I had always been under the impression that the Methanex tribunal went out of its way to adopt a police powers doctrine, or at least accepted the US argument, which gradually expanded from a narrow reading to a broader one (see initial and amended SoD). The reality is apparently much more nuanced...

Amended Statement of Claim pg. 67 (12 February 2001)

It says that "While international law does give some deference to a State’s ability to carry out its regulatory powers, discriminatory regulation can constitute an illegal expropriation". It does so unprompted. US of course doubles down on an expanded police powers doct in its amended defence

*cries in Turkish passport*

HOŞGELDİN REYİZ

To be fair, philosophy in modern day Athens isn't really a thing (with the possible exception of existentialism)...

This is such a legitimate thing to bring up. Why would anyone jump on you for this? Let's carve that virtual pub space ourselves, and if anyone has a problem, they can just go back to the conference coffee break

My impression is the opposite, everyone seems very upbeat and relieved to leave X 😁

Rereading it, I think I wasn't very clear what i was talking about! So I apologise 😁

As for the creation of a governing regime in Europe, there certainly is some impetus - just not clear who gets to do what exactly!

Yes, hence the parenthesis next to it :)

11. Apologies for the typos! **FIN**

10. It is crucial to listen to technical experts. One of my personal highlights was the discussion on technical challenges related to Lunar orbital activities, Lunar orbit traffic management, and how these operations can assist surface operations on the Moon.

9. An blend of proactive and reactive law and policy-making is of utmost importance when it comes to the Moon. We cannot aspire to set foot on the Moon with no rules whatsoever (which is not the case anyway), but we also cannot realistically have rules and policies for everything before we go back.

8. What is the role of the European Union going forward? Is it, or should it be, that of a 'convener', where Member States can engage in constructive dialogue - or a 'rule setter', where rules are dictated top-down?