Mapping projects related to mass atrocities and human rights violations are prevalent across the globe. Despite their often well-intentioned origins, there has been minimal practical research and subsequent output focused on what constitutes effective mapping. Furthermore, there is a lack of guidance on how to balance the pursuit of justice with the need to protect victims and affected communities. This raised an essential question:where, when and under what circumstances should mapping of mass graves be avoided or kept secret so that protection is not jeopardised?
In 2022, Professor Melanie Klinkner and Dr Ellie Smith secured Leverhulme funding to address this critical question. As of August 30th, 2024, the project’s output has been completed and is now available as an open-access resource for global use. The output is accessible both online and in a physical format, consisting of a comprehensive workbook accompanied by a set of removable tools designed to guide practitioners through the mapping process. These tools include:
Mapping Process Flowchart: The flowchart illustrates the life cycle of a mass grave, highlighting the key stages and considerations at each step, all guided by the protection of rights.
Mapping Decision Tree: Accompanying the flowchart, the decision tree highlights concerns and necessary actions that must be addressed before progressing with mapping at each stage.
Risk Register: This element assists in decision-making processes by enabling logging and evaluations of risks and subsequent mitigation strategies.
Upon completion of the research Dr Ellie Smith outlines that:
“Mapping mass graves in an open-source format has the potential to provide longer-term protection of the site, as well as a means of countering revisionism, but is not without risks. The aim of our MaGMap tools is to enable anyone involved in mass grave mapping to do so in a way that is safe for survivors, witnesses and the families of victims, and preserves the integrity of the site as a crime scene”.
For Professor Melanie Klinkner the finalisation of these resources means that:
“Theoretical, transferable foundations have been laid to inform continued research and current mapping of atrocity practices. In fact, much of what we have learned during the course of the project now guides our own approach to building a regularised global mass grave map. This is significant: it will enable us to fully appraise the scale and magnitude of mass graves across the world in a rights-compliant and safe manner”.
The Missing Persons Indicator Project, initiated several years ago by Professor Melanie Klinkner and Andreas Kleiser from the ICMP, has recently been enhanced by a visit to the ICMP, aimed at optimising knowledge exchange. Its goal is to showcase each state’s relationship with missing persons through comprehensive data analysis. This initiative began as a collaborative effort, with data gathering undertaken by undergraduate students at Bournemouth University, engaging students in real-world research and ensuring the project’s sustainability by welcoming new students each September.
Since its inception, the project has been fortunate to work with many enthusiastic students who have completed the first round of Structural Indicator 1. This indicator demonstrates the commitment of states to international legal instruments. The table below outlines the current indicators involved in our data collection process:
Context Indicator
A qualitative assessment as to whether the state has experienced extraordinary events that may be correlated to a rise in missing persons cases.
Structural Indicator 1
The commitment shown by states to international legal instruments is an indicator of their duties and obligation in relation to missing persons.
Structural Indicator 2
Domestic legislation by states as an indicator of their duties and obligation in relation to missing persons.
Structural Indicator 3
Institutional framework(s) established by states as an indicator of their duties, obligation, and enactment of legislation in relation to missing persons.
Thanks to HEIF funding, the Missing Persons Indicator Project recently had the opportunity to employ four student volunteers over the past two weeks. Their task was to accelerate the data collation for these indicators. By working through each indicator on a state-by-state basis, they developed a comprehensive understanding of each state’s unique situation. This method also allowed them to recognise and utilise specific details that might recur across the different indicators.
Every day, a designated “data-checker” reviewed previously inputted data to identify and correct any anomalies. This rigorous review process ensures the data’s accuracy, ethical integrity, and suitability for international dissemination.
Throughout this process, the students have been deeply engaged, asking insightful questions that challenged our perspectives and prompted us to consider aspects we might have overlooked. The atmosphere has been a hub of activity and intellectual growth.
We are extremely grateful for the hard work and dedication of our student researchers. Their contributions have demonstrated that a student ‘data-lab’ is an excellent model for conducting research and achieving meaningful results.
As this term draws to a close, we are keen to alert teaching staff to the potential for their students to join the Missing Person Indicator project in September as we recruit a new cohort for the new academic year. To learn more about the project please visit our website!
BU students in the Humanities and Law Department, Shahidah Miah (3rd year Law student), Alex Carey (2nd year History student) and Josh Pitt (3rd year Politics student) won the Distinguished Delegation Award at the BISA Model NATO. The event took place at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office on Friday, March 3rd, and was organized by the British International Studies Association in partnership with FCDO.
