Bernhard Maier has over 15 years’ experience in public and private international law, with a particular focus on the natural resources and infrastructure sectors. He is also a Professor of International Law at King's College London and an appointee to the UK Attorney General’s Panel of Public International Law Counsel to the Crown. He represents corporations and high net worth individuals in arbitration proceedings and international disputes. For example, he advised a consortium led by Max Johnson in relation to a dispute arising out of a gold mine in Mongolia. He also recently represented investors with mining-related legal issues in Mozambique, Mauritania, Slovakia, Guyana, Guatemala and Cuba. He has successfully acted for a number of sovereign States in public international law advisory matters and disputes, including for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Barbados, Slovakia and Ghana. He also successfully defended a US$1bn treaty case arising out of a rare earths mining project in East Africa. Professor Maier is recognised as a Leader in the Who’s Who Legal Arbitration Guide. He is also ranked in the Who’s Who Legal Commercial Litigation Guide, which notes he is “a very smart litigation attorney” who is “deeply knowledgeable and technically skilled”.
Legal challenges and opportunities in the green energy transition
Are legal initiatives helping or hindering the green energy transition? The question of balancing investor and host State interests remains more prevalent - and complex - than ever before. This is no longer the case just at a national level but also at an international level, where national laws and treaty obligations collide daily. The Energy Charter Treaty, long a go-to source of comfort for long-term and capital-intensive investments no longer seems fit for purpose. At the same time, the EU is implementing new avant-garde legislation resembling a planned rather than a market economy, with far reaching implications for actors in the mining sector and their lawyers. Where does the mining industry fit into this maze of competing considerations? Are the applicable laws fit for purpose?