Monograph by Angelo Jr Golia
Journal Article by Angelo Jr Golia
Costituzionalismo.it, 2024
Il presente articolo si propone di offrire un contributo al dibattito sulla c.d.
costituzionalizz... more Il presente articolo si propone di offrire un contributo al dibattito sulla c.d.
costituzionalizzazione del diritto internazionale, a partire dalle recenti vicende (in particolare, i conflitti russo-ucraino e israelo-palestinese) che sembrano mettere in crisi i presupposti che hanno consentito a parte della dottrina di sostenere l’esistenza di tale processo di costituzionalizzazione. Dopo l’introduzione (sezione 1), nella sezione 2 si evidenzia come, nel discorso all’interno del quale si è sostenuta l’esistenza di tale processo, si sia originariamente imposta una specifica variante caratterizzata da oggetti di analisi (sezione 2.1), metodo (sezione 2.2) e funzioni (sezione 2.3) che ne hanno limitato le possibilità analitiche e prescrittive. A partire da questa osservazione, si mostra come l’equilibrio interno a tale discorso sia nel corso del tempo mutato (sezione 3). Anche grazie al recupero di elementi inizialmente marginalizzati, le posizioni dottrinali “interne” a quel discorso hanno superato la variante originaria, mutando oggetti di analisi (sezione 3.1), metodo (sezione 3.2) e funzioni (sezione 3.3) e portando quindi a una ri-definizione dei termini del dibattito. Le critiche che negano la stessa possibilità di una costituzionalizzazione del diritto internazionale (critiche “esterne”) sembrano invece concentrarsi ancora sulla variante originaria. Al fine di cogliere l’evoluzione all’interno del discorso, si esaminano (sezione 4) alcuni casi di studio relativi, in particolare, ai regimi giuridici della sicurezza (sezione 4.1), del commercio (sezione 4.2), del cambiamento climatico (sezione 4.3) e della governance digitale (sezione 4.4). Questi casi mostrano come il discorso sulla costituzionalizzazione del diritto internazionale, pur mutato nei suoi termini, esista ancora e conservi un potenziale analitico e prescrittivo. Da ultimo si svolgono alcune considerazioni conclusive (sezione 5).
Nomos, 2023
Il contributo analizza la sentenza della Corte costituzionale n. 159/2023, relativa alla tutela e... more Il contributo analizza la sentenza della Corte costituzionale n. 159/2023, relativa alla tutela esecutiva nei confronti di Stati stranieri, con particolare attenzione ai percorsi argomentativi e ai profili di giustizia costituzionale. Essa è inquadrata nell'ambito di un percorso che, si ritiene, conferma le funzioni di "amministrazione diplomatica" oggi svolte dalle corti costituzionali. In altre parole, la sentenza rappresenta un esempio di come la Corte conforma i percorsi argomentativi e le tecniche decisorie, al fine di raggiungere un "effetto utile" desiderato, in questo caso porre fine a un'annosa controversia giuridico-diplomatica. Abstract [En]: This article analyses the Constitutional Court's judgment no. 159/2023 concerning the executive jurisdiction against foreign states, focusing on the argumentative techniques and procedural profiles. The judgment is framed within the trajectory that, starting from an initial divergence between the political branches of government and the national courts, has eventually ended with their realignment. The decision thus confirms the functions of 'diplomatic administration' performed today by constitutional courts. In other words, the judgment shows how the Court shapes its argumentative paths to achieve desired goals, in this case putting an end to a long-standing legal and diplomatic dispute.
This Article discusses Emilios Christodoulidis's The Redress of Law as a major contribution to co... more This Article discusses Emilios Christodoulidis's The Redress of Law as a major contribution to contemporary critical constitutional theory, with a focus on its relationship with other lines of critical thought; with systems theory and societal constitutionalism; and with legal pluralism and the global constitutionalism discourses. It argues that the most valuable contribution of The Redress of Law lies in its capacity to innovate current theoretical discourses, too often closed in on their conceptual assumptions, in turn modelled on liberal political theory.