Over 100 students from 30 UK universities participated at the 2023 edition. It is the first time BU takes part in this simulationand wins a team award, against some powerful teams from universities with long tradition of politics and international studies.
What is BISA Model NATO – This is a simulation type of event. Students are randomly allocated a country and each student is part of a specialised NATO body – the Military Committee and the Civil Emergency Planning Committee. The students then have to agree a detailed set of actions to be endorsed in a final declaration by a simulated North Atlantic Council, NATO’s highest authority. BU team successfully represented Canada.
In BISA’s press release summing up the event, Mark Webber (BISA President) said: “The simulation is designed to provide students with experience of crisis decision-making; to get them into the heads of people having to make tough choices in very testing circumstances. The students rose to this challenge very well. The Model concluded with a declaration agreed by all the student delegates on how NATO should respond to a major natural disaster. The students performed just like seasoned diplomats.”
Employability skills demonstrated. Simulation events are a recognised model of learning and allow participants access to insights unobtainable in a traditional classroom setting. Our BU students had very good & concise interventions, demonstrated excellent negotiating skills, proposed great initiatives and worked brilliantly as a team representing Canada, thus contributed to reaching overall consensus at the end of the day. They were true diplomats for a day. And they also networked with fellow students, staff from other universities and diplomats from FCDO. They received glowing praises for their interventions during the day.
Why this is so timely – Students participating in the model are working on the aftermath of a natural disaster – multiple earthquakes across the eastern Mediterranean and South-East Europe resulting in significant loss of life and mass displacement of populations. Given the current context, both geopolitical with the War in Ukraine and the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria, but also more broadly the climate change and the likely increase of natural disasters in the near future, working on such scenarios helps prepare students for real life situations. In addition, such events are inspiring students to embark upon careers and projects in diplomacy, government, non-governmental organisations and the military.
BU delegation at BISA Model NATO was advised and supported by Associate Professor Alina Dolea and Senior Lecturer Scott Keefer.
BU Lecturers in Law Jamie Fletcher and Karolina Szopa write for The Conversation about the legal status of abortion in the UK, following the overturning of Roe v Wade in the US…
UK abortion laws are more precarious than they seem – replacing the Human Rights Act could unsettle them further
The state of abortion laws in the US has many in the UK wondering about reproductive rights in their own country. While abortion is largely accessible in the UK, its legal status is more precarious than many understand. Whichever government is in power next, it has the ability to either solidify abortion access or put it further into jeopardy. With this in mind, the next prime minister should reconsider plans to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with the proposed bill of rights.
In June 2022, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab introduced the bill of rights bill, which, if passed, will repeal and replace the Human Rights Act. When asked about inserting a right to abortion in the bill of rights, Raab said this wasn’t necessary, claiming that abortion is “settled in UK law”. Without the Human Rights Act, however, abortion in the UK is far from settled.
This is because no law created by parliament is ever truly settled. This is a principle of the British constitution known as parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament is free to pass laws on any issue without being limited by an existing law created by a previous parliament, or any court. This differs from the US, where courts can strike down laws if they conflict with the constitution.
Applied to abortion, this means parliament can legislate any new abortion laws it desires. No court of law or authority could prevent parliament from arriving at a new legal position that would restrict or prohibit abortion access.
The legal status of abortion access in the UK, through the Abortion Act 1967, is more precarious than common understanding. Having an abortion is still a criminal act. A 19th-century law, which remains in place, states that any woman who intends to cause her own miscarriage commits a criminal offence that can result in life imprisonment.
The Abortion Act merely creates a limited exception when two doctors agree that the abortion is necessary and approve the procedure within 24 weeks of conception. At least two women in England and Wales are currently being prosecuted for illegally procuring abortions.
Separate legislation, passed in 2019, removes criminality for abortion in Northern Ireland. Still, due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, this legislation lacks any degree of permanency. The right to access abortion in Northern Ireland remains as fragile as in the rest of the UK.
The law granting a right to abortion access in Northern Ireland is re-voted on every year in the House of Commons. Votes in 2020, 2021 and 2022 show that around 25% of MPs are consistently opposed to abortion rights. If political winds change in the future, this percentage might increase and bring forward the true extent of this fragility.
Abortion and the Human Rights Act
Raab’s claim that abortion law is settled might have been based on European human rights law, which applies in the UK through the Human Rights Act. However, this would be incorrect – European human rights law, so far, has offered only minimal protection to abortion access. The right to private and family life enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects personal autonomy and bodily integrity.
