Course Connect partnership with LexisNexis Risk Solutions

Posted on

The Course Connect partnership between LexisNexis Risk Solutions and the University of the West of England (UWE) is an academia-industry collaboration that aims to bring together cutting-edge academic knowledge with leading commercial practice, for the mutual benefit of students, academics, researchers and practitioners. We caught up with Professor Nic Ryder to find out more.

What’s the aim of this partnership?

It’s a platform, in essence, for information and knowledge sharing. A formal partnership like this one makes it a great deal easier to share thinking and analysis of financial crime and compliance, financial risk management and anti-money laundering regulation, between organisations, for the benefit of both sides.

How does each side benefit?

Working with industry partners allows us access to valuable resources we’d otherwise not have. From real life case studies that can be implemented into the curriculum, to offering students the opportunity to work with the latest commercial information, trends and practices, as if they were already operating in the industry. This is not only highly motivating for them, but puts them in the driving seat following graduation. With support from commercial partners, we can set students in-depth challenges that often develop into dissertation projects, student internships and placements where they gain first-hand work experience.

In return, LNRS gains access to fresh insights and a rich seam of graduate talent they can offer placements and evaluate their potential for full-time employment opportunities, in many cases making an offer after the placement ends. LNRS also benefits from first-hand access to academic expertise and cutting-edge research outputs which can develop into webinars and round table style events that marry the academia and commercial worlds and provide a platform for healthy and insightful debate of current trends and topics surrounding the financial crime and compliance industry. Students input into these debates is a great way to identify what the future experts in these fields think.

How important is industry collaboration in preparing graduates for the practical experiences they will face in industry?

UWE prides itself on providing students with the opportunity to study commercially-relevant subject areas where career paths are quite clear. We work closely with the commercial sector on embedded placements (sandwich years), consultation projects where students are set real-life industry challenges to solve, guest lectures from industry experts, and others – all opportunities for students to better understand how the theory they learn in class translates into the real world.

What does success look like for this partnership?

Success is long-term partnership resulting in a plethora of opportunities for both UWE Bristol and LNRS to work together. That can range from straightforward guest lectures, to student projects, competitions and dissertation projects, all the way through to internship opportunities that ultimately lead to graduate employment. As academics, we’re ultimately focussed on preparing these young people for their career

How many other course connect partnerships do you run?

We have 20 partnerships at present with a mix of public and private sector organisations ranging from large nationals like Lloyds Banking Group and Enterprise Rent-A-Car, to local and regional SMEs.

What do your other partners think of this process?

“We want young people to get a great start to their working life, sharing our experiences, knowledge and skills is a great way to make that happen. This approach supports our own organisational drive to ‘Help Britain Prosper.’” Lloyds Banking Group

“We are genuinely excited about the opportunity to share knowledge and learn from each other.” Nationwide

“This initiative… promises institution-wide recognition of our brand, as well as offering an opportunity to address known skills gaps in our industry.” Enterprise Rent-A Car

What does the future hold?

It’s important to see this as an evolving partnership. This first year is very much a ‘toe in the water’ for both sides, allowing us to understand what activities we are comfortable collaborating on and what won’t work for us. As time progresses, we very much hope that the relationship will develop to offer a much greater variety of activities and benefits for both sides.

Get involved. Contact us at courseconnect@uwe.ac.uk.

Rights redacted – a global view

Posted on

By Ezinwa Awogu – BA philosophy graduate, current GDL Law student at UWE Bristol and aspiring solicitor 

With the UK’s announcement of approval for the Pfizer vaccine, a cautious sense of hope and optimism has been restored as the public dares to envision an end to a year rife with uncertainty and confusion. However, as technology and science leap forward in their red capes as the saviours of the day, democracy around the globe takes several staggering steps back. A combination of draconian restriction implementation, global confusion, economic downfall and, widespread fear, has created the perfect storm for abuse of power and democratic regress to take place throughout the world. Under the thick cover of chaos, oppressive legislation and disgraceful abuses of power have been able to take place largely un-reported. Due to the unrelenting dominance that COVID-19 has wielded over the news headlines this year, regressions and oppressions have been able to thrive, unchallenged by the usual scrutiny of the public eye.

According to this year’s annual global report on political rights and civil liberties from Freedom House, democracy has worsened in 80 countries so far. Particular areas of decline seem to be freedom of speech, democratic elections (especially in countries declaring a state of emergency), and freedom of religious practice. Whilst true that a lot of false and misleading information was spread about COVID-19 and how to treat it, some governments have used the excuse of limiting inaccurate information to go above and beyond to restrict journalistic rights and push political agendas by silencing anti-government voices. Democratic elections have been postponed or discarded altogether and government opposition parties have been systematically attacked under the excuse of the pandemic.

Earlier this year in Algeria, legislation aimed to reduce media and curtail freedom of expression were reportedly passed with ‘minimal discussion mechanisms’ in parliament. Further to this, the sentencing of three government critics took place in May due to their choice of social media activity. Amongst these was Yacine Mebarki, a pivotal member of the Hirak anti-government protest movement, arrested on September 30th and sentenced to 10 years in prison. An expression of concern has been published by Reporters Without Borders, over the zealous tightening on freedoms of expression in Algeria. However, no change seems imminent, as currently the scheduled Algerian 2020 constitutional referendum has been announced as ‘no longer a priority’ by President Tebboune.

