I was in Dubai last week for the International Bar Association annual conference, where the main topic of conversation was the action of the country’s government in cancelling the conference. The event went ahead after all, following compromises. The resulting discussions could not have been more relevant to the role of the bar in promoting the rule of law it, if not quite in the way the conference organisers originally intended.

The background facts are these. Five weeks before the conference, the IBA received a message from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) security branch that the conference was to be cancelled immediately because its content might precipitate instability in the region. The IBA therefore negotiated terms on which the Conference could take place. No sessions were censored, and no requests were made (by the UAE or the IBA) for any changes to speakers, but efforts were made to retitle seven sessions, which became focused more on standards of international law, in an effort to clarify any misconception that they were particularly targeting the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Just one of these seven sessions, on Women and Islam, was cancelled, but this action was taken by the Committee Officers and not by the authorities, as they felt that, even though the speakers remained the same, the new session title might not attract sufficient attendance.

There were so many rumours flying about in the early days that the IBA released a message to delegates midweek. As a result, the matter was discussed openly at three meetings I attended. Some searching questions were asked by delegates, to which there are no easy answers. Why did the IBA go to a country where certain delegates had to have security and other special arrangements made? (the Israelis in this case, but it could be others in other countries.) Why did the IBA not make a public statement about the importance of an independent legal profession, democracy and the rule of law at the opening ceremony or on a similar occasion? Why did the IBA not inform delegates well before the conference about the actions of the government, so that they could decide whether they still wanted to come, instead of being confronted with the position only once at the venue?

Nearly everyone I spoke to agreed that the IBA was right to continue with the conference in Dubai despite these fundamental questions, even if some wished that the original decision had not been made to go there. Cancellation so shortly before the event - over 5,000 people attended - would have caused major disruption to participants and the IBA, and would have provoked a much bigger sensation than the news that it was nearly cancelled. And, much more importantly than the financial or administrative consequences, many people felt that overall it was important to engage in a dialogue with lawyers in the region rather than not come at all. We all realised that we were in a different place when the local Minister of Justice, at the opening ceremony, announced that the government was drawing up a code of conduct for its lawyers.

The IBA prides itself on its human rights records, and issues reports to governments around the world on how to behave. Purism is easy when applied to others, and the IBA might have to reflect on that. Engagement will often involve compromise. The question which will haunt it is whether it should have brooked no interference with its arrangements, and should have pulled out to protect its independence and reputation.

It was not the IBA’s week. The first announcement about the near-cancellation was followed by another one during the course of the conference. This was sent by e-mail to all those registered for the final party: 'Friday has just been declared to be a holy day on the occasion of Wakfat Arafat. In observance of this, we will not be able to serve alcohol or have any entertainment on that day. The closing event at the Madinat Jumeirah will go ahead as planned (the location is beautiful) but without alcohol or music. Food and soft drinks will be abundant! The IBA will be issuing partial refunds after the conference to all who have bought tickets.'

Personally, visiting Dubai gave me an unexpected insight into others’ lives, personal and professional: the overpowering heat, even though it is a cooler time of the year; the large number of gigantic, newly built towers which crowd the downtown area; the mammoth Dubai Mall; the unwalkable scale of the city; the large number of women of all ages with their faces nearly entirely covered; the many migrant labourers seen on building sites. I sat with lawyers from Saudi Arabia, Dubai and Syria and spoke to them about their lives. The conference sessions I attended were excellent, the event was very well organised, and finally the discussion centring on the choice of conference venue was stimulating and utterly relevant to the role of bars and law societies in society.