Because the issue of abortion raises difficult moral questions over when life begins, the European Court of Human Rights has left it to each country to determine its own laws on abortion. This approach has been applied to other issues including same-sex marriage. Baroness Hale, during her time on the supreme court, remarked that the European court has given countries an “unusual” amount of leeway to determine their abortion laws.
The European court has made it clear that where a pregnancy would directly endanger a pregnant person’s life, their safety must take priority over the life of the foetus. Nonetheless, the court has yet to intervene in countries with restrictive abortion laws, such as Malta, Liechtenstein or Poland.
Domestic law and the power of the courts
Domestic human rights law, on the other hand, offers some support to Raab’s claim of abortion being settled. In a 2018 ruling, the UK supreme court held that domestic laws restricting access to abortions in cases of rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality would be interpreted as being incompatible with the ECHR right to private and family life.
This interpretation of the right to privacy effectively limited Parliament’s ability to pass more restrictive abortion laws. But it was only possible due to the Human Rights Act, which grants UK judges interpretive powers when it comes to human rights law.
The new bill of rights purports to enhance UK courts’ ability to make judgments like the one described above, by declaring that European Court of Human Rights case law will no longer be “part of domestic law”.
But what it actually does is restrict the courts’ powers when it comes to the European Convention on Human Rights. The bill only permits the creation or expansion of new rights when domestic courts view it as being “beyond reasonable doubt” that the European Court will change its previous decided position on the issue.
There is presently not enough evidence to suggest “beyond reasonable doubt” that the European court will change its current legal framework on abortion. This would mean that under the bill of rights, a future UK supreme court would be prevented from reading Article 8 as requiring access to abortion in certain cases, as it did in 2018. Domestic courts would no longer be able to protect access to abortion in the UK and would return the issue almost entirely to parliament and political winds.
While there might be some support for the claim that abortion is sufficiently protected in law, this will be greatly undermined if the Human Rights Act is repealed. The next prime minister could commit to including a provision within the Bill of Rights specifically aimed at protecting abortion rights – or even better, reverse course entirely and keep the Human Rights Act in place.
Are you an ECR who wants to start 2022 with an awesome opportunity??
Please sign up to the newly established British Academy ECR Network Southwest Hub. Led by the GW4 Alliance, in partnership with the British Academy and nine Southwest universities (including Bournemouth University). This is building an inclusive and researcher-led network to support the needs and interests of researchers in the humanities and social sciences – including subjects from Social Psychology and Anthropology to Law and History.
There will be events and activities both in the region and at the Academy that will provide an opportunity for capacity building, knowledge exchange and networking. Researcher interests will inform the activities and opportunities the network will offer.
For those that join, you will be invited to attend an Early-Career Researcher Network Welcome session, where you will learn more about the Network, meet and engage with other Early-Career Researchers and address any questions or concerns you have about the Network.
The Welcome session will take place on Thursday 20th January 2022 between 14:00 – 15:00pm on Zoom.
The Network is being piloted across the Southwest and is for researchers who identify as early-career. Although the Network does not have a strict definition of an ECR, it is anticipated you will be within 10 years of your PhD experience but recognise this will not be the case for all, given career breaks for MAT, PAT, sick leave, and other exceptional circumstances.
The expert meeting included invitees from the industrial, policy and academic sectors thereby drawing on views from key stakeholders in this field. Representative organisations included the EU Intellectual Property Office, European Patent Office, CECIMO, Materialise, HP, Prodintec amongst others. Amongst the academics invited, Dr. Marc Mimler (Member of Advisory Board) of CIPPM was also in attendance.
The EU-funded project led by Professor Mendis (Principal Investigator) consists of other UK and European partners including University of Glasgow, Scotland; Added Scientific Ltd UK, Technopolis Group Vienna Austria, University of Lapland, Finland and Boehmert & Boehmert, Munich Germany. The project is currently in progress and is due for completion in May 2019.
The project aims to provide an overview of the past and current industrial applications of Additive Manufacturing (AM) in selected sectors whilst identifying potential challenges and opportunities in need of clarification. In essence, the Study will aim to formulate a clear picture of the Intellectual Property (IP) framework that could enhance the competitiveness of the AM sector in Europe.
Regulating 3D printing has been the focus of attention recently, with the European Parliament adopting a resolution put forward by the Legal Affairs Committee to regulate 3D printing from the perspective of intellectual property (IP) and civil liability. The resolution was adopted in July 2018.
