Where is the Conference on Law & Security taking place?

The conference is scheduled to take place in Copenhagen, DNK.

What is the primary focus of this conference?

The conference focuses on the intersection of legal frameworks and security challenges, exploring how law shapes and responds to global security issues.

Conference on Law & Security

Name: Conference on Law & Security
Start: 2026-08-27T00:00:00Z
End: 2026-08-28T00:00:00Z
Location: Copenhagen

Aug 27–28, 2026Copenhagen, DenmarkIn-person

Starts in 19 daysRegistration open

The Conference on Law & Security, held in Copenhagen, DNK, offers a crucial forum for exploring the intricate connections between legal frameworks and security challenges. This event brings together experts to discuss how legal principles shape, and are in turn shaped by, contemporary security concerns. Participants will delve into various aspects of this dynamic relationship, fostering a deeper understanding of the legal dimensions of global and regional security issues.

Committees & topics

Topics
International Institutions Under Pressure · Transatlantic Defence Cooperation · European Security Infrastructure · Security in the Arctic

Why it matters

In an increasingly interconnected world, the interplay between law and security is paramount. Legal structures provide the foundation for international cooperation, conflict resolution, and the protection of human rights, all of which are critical for maintaining global stability. Concurrently, evolving security threats, from cyber warfare to transnational crime, necessitate adaptive legal responses and innovative policy solutions. This conference serves as a vital platform for examining these complex dynamics, highlighting the need for robust legal frameworks to address emerging security challenges effectively.

The discussions at this event are particularly relevant for policymakers, legal professionals, academics, and security experts. By fostering interdisciplinary dialogue, the conference aims to bridge the gap between legal theory and practical security applications. Understanding the legal underpinnings of security operations, intelligence gathering, and international interventions is essential for ensuring accountability, legitimacy, and adherence to international norms. The insights generated from this gathering can inform national and international strategies, contributing to more secure and just societies.

How to prepare

To maximize engagement with the conference's themes, participants should consider a comprehensive approach to preparation. Familiarity with current geopolitical security challenges and their legal implications is essential. This includes understanding international humanitarian law, human rights law, and the legal aspects of cybersecurity and counter-terrorism.

Engaging with the concepts outlined in lessons such as "What Is Stakeholder Mapping?" and "Hidden Stakeholders" can further enhance one's ability to critically assess complex legal and security dilemmas. Additionally, reviewing materials on "Engagement Strategies" and "Dynamic Analysis" can provide valuable frameworks for understanding the multifaceted nature of security issues and the diverse actors involved. A thorough preparation will enable attendees to contribute meaningfully to discussions and gain maximum benefit from the expert presentations.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 4 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Denmark

As the host nation, DNK emphasizes international law and multilateral cooperation in addressing security challenges.

Role in topic

DNK, as the host country, plays a significant role in facilitating discussions on international law and security. Its commitment to multilateralism and its position within European security structures provide a relevant backdrop for exploring legal and security issues. The conference in Copenhagen underscores DNK's dedication to fostering dialogue on these critical topics.

United States

USA often prioritizes national security interests, sometimes leading to debates on the interpretation and application of international law.

Role in topic

The USA's perspective is crucial due to its significant global security footprint and its influence on international legal norms. Discussions often revolve around the balance between national security imperatives and international legal obligations, particularly in areas like counter-terrorism and cyber warfare. The USA's approach to these issues has broad implications for global security governance.

China

CHN emphasizes state sovereignty and non-interference, influencing its approach to international security law.

Role in topic

CHN's growing global influence means its interpretation of international law and security is increasingly important. Its emphasis on state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs shapes its engagement with international security frameworks. Understanding CHN's legal and security doctrines is vital for comprehensive discussions on global security.

Russia

RUS frequently challenges established international legal norms, particularly concerning sovereignty and intervention.

Role in topic

RUS's perspective is central to discussions on international security, given its active role in various geopolitical conflicts and its often divergent interpretations of international law. Its approach to issues such as territorial integrity, intervention, and cyber security presents significant challenges and opportunities for legal and security frameworks.

Topics & background

The background behind each topic and the actors that shape it.

International Institutions Under Pressure

The post-1945 multilateral order — anchored by the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, and a dense web of treaty bodies — is facing its most sustained challenge since the end of the Cold War. The UN Security Council has been repeatedly paralysed by P5 vetoes over Ukraine, Gaza, and Syria, while the General Assembly's 'Uniting for Peace' resolutions and ICJ advisory opinions have exposed the gap between legal authority and enforcement. The International Criminal Court's arrest warrants against sitting leaders, including those of Russia and Israel, have triggered open defiance and, in some cases, sanctions against the Court itself. Beyond the UN system, the WTO's Appellate Body remains effectively non-functional after years of US blockage of judicial appointments, and the WHO's pandemic treaty negotiations have stalled over equity and sovereignty concerns. Emerging powers argue the institutions reflect a 1945 distribution of power and demand reform of Security Council membership, IMF quotas, and development bank governance, while parallel structures such as BRICS+ and the SCO continue to expand. Western states, meanwhile, accuse revisionist powers of weaponising institutional procedures to shield norm violations. The debate today centres on whether the liberal international order can be reformed from within, replaced by competing blocs, or supplemented by 'minilateral' coalitions. Funding crises — including US arrears and proposed cuts to UN agencies — add an existential financial dimension to what is fundamentally a contest over legitimacy, representation, and the rule of law in international affairs.