This article analyses the features of the principle of solidarity in the Italian legal system. It... more This article analyses the features of the principle of solidarity in the Italian legal system. It shows that in the Italian constitutional system the principle of solidarity is not directed towards the resolution of social conflict as such. Rather, the principle of solidarity-in combination with other principles-recognises, stabilises, and supports certain levels of conflict to the purposes of social integration via politicisation. After the introduction in section I, section II outlines the conceptual background of solidarity as a legal principle, recalling the most influential theoretical frameworks and the works of the Constituent Assembly in 1946-1947. Section III engages in a doctrinal analysis, exploring the personal and objective scope of application of the principle. Section IV, finally, offers an overview of the main applications of the principle in legislation and case law and concludes by referring to the spatial and temporal dimensions of solidarity.
ICL - Journal Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law , 2022
The article provides a systematic outline and refinement of societal constitutionalism (SC), one ... more The article provides a systematic outline and refinement of societal constitutionalism (SC), one of the frameworks emerged in contemporary legal theory to analyse constitutional phenomena. After an introduction in Section 1, Section 2 summarises SC's theoretical background, namely the debates on the Economic Constitution (2.1), legal pluralism (2.2), systems theory (2.3), and the work of David Sciulli (2.4). Section 3 explains SC's analytical limb, which on the one hand criticises some tenets of state-centred constitutionalism (3.1); and on the other hand identifies functions, arenas, processes, and structures of a constitutionalised social system (3.2). Section 4 turns to SC's normative limb, pointing to some constitutional strategies that increase social systems' capacities of self-limitation (4.1); and develop a law of inter-constitutional collisions (4.2). Section 5 addresses the main competing approaches and criticisms, which are based on state-centred constitutionalism (5.1); on international/global constitutionalism (5.2); and on contestatory/material constitutionalism (5.3).
Revista de Derecho Constitucional Europeo, 2021
Este trabajo ofrece un esquema y una sistematización exhaustivos del constitucionalismo social (C... more Este trabajo ofrece un esquema y una sistematización exhaustivos del constitucionalismo social (CS); siendo este uno de los principales marcos metodológicos de la teoría del Derecho contemporánea, empleado para analizar la aparición de fenómenos constitucionales, especialmente más allá de los ordenamientos jurídicos estatales. Después de una introducción (sección 1), la segunda sección explica la rama analítica del CS, que, por un lado, de-construye algunos principios del constitucionalismo tradicional centrado en el Estado (2.1); y, por otro, identifica las funciones, arenas, procesos y estructuras necesarios para que un sistema sea constitucionalizado (2.2.). La tercera sección se ocupa de la rama normativo-prescriptiva del CS, señalando algunas propuestas de política normativa dirigidas, en particular, al aumento de las capacidades de autolimitación de los sistemas sociales (3.1); así como al desarrollo de un nuevo derecho de colisiones intersistémicas (3.2). Por último, la cuarta sección aborda algunos enfoques alternativos y críticas al CS, haciendo hincapié en las que provienen de los defensores del constitucionalismo centrado en el Estado (4.1); del constitucionalismo internacional/global (4.2); y del constitucionalismo contestatario o material (4.3).
Transnational Legal Theory, 2021
World economy and world science have not yet found a counterpart in a world state and probably ne... more World economy and world science have not yet found a counterpart in a world state and probably never will. However, the contours of a political system have emerged, which fulfil the functions of statehood at the global level. Such a system does not take the form of a uniform corporative-hierarchical collectivity but of networked statehood, ie a network of individual states, international organisations, and transnational regimes. Relying on social science and legal constructions, this article offers a positive and negative definition of this concept and an analysis of its intrinsically self-contradictory character traits. Despite these unavoidable contradictions, this article argues that networked statehood still provides considerable advantages and outlines general principles
of a future law of networked statehood. These outlines are founded on the
belief that networked statehood must be seen as a new and distinct legal form
of action but likewise facing the problem of democratic legitimacy.
Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 2021
The COVID-19 pandemic has posed an unprecedented challenge, with governments resorting to differe... more The COVID-19 pandemic has posed an unprecedented challenge, with governments resorting to different legal strategies to respond to the health emergency. This article offers a cross-cuting comparative analysis of measures taken during the first six months of the pandemic (the “first wave”) in four European jurisdictions with significantly different constitutional settlements – namely France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. It explores the influence of specific constitutional features on the legal responses to the pandemic and how, in turn, these responses have the potential to reconfigure the institutional frameworks in place. The inquiry, which unfolds along the analytical categories of (i) legal basis, (ii) horizontal and (iii) vertical allocation of power, and (iv) the role of the judiciary, shows that both constitutional contexts and legal traditions play a significant role in pandemic times and are, moreover, likely to continue shaping post-pandemic governance patterns.
Etica & Politica&/Ethics & Politics, 2020
The paper discusses the impact of globalization and transnationalization processes on the concept... more The paper discusses the impact of globalization and transnationalization processes on the concept of responsibility, as elaborated by modern legal tradition, in turn linking it to those of politicization and constitutionalization. It starts from the insight that a legal system can be considered as constitu-tionalized only if extra-institutional collective actors and functionally differentiated social processes establish in their internal operations forms of "ecological" responsibility, thus building their own internal politicization(s). In this regard, it is recalled that only in this way XX century's constitutions gained actual effectiveness in extra-institutional social spheres. For the same reasons, by letting collective actors avoid responsibility, globalization and transnazionalization weakened their internal politicization, with an overall de-constitutionalizing effect. In order to rebuild an internal politiciza-tion of collective actors, legal theory must re-frame the concept of responsibility taking into account the social realities of post-modernity. This post-modern framework should shape legal responsibility with a view at strengthening both the openness and the obligation to the internal politicization by social actors. In such a scenario the law of responsibility should aim at sanctioning unlimited social processes and actors, as well as potentiating the social impulses coming from civil society. The paper finally discusses two case studies, namely Kasky v. Nike and Bruker v. Markovitz, in order to highlight the applications and outcomes of the proposed theoretical framework.
The essay critically analyzes and compares two recent decisions of the Tribunal of Rome which, wi... more The essay critically analyzes and compares two recent decisions of the Tribunal of Rome which, with opposite reasoning and outcome, ruled on Facebook's removal of content attributable to two far-right political organizations from its platforms. Starting from a historical, normative and jurisprudential reconstruction of antifascism in the Italian constitutional experience, the essay frames the jurisprudential outcomes in the context of the anti-fascist matrices of the Italian Constitution, questioning the assumptions and (possible) far-reaching consequences of the Tribunal’s decisions. The essay, on the one hand, stresses the need for proper legislative interventions, at a national or supranational level, so that the judge would not be left alone in the function of projecting constitutional principles and values in digital legal spaces; on the other hand, it proposes to judges an operative proposal, to be applied in the mid-term, which, looking for a compromise between the solutions adopted by the two decisions, takes into account the different normative and factual needs emerging in such field.
Costituzionalismo.it, 2019
Anche alla luce di recenti evoluzioni nella giurisprudenza costituzionale, il saggio analizza il ... more Anche alla luce di recenti evoluzioni nella giurisprudenza costituzionale, il saggio analizza il tema del conflitto di attribuzione sollevato da singoli parlamentari nel contesto della gestione della politica estera, dimostrando come in materia de qua la tutela della prescrittività costituzionale imponga una lettura espansiva delle condizioni di ammissibilità del relativo ricorso. Il saggio ricapitola anzitutto il fenomeno delle prassi devianti in materia di potere estero, e i loro effetti deleteri sulla prescrittività del disegno costituzionale. In secondo luogo, si analizza criticamente l'ord. n. 163/2018 della Corte costituzionale, che ha ribadito l'inammissibilità, per carenza di legittimazione attiva, dei ricorsi presentati da singoli parlamentari contro il Governo, per la mancata presentazione alle Camere del Memorandum d'intesa tra l'Italia e la Libia del 2 febbraio 2017 (cd. Memorandum Minniti) per l'autorizzazione alla ratifica di cui all'art. 80 Cost.. Infine, sulla base di considerazioni sia testuali sia teleologiche, si argomenta che gli artt. 80 e 72 Cost. attribuiscano direttamente ai singoli parlamentari i poteri di esame, discussione e voto sui progetti di legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica, come garanzia della democraticità delle decisioni di politica estera, prima che esse diventino vincolanti sul piano del diritto internazionale, e che da tale attribuzione diretta debba farsi derivare il riconoscimento della loro legittimazione attiva.