Around the same time, the European Commission commissioned a project exploring the Intellectual Property (IP) implications of the Development of 3D Printing signalling its commitment to this area. This project which commenced in May 2018 is being led by Professor Dinusha Mendis of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM) at Bournemouth University.
To speak about these developments and issues, Professor Mendis was interviewed by The Guardian for the ‘Chips with Everything’ programme recently. The link to the podcast can be found here (relevant segment from 15.10 minutes onwards).
The AHRC-funded ‘Going for Gold’ project explores the intellectual property implications of 3D scanning, 3D printing and mass customisation of ancient and modern jewellery, with a particular focus on the cultural and business sectors. In so doing, the project considers the copyright, design, licensing and contractual issues faced by key stakeholders in these industries.
The poster (illustration below) showcases the research carried out in the cultural sector (ancient jewellery), in collaboration with museums and points out the challenges faced by the museums as well as the opportunities which lie ahead in embracing this technology.
The research is led by Dr. Mendis in collaboration with Museotechniki Ltd and Uformia Ltd and the research team will produce Practice Guidelines on the adoption of 3D scanning, 3D printing and mass customisation within the cultural and business sectors.
Since 1 January 2015, Dr. Mendis has held appointments as Visiting Fellow at University of Bocconi in Italy and as Lord Provost Fellow at University of Tasmania in Australia. For further information about the collaborative work carried out by Dr. Mendis during this time, please see here (BU Research Blog post dated 13 March 2015).
Dr. Mendis will complete her research leave in July 2015 having spent two months as a Visiting Scholar at Stanford Law School, Stanford University California.
During her time as a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University, Dr. Mendis was involved in working with Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School, to further her research into the intellectual property implications of 3D printing. Sponsored by Professor Lemley, Dr. Mendis utilised the time at Stanford to complete two research papers (to be published in Autumn 2015) and collaborate with IP experts from University of California, Berkeley; Emory University; Georgia Tech University and Indiana University in taking forward a project in the area of 3D printing and intellectual property implications.
The Research Leave was made possible by the generous support of Bournemouth University’s Fusion Investment Fund which in turn led to the Visiting appointments for which Dr. Mendis is very grateful.
The appointments have all proved to be very productive and rewarding in taking forward the research on the IP implications of 3D printing. The final appointment, which involved being a Visiting Scholar at Stanford Law School was a very positive experience – and will be an unforgettable one.
The event which was held from 5-7 pm on 9th June 2014 included three short presentations and a tour of the 3D printing facilities at Bournemouth University.
The presentations focused on the various aspects of the technology and law relating to 3D Printing and were delivered by Dr. Leigh McLoughlin of the Media School; Mr. Gary Underwood from the School of Science and Technology and Dr. Dinusha Mendis of the Law Department, Business School.
Following the talks, the attendees were taken on a hands-on tour of the 3D printing facilities at Talbot Campus, Bournemouth University – and did not leave the event empty-handed. Each attendee was given a 3D printed momento to take home – as seen in the picture!
The event was enjoyable and very well attended – generating a wait list after the allocated tickets were sold out. Apart from that, the Festival of Learning provided the perfect platform to showcase the research relating to the legal and technological implications of 3D Printing. With a hands-on tour planned, it also provided the opportunity to engage the attendees in a more light-hearted manner.
The Festival of Learning has also acted as a spring board for a further event in the area of 3D Printing and Intellectual Property Law which will once again be hosted by Dr. Dinusha Mendis at Bournemouth University later this year.
The following video clip captures the essence of the Festival of Learning and provides an insight into the many exciting events which took place during 9-15 June 2014 at Bournemouth University.
Dr Melanie Klinkner shares her experience of undertaking research in Cambodia…
Perhaps it is due to a genetic predisposition to embrace the continental Kaffeehaus tradition of discussing matters for hours on end or simply because of an affinity to the Socratic dialogue, interviewing has been a key component of my research. It would be wrong to say that I am not nervous before each interview or don’t question my methodological approach, but, in general, interviews have been exciting, worthwhile and a superb way to network. I keep being amazed by the generosity of participants in giving up their time, going to the trouble of meeting me, sharing their experience and expertise, sending relevant information or answering follow-up questions.
