2016 Abstracts


Dr Joseph Garcia MP, Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar

Author of: Gibraltar: The Making of a People, Gibraltar: Mediterranean SUN Publishing Co. Ltd, 1994.

  • Deputy Chief Minister: working in close partnership with the Chief Minister in his exercise of overall responsibility for and supervision of Government Departments and public administration
  • Ministerial co-ordination & Manifesto implementation
  • “Brexit” work related to the United Kingdom’s planned departure from the European Union
  • European affairs
  • International political lobbying
  • Responsibility for Gibraltar representative offices abroad
  • The promotion of the right to Self-Determination and liaison with the United Nations
  • Political, democratic and civic reform
  • Lands and Government Projects
  • Civil aviation
  • Information
  • The administration of Government Departments charged with the aforesaid

Minister for Economic Development, Telecommunications & the GSB – The Hon J J Bossano MP

  • Born 10 June 1939.
  • Evacuation 1940, 1948, Morocco, London and Northern Ireland.
  • National service, 20th intake Gibraltar Regiment 1958.
  • UK, factory worker and road sweeper West Ham 1958/59.
  • Merchant seamen UK 1960/63. Activist role in national union of seamen reform movement led by Jim Slater.
  • Returned to Gibraltar and entered politics 1963/64.
  • Campaigned for self-determination following the appearance of Sir Joshua Hassan and Peter Isola before the UN C 24 and as a result of the committee’s first consensus decision on UK talks with Spain.
  • Formed PIM, pro integration movement.
  • Return to UK, student 1966 to 1972. Formed UK PIM branch and lobbied Parliament and meetings. Obtained BSC (Econ) and BA (Italian).
  • Returned to Gibraltar 1972, stood for election house of assembly and was elected MP.
  • Re-elected 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2011.
  • TGWU full-time officer 1974 to 1988.
  • Led TGWU claim for parity of wages, salaries and pensions for MoD and other public sector workers 1974 to 1978.
  • Leader of the opposition 1976, 1984 to 1988.
  • Chief Minister 1988 to 1992 and 1992 to 1996.
  • Introduced mandatory university scholarships based on local authority UK practice for the first time in Gibraltar.
  • Achieved 132% GDP growth from 87/88 to 96/97, £152m to £352m.
  • Minister for economic development since 2011.
  • Attended United Nations C 24 and fourth committee sessions to defend Gibraltarian’s right to self-determination 1992 to 2011.
  • Attended UN regional seminar’s to defend Gibraltarian’s self-determination and Gibraltar’s decolonisation, 1993 to date.

Hon. Ian Hansen MLA

CPA Branch: Falkland Islands

Political Party: Independent

Year of Birth: 29 December 1958

Year first elected to Parliament: November 2003 in by-election, re-elected in November 2005, November 2009 and November 2013

Present Portfolios: Central Services; Public Accounts Committee and 2nd portfolio holder on Fisheries, Agriculture, Rural Development.


Farm Owner worked at Hill Cove 1974 – 79 and Pebble Island 1979 –1983, Hill Cove 1983 to present day, worked life as a stockman, subsequently purchased own farm. The Farm operates on fine wool sheep.

Chairman of the Rural Business Association – 2000-2003

Legislative Councillor – 2003 – Present

The Falkland Islands – Proud Heritage & Unique Environment.

-The Falkland Islands is an internally self-governing territory in the South Atlantic comprising of two large islands and 776 smaller islands. It covers an area of c.12,000km2 and lays 300 miles (483 km) off the coast of South America.

-An Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, the Falklands enjoys a large measure of internal self-governance and is economically self-sufficient – with the exception of defence expenditure, which is estimated at less than 0.5% of the UK’s overall defence spend.

-Throughout his presentation, MLA Hansen will provide unique insights into the modern Falkland Islands; including its Government, the economy, the environment and, most importantly, its people.

