From ‘refugeeization’ of labour exploitation to debt bondage: developing the subversive content of protecting the victims of exploitation

The article uses Italian law as glasses to point out that dichotomy forced/voluntary migrants affects the opposition regular/irregular migrants: in Italy the victims of trafficking (forced migrants par excellence) are eligible for a protection permit under Article 18 of the Immigration Law. Given that trafficked people are also exploited through debt-bondage, and given the polymorphism of migration routes, a distinction between regular and irregular migrants based on the mode of entry seems illogical. The crisis of the dichotomy between regular and irregular migrants is deepened by the provision according to which the same residence permit should be granted to victims of labour exploitation. On the basis of Mauss’s analysis of the gift, it is then argued that the “refugeeization” of exploited labour makes it clear that the gift-bondage emerges itself as a pivotal element of the system of exploitation and should therefore be considered as a justification for protection, and a reason for reviewing its content

Private Troubles and Legal Imagination: Legal Clinics a radical view

The success of legal clinics is mainly due to the idea that they can give a professionalizing connotation to the degree courses in law, while the evocation of the realist tradition, of law in action, and the reference to social justice seem relegated to the mere function of a legitimising myth. Only if characterized by a precise theoretical option that clearly distinguishes normative text from norm and identifies the hiatus between the two as the space of the jurist, can legal clinics be at the heart of a radical change in legal education. Even the orientation towards social justice is not implicit in any clinical experience. Only by configuring a legal clinic as a laboratory for students to learn how to use legal fantasy to transform the private troubles of marginalized people into claims that can be brought before a judge, does the clinic contribute to these individuals’ access to justice

CONTRA CSM: PARLARE A NUORA PERCHÉ SUOCERA INTENDA

In Italy, there is no legal remedy in the legal system to compensate for losses suffered in prison. In this way, the CSM assigned the magistrate the competence to evaluate the compensation of damages, but only when it is current. In other cases, jurisdiction would lie with the ordinary court. This has limited the competence of the supervising magistrate and consequently the possibility of the inmates receiving reimbursement of damages. In this context, this article explores in the first chapter the literal interpretation of the CSM thesis, in the second the explanation of the reasons for the division of competence of art. 35- TER, in the third the interpretation of the CEDU appeal regarding art. 35 - TER and, in the fourth, and last, the question of the meaning of the term "current prejudice". The conclusion is that CSM's argument would render the appeal ineffective for many victims of misappropriation. That is, according to EDU's own court resources such as this under review should be available and appropriate, otherwise they will not have the desired effectiveness and affordability.In Italia non esiste un rimedio preventivo e compensativo nel sistema giudiziario per pregiudizio del carcere. Pertanto, il CSM ha assegnato al magistrato di sorveglianza la giurisdizione per valutare la compensazione, ma solo quando la lesione è attuale. In altri casi, la giurisdizione ricade sul Tribunale Ordinario. Succede che ciò limita la competenza del magistrato di sorveglianza e di conseguenza la possibilità che i detenuti ricevano il risarcimento dei danni. In questo contesto, l’ articolo esplora nel primo capitolo l'interpretazione letterale della tesi di CSM, nel secondo la spiegazione delle ragioni della divisione della competenza dell'arte. 35 TER, nel terzo l'interpretazione del CEDU relativo all'art. 35 - TER e nel quarto, e ultimo, la questione del significato del termine "pregiudizio attuale". La conclusione è che l'argomentazione del CSM renderebbe l'appello inefficace per molte vittime di appropriazione indebita. Cioè, secondo la própria Corte EDU, ricorsi come questi in esame dovrebbero essere disponibili e adeguati, altrimenti non avranno l'efficacia e l'accessibilità desiderate.Na Itália, não há no ordenamento jurídico remédio preventivo e compensativo dos prejuízos sofridos no cárcere. Dessa forma, o CSM atribuiu competência ao magistrado de vigilância para avaliar o ressarcimento dos prejuízos, mas apenas quando é atual. Nos outros casos, a competência recairia sobre o Tribunal Ordinário. Ocorre que isso limitou a competência do magistrado de vigilância e consequentemente a possibilidade dos detentos receberem o ressarcimento dos danos. Nesse contexto, o presente artigo explora no primeiro capitulo a interpretação literal da tese do CSM, no segundo a explicação das razões da repartição de competência do art. 35- TER, no terceiro a interpretação do recurso da CEDU referente ao art. 35 – TER e, no quarto, e último, a questão do significado da expressão “prejuízo atual”. A conclusão é que o argumento da CSM tornaria o recurso ineficaz para muitas vitimas da detenção indevida. Ou seja, de acordo com a própria corte EDU recursos como este em análise devem ser disponíveis e adequados, sob pena de não terem a eficácia desejada e a acessibilidade