Similarly, according to published interior ministry statements from Turkey, on the 25th of March over 400 people were arrested under charges of ‘provocative’ social media posts concerning the virus. A report by Human Rights Watch four months later in late July displayed evidence suggesting Turkish police involvement in torture and ill-treatment of citizens. In terms of parliamentary democracy, the revocation of status was implemented for three deputies in the opposition party on the 4th of June. All three were then arrested the very next day. Electoral law reformations that may prevent future opposition parties from entering parliament at all are currently under discussion. Should this move forward, it would mean that without opposition in parliament, the government (and legislature passed by the government) goes unchecked and unchallenged, thus, an already fragile democracy suffers another critical blow.

In Hong Kong, The pandemic has been sighted as justification to delay elections by a year, however, this decision is widely viewed as an attempt by Beijing to buy more time to solidify the eradication of certain remaining freedoms and autonomies. In Sri Lanka, the arrest of critics of the official government line of the pandemic has been authorized by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa. In Nigeria since the start of restriction implementation and curfews, up to 18 people have been killed in the hands of security forces reportedly enforcing COVID-19 restrictions with minimal reported penalties against the individual offending security officers. Meanwhile, the Nigerian democratic by-elections for the senatorial districts in Bayelsa state, Imo state, and Plateau state have been indefinitely postponed with no new date announced. In the USA, although the scheduled presidential elections have taken place, the incumbent Trump administration consistently and embarrassingly attempts to discredit the result of the democratic election in an attempt to cling to a fading political spotlight.

In Russia, a combination of laws implementing drastic penalties on individuals and media organizations who spread ‘knowingly false information’ was approved by President Vladimir Putin, on top of the already existing prohibition of ‘false information’. In practice, however, it would seem that said ‘false information’ happens to include anything that may highlight failings and present criticisms of the government’s handling of COVID-19. Most worryingly, this year’s referendum – originally set for April but rescheduled for the 1st of July – was approved by a 77% majority and includes provision amendments allowing President Putin to remain in power until 2036.

Restrictions on freedom of religion have been more evident this year with instances of faith-based discrimination and religious targeting in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Serbia, and India. In Pakistan COVID -19 has been renamed ‘the Shia virus’ and there have been reports of Christians forced to recite the kalima in order to access help and aid. Hindu communities in Lyari have been rejected from receiving essential rations and Muslims in India have been labelled as “super spreaders” in a bid to use the pandemic as a weapon of religious prosecution.

This is of course simply a snapshot exposing only a fraction of the hidden pandemic of global rights redaction taking place. Fragile democratic advancements – some of which took over a decade or longer to instil – have been swiftly and devastatingly destroyed by opportunistic governments all over the world, using the tragedy of this year as an advantageous edge in disgraceful power-play dynamics. Meanwhile, citizens are stripped of hard-fought rights and left more vulnerable than ever before. As an end to COVID-19 seems to become more of a reality, we must not forget that for many around the globe, things will certainly not return to ‘business as usual’. Perhaps, with the potential of COVID-19 soon no longer dominating the media platform, the scrutiny of the public eye can return to where it is desperately needed most, and assist each of the 80 countries through the steep uphill climb to the restoration of civil liberties and democratic progression.

Useful Reference links

  1. https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/democracy-under-lockdown
  2. https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-report-democracy-under-lockdown-impact-covid-19-global-freedom
  3. https://www.idea.int/gsod-indices//#/indices/countries-regions-profile?rsc=%5B770%5D&covid19=1
  4. https://www.economist.com/international/2020/10/17/the-pandemic-has-eroded-democracy-and-respect-for-human-rights
  5. https://www.idea.int/news-media/news/malawi-victory-democracy-after-euphoria-long-hard-work
  6. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/turk-evacuated-sweden-coronavirus-treatment-70361281
  7. https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2020/10/8/algeria-sentences-activist-to-10-years-for-inciting-atheism

The contagion of disinformation

Posted on

By Ezinwa Awogu – BA philosophy graduate, GDL Law student at UWE Bristol and aspiring solicitor 

More connected than ever, information spreads instantaneously, and amongst that information, none seems to spread quite as viciously as disinformation. To be distinguished from misinformation, disinformation, as defined in 1952 by the great soviet encyclopaedia, is information deliberately designed to spread falsehoods for the deception of the public, usually with an underlining agenda for political, social, or economic gain. Disinformation is often more entertaining, and attention-grabbing than reality, and there it finds its strength over real news. Between the COVID-19 health crisis and the highly influential USA presidential election, we have seen myths, conspiracy theories, and disinformation erupt like wildfires. As the global pandemic has forced increased digitization, a higher rate of IT reliance, and an increased online presence, people are liking, sharing, re-tweeting, and subscribing more and more. The conditions are prime for the contagion of disinformation to spread within the algorithm networks of our social media and news provider outlets.