Dr Jamie Trinidad

Dr Jamie Trinidad is a Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge and of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. His research and teaching cover a number of areas, including self-determination, territory (land and sea), dispute resolution, human rights and the constitutional arrangements of British Overseas Territories. His work has been published in several leading international law journals. He is working on a book on self-determination in disputed colonial territories, and is due to publish a long article on the disputed waters around Gibraltar in the 2016 edition of the British Yearbook of International Law. He was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 2001 and practises from Isolas (Gibraltar) and 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square (London). He advises the Gibraltar Government on international legal matters and often accompanies the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister on visits to the United Nations. He holds master’s degrees in international law and international relations from Oxford and Cambridge, and a PhD in international law from Cambridge.

Prospects for the Judicial Settlement of the Gibraltar and Falklands Disputes

On 11 October 1966, Britain made a formal offer to Spain to settle all aspects of the Gibraltar territorial dispute before the International Court of Justice. The Franco government decided that Spain would be better off pursuing its claim via political means, and five decades later we continue to live with the effects of that decision.

-A judicial (or arbitral) solution has also proved elusive in the dispute between Argentina and Britain over the Falkland Islands. The possibility has been floated on occasion (mainly by Argentina during the late 19th century) but nothing has ever come of it.

-Aversion to litigation is neither unusual nor unwise. It is a risky option, especially when a dispute is framed – as both disputes under discussion are – in ‘all or nothing’ terms. In international courts and tribunals there is also an enforcement problem: States cannot be compelled to abide by the terms of a decision. Nevertheless, up to now all attempts to resolve the Gibraltar and Falklands disputes, by force or by negotiation, have failed. It is at least worth exploring whether and under what circumstances these disputes could be placed before a court or tribunal.

-The fiftieth anniversary of the British proposal regarding Gibraltar is a good opportunity to re-open this discussion. In doing so I will attempt to shed light on the relationship between the territorial aspects of the disputes and the right of self-determination claimed by and on behalf of the Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders. I will conclude by outlining a possible framework for the judicial resolution of the disputes that could be acceptable to all the parties.

Dr Caroline Morris

Dr Caroline Morris is a Senior Lecturer in Public Law at Queen Mary University of London where her research focuses on representative and direct democracy.  She is the founder and Co-director of the Centre for Small States at QMUL.  She is a member of the Law Society’s Constitutional Reference Group, the Expert Advisory Group on electoral law to the Law Commission of England and Wales, and a Rule of Law consultant to the Commonwealth Secretariat.  She also served as the Legal Advisor to the Alderney Governance Review.

Attempting Political Reform on the Microjurisdiction of Alderney

Research into state size and democracy has revealed that the very smallest states are more likely to be democratic than their larger counterparts. Being an island, as well as having a British colonial past, are also associated with a state’s observance of democratic measures.  With these observations in mind, this paper examines a failed 2016 attempt to reform the political and constitutional governance of the Channel Island of Alderney, a self-governing dependency of the British Crown.  Why was political reform rejected on this island microjurisdiction?  Was the post-Brexit agenda too crowded to countenance reform? Can a jurisdiction be too small to accept and affect democratic reform?

Dr Kristina Roepstorff

Dr Kristina Roepstorff holds a Doctorate in Political Science from the Institute for Intercultural and International Studies at Bremen University (2009), a Master of Arts in International and Comparative Legal Studies from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (2004) and a Magister Artium in Philosophy, Social Anthropology and Comparative Religious Studies from the University of Munich (2003). Currently, she holds a position as Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Magdeburg where she teaches in the Master of Arts in Peace and Conflict Studies. She is also an associate faculty member at the School of Humanitarian Studies at Royal Roads University, Canada. Previously, she worked at Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Simon Fraser University and the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy at Erfurt University.