This article explains the complex intertwinement between public and private regulators in the cas... more This article explains the complex intertwinement between public and private regulators in the case of robot technology. Public policymaking ensures broad multi-stakeholder protected scope, but its abstractness often fails in intelligibility and applicability. Private standards, on the contrary, are more concrete and applicable, but most of the times they are voluntary and reflect industry interests. The ‘better regulation’ approach of the EU may increase the use of evidence to inform policy and lawmaking, and the involvement of different stakeholders. Current hard-lawmaking instruments do not appear to take advantage of the knowledge produced by standard-based regulations, virtually wasting their potential benefits. This fact affects the legal certainty with regards to a fast-paced changing environment like robotics. In this paper, we investigate the challenges of overlapping public/private regulatory initiatives that govern robot technologies in general, and in the concrete of healthcare robot technologies. We wonder until what extent robotics should be governed only by standards. We also reflect on how public policymaking could increase their technical understanding of robot technology to devise an applicable and comprehensive framework for this technology. In this respect, we propose different ways to integrate the technical know-how into policymaking (e.g., collecting the data/knowledge generated from the impact assessments in shared data repositories, and using it for evidence-based policies) and to strengthen the legitimacy of standards.
Annuario di diritto comparato e studi legislativi, 2019
Adopting a functional approach, the article compares European ‘constitutional disobedience’ doctr... more Adopting a functional approach, the article compares European ‘constitutional disobedience’ doctrines and the Calvo doctrine. This latter, elaborated to counteract interventions of foreign powers and positivized in several Latin-American constitutions, has been re-discovered as a counter-hegemonic instrument against sources of international economic law based on neo-liberal ideology. Positive law and judicial practice show that, while today both the European and Calvo doctrines protect the axiological identity of domestic orders against ‘outer’ legal systems influenced by utilitarian rationalities, their implementation and efficacy largely diverge, due to their different socio-legal contexts. The article finally outlines the elements of a “general” constitutional disobedience doctrine, which could be an immanent principle of constitutional orders.
Giurisrpudenza costituzionale, 2018
In section I of this article, the process of progressive neutralization/de-politicization of the ... more In section I of this article, the process of progressive neutralization/de-politicization of the right of resistance, from Medieval Ages to modern constitutional States, is succintly recalled. Section II further analyses the positivization of the right of resistance in contemporary constitutions, and describes it as a necessary paradox for modern constitutional orders (and theory). In section III the positive law provisions concerning the right of resistance are analysed in their dynamic value, i.e. in their functions of self-subversion for legal orders. Sections IV and V put this theoretical framework in the broader context of globalization processes, where the right of resistance – as positivized in State constitutions – may serve as a legal basis for lato sensu contestatory practices. In this way, it could be undersood as a tool of (internal) re-politicization of the normative systems of un-limited transnational actors, regimes and communicative processes. Thus, the (positivization of the) right of resistance may perform two functions at the same time: on the one hand, a conservative function for States political orders, where it may serve as an extra-legal defence against un-limited powers and communicative processes; on the other hand, a constitutionalizing pressure towards transnational regimes internal operations, where it may serve as tool of self-contestation and democratic legitimation.
This paper questions the sole use of private standards to regulate emerging robot technologies, e... more This paper questions the sole use of private standards to regulate emerging robot technologies, especially for sensitive contexts such as healthcare. While safety requirements have been set for personal care robots, surgical, therapeutic, rehabilitation or educational robot standards are conspicuous by their absence. Moreover, legal principles and values deeply embedded in the social environment where they are implemented – privacy, dignity, cognitive safety, autonomy – have been disregarded, and specific requirements for different types of users and a code of practice for robot makers are missing.
