Tag: Events

Nuremberg Principles and Ukraine: Contemporary Challenges to Peace, Security and Justice

Author Faculty of Business and Law | Posted on

On 5 November 2025, the Bristol Law School’s Research in Public International Law (RIPIL) group hosted a hybrid workshop and roundtable discussion exploring the continuing relevance of the Nuremberg Principles in the context of the war in Ukraine and other conflicts. Professor Gerhard Kemp, group lead for RIPIL, welcomed the local and international audience and noted that it is the second RIPIL event (and book discussion) for the new academic year, with more to come.

More than 40 international law scholars and academics joined the discussion, both in person and online, representing universities and research centres from the UK, Europe, Africa, Asia and North America, highlighting the global relevance of the Nuremberg Principles today.

As the Russian invasion continues to raise urgent questions of justice and accountability, the principles established at Nuremberg 80 years ago remain a cornerstone of international law. This workshop centred on the recently published volume Nuremberg Principles and Ukraine: The Contemporary Challenges to Peace, Security and Justice (Bloomsbury 2025), edited by Marshall J. Breger and Herbert R. Reginbogin. The book brings together leading international law scholars to examine themes including accountability for the crime of aggression, genocide, the abduction of Ukrainian children, the destruction of cultural heritage and the ongoing evolution of international criminal justice.

Keynote reflections

The keynote was delivered by Professor Herbert R. Reginbogin, Collegiate Law Fellow at The Catholic University of America and co-editor of Nuremberg Principles and Ukraine: The Contemporary Challenges to Peace, Security and Justice. He opened by paying tribute to a late colleague and co-editor of the book whose dedication to justice continues to inspire current efforts in international law.

Professor Reginbogin spoke about the determination of Ukrainian lawyers and researchers working tirelessly to uphold the rule of law prevails and ensure that accountability mechanisms are (set up) and used. He emphasised that the Nuremberg Principles, rejecting impunity for international crimes and immunity for officials,  remain as relevant today as ever, particularly as a new mechanism for prosecuting aggression is being developed in The Hague. He also reminded us of the importance of maintaining the credibility of international courts and of ensuring that they continue to operate in a transparent manner. He also addressed the challenges of corruption and governance within Ukraine, framing the pursuit of accountability as “a commitment to the future” and a necessary step in confronting the difficult questions that accompany war and occupation.

Panel discussion

  • Dr Viviane Dittrich (Deputy Director, International Nuremberg Principles Academy, Germany) reflected on the lasting legacy of the Nuremberg Trials and their ongoing relevance in international law. She emphasised the importance of holding instigators of war accountable, citing the full-scale invasion of Ukraine as a reminder of the need for justice. She closed by paying tribute to Benjamin B. Ferencz, whose motto “Law not War” continues to inspire new generations of legal scholars and practitioners.
  • Professor Stefanie Bock (Philipps University of Marburg, Germany) reflected on the ongoing importance of holding perpetrators of war crimes to account. After emphasising that the Nuremberg Principles have been fully embraced by the German Code of Crimes against International Law, she explained that Germany is currently undertaking structural investigations into international crimes committed in the conflict in Ukraine but has yet to charge anyone..
  • Dr Saeed Bagheri (University of Reading) examined the often-overlooked ‘ecocide’ and environmental dimensions of armed conflict, highlighting the severe ecological damage caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine – from polluted rivers and destroyed soil to the collapse of critical infrastructure. He argued that such harm raises urgent questions about how international law defines and prosecutes environmental crimes in wartime.
  • Professor Noëlle Quénivet (UWE Bristol) explored the Statute of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, highlighting the rigorous legal thinking underpinning its development and addressing misconceptions about its structure and purpose. In particular, she discussed some of the most controversial elements, i.e. its legitimacy, especially as it is set in a European context, and selectivity as well as the immunity given to some officials.
  • Dr Caleb Wheeler (Cardiff University) discussed the complexities of the right to a fair trial when the accused is absent. He noted that while defendants can voluntarily waive their presence, holding a trial entirely in their absence is controversial. Drawing on Nuremberg precedents, he emphasised the need for proper notice and legal representation, warning that without these safeguards, trials risk producing further injustices.

Discussion and closing remarks

The workshop concluded with a roundtable that brought together these diverse perspectives, highlighting the complexities of accountability, justice and human rights in times of conflict. Speakers examined the design and rigour of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression, the environmental dimensions of war, and the safeguards required to ensure fair trials.

Reflecting on the challenges discussed, Professor Herbert Reginbogin remarked:

“What happens to human rights when war begins? This is the question we, as academics and practitioners, must confront.”

The discussion underscored the ongoing relevance of the Nuremberg Principles and the vital role of scholarship in navigating the evolving landscape of international law. Dr Luke Eda, Senior Lecturer in Law at UWE Bristol, closed the workshop by thanking participants for their contributions to a timely and engaging dialogue. The event demonstrated RIPIL’s commitment to fostering informed debate and research on the legal and moral challenges of contemporary conflict.

