Hello. In this last video, we will discuss the third theme of our course, global values. As I explained at the start of this course, in module one, we have witnessed, since the beginning of the 20th century a gradual development from a law of peaceful coexistence of states to an international law of cooperation between states. In this international law of corporations, states aim to promote and protect global values and public interest which transcends their boundaries. This evolution has also led to the multiplication of International Court and Tribunals, endorsed with the task of adjudicating in the different fields that form part of this international law of corporation. But what role have these tribunals actually played in protecting global values and public interests, and what can reasonably be expected of them in this domain? As a preliminary remark it applies to the ICJ, International Arbitration, and International Criminal Tribunals. It is worth emphasizing that the role of international courts is to a large extent conditioned by states, as my colleague Dr. Rose has just concluded in her remarks on state consent. The potential of international courts in the protection of global values, and public interests depends both qualitative and quantitatively on the scope of jurisdiction of courts and defined by the states, and on the number and type of cases that are brought before international courts. It is important to take this into account when assessing the role played by these courts and tribunals and informing our expectations. As to the international court of justice discussed in module two Dr. Rose focused on the protection of the environment. Analyzing three cases, concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros project, aerial herbicide spraying and whaling in the Antarctic, she showed you the indirect role that a court can play in the protection of the environment. The growing awareness of the need to protect the environment, and also other global values will very likely lead the ICJ to handle more of those disputes and questions in the future. Concerning arbitration Dr. Varney concentrated on public interest investor-state arbitration, taking a protection of human health as a case study. Public interests are often at the core of disputes in this type of arbitration. Indeed, state measures which are deemed to be in breach of international investment agreements, often aim at the protection or promotion of the public interests. In this respect, it is worth emphasizing that many argue that arbitration is in fact, damaging these public interests. Such an opinion is based on the idea that arbitration tribunals usually regard the state measures as violating investment agreements. However, as explained by Dr. Radi, main stream arbitration practice does actually pay to respect to public interests and arbitration tribunals usually do not regard state regulations as being in violation investment treaties. In that sense investor-state arbitration is not a foe to public interests. On the contrary, they can be seen as contributing to the protection of these public interests. Indeed, they reaffirm and reinforce the regulatory freedom of states to protect public interests. Despite this positive contribution, investor-state arbitration raises an issue of legitimacy. Who should rule over investor-state disputes relating to measures aiming at the protection of domestic public interest. Such a question is at the core of the negotiations of mega-regional agreements today, like The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, negotiated between the United States and European Union. While this question of legitimacy has already led to reform in investor state arbitration, it may lead in the future to reinventing the settlement of investors date disputes. The global values at the core of international criminal justice are very likely among the most fundamental ones. As I explained in module four, they include securing justice and dignity for victims, ending impunity, promoting national reconciliation, and contributing to the restoration of peace. Promoting these values and objectives is a challenge for international criminal courts and tribunals. This is so especially because of the need to balance them in each and every situation. As a matter of fact, the objectives may not always necessarily be compatible. Some people argue for instance, that securing justice is not always immediately compatible with the restoration of peace. The balancing appears even more difficult if we take into account the fact that the expectations of local populations and their territories where crimes have been committed, may not always be in line with the expectations of the international community as a whole. For all these reasons, as explained in module four, it's important to mitigate our expectations over international criminal courts and tribunals can reasonably achieve, and to realize that they cannot do so on their own. Criminal justice is not a short term objective to be reached, but instead it's a point on the horizon guiding us. With this, we have reached the end of this module, and more generally, of our course. Congratulations to all of you. You're now able to differentiate between the international courts and tribunals based in the Hague. You're also able to explain their respective histories, functions, and their future, as well as to discuss the challenges each of them is facing. You also now realize what may be reasonably expected from their courts in the protection of our global values. If you enjoyed our course, we recommend that you participate in the follow up course on international law and action, specifically focusing on investigating and prosecuting international crimes. And if you're interested in experiencing international law in action in person, we warmly invite you to visit the Hague in Leiden University during one of our summer schools, or to apply for one of the international law master programs at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies. Thank you again for watching, and we look forward to seeing you soon at Leiden University.
