States have undertaken increasingly ambitious climate change mitigation and adaptation commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)1 and instruments adopted thereunder, notably the 1997 Kyoto Protocol2 and the 2015 Paris Agreement.3

Knowledge of the threats posed to the oceans by human activity has expanded beyond marine pollution to encompass recognition of the risks posed to vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) by overfishing, destructive fisheries practices, and invasive exploitation of living and nonliving marine resources. However, with the still-developing state of marine scientific research, the majority of activities at sea continue to occur with limited knowledge of their impacts on the marine environment. In this climate of uncertainty, environmental assessment assumes heightened importance. While governance structures will generally exist to facilitate environmental assessment in marine areas within national jurisdiction, these structures are still developing for marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ).

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to this session on International Law and the Trump Administration, Part II. This is the session on international trade and investment. I know folks are still joining us, but perhaps they can filter in as we begin. I don't want the panel to lose even a minute on this important topic.

I want to begin by spending a little time articulating how I understand the U.S. government's new “free and open Indo-Pacific” (FOIP) policy, which encompasses more than the trade agreements Inu discussed in her remarks. Then, I want to take a look at how this new U.S. strategy and approach would apply to one important key player in the region: Taiwan.

Multilateralism can be seen as the greatest source of legitimacy and inclusiveness in the international system. In thinking of multilateralism, I am inspired by Harlan Grant Cohen's Editorial Comment in the January 2018 issue of the American Journal of International Law, in which he explains that multilateralism is a process that is more inclusive than unilateralism or bilateralism. Following that definition, it would imply, for example, that cooperation activities at the United Nations (UN), with its membership of 193 States, are more a reflection of multilateralism than cooperation activities at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with its membership of thirty-six states, or at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), with its membership of twenty-nine states. But by the same token, efforts at multilateralism could be harder to achieve results, given that achieving consensus among 193 countries would be more challenging than doing so among a smaller number of countries. It would also stand to reason that regional or plurilateral arrangements are less reflective of multilateralism than are multilateral arrangements. But of course, multilateralism should not only be viewed against a yardstick of numbers, but also in terms of legitimacy, effectiveness and impact of activities and outputs.