To learn more about research and future events, visit Research in Public International Law (RIPIL).

Office for Environmental Protection – The Challenges Ahead

Author Faculty of Business and Law | Posted on

Chetana Karunatilaka, PhD student, Member of the Environmental Law and Sustainability Research group 

The Environmental Law and Sustainability Research Group (ELSRG) in collaboration with a leading law chamber, 6 Pump Court, and UK Environmental Law Association (South-West region), organised an event on the Office of Environmental Protection (OEP). A leading environmental lawyer, Mr. Christopher Badger delivered a speech on ‘The Office of Environmental Protection- A Year on, and What to Expect’. Mr. Badger specialises in environmental law cases and has an established practice as a Barrister at 6 Pump Court Chambers (London).

During the presentation, he explained that OEP is a non-departmental public body, established under the Environment Act 2021 in the United Kingdom, whose principal aims are to contribute to environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment. OEP is not a regulatory body, rather an independent oversight body to scrutinize the whole environmental system and developments. The strategy and environmental policy of OEP was published on June 2022, which identified four strategic objectives, namely,

  1. Sustained environmental improvement.
  2. Better environmental law, better implemented.
  3. Improved compliance with environmental law.
  4. Organisational excellence and influence.

One of the major achievements of OEP during the last year was presenting its independent assessment of Government’s progress in improving the natural environment in accordance with its Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) for England in 2021/2022.[1] The report explains that Government’s progress on delivery of the 25 year plan to enhance the environment has ‘fallen far short’. The report assessed 23 environmental targets, 14 of which were off track while no assessment could be made for the remaining 9 tasks. Mr. Badger recognised the report as a highly critical document, which reiterated the independence of the OEP and its ability to scrutinize the government.

OEP has submitted its observations and recommendations to various parliamentary committees on law reforms. OEP made their submissions to the House of Commons Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill Committee warning that the rushed and short timeframe suggested by the UK Government for the review of Retained EU Laws could compound environmental problems and create new uncertainties/ risks.[2] The submissions flagged the opportunities to improve environmental law and how it works in practice, provided the change is managed well. The submissions also made some recommendations for the committee to consider. OEP submitted another written document to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill Committee regarding the proposed law reforms to avoid weakening current levels of environmental protection.[3] OEP also calls for guarantees that the reforms will strengthen the government’s desire for the overall improvement of the environment.

Mr. Badger further explained the influence that OEP can make by providing a baseline on how an environmental assessment should be undertaken, what data ought to be utilized for assessment and measuring of the progress and how to improve the chances of environmental improvement in the light of the future. OEP had filed applications with the Supreme Court requesting permission to intervene in Court cases emphasizing the significance of clarity in the law to promote good environmental decision-making.[4] 

Mr. Badger pointed out some drawbacks in the enforcement mechanisms mainly due to the lack of human resources and lack of correct information etc. Referring to the R (Wild Justice) v The Water Services Regulation Authority,[5] he explained that OEP investigation would not be an alternative remedy for judicial review. There can be overlapping OEP investigation and court case on the same environmental matter.

He flagged that the OEP’s real strength rests on the fact that it has been established to keep environmental issues as a top priority, particularly in Parliament.  Since environmental reviews are likely to be rare, more emphasis would be on co-operation with public authorities and on information collection. Implementation of the objectives of OEP is a broad concept where OEP must consider an array of various issues associated with policy, resources and enforcement. No indication has yet been given of what areas of environmental law the OEP may consider to be a priority for in-depth scrutiny.

Following the presentation, the floor was open for questions and answers. Mr. Brendon Moorhouse, an environmental barrister at 6 Pump Court Chambers joined the discussion session as a panel member. A number of questions were raised by the participants and the panellists as well as other experts who attended the event came up with their opinions on the questions.

Certain clarifications were made on the role of OEP in the law-making and enforcement set up. When a bill goes to the parliament, OEP can make statements regarding the bill in the capacity of an observer. If the parliament wishes to scrutinise the law-making process, it can consider such observation. It was explained that the OEP does not directly deal with international law. However, if the UK government had ratified and adopted a treaty as a part of the domestic law, and not implementing the provisions, OEP can raise their concerns regarding such non-implementation.

A question was raised regarding the investigation process and how much of it is in the public domain. The panellists responded that, when OEP undertakes to investigate an environmental issue, they will publish a notice of investigation, an information notice, decision notice in the public domain. The report will also be published after the investigation. However, the investigation by the OEP is meant to be a transparent and open process.[6]

In this impactful session on the OEP, both Mr. Christopher Badger and Mr. Brendon Moorhouse discussed their past experiences as environmental lawyers and how the work of OEP can make a positive impact on the success of such cases. The session was well attended by undergraduate and postgraduate students, alumni, academics, NGOS and professionals from different industries.