Self-Determination and its Peace-Fostering Potential

Linking self-determination to conflict prevention and resolution is anything but a new idea. Almost twenty years ago, in 1998, a UNESCO conference on The Implementation of the Right to Self-determination as a Contribution to Conflict Prevention found that the implementation of the right to self-determination is a key contribution to the prevention and resolution of conflicts. Yet, self-determination – something generally perceived to be a good worthwhile pursuing and a fundamental human right of peoples – has also been associated with armed conflicts causing human suffering and political instability. As an ‘opium’ of peoples, self-determination has been seen fuelling conflicts and inspiring groups to take up arms to fight for their aspirations of independent statehood. Indeed, the list of conflicts related to armed struggles between governments and groups that demand greater autonomy or fully independent statehood seems endless, with many of them counting as the world’s longest running conflicts. Not surprisingly, governments and the international community of states have difficulties wholeheartedly embracing the idea of self-determination. Building on the conceptualisation of self-determination as non-domination the author has developed elsewhere, the paper proposes a paradigm shift in the discourse on self-determination, making a case for its peace-fostering potential. Leaving aside many of the contested issues regarding the scope, applicability and implementation of self-determination in particular contexts, the paper thus explores the potential of self-determination to contribute to conflict prevention and conflict resolution. It is argued that only by perceiving self-determination as a right to be granted and implemented to pre-empt the eruption of violence rather than applying it to a post-escalation stage can self-determination develop fully its peace-fostering potential. Thus, instead of asking how self-determination conflicts may be prevented and resolved, this paper looks at self-determination as an instrument of conflict prevention and resolution in itself.

Michael Flynn

Michael Flynn is an Assistant Professor and the Director of the MBA programme and Executive Education at Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin. In his role as Director, he acts as academic lead for the full time and part time MBA programmes as well as the Executive Education unit for the School.

A lecturer with a focus in international entrepreneurship and strategy, Michael is also interested in concepts around industry clustering & nation branding, especially with respect to smaller nations and micro states. In addition to Trinity, Michael also teaches at IE Madrid, EADA Barcelona, ISEE Paris and EDHEC Nice. Michael sits on a number of Boards, including both businesses and not-for-profit organisations.

Michael has a BA in Japanese & Economics (Queensland), LLB Law Degree (Queensland), MSt International Relations (Cambridge), MBA (Trinity) and a Graduate Diploma in Education (Trinity).

An Australian, he has also spent many years in Japan, and before joining academia worked extensively across the Asia Pacific region and Europe, initially in law and later in the technology and management consulting fields. Michael is based in Dublin with his Catalan wife and two sons and has lived in Ireland for 17 years.

Branding a Nation

Concepts around Business Clustering & Nation Branding as a Soft Power tool and facilitator for countries & territories in building and maintaining an international reputation.

The Irish experience and a discussion around its possible applicability to Gibraltar.

Professor Stephen Constantine

Professor Stephen Constantine, a graduate of Oxford University, taught at Lancaster University until his retirement as Emeritus Professor of Modern British History in 2010. His research has included studies of social and economic conditions in Britain and of British Empire and Commonwealth history, particularly of colonial development policy and of migration. His publications include his co-authored study Migration and Empire (Oxford University Press, 2010) and Community and Empire: the Making of Modern Gibraltar since 1704 (Manchester University Press, 2009). The latter and journal articles on Gibraltar and the monarchy (2006) and on the pirate Benito de Soto, frontier controls and policing (2008) were the products of a Lancaster University research project, which also led to publications on Gibraltar by his co-director Professor Martin Blinkhorn, two research students, Dr Chris Grocott, now at Leicester University, and Dr Gareth Stockey, now at Nottingham University, and the project’s research associate Dr Jennifer Ballantine Perera, now at the Garrison Library, Gibraltar. Professor Constantine has recently been researching the history of another British Overseas Territory, St Helena in the South Atlantic, and also the experiences of a governor’s wife in the late Colonial Empire.