Key players

Transatlantic Defence Cooperation

Transatlantic defence cooperation has been the backbone of Euro-Atlantic security since the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949. NATO's collective defence clause, Article 5, was invoked only once — after the 9/11 attacks — but the Alliance has been continuously engaged through enlargement, out-of-area operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and, since 2014, deterrence and defence posture adjustments along its eastern flank. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 produced the most dramatic transatlantic mobilisation in a generation, including the accession of Finland (2023) and Sweden (2024), the activation of the NATO Force Model, and unprecedented coordinated sanctions. Yet the cooperation is under strain. Successive US administrations have pressed European allies to meet and exceed the 2% of GDP defence-spending benchmark agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit, and at the 2024 Washington Summit allies committed to higher production targets for ammunition and air defence. Debates over burden-sharing, the durability of US security guarantees, technology export controls, and divergent approaches to China have raised questions about strategic autonomy in Europe and the future of integrated industrial bases. The EU's European Defence Industrial Strategy and instruments such as ASAP and EDIRPA seek to complement — but at times compete with — NATO procurement. Today the agenda spans sustaining military aid to Ukraine, replenishing depleted stockpiles, securing critical undersea infrastructure, coordinating on emerging technologies and AI in defence, and aligning on Indo-Pacific posture. The central question is whether the alliance can adapt fast enough to simultaneous European, Middle Eastern and Pacific contingencies while managing political volatility on both sides of the Atlantic.

Key players

European Security Infrastructure

Europe's security architecture has historically rested on overlapping institutions: NATO for collective defence, the EU for economic and increasingly defence-industrial integration, the OSCE for confidence-building and arms control, and the Council of Europe for human rights. The end of the Cold War produced foundational instruments — the Charter of Paris (1990), the CFE Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty, and the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) — that envisaged a cooperative pan-European order. That framework has progressively collapsed: Russia suspended CFE participation in 2007, withdrew from Open Skies in 2021, and fully repudiated CFE in 2023, while the INF Treaty ended in 2019. The 2022 invasion of Ukraine destroyed remaining illusions of cooperative security with Moscow. The EU activated the European Peace Facility to finance lethal aid for the first time, launched a Strategic Compass, and accelerated enlargement toward Ukraine, Moldova and the Western Balkans. Sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, GPS jamming in the Baltic, undersea cable incidents, and hybrid pressure on borders with Belarus have all underscored the vulnerability of critical infrastructure that knits the continent together — energy grids, data cables, ports, and rail corridors. The contemporary debate is how to construct a durable security order without Russia as a partner: hardening physical and digital infrastructure, integrating Ukraine's defence industry into European supply chains, financing long-term rearmament (including discussion of defence Eurobonds), and managing the OSCE's crisis of consensus. Underlying it all is the question of what 'indivisible security' means when one major actor explicitly rejects the post-Cold War settlement.

Key players

Security in the Arctic

The Arctic was long treated as a zone of 'exceptionalism' — a region where even Cold War rivals cooperated on science, search-and-rescue, and environmental protection through the Arctic Council, founded in 1996. The eight Arctic states (the A8) managed overlapping claims through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf reviewing extended shelf submissions from Russia, Canada, Denmark/Greenland, and others. Climate change has transformed the strategic landscape: sea-ice retreat is opening the Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage, exposing significant hydrocarbon and mineral reserves, and shortening transpolar military flight paths. Russia's invasion of Ukraine ended Arctic exceptionalism. The seven other Arctic Council members paused cooperation with Moscow in March 2022, and although limited working-group activity has resumed, the Council's consensus model is severely strained. With Finland's (2023) and Sweden's (2024) accession to NATO, seven of the eight Arctic states are now Allies, leaving Russia — which holds the longest Arctic coastline and has extensively rebuilt Soviet-era bases — increasingly isolated and reliant on partnership with China, which styles itself a 'near-Arctic state' and promotes a 'Polar Silk Road'. Current flashpoints include militarisation of the Kola Peninsula and Svalbard's contested status under the 1920 treaty, the future of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, dual-use Chinese investment in research stations and infrastructure, indigenous rights and environmental governance, and freedom-of-navigation questions over the Northern Sea Route. The debate is whether the Arctic can be re-insulated from broader great-power competition, or whether it becomes a fully integrated theatre of strategic rivalry.

Key players

Resources

News, lessons, and country profiles to prep for Conference on Law & Security.

Recent reporting to ground your prep

Arming an archipelago: Is time running out for Europe's oldest DMZ? | Euronews

Comprehensive approach to security: Federal Council launches consultation on Switzerland's security policy strategy

Europe's June Heatwave: Infrastructure Crisis

Ukraine Drone Strikes Crimea Power Grid

Lessons

Bite-sized lessons to build the basics

Hidden Stakeholders

Engagement Strategies

Dynamic Analysis

Stakeholder Mapping Workshop

Courses

Guided courses that go deeper on the topic

Advanced Negotiation

Multilateral Negotiation

Policy Brief Writing

Conflict Resolution

The states in play, with the data that shapes their stance

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

By committee

Frequently asked questions

Conference on Law & Security

Aug 27–28, 2026Copenhagen, DenmarkIn-person

Starts in 19 daysRegistration open

Committees & topics

Topics
International Institutions Under Pressure · Transatlantic Defence Cooperation · European Security Infrastructure · Security in the Arctic

Why it matters

How to prepare

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 4 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Denmark

As the host nation, DNK emphasizes international law and multilateral cooperation in addressing security challenges.

Role in topic

United States

USA often prioritizes national security interests, sometimes leading to debates on the interpretation and application of international law.

Role in topic

China

CHN emphasizes state sovereignty and non-interference, influencing its approach to international security law.

Role in topic

Russia

RUS frequently challenges established international legal norms, particularly concerning sovereignty and intervention.

Role in topic

Topics & background

The background behind each topic and the actors that shape it.