[1] Progress in improving the natural environment in England, 2021/2022 | Office for Environmental Protection (theoep.org.uk)

[2] REUL Bill evidence submission 141122.pdf

[3] 220830_OEP_LURB_Evidence_final.pdf

[4] Reports and publications | Office for Environmental Protection (theoep.org.uk)

[5] https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/wild-justice-v-the-water-services-regulation-authority/

[6] More information is available at OEP website: https://www.theoep.org.uk/what-we-do

UWE Bristol wins Guardian Award for Equity Programme

Author Faculty of Business and Law | Posted on

We were delighted to be finalists at this year’s Guardian University Awards but are over the moon to have actually won! This award means so much to everyone who’s been involved in developing and delivering the Equity Programme ever since our first pilot event in October 2016. It’s been a long and sometimes challenging journey to introduce a progressive positive action scheme like this. Working with students, local employers and national diversity thought leaders, we’ve created something which the University can be really proud of and which offers BAME students a chance to leverage leadership and enterprise skills as they embark upon their graduate careers. 

The Equity programme has 4 pillars: 1-2-1 mentoring, identity and leadership coaching, enterprise education workshops and large evening networking and guest speaker events. National statistics on the performance and progression of ethnic minorities in the labour market (as highlighted by the MacGregor Smith Race in the Workplace Review 2017) have to change and we are proud to be leading the way on the role universities can play in this regard. Finally, we want to thank every facilitator and the external guests who attend our events and enrich our student experience.

Equity evening events run throughout the academic year and are open to the public to attend. We warmly encourage alumni to consider attending the evening events to give our students networking opportunities as well as being part of the collective challenge to diversify the talent pipeline. To find out more please visit www.uwe.ac.uk/equityor email raceequality@uwe.ac.uk

Post written by Dr Zainab Khan- Equity Programme Lead

The disclosure crisis: A suspect and practitioner perspective

Author Faculty of Business and Law | Posted on

On Wednesday 5 December 2018 UWE Bristol hosted the first annual Criminal Justice Research Unit lecture on the topic “The disclosure crisis: A suspect and practitioner perspective.” The event was organised and chaired by Dr Tom Smithand Dr Ed Johnston and funded by the Centre for Applied Legal Research.

Roughly a year ago today our first speaker Liam saw accusations of rape dismissed after the police failed to disclose crucial evidence which fundamentally undermined the claims made against him. Liam gave us a very a personal account of his experiences with the criminal justice system. Jerry Hayes and Anthony Edwards each provided varied and valuable professional perspectives on the problem of disclosure. We hope that this lecture will help to promote meaningful and long term change in this area as well as furthering our goal here at UWE Bristol of research that shapes the future of organisations.

The lecture has been recorded and is available to watch online as a video, or to listen to as a podcast:

View Full video

Listen to Podcast

Liam Allan

Liam Allan is a criminology and criminal psychology graduate who was charged with rape in 2015 and spent two years on bail before his case collapsed owing to failures with the disclosure regime. Liam gave us a very personal insight into his experience and the trauma of accusation, from the moment he was arrested until the case was dropped. Liam described being made to feel that he was “guilty until proven innocent”. Liam arrived at the Crown Court charged with 13 counts of rape; days into his trial, it emerged that the police had 60,000 non-disclosed text messages containing vital information which led to the collapse of the case against him. Following these events, there was huge media interest and public outcry. Subsequently, 600 cases were dropped, 6 of which were rape cases. Since that time, Liam has continued his studies and founded the Innovation of Justice campaign, which seeks to unite organisations, lawyers and barristers, individually seeking to improve different aspects of the criminal justice system.

Jerry Hayes

Jerry was the prosecution barrister for Liam’s trial, and played a fundamental role in the discovery of the non-disclosed evidence. Jerry described some of the fundamental issues with the criminal justice system, in particular in relation to sexual offences. He argued that many members of a jury jump to conclusions in a “no smoke without fire” reaction to rape cases (something Liam suggested he had previously done, prior to his accusation). Jerry emphasised the importance of remembering that people are complainants, not victims, until a conviction or a plea of guilty. Jerry described in detail how and why the system very nearly failed Liam Allan – who would have served up to 12 years in prison and been on the Sexual Offenders Register for life. He suggested that the evidence that was withheld had been deemed “too personal” to be revealed and not relevant to the case. Yet, he argued, it was not only capable of undermining the prosecution case; it made it absolutely clear that Liam Allan could not be guilty. Jerry described Liam’s case as the worst he had seen in 41 years of practice.

Anthony Edwards

Anthony Edwards has been a practising solicitor for 45 years and gave us a professional overview of how disclosure should be handled to avoid major miscarriages of justice. Anthony explained some of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act (CPIA) and gave an overview of the recent Attorney General’s review of disclosure. He argued that, with sexual offences, there is added complexity and difficulty due to frequent “credibility contest” in such cases – that is, they turn on one person’s word against another. He stated that it is a routine part of defence practice to deal with non-disclosure issues; from major fraud to cases of minor assault. He suggested that poor disclosure practice undermines the criminal justice system, as police and prosecutors do not look for what is actually needed in a case. Anthony highlighted that this issue will not just go away (and not done so for decades), arguing for an enormous cultural shift from the police, the prosecution and defence, to ensure that all evidence is properly disclosed from the start. Anthony highlighted the need for an independent disclosure review process, conducted by an independent barrister, arguing that history tells us that the police nor the prosecution can or will do a satisfactory job. Anthony highlighted the related issues associated with the use of social media by parties in a case; particularly the problems of detecting and accessing such material when it stored on a third party’s account. He asked: how an accused can find such material if they do not know it exists? Anthony suggested that, with an independent disclosure counsel running the process, a significant proportion of cases that currently reach court and are subsequently dropped or dismissed by a jury would be filtered out of the system at an early stage, avoiding injustice.