Making Money and Making Good: Economics and the Environment on the Island of St Helena

In the age of decolonisation St Helena was always on Whitehall’s list of small colonial territories deemed very unlikely to become independent nation states. It remains today a British Overseas Territory. For over a century the island administration and economy have been dependent on increasing amounts of UK government aid. It was not so initially. Until the later 19th century, the island serviced huge volumes of shipping with locally-grown supplies, and from the early 20th century until post-war there was a profitable external market for locally-grown flax. But these achievements were accompanied by environmental degradation, dating back to first settlement but thereafter worsening considerably. Attempts to deal with these problems have only partially succeeded. Currently, with yet another huge UK government investment, one more attempt is being made to fix the economy, raise living standards, boost taxable local incomes and eliminate external aid, by adopting a strategy which has benefitted other small former British colonies – tourism. But success will depend considerably on addressing the island’s environmental legacy and limiting the environmental (and other) problems which tourism can also cause.

Professor Roger O’Keefe

Professor Roger O’Keefe has been Professor of Public International Law at University College London (UCL) since 2014, prior to which he taught for fifteen years at the University of Cambridge. He has been a visiting professor at Central European University, Budapest, since 2009, and in 2015 was Distinguished Visiting Professor at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. He has published widely on canonical topics of public international law, including on statehood and admission to the United Nations and on title to territory, as well on topics in the subfields of international criminal law, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international cultural heritage law.

Self-determination and ‘peoples subject to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation: Who on earth?

It is clear as a matter of international law that the right to self-determination enjoyed by the populations of at least most Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs)—so-called ‘colonial peoples’—entails the right to be granted independence should the people in question want it. It is equally settled now that the right to self-determination enjoyed by indigenous peoples and any population of a sub-state territorial entity considered a ‘people’ within the meaning of international law does not entitle the people at issue to independence. In between, however, exists a third category referred to in resolutions of the UN General Assembly and in international and national case-law as ‘peoples subject to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation’. Such peoples, like colonial peoples, enjoy as a function of their right to self-determination the right to a state of their own if so desired. But who on earth are these mysterious non-colonial peoples entitled to statehood? Can an indigenous people or any other acknowledged non-colonial people claim the right to be granted independence on the basis of their real or perceived subjection to what might, in literal or rhetorical terms, be called ‘alien subjugation, domination and exploitation’? The presentation seeks to answer these questions.

Dr Jorri Duursma

2010-Present      International Business Legal Adviser, international tax, international commercial legal advice. International bank law, Compliance law and practice, international estate planning, international tax, public international law

Translator Dutch-French Legal contracts and notary acts

2009-2010      International Legal Adviser, France

2003-2008      International Legal Adviser, Monaco

2002-2008      Invited Professor International University of Monaco

2000-2003      ABN AMRO Bank N.V. Monaco:

Oct 2002-Nov 2003 Credit Administrator Credit Department

Aug 2000 – Oct 2002: Head Compliance and Legal Department

1999- 2000      Lecturer in the Law of International Organizations, University Leiden, Nederland;   

Coordinator van de LL.M. Public International Law Programme

1995-1999      Legal advising KPMG Luxemburg for the editing of a contract with US Tax

International legal advisor, French international legal advice

Gibraltar Micro-State

After the 100 years war made by Spain in Northern Europe, the end of hostilities was agreed by Spain and the United Kingdom on 13 July 1716 (the Treaty of Utrecht). By Article X of this treaty, Spain yielded “full and entire property” of Gibraltar to Great Britain “forever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever”. Now Gibraltar has the international legal status of a Non Self Governing Territory according to UN law. Due to the present public international law, the people of Gibraltar have a jus cogens right to self-determination which cannot be changed or denied by any State or international organization. This means that only the Gibraltar people (resident in or outside of Gibraltar) can decide on Gibraltar’s international legal status.

At present 5 international legal questions are raised:

  1. Should Gibraltar stay in the same legal position now towards the UK?
  2. Could the UK and Gibraltar conclude agreements with the EU?
  3. Can Spain ask for reintegration of Gibraltar?
  4. What are the international legal advantages of Gibraltar’s independence?

The UN treats Gibraltar’s planned change of status in The Special Committee of Twenty-Four, the 4rth Committee and the International Court of Justice.