While public policymaking can ensure a broader multi-stakeholder protected scope, its abstractness often fails to intelligibility and applicability. On the other hand, whereas private standards may be much more concrete, most of the times they are made by voluntary work with no juridical guarantees, normally reflecting industry interests. This complex intertwinement between public and private regulators will be explained in the article.
To give a comprehensive protection to robot users without losing technical concreteness, the authors, mainly based on a systems theory approach, advocate for a better intertwinement between hybrid private-standard-setting and public-law-making approach; providing at this regard a more robust basis in terms of legal theory to the regulative practice occurring in such an innovative and growing field like robot technology.
Although the ‘better regulation’ approach of the European Union may increase the use of evidence to inform policy and lawmaking and the involvement of different stakeholders, current hard-lawmaking instruments do not appear to take into consideration the achievements of standard-based regulations enough, virtually wasting their potential benefits and the knowledge resources they represent. That is why the article ends identifying two different moments in time where stakeholder know-how could be integrated into policymaking – transforming impact assessment as data generators for policymaking (via accountability data repositories) or during ex post legislative evaluations – and also one proposal referring to the ‘bindingness’ of standards via their inclusion in regulation, in private contracts or through social and/or reputational sanctions.
Human Rights & International Legal Discourse, 2017
Having analyzed the factual background and procedural development of the ICSID case Pacific Rim v... more Having analyzed the factual background and procedural development of the ICSID case Pacific Rim v. El Salvador, this article suggests an argumentative approach that is alternative to the one adopted by the arbitrators in the final award, and based on domestic constitutional law arguments. This approach, inspired by the practice of the transnational human rights litigation, aims to provide a tool to introduce human rights in the investor-state adjudication system, and to favor the (functional) ‘constitutionalization of international law’ (CIL). According to such an approach, international arbitrators, when applying domestic law, should not apply only the relevant provisions of ordinary law, but the domestic constitutional system as a whole, taking into account its specific axiological hierarchy. The article finally explores the broader impact that this approach could have on the CIL, facing this task through the lenses of the theory of societal constitutionalism.
The paper analyses an order for reference to the Italian constitutional court, raising the issue ... more The paper analyses an order for reference to the Italian constitutional court, raising the issue of constitutionality of art. 30.4 of Law no. 87/1953, to the extent this provision does not allow, following a declaration of unconstitutionality, the removal of the res iudicata for sanctions formally qualified as administrative, but substantially criminal, under the Engel criteria elaborated by the ECtHR. In particular, the paper debates: 1) the actual nature – either administrative or criminal – of the sanctions relevant in the case at stake, under the Engel criteria; 2) the possibility for the judge to apply art. 30.4 through interpretive tools, thus without an explicit declaration of unconstitutionality; 3) the exact scope of the issue of constitutionality and the potential consequences of such a declaration of unconstitutionality on the principles of res iudicata and legal certainty.
Uploads
Monograph by Angelo Jr Golia
Journal Article by Angelo Jr Golia
costituzionalizzazione del diritto internazionale, a partire dalle recenti vicende (in particolare, i conflitti russo-ucraino e israelo-palestinese) che sembrano mettere in crisi i presupposti che hanno consentito a parte della dottrina di sostenere l’esistenza di tale processo di costituzionalizzazione. Dopo l’introduzione (sezione 1), nella sezione 2 si evidenzia come, nel discorso all’interno del quale si è sostenuta l’esistenza di tale processo, si sia originariamente imposta una specifica variante caratterizzata da oggetti di analisi (sezione 2.1), metodo (sezione 2.2) e funzioni (sezione 2.3) che ne hanno limitato le possibilità analitiche e prescrittive. A partire da questa osservazione, si mostra come l’equilibrio interno a tale discorso sia nel corso del tempo mutato (sezione 3). Anche grazie al recupero di elementi inizialmente marginalizzati, le posizioni dottrinali “interne” a quel discorso hanno superato la variante originaria, mutando oggetti di analisi (sezione 3.1), metodo (sezione 3.2) e funzioni (sezione 3.3) e portando quindi a una ri-definizione dei termini del dibattito. Le critiche che negano la stessa possibilità di una costituzionalizzazione del diritto internazionale (critiche “esterne”) sembrano invece concentrarsi ancora sulla variante originaria. Al fine di cogliere l’evoluzione all’interno del discorso, si esaminano (sezione 4) alcuni casi di studio relativi, in particolare, ai regimi giuridici della sicurezza (sezione 4.1), del commercio (sezione 4.2), del cambiamento climatico (sezione 4.3) e della governance digitale (sezione 4.4). Questi casi mostrano come il discorso sulla costituzionalizzazione del diritto internazionale, pur mutato nei suoi termini, esista ancora e conservi un potenziale analitico e prescrittivo. Da ultimo si svolgono alcune considerazioni conclusive (sezione 5).