Question and Answer session

We had a range of questions, some sent in advance and then opened up questions from the audience. Liam talked about how the case affected his personal life and that he was suspended from his job for 2 months. The emotional strain of the case understandably caused Liam to breakdown in court, but he also spoke about the impact on his family and friends. There was much discussion around the CPS and CPIA, whether they were fit for purpose and whether Liam was judged fairly. Anthony and Jerry gave an insightful discussion of the failings of the criminal justice system and how these failings impact genuine victims of sexual abuse. The idea of anonymity for those accused of certain types of offences was discussed by all three speakers, and the idea that it should be anonymous until a judge, because there may be other offences, directs that it should be made publicly known. There was criticism of the CPS and police using their lack of resources as an excuse for their failings, and whether this is a valid excuse or reason, nonetheless it needs to be addressed.

The entire lecture is available online here:

Full video

Podcast

Professor Anthony Arnull’s Distinguished Professorial Address – UWE, 24 October 2017

Author Faculty of Business and Law | Posted on

‘Should we trust the EU?’ was the controversial title of Professor Anthony Arnull’s Distinguished Professorial Address held on 24 October 2018 at the Bristol Law School, UWE. Prof Arnull who holds the Chair of European Union Law at the University of Birmingham and is the author and editor of a wide range of well-known scholarly works in the field (eg The European Union and its Court of Justice (OUP, 2nd ed, 2006), European Union Law: A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2017), The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law (OUP, 2015)) started his Address by asking the question ‘What does trust have to do with the EU?’. He pointed out that the concept of trust is increasingly invoked by the CJEU in its jurisprudence. The view of the CJEU is that because Member States share the same values they should trust each other to respect them and thus cannot insist on evidence to show that they are being complied with.

Prof Arnull’s first task was to define the notion of ‘trust’. First, he noted that in an article published in 2004 Lenaerts identified a number of principles that should enhance the trust of individuals in the EU: transparency, equality of arms, legal certainty and predictability, and sound administration. (‘In the Union We Trust’: Trust-Enhancing Principles of Community Law’ (2004) 41 CMLRev 317-343). Writing on the same issue in 2017 Lenaerts explained that the CJEU was expecting the constitutional courts of all Member States to monitor the lower courts. (‘La vie après l’avis: Exploring the Principle of Mutual (yet not Blind) Trust’ (2017) 54 CMLRev 805-840).

Looking at the concept in a more general way Prof Arnull explained that Baier understands trust as ‘reliance on others’ competence and willingness to look after, rather than harm, things one cares about which are entrusted to their care’ but that it might be possible to add another dimension to trust, that of risk, a notion introduced by Niklas Luhmann in his extensive writings on the subject. In this context, both parties expect things to go smoothly for the benefit of both (eg hiring a babysitter). So, the question boils down to asking how can someone draw the conclusion that another person is trustworthy? After all, it is about good judgment and usually one relies on evidence to establish such trustworthiness. In other words, the question is: ‘does the person have a good track record?’ Sometimes as it is not easy to gather evidence one needs to use proxy indicators. This is particularly the case in decentralised systems when it is often difficult to find whether trust is met. Trust can indeed be misplaced and so there might be a lack of trust.

Going back to the European Union Prof Arnull asked whether it is rational to trust the EU. He observed that a high degree of trust had been displayed by the European States between the 1950 Schuman declaration and the 1957 Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community. Yet, the States also seemed not to trust each other, considering the possibility that a State might not live up to its treaty commitments. The Commission was tasked with ensuring that the treaty be applied, and an enforcement procedure was established under Article 169. Prof Arnull also went back to the enforcement procedure under the European Coal and Steel Community to prove his point. After all, the idea of policing States tends to show a lack of trust. Such an argument is supported by the introduction in the Treaty of Maastricht of the possibility for the Commission to start a second set of proceedings against States with a view to obliging them to pay financial penalties if they did not comply with the initial CJEU judgment. The Lisbon Treaty went a step further allowing the Commission to ask for financial penalties to be applied without having to seise the CJEU again, though that is only allowed in limited circumstances (Article 260(3) TFEU). Prof Arnull argued that there is trust in the Commission to enforce EU law but it was much higher in the past, especially under the European Coal and Steel Community. The Amsterdam Treaty also introduced in Article 7 TEU the possibility to check on States failing to comply with the key values of the European Union. Now such a procedure is being used against Poland and Hungary.

