ANJeL-in-Europe events 2-9 November 2026

Professor Luke Nottage will give a series of lectures, partly coordinated kindly by ANJeL-in-Europe convenor Prof Giorgio Colombo (Ca’ Foscari, University of Venice) as follows, before supporting Team Australia students at the INC negotiation and arbitration moot competition in Tokyo over 12-17 November:

1. 2 November, University of Frankfurt (hosted by Prof Moritz Baelz): “The Impact of EU Traceability Regulations for Asia’s EV Battery Manufacturers, Australia’s Critical Raw Materials Suppliers, Global Trade and Dispute Resolution”. This is based on a forthcoming book for Hart with Prof Jeanne Huang, and our article with this Abstract:
   • “The value chains for critical raw materials (CRM) used in electric vehicle (EV) batteries often involve mining in the Global South, Australia and Canada, production in Asia, and consumption in the Global North. Starting in 2027, EU law will require a ‘digital product passport’ (DPP) for market entry. These passports will provide EU consumers, investors, regulators and others with products and sustainability data throughout the entire value chain. The EU DPP aims to improve ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) compliance by ensuring high transparency and verifiable data from miners, producers and recyclers. However, legal, geopolitical, commercial and technological factors suggest that major economies in the up-and mid-stream of the value chains, such as Australia, China and Japan, may maintain or develop their own traceability laws, which might only partially overlap with the EU’s system. These laws could potentially be linked through mutual recognition agreements with the EU. Our paper explores how such a system could function, with varying degrees of decentralisation, inspired partly by private international law mechanisms that have evolved to handle cross-border traceability of documents. Examples include systems for recognising marriage and other personal or commercial certificates, arbitral awards and foreign judgments.”
2. 4 November, University of Turino (hosted by Prof Michele Graziadei): “Consumer Law Redress and Administration, Product Safety Regulation and Contracts in Japan and Australia” (based on article with Prof Souichirou Kozuka and published also in Italian, updated including by reference my National Report on Australia with Prof Jeannie Paterson for the September 2026 Berlin IACL Congress session / book on “Contractual Justice”):
   • “This paper explores developments in consumer law and practice in Japan, as an important area that has not seen much comparative scholarship in Western languages despite significant developments over the last 10-20 years. The paper connects developments to broader debates about the nature of contemporary Japanese law and society, and mainly compares Australia although other jurisdictions are also discussed. The comparative analysis first explains the persistent problems for consumer redress. It then focuses on issues and reforms in consumer affairs administration, including the functions of reforming and enforcing consumer laws, the relationship with competition law concepts and regulators, and the relationship between consumer affairs regulators and other government agencies or stakeholders. The paper then examines developments in consumer product safety law and contracts, including new challenges from e-commerce and digital technologies, before drawing some conclusions.”
3. 6 November, University of Venice (hosted by Prof Colombo): “The Identity of Japanese Law: A Journey with History, Orientalism and Technicalities”, based on our manuscript for Luca Siliquini Cinelli et al (eds) Research Handbook on the Philosophical Foundations of Comparative Law:
   • “Japanese law is one of the favourite playgrounds for comparative lawyers. This is partly due to historical reasons: the Japanese legal system is a product of the joint influence of Chinese imperial law (starting from the 7^th century), continental European law (in the second half of the 19^th century), and US law (after WWII). All these influences have been filtered by the local legal culture, and the resulting product is of unmistakable charm for any comparative law expert. However, the identity of Japanese law is still heatedly debated. Generations of scholars, both Japanese and foreign, have tried to demonstrate that Japanese law is completely unique or very similar to other European civil law systems; that the influence of the American system on Japan is of utmost importance or almost negligible; that laws are scrupulously observed or light-heartedly disregarded in favour of local customs and traditions. So what isthe identity of Japanese law? Building on the vast corpus of available comparative research, the authors intend to deal with the most common representations of the Japanese legal system to critically assess their merits and shortcomings.”
4. 9 November, University of Milan (Statale) (hosted by Prof Diana Urania Galleta) “The Interface of Inquests with Consumer Law and Policy: The Takata Airbag Debacle in Australia and Beyond“, based on my UNSWLJ 2026 article, with this Abstract:
   • “Unsafe Takata airbags remain in circulation, in Australia and worldwide, despite almost two decades of recalls and recent initiatives to improve consumer product safety regulation generally (Parts 1-3). The NSW coronial Inquest over 2019-2021 into Australia’s first known fatality in 2017 uncovered how Honda Australia and regulators were partly asleep at the wheel regarding voluntary recalls (Part 4). The fatality triggered a belated compulsory recall and legislative reform to allow the Transport Department such powers, both introduced in 2018, and by the end of the Inquest the Department was taking a clear lead role in vehicle recalls. The Inquest findings and recommendations for avoiding future harms from Takata airbag and other recalls, only released in November 2021, flew largely under the radar in the media but influenced some regulatory practices and could have had an impact on private litigation (Part 5). Such inquests and analogues overseas, little discussed in the legal literature, deserve wider scrutiny (Part 6). They can help identify serious product related risks and responses, assisting compensation claims and regulatory learning, while avoiding future harms and providing an extra resource for consumer product safety law reforms.”