of a future law of networked statehood. These outlines are founded on the
belief that networked statehood must be seen as a new and distinct legal form
of action but likewise facing the problem of democratic legitimacy.
While public policymaking can ensure a broader multi-stakeholder protected scope, its abstractness often fails to intelligibility and applicability. On the other hand, whereas private standards may be much more concrete, most of the times they are made by voluntary work with no juridical guarantees, normally reflecting industry interests. This complex intertwinement between public and private regulators will be explained in the article.
To give a comprehensive protection to robot users without losing technical concreteness, the authors, mainly based on a systems theory approach, advocate for a better intertwinement between hybrid private-standard-setting and public-law-making approach; providing at this regard a more robust basis in terms of legal theory to the regulative practice occurring in such an innovative and growing field like robot technology.
Although the ‘better regulation’ approach of the European Union may increase the use of evidence to inform policy and lawmaking and the involvement of different stakeholders, current hard-lawmaking instruments do not appear to take into consideration the achievements of standard-based regulations enough, virtually wasting their potential benefits and the knowledge resources they represent. That is why the article ends identifying two different moments in time where stakeholder know-how could be integrated into policymaking – transforming impact assessment as data generators for policymaking (via accountability data repositories) or during ex post legislative evaluations – and also one proposal referring to the ‘bindingness’ of standards via their inclusion in regulation, in private contracts or through social and/or reputational sanctions.
costituzionalizzazione del diritto internazionale, a partire dalle recenti vicende (in particolare, i conflitti russo-ucraino e israelo-palestinese) che sembrano mettere in crisi i presupposti che hanno consentito a parte della dottrina di sostenere l’esistenza di tale processo di costituzionalizzazione. Dopo l’introduzione (sezione 1), nella sezione 2 si evidenzia come, nel discorso all’interno del quale si è sostenuta l’esistenza di tale processo, si sia originariamente imposta una specifica variante caratterizzata da oggetti di analisi (sezione 2.1), metodo (sezione 2.2) e funzioni (sezione 2.3) che ne hanno limitato le possibilità analitiche e prescrittive. A partire da questa osservazione, si mostra come l’equilibrio interno a tale discorso sia nel corso del tempo mutato (sezione 3). Anche grazie al recupero di elementi inizialmente marginalizzati, le posizioni dottrinali “interne” a quel discorso hanno superato la variante originaria, mutando oggetti di analisi (sezione 3.1), metodo (sezione 3.2) e funzioni (sezione 3.3) e portando quindi a una ri-definizione dei termini del dibattito. Le critiche che negano la stessa possibilità di una costituzionalizzazione del diritto internazionale (critiche “esterne”) sembrano invece concentrarsi ancora sulla variante originaria. Al fine di cogliere l’evoluzione all’interno del discorso, si esaminano (sezione 4) alcuni casi di studio relativi, in particolare, ai regimi giuridici della sicurezza (sezione 4.1), del commercio (sezione 4.2), del cambiamento climatico (sezione 4.3) e della governance digitale (sezione 4.4). Questi casi mostrano come il discorso sulla costituzionalizzazione del diritto internazionale, pur mutato nei suoi termini, esista ancora e conservi un potenziale analitico e prescrittivo. Da ultimo si svolgono alcune considerazioni conclusive (sezione 5).
of a future law of networked statehood. These outlines are founded on the
belief that networked statehood must be seen as a new and distinct legal form
of action but likewise facing the problem of democratic legitimacy.