Prof Arnull then provided a myriad of examples of trust and lack thereof towards both Member States and the institutions of the European Union. As he pointed out in the Q&A session the permutation of trust relations in the EU does not permit a structured analysis of how trust works in the EU. He also explained that mutual trust is the basis of EU law as well as an assumption. That being said, if there is a lack of trust it does not mean that there will be no trust anymore; rather, it means that trust must be re-established at a later stage.

The application of the European Arrest Warrant is an example of the trust or lack thereof between EU Member States as the recent preliminary reference to the CJEU on a case brought by an Irish court shows (Case C-216/18 PPU). Indeed, the Irish court questioned whether the right to fair trial would be guaranteed should Ireland extradite the individual to Poland.

With regard to individuals and how much they can trust the EU, Prof Arnull highlighted that originally, under the ECSC treaty, legal and natural persons had a relatively easy access to judicial review but the Treaty of Rome severely curtailed that right. The reason for this was that such judicial review was viewed as detrimental to the good functioning of the then European Economic Community.

To ensure though that individuals benefitted from EU law, the Court established the principles of direct effect and supremacy. If it had thought the Member States could be trusted to comply with EU law it would have probably not created these principles. The CJEU also works on the basis of trust in the sense that it assumes that the highest national courts comply with EU law as well as monitor lower courts. Unfortunately, this was recently put to the test as the Danish Supreme Court refused to follow a preliminary reference in 2016 (Ajos Case). So, if a constitutional court does not comply with EU law such monitoring disappears or, at least, becomes more difficult. Some academics claim that the Danish court’s reaction was because it views the CJEU as too activist and this does not work well with the Danish legal culture. The question however is why such an issue is raised after Denmark has been for so many years in the European Union.

The European Commission is viewed as one of the most powerful institutions and so trust in it is paramount. Unfortunately, a number of events have permitted us to doubt the trust we put in it. For example, in 1999 the Santer Commission resigned. In 2006 Edith Cresson, a Commissioner, was found guilty of misconduct (Case C-432/04). More recently in 2018 the Ombudsman has had to deal with two cases of maladministration against the Commission, the first one relating to Barroso, the former President of the EU Commission taking up a job as advisor with Goldmans Sachs and, the second one relating to the appointment of Selmayr as Secretary-General. It should however be noted that in the latter case the Ombudsman did not attack the individual, rather it was the process that led to his appointment that was put in question. This all does not look good when the Commission is, according to the treaties, the guardian of the treaties and yet seems to contain a number of individuals who cannot be trusted.

The history of the European Monetary Union (EMU) is another point in case. Italy wanted to play a strong role in the EU and thus had to show that it fulfilled the convergence requirements to be part of the EMU. The criteria were flexibly interpreted in 1998 and so Italy became part of it. Later, Italy and Greece became the victims of the 2008 financial crisis. This led to asking the question why Greece had been accepted in the Eurozone in the first place. The criteria, so it seemed, did not appear to have been rightly applied or, possibly, there was a deliberate attempt by Greece to mislead other EU Member States. In any case the issue of trust was raised in this context. The problem was that the Council is the only body that can oblige a State to correct the deficit within a certain timeframe. Yet, the Council, notably due to its composition is unwilling to do so. As a result we end up in a situation whereby commitments are made but not upheld and then the breach is not rectified because of collusion between Member States. All this reveals that the actors at stake cannot be deemed trustworthy, at least in the field of monetary policies.

Another good illustration of the issue of trust in the EU is the enlargement process. At the Copenhagen European Council it was agreed that Cyprus could become a Member of the EU and that accession by a united Cyprus was encouraged. Consequently, the process launched by Kofi Annan, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, was supported by the EU. Yet, the EU did not attach any conditionality and so, despite the rejection by the Greek Cypriots of the unification of the island in a referendum organised by the United Nations, the EU allowed Cyprus to join the EU but on the understanding that the acquis was suspended in the northern part.

In conclusion, Prof Arnull explained that first the EU treaties have express provisions showing the lack of trust in the Member States. Second, practice also reveals that at times neither the Member States nor the EU institutions can be trusted. In other words, there are many reasons for not trusting the EU and the Member States. Does that mean that there is a crisis? No, according to Prof Arnull. Rather, all institutions must show that they are trustworthy and this can be done by setting practical guidelines and examples of good governance.

Guest blog post: A student representatives’ perspective of the Times Higher Education awards ceremony

Author Faculty of Business and Law | Posted on

Guest author: Mia Collins, 3rd Year Business and Management Student 

Currently in my final year of studying Business and Management, I have been fortunate enough to represent the department as its Lead Department Representative and the Finance, Business and Law faculty as its Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Committee member. These roles have demonstrated huge benefits to my educational and professional development, yet, the most monumental opportunity the positions have brought me is attending the Times Higher Education Awards in London. As a typical student does, I have had significant exposure to Bristol’s nightlife – but none of them compare to the night I had at the awards ceremony.