Battling disinformation in democratic countries is a delicate task, often fraught with debate and controversy. The right of freedom of expression under the common law was incorporated into domestic law in 1998 from the European convention, and the right to freedom of expression (subject to certain formalities, conditions, restrictions, and penalties) was ratified by Article 10 of the Human rights act (1998). Many of these restrictions, however, are intentionally broad and appear to have a high degree of subjectivity making them difficult to apply strictly. This broadness can make it hard to police media content, which on one hand rightly protects freedom of expression but on the other makes it more difficult to identify and combat disinformation. Section 127 of the communications Act (2003) criminalizes the use of an electronic communications network to put out messaging that is ‘grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character’. However, in practice, enforcement is largely absent, as we all know, offensive and obscene content has flooded electronic communication networks for a long time with few criminal actions brought forward.

COVID-19 conspiracy theories, such as the idea that the virus is part of an elaborate government plan to increase observations and curtail rights, started around January and has culminated in mass no-mask protests with many swearing that the pandemic is fake. Whilst true that the response to the virus has been confusing and unclear on many accounts, the deliberate efforts of some to persist in the spread of conspiracy disinformation works to distract from the reality of the inequalities that the virus had illuminated. Realities such as the disproportionate effect on BAME communities and the worldwide devastating disparities in social welfare and healthcare that the virus has exacerbated are therefore pushed to the wayside with attention-grabbing disinformation headlines taking the spotlight.

The efforts in the summer months by the outgoing Trump administration, amongst other world leaders, to spread disinformation, hailing hydroxychloroquine as a ‘miracle cure’ based on insufficient evidence and inadequate testing, served the political ulterior motive to use hope and optimism as a distraction from criticisms of poor handling of the pandemic. We can see similar attempts to capitalize on the pandemic when we observe the Russian disinformation campaign labelling the Oxford vaccine as the ‘monkey vaccine’ in favour of the Russian vaccine, conspicuously named Sputnik. Most recently, the current saga of electoral fraud claims during the recent USA elections attempts to delegitimize the incoming Biden presidency and stoke the fire for social and political upheaval.

In England and Wales, Law aiding the efficient battle of disinformation is scarce. Ofcom, established under the Communications Act (2003) is a regulatory body set up to enforce certain content standards across TV and radio broadcasting, ensuring accuracy and impartiality, but there is currently no regulatory body set up for social media and online content in the same way, which has become a major source of information communication. There have been proposals to change this, and introduce more regulation and accountability in online platforms, namely in the 2019 Cairncross Review report. Nothing concrete has amounted from this as of yet. Social media outlets have recently been taking it upon themselves, in response to public pressure, to internally implement regulations on the content published on their sights. During the ongoing voter election disinformation campaign, Twitter has been flagging up tweets from outgoing president Donald Trump as misleading. Other popular social media sights such as Facebook and Instagram have displayed instances of some resistance to disinformation, but this has been limited and certainly not widespread enough to effectively battle the contagion of disinformation.

A strong argument can be made in favour of social media giants exercising more of their social responsibility and offering more content regulation. However, constitutional protection of freedom of expression limits the allowance for online content restriction, and admittedly, the more content policing happens, the less freedom is available. Finding the delicate line between personal liberty and public interest is an age-old dilemma that has not appeared to be solved as of yet, so it would seem for the moment that the responsibility lies largely with us the audience. In an age where information is so easily weaponized, it is important to be conscientious consumers with regards to the plethora of information flooding our screens. More than ever, active engagement, independent research, and a degree of critical analysis must be essential activity when choosing which information to accept and which sources to trust. We can no longer afford to be passive recipients of information that may harbor active ulterior agendas.

Useful Reference links

  1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/technology/donald-trump-twitter.html
  2. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russians-spread-fake-news-over-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-2nzpk8vrq
  3. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/social-media-disinformation/uk.php
  4. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zyt282p/revision/2
  5. https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/15/fda-revokes-hydroxychloroquine/
  6. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/investigating-the-most-convincing-covid-19-conspiracy-theories
  7. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

The Polluter Pays Principle: The only Principle that can limit aviation emissions (if we do it right)

Posted on

This blog was written by Mandy Beck, an LLM in Environmental Law and Sustainable Development student at UWE Bristol.

Today, an airplane takes off approximately every 0.8 seconds somewhere around the globe.[1] The impact of the aviation sector on the climate is enormous. Stefan Gössling, professor for sustainable transport at Lund/Linnaeus University, Sweden, even states that ‘on an individual level, there is no other human activity that emits as much over such a short period of time as aviation’.[2] Globally, the aviation sector contributes a total of 2.5%[3] to all anthropogenic[4] CO2 emissions, making it a significant contributor to global warming. Often undiscussed, however, are the non-CO2 effects, meaning those effects resulting from e.g. particles, water vapour, and nitrogen oxides. Together with these non-CO2 effects, aviation contributes to global warming by 5%.[5]

The International Air Transport Association estimates that the demand for flights is going to double by 2037.[6] The decision-makers in the aviation sector thereby face the challenge of making aviation climate-neutral. In 2012, former European Commissioner for Climate Action in the European Commission, Connie Hedegaard stated that the ‘Polluter pays is the only principle that can limit aviation emissions’.[7]

The Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) reflects an idea that is taught to us since our childhood: ‘Clean up after yourself’.[8] Due to this principle, the costs of pollution should be allocated to the actor who caused them.[9] The PPP is implemented by using market-based measures (MBMs), such as levies, emission trading (such as the EU Emission Trading System EU-ETS), and offsetting schemes. Implementing a MBM is necessary, as technical progress and operational measures alone will not be sufficient to limit climate emissions sufficiently in the aviation sector in the near future.[10]

