from the Vagts family, and I would like to acknowledge Karen Vagts, one of Det's two daughters, who is with us today.

The right to remedy for victims of human rights abuses by transnational corporations is far from guaranteed. Often, the state where the abuses occurred is unwilling or incapable of offering effective remedies, especially effective judicial remedies. The victims may then choose to “go global” and bring civil suits in the courts of other states, including the home states of the corporations alleged to have committed the abuse. One way in which they have done so is by bringing so-called “foreign direct liability” (FDL) cases: civil claims in domestic courts of foreign states against corporate actors, in the hopes of getting financial compensation as a remedy.

Mechanisms to hold corporations liable for human rights abuses are usually grossly inadequate. All too often, local remedies are not available because the host government and legal system are inadequate or captured by corporate interests. The subsidiary directly responsible for the abuses may not have the funds to provide an adequate remedy, and the parent corporation may not be subject to the jurisdiction of local courts. As a result, victims and survivors of abuses have attempted to follow corporate actors to their home states, through human rights litigation in U.S. and European courts. Although such litigation flourished in U.S. courts for two decades, recent Supreme Court decisions have slashed the number of U.S. human rights cases.

I am here to represent the corporate perspective. In my remarks, I would like to discuss three questions. First, how are companies reacting to this litigation in Europe? Second, what are the implications for jurisdiction and notions of judicial imperialism? And third, what effects might Brexit have on this litigation?

Lucas Roorda's analysis of the realities and prospects of European liability for corporate defendants is particularly timely in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum1 and Jesner v. Arab Bank2 limiting foreign direct liability (FDL) in American courts. I make three brief points in response to Lucas's thoughtful contribution: the importance of empirical research on the relevance and role of European fora; consideration of litigation as part of a broader strategy by accountability-seeking plaintiffs; and the distinction between intentional and negligence-based torts.

If you follow the news, you might think that international disarmament law and policy have not been successful at preventing atrocities. Tuesday marked the fifth year of the war in Yemen. That same day, a Save the Children hospital was hit by a deadly air strike. Yesterday, the commander of U.S. forces in South Korea informed Congress that North Korea's actions are inconsistent with nuclear disarmament.