The night began on, rather, a stressful start; having only 1 hour to get to get ‘black tie’ ready, I was under significant pressure– for those who know me well enough, will understand exactly the level of stress I mean. Despite this, I was immensely excited. We ventured over to the JV Marriott Grovesnor House in London, where we were met with bubbly and snacks. Walking into the reception room, in itself, was an experience; everyone had gone above and beyond with their appearance and looked fantastic. Before the night had really began, this was a great opportunity for me to get to know the people who facilitate the day to day operations of UWE; as a team of 14 (2 being myself and Lily Liu, the only students in attendance), were able to get to know the likes of Steve West, Donna Whitehead and lot more. Before one too many glasses of prosecco, we got a #teamUWE picture:

(Don’t we scrub up well!)

After a chatter and a social, we were taken into the main awards hall. Merely walking towards the hall, you are greeted by the most amazing floor imaginable (see below). From the onset, everything about the night was glamourous. Once we (eventually) found our tables, we sat down to a starter of crispy salt cod fritter (essentially, the fanciest fish finger ever), followed by slow braised beef short rib with vegetables, finishing off with a Greek yoghurt tart and petits fours – yum.

As time went on, the more nervous we all became, and before we knew it, our category was up next. We had thankfully been shortlisted, for the second year in a row, Business School of the Year and were up against some intense competition. The category was announced… UWE’s participation was mentioned… a huge cheer from all of our 3 tables… on the very edge of our seats…the winner was announced… and THEN, ah. ESCP Europe Business School were awarded the winners of 2018. Despite not winning, this year(!), we didn’t lose spirit. We were up for Most Innovative Contribution to Business-University Collaboration. Again, we didn’t quite get it this time; we did, however, receive a special commendation for our efforts. Not all bad, eh?

The night didn’t end there – a disco was to follow. Thankfully, we were sat the closest to the stairs, so UWE were the first to get to the dancefloor. I must add, we took over the ENTIRE dance floor, truly a UWE takeover. The night didn’t purely involve partying, it was a great opportunity for me to develop my networking skills and get to meet some senior figures from all across the country – one in particular, the Sponsorship Director of the Times Higher Education awards. After hours of singing our hearts – out at the very top of our lungs – lunging and squatting(?) to the beat and showing the other universities why UWE really are the best, the disco came to an end – it takes a lot of skill and endurance to be the FIRST and LAST ones on the dancefloor, but we executed it so well.

We got back to our hotel in the early hours of the morning and, with no voice left and feet in agony from high heels, we sat in the lobby, each with our takeaway laughing and chatting until it was time for bed.

The night as an entity was phenomenal, I am incredibly grateful to be 1 of the 2 students fortunate enough to attend. I’ve not only taken away great memories from it but have also made great relationships with senior staff whom I would never usually have the opportunity meet. A huge thank you to everyone who facilitated the evening and made it as incredible as it was. Every day I am more and more honoured to represent UWE and everything we achieve. Bring on Business School of the Year 2019!

Below are a few photos from the evening:

   

Future Impact Webinar Series: The exploitation of money by financial criminals – do you know enough?

Author Faculty of Business and Law | Posted on

The second webinar, taking place on the 15th November from 12pm, in the Future Impact Webinar Series will aim to illustrate the threat posed by financial crime. The webinar concentrates on the current trends adopted by financial criminals towards disguising their proceeds of crime, the threat posed by terrorist financing and the problems associated with increasing levels of compliance.

Nicholas Ryder, Professor in Financial Crime, will head up a panel tackling these questions and the problems associated with increasing levels of compliance. Hosted by Dr Noordin Shehabuddeen, with guest panellists from PwC and Lexis Nexis, this webinar promises to tackle the big questions and leave you better prepared to take positive action to protect you and your business.

Nicholas is a Professor in Financial Crime who has authored four monographs: The Financial War on Terror (2015), The Financial Crisis and White Collar Crime (2014), Money laundering an endless cycle (2012) and Financial Crime in the 21st Century (2011). Nicholas has also published two edited collections The Financial Crisis and White Collar Crime – Legislative and Policy Responses (2017) and Fighting Financial Crime in the Global Economic Crisis: Policy, Trends and Sanctions (2014). He has also authored three text books The Law Relating to Financial Crime in the United Kingdom (2013 and 2016) and Commercial Law: Principles and Policy (2012).

The Bristol Business Engagement Centre (BBEC) at Bristol Business School is proud to present our Future Impact Webinar Series. This webinar series will feature exciting new developments in technology, science and management practice and highlight their impact on the future of business and society. Thought provoking yet practical, you will develop a better appreciation of what these advances will mean for you, your business and community.

Register for your free place here.

Bristol Law School students attend annual Eid on the Wharf party

Author Faculty of Business and Law | Posted on

On 28th September a diverse group of law students from Level 1 to LLM responded to the opportunity to attend an annual Eid on the Wharf party hosted by Clifford Chance and the Association of Muslim Lawyers (AML).