The first international offsetting scheme for aviation, CORSIA[11], will be implemented step by step starting 2021. Doubts, however, remain as to the effectiveness of this MBM in the light of reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement.[12] Overall, the PPP could hold more potential in curbing aviation-caused climate emissions. The following improvements must, however, be made:

Inclusion of non-CO2 effects and removal of subsidies

Climate damages resulting from non-CO2 effects must be included in a MBM. Despite the major importance of non-CO2 effects, these effects are not included in CORSIA nor the EU-ETS. Secondly, the subsidies in the billions granted to airlines must be removed (e.g. grants for Etihad Airlines by Abu Dhabi; grants by the European Commission to Air Malta). Subsidies have an opposite effect than the PPP, as they falsify the costs that must be borne.[13] Also, due to subsidies, aviation has a competitive advantage over other – more sustainable – means of transport.

Full payment for all environmental costs until 2050

The polluter must fully pay for all environmental costs by 2050 to reach the 1.5°C Goal (2085 at the latest for the 2°C Goal). The price for one ton of CO2 in 2019 including all climate costs (CO2 and non-CO2 effects) is 371 Euro/ton CO2.[14] The price set under the EU-ETS today is much lower at approx. 30 Euro/ton CO2.[15]To achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, the PPP can be implemented gradually (with increasing CO2 prices over time), however, the above-mentioned full payment to the given deadlines must be reached.

Implementation of the PPP at the beginning of the value chain

Currently, all MBMs that have been implemented address the airlines. However, making the fuel suppliers pay for subsequent environmental damages, holds one significant advantage: fossil fuel suppliers would lose their competitive advantage, due to not paying for climate damage, over renewable energy providers. If all suppliers include environmental damage in their pricing, the market conditions would be equal.


[1]Statista, ‘Number of flights performed by the global airline industry from 2004 to 2020’ (2020) <www.statista.com/statistics/564769/airline-industry-number-of-flights/> accessed 24 February 2020.

[2] Arthur Sullivan, ‘To fly or not to fly? The environmental cost of air travel‘ (2020) <https://www.dw.com/en/to-fly-or-not-to-fly-the-environmental-cost-of-air-travel/a-42090155> accessed 24 June 2020.

[3] Umweltbundesamt, Umweltschonender Luftverkehr: lokal – national – international (Umweltbundesamt Publikationen, 2019), 30.

[4] man-made.

[5] Malte Niklaß, Benjamin Lührs, Robin Ghosh, ‘A Note on How to Internalize Aviation’s Climate Impact of non-CO2 Effects’ <www.researchgate.net/publication/311788948_A_Note_on_How_to_Internalize_Aviation%27s_Climate_Impact_of_non-CO2_Effects> accessed 15 Mai 2020; equal conclusion reached in Jörg Larsson, Simon Matti, Jonas Nässén, ‘Public Support for aviation policy measures in Sweden‘ (2020) <https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1759499> accessed 20 August 2020.

[6] IATA, ‘Annual review 2019’ (2019) <https://www.iata.org/contentassets/c81222d96c9a4e0bb4ff6ced0126f0bb/iata-annual-review-2019.pdf> accessed 11 February 2020,16.

[7] The Guardian, ‘Polluter pays’ is the only principle that can limit aviation emissions’ (2012) <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/04/polluter-pays-aviation-emissions> accessed 15 February 2020.

[8] David Boyd, ‘Clean up after yourself’ <www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/clean-up-after-yourself/article773567/> accessed 10 February 2020.

[9] Philippe Sands, Jacqueline Peel, Adriana Fabra, Ruth MacKenzie, Principles of International Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press, 2018) 240.

[10] ICAO, Environmental Report 2019 – Chapter: Climate Change Mitigation: CORSIA (ICAO Publications 2019) 236.

[11] Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation.

[12] That is holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

[13] Stefan Gössling, Frank Fichert, Peter Forsyth, ‘Subsidies in Aviation’ (2017) 9(8) Sustainability 1295, 1295.

[14] Umweltbundesamt, Methodenkonvention 3.0 zur Ermittlung von Umweltkosten Kostensätze Stand 02/2019 (Umweltbundesamt Publikationen, 2019). UBA recommends the use of a multiplier of 2.0 for the transfer of the CO2 price to aviation emissions to include the non-CO2 effects.

[15] Michael Holder, ‘EU carbon prices surge to 14-year high’ <www.businessgreen.com/news/4017770/eu-carbon-prices-surge-14> accessed 23 July 2020.         

From prisoner to paralegal: Morris Kaberia tells his story

Posted on

Lawyer and activist, Morris Kaberia, recently came to visit students at UWE Bristol to speak about his story of justice. After suffering an unwarranted 13 years, 5 of which were spent on death row, in Kamiti High prison, Morris was set free. With help from African Prisons Project, a programme that UWE Bristol Law students support through our Pro Bono unit, Morris studied for a Law degree whilst he was in prison and was able to use his newly learnt knowledge to fight his case for which he was wrongly accused.