Dr Jennifer Ballantine Perera

Dr Jennifer Ballantine Perera, Gibraltar Garrison Library & Institute for Gibraltar and Mediterranean Studies, University of Gibraltar.

The Director of the Gibraltar Garrison Library and was recently appointed Director of the Institute for Gibraltar and Mediterranean Studies of the University of Gibraltar. Together with Professor Andrew Canessa, University of Essex, she is the recipient of a major award from the UK Economic and Social Research Council for their project; Bordering on Britishness:  An Oral History of Gibraltar in the 20th Century, which started recently in September 2013. She was previously based at Lancaster University where she formed part of a major research project, headed by Professor Martin Blinkhorn and Professor Stephen Constantine on Gibraltar. She has published articles on the permit system in place in Gibraltar during the 19th century, on the Royal Calpe Hunt and on the development of a civilian population on the Rock.

Is Gibraltar Post-colonial? The Applicability of the Post-colonial to Describe Gibraltar

This paper forms part of a larger project that engages with the applicability   of   post-colonial theory as tool for analysis when it comes to Gibraltar. My very suggestion of applicability is invariably loaded as implicit in my point of departure is the premise that it is not, and if so, then also implicit is the position that Gibraltar remains embedded in a colonial era. But my question is really directed at postcolonial theory as a tool, especially if we give thought to the notion that postcolonial theory has a far greater interest in the colonialism of the past that with the forms of colonialism of the present. This, together with the persistence of formal imperialism in overseas and other territories, if only by virtue of constitutional and legal realities, throws into question the applicability of post-colonial to describe Gibraltar as much as it does the present world.

John Connell

John Connell is Professor of Human Geography in the School of Geosciences, University of Sydney. He is a graduate of University College London and previously worked at the University of Sussex and the Australian National University. He has been a consultant to the International Labour Organisation, the World Health Organisation, the South Pacific Commission, SPREP, Foresight (UK), the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the International Organisation of Migration. His research interests span various themes in geography and development studies, much of which has focused on the Pacific region, mainly associated with migration and decolonisation. He has written more than 300 articles and over 20 books. The books include France’s Overseas Frontier (with R. Aldrich), Papua New Guinea. The Struggle for Development, The Last Colonies (with R. Aldrich), The Global Health Care Chain. From the Pacific to the World, and Islands at Risk. His new book (with C. Gibson) Outback Elvis, will be out shortly.  When he is not engaged in these loosely academic activities he plays football in the Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) Over 45s League – without great success.

‘The Last Colonies’ … Twenty Years On: Whatever Happened to Decolonisation?

Almost twenty years ago, with Robert Aldrich, I wrote the book The Last Colonies (1998) that examined the status of what we then described as the remaining global ‘colonies’ immediately after the United Kingdom had relinquished Hong Kong which, to many, seemed to mark the end of empire. It concluded that decolonisation was no longer straightforward, many colonies sought to strengthen ties rather than break them, isolated islands were sources of contention and globalisation rendered colonial ties of decreasing importance. Remarkably little has changed since then. Decolonisation and struggles for decolonisation have continued but not in the ‘colonies’, independence movements in the colonies have weakened but ‘constitutional ‘change is ongoing. Colonies have sought to hold on as economies have withered, expectations increased, migration strengthened, identity weakened and integration become more attractive. Strategic advantages have declined further. Such processes emphasise unresolved geographies, identities and notions of sovereignty.

