International Courts Improve Public Deliberation

The paper starts with the effects of international courts on the broader public and narrows down to their influence on a small elite of lawyers. Part I suggests that international courts captivate the public imagination, allowing citizens to articulate their rights. Part II demonstrates how governments, parliaments, and national courts around the world interact with international courts in ways that improve public deliberation. Part III studies the global elite of lawyers that work in conjunction with international courts to shape policy. Part IV concludes by arguing that the dialogue fostered between international courts and democratic bodies does, in fact, lead to more vibrant democratic deliberation

Fading Extraterritoriality and Isolationism? Developments in the United States

Having the opportunity to deliver the twelfth Snyder Lecture is a privilege in part because of the distinguished scholars who have given the lecture in the past. It is also a privilege because of Earl Snyder himself. Earl was visionary in supporting these cross-Atlantic intellectual exchanges and ahead of his time in appreciating the value of studying transnationalism in its many forms. Today, in that tradition, my aim is to give you a sense of how the procedural rules of international civil litigation are developing and changing in the United States, and how those developments in turn affect more traditional forms of international lawmaking. In so doing, I part ways from many of my American colleagues, who are more pessimistic about recent trends. To watch a video of this Snyder Lecture, click here

'A Deep Trade Agenda': The convergence of trade and Fundamental Rights

A key feature of the latest EU trade negotiations was the pursuance of a “deep trade agenda” for “deep integration” with the trade partners. The concept of “deep” has yet remained unexplored from a fundamental rights perspective. The central question of this chapter asks how a methodological framework of “convergence” can help the exploration and understanding of “deepness of fundamental rights” in the new generation of EU trade agreements. Using the Civil Society Forum under CETA as a case-study, the chapter argues that while convergence can justify the targeting of certain analytical elements as opposed to others, its usefulness remains limited for more normative explorations

The International Law of Prolonged Sieges and Blockades: Gaza as a Case Study

In 2007, after Hamas’ takeover of the Gaza Strip, the area was subjected to an Israeli land siege, complemented in 2009 by a sea blockade. Since then, the already-dire living conditions in the Strip have declined consistently and the area’s dependence on external aid has grown. Yet, there is no end in sight for either the siege or the blockade, or – by extension – for the inhumane circumstances of the Strip’s population. This essay examines the duties of a military power in imposing what is effectively a years-long confinement of people and outlines a general argument for expanding the obligations of a party that imposes a prolonged siege or blockade. I consider these obligations in light of three potentially relevant legal frameworks: the law of occupation; international humanitarian law; and human rights law. In this essay, I argue that, although Gaza is no longer occupied, Israel, in exercising prolonged siege and blockade, must respect a set of obligations that encompass much more than simply not starving the besieged population or not cutting off their water supply. Paying attention only to the basic, biological needs of the besieged population ignores their human dignity because it reduces – in the eyes of the blockader – human existence to the intake of food and water. The essay concludes that the law should be interpreted as demanding that the besieger respect a wider scope of rights – including, among others, the right to enter and exit the besieged area – and, while it may limit such rights, such limitations must be compatible with the requirements of proportionality, taking into account the human toll caused by the extraordinary yet long-term situation

The Italian Constitutional Court’s Ruling against State Immunity when International Crimes Occur: Thoughts on Decision No 238 of 2014

The tension between access to justice and jurisdictional immunity of States is one of the most debated topics in current public international law. The present essay aims to explore the Italian Constitutional Court’s opinion on this matter, in particular after its recent judgment no. 238 of 2014, in which the Court stated that Italy is no longer bound by the rule on State immunity in the case of civil proceedings dealing with damages caused by the Nazi army during World War II. Studying the Court’s reasoning and the arguments provided in order to compel Italy not to implement the ICJ judgment in the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State could provide a new point of view in the International Community, based on domestic constitutional norms, about the fundamental need to protect the rights of the human being, even to the detriment of a international customary rule