Koser Shaheen, Chair of AML, offered free tickets to UWE law students to attend the networking event at Clifford Chance’s Canary Wharf offices.  Facilitated by Dr. Zainab Kahn, interested students worked together to prepare for the trip.

First year LLB students Kashif Imambaccass and Lizzie Greco-Turner reflected on their experiences:

“Having only been studying at UWE for two weeks, this was our first law networking event. We were awestruck walking into the imposing thirty floor skyscraper at Canary Wharf that houses Clifford Chance. Once we arrived at the venue, we were greeted by fellow UWE students, ranging from second year LLB to LLM students.

The opportunity to network with 250+ city professionals, who were very impressive leaders in their field, gave us an invaluable insight into what a legal career in law entails.

The highlight of our evening was interacting with Halim Uddin, an associate at Clifford Chance. Uddin was down-to-earth and friendly, willing to answer all the questions we had on the work required to become an elite lawyer.

In addition to the networking, the Eid party exposed us to a number of Islamic speakers and entertainers.  We felt humbled listening to an address by Mohammed Kozbar, chairman of the Finsbury Park Mosque, who recently received the Queens Award for Voluntary Services.  Also on top of the list of entertainment was the engaging and often funny speech by Lauren Booth, referred to as one of the most ‘fascinating Muslim Personalities of our time’.

As Law is often portrayed as an exclusive profession, it was refreshing to network with a diverse team of lawyers from a wide range of backgrounds. Thanks to our lecturer Kathy Brown, who believed in us; we have obtained a drive to excel, to work harder and pave the way to becoming the very best of who we are. Now, the idea of working for one of the ‘Magic Circle’ firms, seem slightly less daunting.”

In accordance with the inclusive nature of the activity, travel was funded for the students by the Bristol Law School.

 

Panel on Concept of Solidarity held by UWE Staff at UACES Conference in Bath

Author Faculty of Business and Law | Posted on

Guest blog post by Noelle Quenivet:

A few months ago under the leadership of Dr Francesco Tava (HSS, HAS) a group of UWE scholars from the Department of Health and Social Sciences (Philosophy and Politics) and the Bristol Law School met to consider how best to engage in interdisciplinary research on the concept of solidarity in the European Union. After some discussions around the possibility to organise a workshop and engage with the wider public on the issue, we agreed that we should first test our ideas at an academic conference. With this view, the group sent a panel proposal to the call for papers for the annual conference of UACES, an academic association for Contemporary European Studies, which was going to be held in Bath in September 2018. We were all very pleased that our panel proposal was accepted and that we would be able to present our views.

The three papers we had suggested were ‘On the Borders of Solidarity: Europe and the Refugee Convention’ by Dr Phil Cole (HSS, HAS), ‘Digitising Solidarity?’ by Dr Darian Meacham (a former colleague of Francesco at the University of Maastricht, The Netherlands) and ‘Solidarity: A General Principle of EU Law?’ by Dr Eglė Dagilytė (Anglia Ruskin University) who had been contacted by Christian Dadomo and Dr Noëlle Quénivet (FBL, Law). It was agreed that Francesco would act as chair and Christian as discussant. On the day, the speakers were joined by Trineke Palm (Utrecht University, The Netherlands) who presented a paper on ‘Emotional Beliefs and the Institutional Set-up of European Integration’ and Noelle stepped in for Christian who was on a UWE business trip. Under the chairmanship of Francesco excellent questions were fielded from the audience which no doubt thoroughly enjoyed this interdisciplinary approach. We all very much look forward to continuing this initiative on the concept of solidarity and to developing further contacts.

The text below is the commentary by Noelle who acted as a discussant. It goes without saying that her reflections might not fully represent the views and arguments of the speakers and thus do not engage the responsibility of the speakers.

As a French national I am used to the motto ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’ which is anchored in Article 2 of the French Constitution. And so I have the tendency to understand ‘solidarity’ as a concept not too dissimilar from ‘fraternity’. It is interesting that a couple of months ago the case of Cédric Herrou, a French national, who had been fined for helping thousands of asylum seekers cross the border to France made the headlines. Seized of the matter, the Conseil Constitutionnel (Constitutional Court) declared that ‘[t]he concept of fraternity confers the freedom to help others, for humanitarian purposes, without consideration for the legality of their stay on national territory’ (as per translation here). The Court further explained that the principle of fraternity was a constitutional principle. For those of you interested to learn more about the case, Christian Dadomo has written a good blog post here. So, until then it was much more a rallying cry than a tangible, legal principle that could be invoked in a court. The parallel with the principle of solidarity – or is it the moral value of the concept of solidarity? – can be easily drawn here. As Egle cogently argues in her paper, whilst being a principle expressly stipulated in the treaty the principle of solidarity in the European Union is devoid of legal value. It cannot be invoked in court. At least not at the moment. Maybe the Court of Justice of the European Union will one day have its Herrou moment and consecrate the principle of solidarity that is found in a variety of treaty articles as a general principle of EU law.