Morris visited the University on Monday 10 February 2020 to deliver a talk to our students about his journey, experiences and advice. You can listen to the full talk recorded as a podcast.

Kathy Brown, Senior Law Lecturer, oversees the student participation in the African Prisons Project programme. She said: “Studying for a law degree has enabled the prisoners to gain a higher level of education, act as paralegals for other inmates and represent themselves in court. Many of them are given extreme sentences for relatively small crimes, such as being given death penalty for aggravated burglary, and are on remand for several years.”

In his impactful visit to UWE Bristol, Morris spoke about the importance of the project and how it inspired a new lease of life within himself and his fellow prisoners. He greeted current Law students to enforce the need for students to continue working with this project, and he also reconnected with students who helped him whilst he was in prison which was extremely powerful and emotional.

Morris was interviewed after his talk which you can watch below. Please note: Morris went to Kamiti prison, not community prison as mentioned in the subtitles.

If you would like to know more about our Pro Bono Unit please contact fblclinic@uwe.ac.uk.

Using as the Starting Point the Article ‘WTO Rules against EU “Anti-Dumping” Duties on Indonesian Biofuel’ by Natasha Burton in New Economy on 26 January 2018, Discuss the Use of Anti-dumping Measures by the EU on Biofuels

Posted on

Written by Chloe Barratt

This post (edited for publication) is published on our blog as part of a series of work produced by students for assessment within the module ‘Public International Law’. Following the blogging success over the last couple of years, we decided to publish our students’ excellent work in this area again in this way. The module is an option in the second year of Bristol Law School’s LLB programme. It continues to be led by Associate Professor Dr Noëlle Quénivet. Using innovative learning and teaching methods, Noëlle developed this module to include the use of online portfolios within a partly student led curriculum. The posts in this series show the outstanding research and analytical abilities of students on our programmes. Views expressed in this blog post are those of the author only who consents to the publication.

Anti-dumping duties are additional charges imposed by a state in response to the dumping of products into the ‘commerce of another country at less than the normal value of the products’ (Article VI GATT). They are a means of neutralising unfair trade practice, allowing states to protect their domestic industry if the dumping is having a negative effect on their economy. This blog will discuss how the European Union (EU) imposes anti-dumping measures on biofuels, a renewable source of energy that until recently was seen as an attractive alternative to fossil fuels. I will discuss how the issue that lies at the heart of the dispute with anti-dumping measures is, as Burton’s article highlights, how the extent of dumping is calculated. After examining the implications of anti-dumping measures, I will conclude that they are necessarily used to neutralise unfair trade practice and maintain economic and social stability within the EU.

Process of Bringing an Anti-dumping Measure

To ensure anti-dumping duties are imposed to counteract unfair trade practice, the process of imposing duties is heavily regulated. Accordingly, Article 1 of the  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (ADA) requires all investigations to be initiated and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the ADA. Whilst the World Trade Organisation (WTO) does not regulate the initial act of dumping, it is responsible for regulating the process a state must follow when initiating an anti-dumping measure. If, for example, the EU believes products are being dumped into its market it must first be able to show that the dumping is taking place. In doing so it must be able to calculate how much lower the export price is in comparison to the home market price and show that it is causing injury or threatening to do so. The high threshold for establishing the injurious effect of the dumping accompanied by an investigation (see Article 5 ADA) seeks to ensure that anti-dumping duties are used productively.

Why Calculations of Anti-dumping Measures Have Proven Problematic

Whilst the process of imposing an anti-dumping measure is well regulated, the element of calculating the extent of dumping was highlighted as problematic in Burton’s article. As the EU explains in the Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/1570, following the rulings in Indonesia and Argentina (see para 8), the method of calculation has now been clarified in light of the ADA (for the original reports of the dispute settlement body, see Indonesia (DS480) and Argentina (DS473)). 

The dispute between the EU on the one hand and Argentina and Indonesia on the other (see history here) follows a number of WTO challenges to anti-dumping measures (see discussion in Crowley and Hillman, ‘Slamming the Door on Trade Policy Discretion? The WTO Appellate Body’s Ruling on Market Distortions and Production Costs in EU-Biodiesel (Argentina) (2018) 17 World Trade Review 195-213) where the underlying issue was how authorities adjusted the prices of exporting producers. For example, when constructing a home market price for Argentine biodiesel, that is the price of which biodiesel was sold in Argentina, the European Commission chose to alter the price of soybeans to compensate for the distortion in soybean prices, caused by an export tax imposed by the Argentine government (see Crowley and Hillman, at 2).  The price was adjusted based on the fact that soybeans, the primary input of biodiesel, were considerably below the international price and the Commission reasoned the adjustment was what ‘would have been the price paid… in the absence of the export tax system’.

The dispute with Indonesia was similar in the sense that it also involved a problem with  calculations: the EU had replaced the actual price of crude palm oil that was within the producers’ records with an international reference price. The price of the palm oil was lower than international prices, which meant the EU imposed higher duties on Indonesia in response to what they calculated the extent of dumping to be. When deciding on the trade disputes in the cases of Indonesia and Argentina, the Dispute Settlement Body for the WTO found the EU had indeed acted inconsistently with both GATT 1994 and ADA.

