91ֱ��

The difference between fiction and reality can be small. For this has been brought into stark focus by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Rebecca spent a month in Ukraine in 2019, coaching for the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition in Kharkiv alongside Grant Kynaston (Peterhouse, Classics PhD 2020). The , as it is known in short, “is a simulation of a fictional dispute between countries before the International Court of Justice, the judicial organ of the United Nations,” according to The International Law Students Association, which runs the event for about 700 universities from over 100 countries.

Now friends Rebecca made in three weeks at VN Karazin National University in Kharkiv and one week in Kyiv are dealing with the reality of conflict.

“I’ve seen my friends – all civilians, most of them lawyers – putting on military uniforms. They’re my age. It’s very hard to see them doing this,” Rebecca says.

“I’ve been in contact with a few of them and they seem safe. I have two friends in Kharkiv which has been heavily bombed and I’m worried sick for them.

“I’m hopeful there will be a swift political resolution that sees the invasion stopped.”

Russia has been accused of war crimes in its invasion of Ukraine, but applying law can appear theoretical in ongoing events.

Rebecca, who completed an LLM in International Law at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge in 2020, says: “International law can provide a vital language, particularly for those in complex political arenas. It can be a tool to combat oppression and to recharacterise events in legal terms – to say that an act is a war crime and thus impermissible, for instance. We’ve seen this a lot around Ukraine.

“International law sometimes competes with geopolitical realities. Under international law the exercise of collective self-defence by other states may be permissible. However, there’s the reality where if that occurs that will escalate the situation.

“States can, though, use countermeasures and breach other international law obligations, except for fundamental human rights, the prohibition on the use of force, and other peremptory norms, in response to illegal actions. For example, if a state has a treaty with Russia, because Russia has breached international law, that state can permissibly say ‘we’re not going to comply with that treaty because of the breach'.”

Ukraine has sought in a hearing that will be held on March 7 and 8, while . The challenge in both cases is the political landscape and application of any evidence gathering, court proceedings and verdicts.

The reality shows the fictional cases of the Jessup support preparation for real life events.

Rebecca says: “One of the benefits of any extra-curricular activity which encourages consideration of international law is the ability for students to be able to contextualise events and have a voice to say ‘this is not allowed’, and have reasons for that which go beyond morality.

“We’re seeing its effectiveness now, because sanctions would be harder to justify without that framework. It’s important, particularly for people in geopolitically disadvantaged areas.”

The 2022 University of Cambridge Jessup team at the National Rounds in London (from left to right) Grant Kynaston (co-coach); Jared Foong; Christopher Long; Han Yang Goh; Adam Brown; Sessi Hundeyin (91ֱ�� Law 2020); Rebecca Brown (co-coach). 

International law is Rebecca’s area of expertise, but her focus is not on conflict but health. After her Masters, and prevented by the Covid-19 pandemic from returning home to Australia, Rebecca took up a research position under , who was scrutinising the coordination problem in global health governance that Covid-19 demonstrated.

Rebecca’s PhD is an extension of that, and considers not just Covid-19, but other diseases such as Ebola and H1N1 (Swine Flu).

She adds: “I investigate how Global North states have implemented and operationalised international health law. It reveals a continuation of a neo-colonial approach, in that states are acting in counterproductive ways, such as through shutting borders, and refusing a waiver allowing the distribution of vaccine patents, despite at the same time saying ‘no one is safe until we’re all safe’.

“It looks at the disjunct between what states are saying in the international sphere – that ‘global cooperation is essential’ – and how they’re acting in terms of the legal norms. In essence, it considers how we can solve the collective action problem in health.”

Rebecca, pictured below, hopes to inform policy.

“It may be idealistic, but talking about conduct in legal terms, whether actions are compliant or if there is a more effective way of using law, will hopefully allow for better solutions,” she says.