The experiences from a fieldtrip to Cambodia epitomises the fun of qualitative research for me. On arrival at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia outside the capital Phnom Penh, I was met by the then head of PR who had not only organised an interview schedule with judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers but also offered me a tour of the (then not quite complete) building. Sure, this might have been part of their general public relations efforts, but it was me who benefitted from meeting these individuals. I was the lucky one sitting in the office of a Cambodian participant, with a translator present, conducting an interview whilst feeling strangely observed by the statue of an elusively smiling Khmer head on the top of a cupboard. I was similarly impressed with one interviewee who was on a business trip to Bangkok whilst I visited Phnom Penh, but was still happy to meet me in a Hotel lobby in the centre of Bangkok an hour after my plane from Phnom Penh touched down on Suvanarbhumi Airport. It would also be amiss to forget the other impressions gathered on this trip. The taxi driver who took me to the Extraordinary Chambers each day and dropped me at the Killing fields on the outskirts of Phnom Penh shared his experiences from the Khmer Rouge area. A young TukTuk driver and English language teacher practiced his English by telling me about the education system. Whilst not explicitly relevant to the research – implicitly this information is priceless.
It is with some sadness that I read of the difficulties the Extraordinary Chambers are facing with allegations of corruption, lack of funding, political meddling, the age and death of defendants hampering its progress. Surely Cambodia and the Cambodian people deserve better. Perhaps one day (when the children are older) I will be able to return to Cambodia for an interdisciplinary study to further our understanding as to the forensic, legal but also cultural significance the displayed human remains have within Cambodian Society – they are a fascinating substrate for research. For now, I have one small regret: I should have bought a sculpture of a Khmer head with its elusive smile to put on my book shelve at home.
The conference has previously been hosted at the Universities of Edinburgh, Oxford, Amsterdam, London, Gothenborg and East Anglia. This year’s conference dubbed the ‘beach edition’ did not fail to live up to its name – GikII. Invited speakers presented papers focusing on present and future issues in the field of law and technology. The papers included a consideration of the legal issues surrounding rights of robots, cyber security, 3D printing, privacy, genetic testing, autonomous cars, algorithms, fan fiction and a lot more. Full details of the programme can be found here.
A write-up about the conference was published in the New Scientist on 16 September 2013 which further raised the profile of this hugely popular event in the field of law and technology. The article authored by Richard Fisher of the New Scientist and titled ‘Future Law: Can you be slandered by a robot?’ opened up with the statement that “in a world awash with robots, teleports and self-driving cars, you are going to need a good lawyer”!
A glimpse into the discussion which took place over the two days was captured on twitter and published on Storify. The discussion which took place on Day 1 can be found here and the discussion on Day 2 can be accessed here.
A short video about the conference as explained by the Co- organisers Dr. Dinusha Mendis and Professor Lilian Edwards can be accessed here.
Dr Melanie Klinkner studies the use of forensic science for investigation and prosecution of atrocities such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Here she talks about the International Day of the Disappeared.
Today serves as a reminder of the number of people around the world who are missing as a result of armed conflicts. We remember the families who face a daily struggle to understand what has happened to their loved one.
Enforced disappearances have been and continue to be used by oppressive regimes in an attempt to dispose of political opponents secretly and to instil fear in the population. Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection for all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006) defines disappearances as ‘the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with authorisation, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law’.
The Red Cross work tirelessly to reunite families where possible and organisations such as the International Commission on Missing Person support identification of bodies.
In the aftermath of conflict and gross human rights violations, there is an overwhelming need of the families is to know the truth about the fate of their loved ones and, where the worst has happened, to receive their human remains as an absolute proof of death and to facilitate burial and commemoration rituals.
This need is mirrored in international human rights and international humanitarian law development, which has advanced the recognition of victim rights of national or international crimes and human rights abuses. The Basic Principles encompass the need for victims and their families to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones and demands that the bodies of those disappeared are recovered, identified and buried.
Melanie works alongside Ian Hanson and Paul Cheetham in the School of Applied Sciences, who have developed standard operating procedures for forensic investigation of mass graves. These have been used internationally in judicial and humanitarian contexts, bringing those responsible for atrocity crimes to justice and providing much needed answers to families.
The event was sponsored by the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) and CREATe, the Research Council UK Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy.
The report consisting of two Studies, included a comparative international review of actual and proposed orphan works legislation in several jurisdictions aimed at identifying key characteristics of orphan works licensing schemes and simulated rights clearance for six scenarios in order to identify pricing models in the studied jurisdictions.