Therefore, whilst there has been a period of uncertainty in calculating the extent of dumping, this imperfection has now been clarified by the WTO. The clear guidance now states that countries are not legally permitted to take government manipulated price control into account.

Social and Economic Stability 

Since the WTO cannot regulate the act of dumping, the ability for a state to impose ‘remedial and not punitive’ measures in response to dumping are essential to nullify unfair trade practice. The measures imposed by the EU on biofuels have been used to counteract the great harm that dumping poses to the economic and social stability of the EU. 

Biofuels being dumped into the commerce of the EU not only disrupts the trading of the fuels but also distorts the standard value of the commodity. EU producers are faced with unfair competition and in considering the vast difference in Indonesia’s access to the raw materials used for biofuels (i.e. palm oil) in comparison to the EU’s access,  the EU could not physically be expected to meet the competitors’ low price without a substantial economic loss. The subsequent effect on the domestic economy could see a closure in business and vast unemployment, which the EU is able to avoid with anti-dumping measures.

Conclusion

In summary, anti-dumping measures by the EU have been imposed to minimise the economic disruption caused by the dumping of biofuels. Whilst the EU was found to have miscalculated the extent of dumping, this was recognised and rectified by the WTO dispute settlement mechanism which in turn acknowledged the lawfulness of anti-dumping measures as such. Overall, these measures have been used productively to counteract unfair competition. 

Law Student of the Year awarded to Sam Louwers

Posted on

Congratulations to final year UWE Bristol Law student, Sam Louwers, for recently becoming Law Student of the Year at the Bristol Law Society awards 2019. Sam was nominated by Shilan Shah-Davis, Associate Head of Department, UWE Bristol, on behalf of the Law Department.

The Law Department started working closely with Sam last year through his involvement with the UWE Law Society. Sam was ‘made-up’ by Shilan’s submission and says it has been the proudest moment of his time at UWE Bristol so far.

“Sam is a highly motivated, hardworking, forward-thinking and compassionate individual with a strong commitment to the values of inclusivity, diversity and justice. Through his work in the UWE Law Society and involvement in other projects, Sam truly stands out as a champion for inclusion and diversity and an inspirational leader. Sam is very highly thought of within the Law Department and his values and commitment emulate all that UWE Bristol is seeking to achieve for its students.

Sam winning the Bristol Law Society Student of the Year Award is absolutely fantastic and very well-deserved. His passion, drive and commitment are truly inspirational and he is a great role model and ambassador for UWE Bristol.”

Shilan Shah-Davis

Interestingly, Sam’s career started in the Armed Forces, however, that abruptly ended in 2017 when he was medically discharged due to two injuries. Sam says, “I had always had an interest in Law but I never thought that University was where I would end up and never thought that I would be good enough to take that path.”

He joined UWE Bristol after getting medically discharged and has gone from strength to strength from becoming the President of the UWE Law Society to push for a more diverse representation of students, to being awarded the Vice Chancellor’s Award for Representation at the Student Experience Awards in 2018.

In his spare time (amidst caring for his young daughter and family life), Sam also works for the Royal British Legion, running the Poppy Appeal in his local area and supporting the national media team. He says that the Royal British Legion have been instrumental in helping him deal with his injuries. Once Sam finishes his degree he hopes to do his Barrister Training here at UWE Bristol to start his career as a Criminal Barrister alongside Pro Bono work and giving back to others who need help within the Armed Forces Community.

Sam’s dedication and determination prove he was a worthy winner for Law Student of the Year and UWE Bristol are proud to have him as a student here. After the awards ceremony, Sam said “speaking to the selection committee and senior lawyers in Bristol, and hearing the kind comments that they had given me, the congratulations, and how much they admired the dedication that I had put into my degree – especially with the disturbance in my background, felt really worth-while, and I felt privileged to be recognised.”

Find out more about studying Law at UWE Bristol on our website.

On the Basis of the 17 December 2018 Request of Consultations by the EU with Korea Regarding the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Commitments under the EU-Korea Trade Agreement, Discuss how Labour Standards can Be Maintained via Free Trade Agreements

Posted on

This post (edited for publication) is published on our blog as part of a series of work produced by students for assessment within the module ‘Public International Law’. Following the blogging success over the last couple of years, we decided to publish our students’ excellent work in this area again in this way. The module is an option in the second year of Bristol Law School’s LLB programme. It continues to be led by Associate Professor Dr Noëlle Quénivet. Using innovative learning and teaching methods, Noëlle developed this module to include the use of online portfolios within a partly student led curriculum. The posts in this series show the outstanding research and analytical abilities of students on our programmes. Views expressed in this blog post are those of the author only who consents to the publication.

By Anita Dangova

Introduction

The social ambition of the European Union to enforce and maintain sustainable development commitments has led to a radical increase of the incorporation of the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) labour standard conventions into European Union (EU) free trade agreements (FTAs) with third parties over the past two decades (at 265). In this blog post, I will show that labour standards can be effectively maintained via FTAs through a system of consultative measures. Although such a system can be criticised for being a ‘soft’ mechanism of dispute settlement it has proven successful to enforce labour standards agreed upon in FTAs between the EU and States.  Using the recent consultations request by the EU regarding the failure of implementation of sustainable development provisions by South Korea as a case-study, I will particularly highlight how this soft resolution mechanism works with developed and developing states.

