The United Nations (UN) as well as specialized UN agencies are turning to behavioral science. The UN clearly states that behavioral sciences should be included in its work to achieve its goals.1 In that, it follows the World Bank, which devoted its World Development Report 2015, “Mind, Society, and Behavior,” to behavioral insights in order to promote development.2 Let me stress from the outset that I deem this development necessary. It is highly promising that more realistic behavioral assumptions3 and insights underpin policies of international organizations (IOs), their member states, and international law.4 Still, when behavioral insights, especially nudges, are used, careful consideration of relevant scientific and normative limitations are needed to uphold legitimacy and accountability of those regulatory tools. Nudges and other behavioral interventions have been used nationally around the world5 and a lively discussion on their ethical and legal limitations has ensued on the national level.6

I am Mélida Hodgson, president of ASIL, and on behalf of the Society, I welcome you to this lecture by Leila Sadat, this year’s awardee of our Goler T. Butcher Medal.

When President Trump took office on January 20, 2025, he issued numerous executive orders, among them one that suspended the admissions of refugees into the United States. This executive order includes carveouts for refugees whose admission may be in the national interest of the United States, and notes that it is the policy of the United States “to admit only those refugees who can fully and appropriately assimilate into the United States.”1 A little over two weeks later, President Trump issued a second executive order entitled, “Addressing the Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa[.]”2 This order directed the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to “prioritize humanitarian relief, including admission and resettlement through the Unites States Refugee Admissions Program, for Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.”3 The “government-sponsored race-based discrimination” in question includes what the order describes as “countless government policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business[,]” including a recent law that, again, according to the order, “enable[s] the government of South Africa to seize ethnic minority Afrikaner’s agricultural property without compensation.”4 The executive order targeting South Africa also halts all other aid or assistance to the country from the United States because South Africa has “taken aggressive positions towards the United States and its allies, including accusing Israel, not Hamas, of genocide in the International Court of Justice[.]”5

We are so lucky to have a fantastic panel with us today. I will introduce them briefly, but I encourage you to read their full bios because the achievements of our panelists are far too many for me to list today.

Today I want to explore how a city can become a preferred arbitral seat. The competition is tough. Everywhere we turn, there is a flurry of new arbitral institutions or hearing centers or announcements of new arbitration laws. It is all part of a bigger effort to become the next global arbitration hub in what has become an epic battle of the seats. It can be as ferocious as “Survivor” or “American Ninja Warrior,” but with lawyers.