A panel discussion chaired by The Honourable Mr. Justice Arnold followed the launch of the Report. The panel included Richard Boulderstone (British Library); Matthew Cope (Intellectual Property Office); David Hoffman (Editorial Photographers EPUK / Hoffman Photos), Dr. Ros Lynch (Copyright Hub), Professor Derek McAuley (University of Nottingham and TSB Connected Digital Economy Catapult) and Dr. Jeremy Silver (Bridgeman Art Library).
The event also provided an opportunity to launch the the research agenda of CREATe and to launch the CREATe working paper series. For more information, please see http://www.create.ac.uk/
The Report, titled ‘Copyright and the Regulation of Orphan Works: A Comparative Review of Seven Jurisdictions and a Rights Clearance Simulation’ can be accessed here
On Tuesday 11th June 2013, the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) showcased its research as part of the Law Department’s Festival of Learning event. The Law event showcased placement opportunities for students; various law provisions at Bournemouth and research carried out by the Law Department – which included a CIPPM Stall. The Stall was divided into three sections: Experience, Learn and Connect. The event was attended by academics, legal practitioners and students.
As part of the ‘Learn’ theme, CIPPM showcased its members’ research publications. These varied from peer reviewed journal articles to commissioned reports and recently published monographs. The collection of high quality research publications was also reflective of the various areas of research that CIPPM members are involved in. It was also an opportunity for CIPPM’s PhD students to exhibit their research.
Apart from demonstrating CIPPM’s various involvements in the areas of IP law, the Festival of Learning was an opportunity to present a platform for future collaboration which was carried out under the ‘Connect’ theme.
By representing previous partnerships leading to successful research projects, those with an interest in research into IP law were invited to collaborate and join forces with CIPPM.
On 15-16th July 2013, Professor Ruth Soetendorp, Associate Director of the Business School’s Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM), will present a paper titled “Who Cares What Students Think about IP?” at the Seventh Annual Workshop of the European Intellectual Property Teacher’s Network (EIPTN) at University of Lisbon, Portugal. Details about the Conference can be found here
On 19th June 2013, Dr. Jesus Gonzalez will present on the “The Distinctive Function of Authorship” which will take place at Bournemouth University, Executive Business Centre Room EB302. The event will commence at 4 pm.
Dr. Dinusha Mendis, Senior Lecturer in Law and Co-Director of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management has featured in recent articles, interviews and guest talks for her research into 3D printing and its implications for Intellectual Property (IP) Laws.
Her research in this area led to an interview for the United Nations Agency, World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Geneva, for their prestigious magazine the World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR). Dr. Mendis was featured in the article ‘The Shape of things to Come: 3D Printing’ published on 1 May 2013. In this article, Dr. Mendis suggests that in looking to the future and in adapting to 3D printing, businesses should look to market-driven business models—for example, by setting up an iTunes-style store for spare product parts, or by licensing 3D files more widely. It is important for businesses to ‘adapt’ to this new technology and ‘adopt’ new business models.
On the 28th May 2013, Dr. Mendis was invited to speak at the University of Glasgow, at an event organised by CREATe titled ‘Conversations in Copyright’. At this event, Dr. Mendis was invited to speak about her research into 3D Printing with a specific focus on copyright law.
At present, Dr. Mendis is in the process of authoring a paper on 3D Printing with a specific focus on copyright which will be published in autumn. She will also be presenting her research into 3D Printing and IP Law at the Festival of Learning on Thursday 6th June and Tuesday 11th June 2013.
Dr. Justine Pila, Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at University of Oxford and Senior Law Tutor at St. Catherine’s College will speak on ‘The Europeanisation of Intellectual Property Law: Towards a European Legal Methodology’ at the 2nd CIPPM Spring Lecture Series.
The Lecture will be held on Thursday 21 March 2013 in EB708 and will start at 6 pm with refreshments served from 5 pm onwards.
Dr. Pila’s main areas of research are copyright and patent law in all of their doctrinal, theoretical and historical aspects. She has published widely in this area. Her book titled ‘The Requirement for an invention in Patent Law’ was published by Oxford University Press in 2010. With Professor John Gardner she co-edits the two Oxford Legal Research Paper Series, in addition to serving as legal advisor to the Oxford Magazine. She also convenes the Law Faculty’s Intellectual Property subject group and teaches on all of its IP programmes, including the two FHS (undergraduate) IP options, the BCL option, and the Postgraduate Diploma in IP Law and Practice.
The lectures are free to attend, but places are limited, and admission to the building closes at 18:15. If you wish to reserve a place, please contact Mandy Lenihan.
BU staff can login below:
Other services
Don’t miss a post!
Subscribe for the BU Research Digest, delivered freshly every day.