While public policymaking can ensure a broader multi-stakeholder protected scope, its abstractness often fails to intelligibility and applicability. On the other hand, whereas private standards may be much more concrete, most of the times they are made by voluntary work with no juridical guarantees, normally reflecting industry interests. This complex intertwinement between public and private regulators will be explained in the article.
To give a comprehensive protection to robot users without losing technical concreteness, the authors, mainly based on a systems theory approach, advocate for a better intertwinement between hybrid private-standard-setting and public-law-making approach; providing at this regard a more robust basis in terms of legal theory to the regulative practice occurring in such an innovative and growing field like robot technology.
Although the ‘better regulation’ approach of the European Union may increase the use of evidence to inform policy and lawmaking and the involvement of different stakeholders, current hard-lawmaking instruments do not appear to take into consideration the achievements of standard-based regulations enough, virtually wasting their potential benefits and the knowledge resources they represent. That is why the article ends identifying two different moments in time where stakeholder know-how could be integrated into policymaking – transforming impact assessment as data generators for policymaking (via accountability data repositories) or during ex post legislative evaluations – and also one proposal referring to the ‘bindingness’ of standards via their inclusion in regulation, in private contracts or through social and/or reputational sanctions.
‘individual’, in the specific way it emerged in legal modernity, constitutes a necessary infrastructure of global law. In parallel, global law opens possibilities to the individual that would otherwise be out of reach under conditions of globalisation. Second, the article examines oscillation, describing how global law triggers a dynamic of expansion and restriction of the individual’s legal relevance. This dynamic, in turn, propels a further abstraction of the notion of individual and makes the interplay between social individualisation, legal personification, and specific legal entitlements more visible. Third, the article examines how global law helps imagine strategies of legal subjectification, some of which may be used to counter
problematic features of sociolegal globalisation. It then highlights three relevant strategies: elaboration of new legal concepts and regimes, selective consolidation of certain collective actors’ legal position, and attribution of legal relevance to claims based on so-called ‘counter-rights’.
Pre-peer review version of a paper accepted for publication in The American Journal of Comparative Law.
This paper argues that ‘Law & Leviathan’ is a useful source to learn about the current state of US public law discourse. The reader can find an interesting mapping of concerns and solutions advanced towards developments that—to different degrees and under various labels—have taken place in most Western constitutional systems, as well as within the institutional structures of global governance. Beyond that, however, the book shows significant limits, which can be grouped under three headings: self-referentiality, use of the concept of ‘legitimacy’, and instrumental redirection of Fuller’s ‘morality of law’. The paper also puts the book in the broader context of the authors’ respective intellectual trajectories, showing how the reviewed book fits the respective agendas.
We focus our study on measures taken during first six months of the pandemic (the “first wave”) in four European jurisdictions with significantly different constitutional settlements; namely France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Following a contextual approach, the comparative analysis concentrates on four macro-issues: 1) the legal bases of adopted measures; 2) the horizontal allocation of power; 3) the vertical allocation of power; and 4) the role of the judiciary, especially in terms of fundamental rights protection. Across all four analytical categories, constitutional and institutional factors – such as the respective forms of government, vertical power conflicts, presence of pre-existing emergency schemes or legal doctrines, and the structure of the judicial systems – significantly impacted the (legal) path taken in the four jurisdictions under scrutiny and, importantly, reinforced pre-existing patterns of institutional shifts or social and political tensions. In particular, the role of two institutional features generally overlooked in the literature on the matter emerged: the concrete functioning of the vertical allocation of power and the reciprocal relationships between different jursdictions within judicial systems. By these means, this article aims to broaden and enrich the analytical toolkit of the literature concerning the relationship between states of emergency and specific forms of constitutional government and State.