Michele Chiaruzzi (MA, PhD)

Michele Chiaruzzi (MA, PhD) is Director of the Centre for International Relations at the University of the Republic of San Marino. He is a Life Member of Clare Hall College, Cambridge, and Assistant Professor of International Relations at the University of Bologna. He has been a Visiting Fellow with the University of London (LSE), University of Cambridge, Brown University, University of Queensland, and the Bruno Kessler Foundation at Trento. He held teaching positions at the Université de Montréal and University of Milan. He collaborates with the Institute of the Italian Enciclopedia Treccani and he is part of the editorial board of the Rivista di Politica.  He is a member of the board of directors of the University of San Marino and Director of the Europe Direct San Marino. He has authored writings in several journals and volumes, including the Cambridge’s Introduction to International Relations. His latest book is Martin Wight on Fortune and Irony in Politics (New York: 2016). He is Ambassador of San Marino to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Unequal Independence: The Meanings of the Small State in European Integration

“The constant intrusion, or potential intrusion, of power renders meaningless any conception of equality between members of the international community”. Edward Carr’s terse comment offers a basis of discussion of the idea and practice of the small state in European history. In spite of the structural inequality in international relations, the conception of equality between states has never been meaningless. On the contrary, its represents one of the basis for the survival of the concept and reality of the small state in Europe. The presence of the small state has been a characteristic feature of European integration and its integration in Europe one of the problematic elements of European international order – both in theory and practice. This contribution will explore some of the political conditions of this constant yet troubled presence and their changing context. It will also consider the perceptions and misperceptions of the small state as a political value and political factor in European affairs. In other words, it will try to clarify the empirical conditions and theoretical assumptions underlying the existence of the small state in 21st Century Europe.

Dr James Irving

Dr James Irving initially studied Science and Law (a combined programme) in Melbourne, Australia. After qualifying and practicing as a lawyer James wrote a doctorate on international law and self-determination at McGill University in Montreal. Since 2007 James has taught on international law courses at the London School of Economics, and in 2009 he founded the LLM course, “The International Law of Self-Determination”. He has also presented at conferences and seminars, as well as teaching on the LSE Summer School Programme. James has a particular interest in the application of self-determination to smaller post-colonial territories (often referred to in the literature as “colonial enclaves”). His article “Self-Determination and Colonial Enclaves: The Success of Singapore and the Failure of Theory” (2008 Singapore Yearbook of International Law) addresses related questions. In his spare time James enjoys learning foreign languages (Chinese currently), hiking and wilderness canoeing.

Gibraltar, Self-Determination and Brexit

On 23 June (as some may have heard) a narrow majority of UK voters (52%) supported leaving the European Union. Meanwhile Gibraltar, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted more decisively to remain in Europe (by 96%, 62% and 56% respectively).

In the aftermath of the referendum the Scottish government, and others, floated the idea that it might be possible for some territories to continue within the EU, while others (likely England and Wales) make their own arrangements outside. A precedent, of sorts, was provided in 1985 when Greenland (a territory under the sovereignty of the Danish Crown) left the EEC, while Denmark maintained its membership. Of course, in that case a relatively small proportion of the total population was leaving. In the current case a majority would be leaving, while minority territories would be maintaining membership (hence the tag “reverse Greenland”, which has been applied to this proposal).

Government law officers are currently studying various different options. There are certainly many reasons to think that a “reverse Greenland” would be challenging. In the current paper I want to focus not on these questions, which will be extensively pored over by others, but rather on whether a territory like Gibraltar or Scotland might find any support for a claim to remain part of the EU through the international law of self-determination. My ultimate conclusion is that there is no developed law which is directly applicable. As such legal arguments are unlikely to be determinative. That said, creative arguments can be made, and these may be helpful. Ultimately, as I think we would all expect, these questions will be resolved politically rather than legally, however it is quite possible that legal arguments may help to frame and influence the political dispensation.

Sir Graham Watson

Born in Rothesay, Scotland, Sir Graham is a co-founder and Chairman of the Climate Parliament, a global network of legislators working to accelerate the transition to a lowcarbon economy. From 1994 to 2014 he represented South West England in the European Parliament, during which time he was elected Chairman of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee (1999-2002), Leader of the Liberal Democrat group (2002-09) and Chairman of the EP’s delegation for relations with India (2009-14). He now works as a freelance consultant. The father of two children and the author of ten books on political issues, he speaks four EU languages fluently and is learning mandarin Chinese.

Brexit, Brussels and Europe