So, what is the principle of solidarity? This interdisciplinary panel attempts to shed some light on it from a variety of angles: law, philosophy, politics, history and international relations. The aim is to provide depth to a concept that is often used but not necessarily well understood. Solidarity in the context of the European Union can be understood at two levels: at the micro-level it is more about the interpersonal solidarity and at the macro-level it is solidarity between the EU institutions and is probably better known under the concept of ‘sincere cooperation’. In my comments I will focus on the first one.

First, all speakers agree that the concept or the principle of solidarity is good in the sense that it is worth having and keeping. Darian also makes the point that solidarity is ‘offensive’ but in a positive sense of the term as it aims to improve the social, political and economic framework. In fact he argues that it is a political desideratum. Trineke also mentions that originally the need for EU integration was argued on the basis of a solidarity of self-interest and it later turned (or might turn) into a solidarity of heart. It is a force for good. Phil, in contrast, appears a bit more sceptical of the benefits of the application of the principle of solidarity and not only in the specific context of the refugee crisis.

Interpersonal solidarity is built on relations between individuals but it does not mean that individuals know each other personally. Rather, they are part of what Darian calls ‘a social object’ such as a nation-state, a linguistic community, a labour union. The question however is whether the social object exists before the formation of the group and is thus the basis of the group or whether the social object is created by individuals. That specific question features in all papers. In this regard, Egle speaks of top-down and bottom-up solidarity. Trineke illustrates the former by showing that solidarity as an emotional belief was used to create European integration whilst Egle mentioned the 3 million campaign as an example of the latter. So, my first question to the panel is: is it a chicken and egg situation? Is it important to understand this process to use the concept of solidarity? Does it matter or shall we only focus on what such solidarity actually produces rather than on its roots or sources?

All speakers also explain that solidarity involves first some form of community and second individuals identifying themselves as belonging to one of these communities. Phil also stresses the importance of loyalty in this context. Egle mentions that ‘all theories on solidarity imply some sort of inclusiveness’. Darian in his paper refers to a community and this ultimately means that there are inclusions and exclusions, membership even, and thus potentially the creation of a ‘we and the others’ culture. So my second question is: Is this demarcation potentially a problem? Put crudely, how could one distinguish between solidarity and nationalism for example? Applied to the EU, does this mean that in fact the principle of solidarity is supporting the building of ‘fortress Europe’ with a view to ensuring stability within the group? This is one of the key points made by Phil in relation to the refugee crisis.

The concept of reciprocity is also another common feature of the papers presented today. More than reciprocity, the discussion seems to focus on an expectation of reciprocity as Darian points out. One might however be disappointed that there is no reciprocity but it does not detract from the point that there is some form of expectation. This is also mentioned in Trineke’s paper who stresses that a number of European politicians have pointed out that solidarity is in reality a discourse about responsibility. So, my third question is: what is the link between solidarity, reciprocity and responsibility? Must members of the group feel or be responsible for what happens to others in that group? What is their relationship with those outside the group?

My last point is about practical solidarity. In other words, when do we recognise that the concept of solidarity must be engaged, must be practiced? When is such solidarity triggered? Egle mentions a number of cases relating to ‘social solidarity’ which are situations whereby an EU national seeks social assistance in another State. Phil refers to the migrant situation in the Mediterranean Sea. So, my last question for this panel is: can we define solidarity by looking at its triggers? In other words, what drives the concept of solidarity into action and what is the reaction created by the trigger?

UWE Bristol’s First Interdisciplinary Symposium on Organised Crime

Author Faculty of Business and Law | Posted on
On Wednesday 10th October, the Centre for Applied Legal Research will be hosting their first interdisciplinary symposium on organised crime.

The Symposium is endorsed by the Criminal Justice Unit, the International Law and Human Rights Unit, and the Regional History Centre. The Symposium is in association with SOLON Interdisciplinary Studies in Law, Crime and History.

The symposium will be chaired by Senior Lecturer in Organised and Financial Crime in Offshore Financial Centres, Dr Mary Alice Young and Lecturer in History Dr Michael Woodiwiss.

Speakers include: 

• Dr Michael Woodiwiss (History, UWE).

• Dr Anna Markovska (Criminology, Anglia Ruskin).

• Professor Tim Hall (Human Geography and Criminology, Winchester).

• Mr Mark Berry, PhD Researcher, Cardiff University, Trustee for the International Association for the Study of Organised Crime.

• Mr Jonathan Benton, Freelance – Formerly Head of Proceeds of International Corruption Unit and Senior Investigating Officer leading the UK Anti-Corruption Task Force and Proceeds of Corruption Unit.

• Mr Mike Lewis, Freelance – Mike’s work documents and understands the activities of states, individuals, armed groups and companies in armed conflicts and vulnerable economies, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa but also in Northern Europe, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia. More information about Mike Lewis’s research).

The symposium will take place in 4X113 in the Bristol Business School from 9am – 5pm.

The full event agenda can be viewed here. You can register for the event here.

If you have any further questions please email: calr@uwe.ac.uk

Back to top