The EU’s Approach to Resolving Disputes

The EU ensures that disputes related to maintaining the ILO’s labour standard conventions in its FTAs are resolved through a cooperative and soft dispute resolution mechanism (Postnikov & Bastiaens, ‘Does Dialogue Work? The Effectiveness of Labor Standards in EU Preferential Trade Agreements’ (2014) 21 JERR 923, 925). This stands in contrast to the direct sanctions system used by the US as, in case of a dispute between the EU and a non-member state regarding failure to apply an FTA’s labour standards provisions, consultations are usually a pre-condition (Postnikov & Bastiaens). The table below explains the EU’s idea of resolving a dispute in a fair, friendly and equal-party manner by consultations, and not sanctions. That is why, in my opinion, the FTAs’ consultations system can be effective in maintaining labour standards’ provisions.

Why consultations?
They are known as means of peaceful dispute settlement, as well as a tool towards a proactive work of both the parties (see Peters, ‘International Dispute Settlement: A Network of Cooperational Duties’ 
(2003) 14(1) EJIL 1, 2).
The consultative measures encourage a flexible resolution process, 
where parties have control over the procedure, being able to set the rules, 
manage the time and conduct in a way they deem most appropriate (at 9).
However, as stated by the International Court of Justice, consultations are to be conducted by the parties in a meaningful way with a view to agreeing in good faith (para 85).
Therefore, they are not used as a tool of showing the power of one party, for example the EU, over a weaker party, for instance South Korea. 
This method means that  the dispute is explored within its context. 
This ensures that the parties are more likely to comply with the relevant agreement in pursuing the common goals of the parties. 

© Anita Dangova

How Does that Work with Developed States? 

A good example to show how such a mechanism works is the recent discussions held in the framework of the EU-South Korea bilateral FTA. Indeed, a recent consultations request was made by the EU after establishing that Korea had failed to ratify the ILO conventions regarding the right of freedom of association and collective bargaining.  Under article 14.3(1) of the FTA, either party can commence consultations, which are to be conducted in good faith and ‘with the aim of reaching mutually agreed solution’, when there is an issue regarding the implementation of the ILO labour standards, as defined under Chapter 13. Under article 14.4, unsuccessful consultations would initiate an arbitration procedure, leading to further costs, delay of settlement and intensified pressure. These consequences, therefore, can encourage Korea to ‘change its behaviour’ at the consultations, by acting in a meaningful way and eventually ratifying the labour standards, which the State is legally bound by the agreement to do. 

Another example is the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) agreement under which matters, related to the implementation of labour standards, can be resolved with a recourse to consultations’ request, with the objective to reach a ‘mutually satisfactory resolution’ (article 23. 11). Therefore, we can see that the EU FTAs generally encourage maintenance of the labour standards provisions through soft dispute settlement mechanism, incorporating consultations. This additionally shows that the mechanism’s effectiveness in encouraging developed states to ratify the labour provisions, which they agreed to be bound by, is considerably recognised both in the law and in practice. 

What about Developing States?

Under article 50 of the Cotonou Agreement, the parties, i.e. the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, reaffirm their commitment to enforce the application of five core ILO labour standards conventions (Abolition of Forced LabourFreedom of AssociationCollective BargainingNo DiscriminationAbolition of Child Labour.) The first step of ensuring the effective implementation of article 50 is to conduct a political dialogue (article 8). This again reflects the EU’s idea of soft, yet effective, cooperation. When all options of dialogue are exhausted, the parties can commence diplomatic consultations (article 96(2)(a)). The provision expressly states that the consultations shall be conducted in a manner, appropriate to find a solution. In case of a failure to find a solution, ‘appropriate measures‘, such as compensation, can be taken. Aware of the subsequent pressure, which will be caused by those measures, the developing states will seek to avoid paying compensation and will thus after the consultations be incentivised to ratify the relevant labour standard conventions. That is why it can be argued that the consultations mechanism, adopted by the FTAs, is an effective way of maintaining labour standards in developing states. 

The first stage (at 25) of labour standards dispute settlement is the following:                  

Statistics Never Lie 

© Anita Dangova (based on information provided in Reich, The Effectiveness of the WTO Dispute Settlement System: A Statistical AnalysisEUI Working Papers, Law 2017/11)

To assess the effectiveness of consultations more generally we can consider the WTO’s dispute resolution system as set out in article 4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding. In case of a dispute between two member states, either one is capable of initiating a consultations request.  Between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2016, the system has dealt with 573 requests for consultations. Out of this number, it has issued about 350 mutually agreed dispute settlement decisions (see Reich, The Effectiveness of the WTO Dispute Settlement System: A Statistical AnalysisEUI Working Papers, Law 2017/11, at 4). Therefore, this constitutes a strong evidence that consultations are generally an effective way of settling disputes in the field of economic law.  

Conclusion

In this blog post I have argued that the FTA consultations mechanism is an effective way of ensuring the implementation of labour standard commitments, based on the EU soft consultative dispute resolution system. I have, furthermore, showed that this system works with developing and developed states, basing my analysis on examples such as the Cotonou, EU-South Korea and CETA agreements. 

Pro Bono at Bristol Law School: Video

Posted on

UWE Bristol Law students speak about the benefits of taking part in Pro Bono activities.

