Dr Mut, it cannot be very common for a House of Lords committee to turn to a Spanish academic for advice on its own constitutional structure. How did your relationship with the UK Parliament begin?

We have to go back 18 years. UIC supported my proposal for a doctoral thesis on the Commonwealth, and University College London accepted the co-supervision. Thanks to a grant from UIC–Fundació Familiar Catalana and the support of the ”la Caixa” Foundation, I was able to spend more than a year in London.

Since then, international law has become a true vocation. Studying at an English institution brought me closer to this tradition and my time in London allowed me to integrate into academic and institutional environments that have shaped my career. I have taken part in projects with universities such as London, Warwick and the University of the West of England, and I have always felt very well recognised there.

In your report you speak of the need to modernise the ‘British family’. What is the main shortcoming and what solution do you propose?

One of the great strengths of the British model is its capacity for adaptation It is not a static system, but a flexible one, with a clear willingness for self-review. The reports I prepare aim to identify dysfunctions and propose pragmatic improvements without disrupting the overall balance.

The main challenge is to recognise territorial plurality. Each territory has its own aspirations and needs, which requires mechanisms for active listening and specific institutional instruments. This is not about radical reforms, but about fine-tuning the system so that it continues to function coherently.

Moreover, most of these territories wish to maintain their link with the United Kingdom. This makes it necessary to explore flexible legal formulas that can reconcile this desire with the principle of self-determination, especially in contexts where the interests of third states are also involved.

What lessons can be extrapolated to other contexts?

I would say that the key lesson is institutional flexibility as a guiding principle. The British model shows that political unity and territorial diversity can be reconciled without resorting to uniform solutions.

The idea of shared sovereignty is also crucial, where it is viable and desired. In complex contexts, with highly diverse realities, rigid responses should be avoided in favour of adaptive legal frameworks that make it possible to integrate differences without breaking historical ties.

In this sense, other countries can learn the importance of building tailor-made solutions that are capable of evolving over time and of embracing plurality as a value rather than a problem.

Do you think the current international context has forced the United Kingdom to rethink and modify its relationship with these territories?

We are living through a period of profound transformations in global governance, which requires many institutional relationships to be reconsidered. There is an increasing need to give a voice to territories that, while forming part of the ‘British family’, face their own global challenges.

The case of the Chagos Archipelago is particularly illustrative. After decades of controversy, an agreement has been reached that shows how geopolitical constraints can act as catalysts for change. Situations of this kind highlight the need for the system to be prepared to adapt, through dialogue, to new realities.

Finally, why is it important to study international law today?

It is a deeply cross-cutting discipline, connecting fields such as economics, politics, and the humanities. Above all, however, it has a humanistic dimension that must be preserved: its ultimate purpose is to protect the individual.

In recent decades, very significant progress has been made, such as the consolidation of the prohibition of the use of force, the development of human rights, and the creation of the International Criminal Court. Although compliance is not always effective, progress is undeniable when viewed from a historical perspective.

I tell my students to maintain a critical, but also fair, outlook. International law is not perfect, but it is an indispensable tool for moving towards a more balanced global order. Above all, I remind them that their work can have a real impact: behind every legal decision there are people and that should never be lost sight of.