establish coordination relationships and potentially develop a ‘common language’, even in such highly politicized field. In particular, the GAL approach brings out the role of global regulators of courts in a domain where their influence is often underestimated. With a varying degree of awareness, courts contribute to determine States’ FRs, and this role in
contemporary constitutional systems has become structural. Indeed, a GAL approach, in highlighting such role, may strengthen the self-awareness and responsiveness of courts. However, a survey on the judicial practice in this field suggests that the intervention of judicial bodies may lead to greater disorder, conflict and de-stabilization, thus – and paradoxically – frustrating the purposes of ordering the structures of global governance underlying the GAL project. Section II briefly recalls the main features of FRL (II.A) and GAL (II.B), mapping the analytical bases of the chapter, their conceptual assumptions, and the main challenges they face. Based on an a-systematic survey, section III outlines a tentative taxonomy of the forms that the judicial practice takes in developing an embryonic ‘global administrative law of foreign
relations’. In particular, sub-section III.A focuses on the ‘review norms’, while sub-section III.B focuses on the ‘interaction norms’. Section IV concludes, summarizes the core claims and highlights, from a more normative perspective, the potential risks of the administrativisation of FRs, which may also cast doubts on the general value of GAL as a norma
tive endeavour.
These private/hybrid international bodies, originally conceived to give legal protection to foreign investments in developing countries, and thus dominated by an economic rationality, today affect the actual exercise of power by domestic authorities and enjoyment of rights by people, just like – and often even more than – domestic constitutional courts. Further, the rulings and awards of these arbitral and quasi-judicial bodies, originally just a weakly coherent patchwork of decisions, constitute today a coherent set of legal rules and precedents, i.e. an autonomous transnational legal system. Thus, their legitimacy has been highly contested by both constitutional scholars and, more generally, affected people.
Therefore, these bodies have been encouraged – especially by scholars and civil society representatives – to develop constitutional-like reasoning and balancing techniques, in order to internalize values coming from other legal systems, with different (i.e. non-exclusively economic) rationalities. In so doing, they could perform a double function: on the one hand, the limitation of the worst externalities of the transnational economic regime; on the other one, the management of legal conflicts in the era of legal pluralism/fragmentation.
With this background, the paper first investigates the arguments concerning the standards of treatment of foreign investors by host countries: ‘proportionality’; ‘fair and equitable treatment’; ‘non-discrimination’, etc. The exact scope and meaning of these standards became the battlefield between economic and non-economic rationalities before international arbitral tribunals, and represent a useful tool to verify the actual development of ‘constitutional adjudication’ outside constitutional courtrooms. In particular, the paper explores whether and to what extent these standards are influenced by the reasoning techniques developed by domestic constitutional courts and international human rights tribunals, and how the circulation of argumentative models in this field can contribute to the neutralization of the worst effects of legal fragmentation.
Secondly, the paper investigates some institutional and argumentative tools which could potentiate such a process of ‘constitutionalization’ of international arbitral tribunals: increased transparency of the rulings/awards; reform of the rules concerning the selection/independence of arbitrators; third-party participation; amendments of bilateral investment treaties.
Thirdly, the paper will put the practice of international arbitral tribunals in the broader context of the actual/potential conflicts with domestic constitutional courts, and the several ‘functional disobedience’ doctrines developed by them. The paper will finally argue that this interaction, like the one occurring in the European multi-level system, would be the main tool for the actual ‘constitutionalization’ of the international economic regime.
Per partecipare via Zoom, è necessario compilare il seguente form di adesione: https://survey.unitn.it/index.php/868947?lang=it
Armin von Bogdandy, Direttore del Max-Planck-Institut di Heidelberg
Intervengono
Luisa Antoniolli, Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, Università di Trento
Jens Woelk, Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, Università di Trento
Nell’occasione sarà presentato il libro del Prof. Armin von Bogdandy, Strukturwandel des öffentlichen Rechts. Entstehung und Demokratisierung der europäischen Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, 2022.