The Pro Bono Unit enables UWE Bristol Law School students to provide free legal advice services to members of the community. We have spoken to several students about their experiences of getting involved in Pro Bono.

Here’s what they had to say:

“For my career it has helped me get work experience. I think that being involved in Pro Bono will give you that confidence to put that on your CV and when law firms can look at you being involved, they definitely would want to take you on and give you some more experience because they trust in you.”  – Manmeet Singh, Law Student

“When I was at UWE I got involved in an organisation called Street Law which is a programme that goes to help teach younger children the basic of laws. So, we would be teaching them things like civil and criminal law, the advocacy process and just a general introduction to studying law.” – Isaac Cole, Trainee Solicitor 

“It helped me build my confidence as before I couldn’t really speak in front of a group of people and now I’m accustomed to holding events of upwards of 300 people.” – Freya Whiting, Law Student

“The Pro Bono experiences I’ve done has helped me for my career in a sense that it’s developed my confidence when being in an interview situation. It’s also helped in a sense that it’s helped me further understand why I want to pursue this career.” – Rory Jutton, LPC Student

“I would recommend students to do Pro Bono activities or get involved with Pro Bono. The main reason is employability, you can’t really put a price on that – it’s invaluable experience, it’s satisfying and it’s incredibly rewarding.” – Dominik Morton, Pupil Barrister

If you would like to know more about Pro Bono at UWE Bristol please visit our webpage.

UWE Law Society London Trip 2019

Posted on

The UWE Law Society reports on its recent trip to visit Parliament, the Supreme Court, and The Inns of Court.

Guest post by: Sam Louwers, President of  UWE Law Society
The opinions expressed by the guest writer and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UWE Bristol.

The 18th February began very early in the morning for 50 members of UWE Law Society who had secured places to take part in our London Trip 2019. The aim of the trip was to move 50 members to London to visit Parliament, The UK Supreme Court and attend a talk delivered by Lincoln’s Inn.

It had been the intention from the offset that all society members should feel in a position to apply for a ticket, regardless of their personal circumstances, so the price should be free. Through applications to both the faculty and student’s union enough funding was secured to pay for the coach move meaning that all were in the same position to apply for a ticket.

We left UWE at 0530 to move to Westminster, for a change a very painless journey. Once arriving the trip was split down into two tranches; one detailed to Parliament and one the Supreme Court.

Those who toured Westminster had a unique opportunity to gain an understanding of the history of the building, visit both chambers and have explained the full process of how a Bill becomes an Act. With a passionate tour guide this element was enjoyed by all and was an opportunity that many had never experienced, and I am sure that many students would have left feeling they have a confident understanding of our constitution.

Tranche 2 began their day visiting the Supreme Court. A newer building in the history of the court system, but still bathed in history from its previous role. The group had the opportunity to explore the building whilst also have its purpose and history explained to them by their tour guide. With some fantastic photo opportunities, members even had the opportunity to sit in the seat of a justice and experience the true feel of the court room. Unfortunately, Parliament were holding an emergency debate in the afternoon so Tranche 2’s tour had to be cancelled.

Then a surprise to all when we were notified that Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court, had heard that UWE students were visiting so was giving up her lunch break to meet with us and run a Q&A session, as I am sure all readers will appreciate this is a fantastic and privileged opportunity.

Meeting with Lady Hale was an experience that many students will never experience again, but you could tell that she was more than happy to give up her time to pass her knowledge and experience onto those young minds who have a passion to progress into the legal profession.

The final part of the day saw a move to Lincoln’s Inn where we were hosted by Andrew, their outreach Co-Ordinator. Unfortunately, the talk had to be held slightly down the road in their office and conference space as the Inn itself is currently undergoing major renovations, yet still a great environment to visit. Andrew gave a talk to the society members about what the purposes of the four inns of court are, their history and how they play a key part to anyone looking to progress to a career at the bar. He also took the time to discuss the vast range of scholarships available and in doing so demonstrating that there is financial support available to those who need it.

Lincoln’s Inn also paid for Sally Anne Blackmore of Ely Place Chambers to come and talk to our members. Sally is a former UWE Alumni and prominent member of the Inn, often involved in the residential and qualifying sessions that are run. As a former Alumni Sally was keen to talk to our members about her non-traditional route to the bar and her vast experiences surrounding the profession. Not only did she inspire members she was also happy to hand out her contact details should members want to seek further guidance.

The day ended with the journey back to UWE, getting in at 2230. After a long day I think I can honestly say that every attendee was able to get something special from the day and I have taken the time to thank every element of the trip personally for making it possible. If it wasn’t through keen networking and producing a positive image of UWE Law Society this trip would never have been possible. Dr Liam Fox MP was happy to support our tours, Lady Hale gave up her time and Lincoln’s Inn gladly hosting us at their location is proof that UWE Law Society have built a positive and strong reputation in the last year. We also thank UWE Law Department and the Students Union at UWE for their kind donations, as without them we would not have been able to meet our aim of making this trip open and accessible to all and by doing so we met our equality and diversity targets.

Although coming to the end of our term as a committee I am sure that now the ground work has been laid so future committees will be able to offer these fantastic opportunities to their members also.

Sam Louwers
President
UWE Law Society