Massimo Starita (ed), La povertà nel diritto internazionale e dell’Unione europea (Editoriale Scientifica), 2025
The chapter addresses the role of international humanitarian law in relation to fight against pov... more The chapter addresses the role of international humanitarian law in relation to fight against poverty in occupied territory.
This post explores the nature of the duty to ensure respect for international humanitarian law (I... more This post explores the nature of the duty to ensure respect for international humanitarian law (IHL) embodied in Common Article 1 of the Four Geneva Conventions and in other IHL provisions. The duty imposes positive and negative obligations upon States in relation to other States’ conduct that violates or poses a serious risk of violating IHL. The post focuses on negative obligations under this duty, which was recently invoked by Nicaragua before the ICJ in its application against Germany (e.g., paras 12, 17, 31, 88), in which Nicaragua alleged that Germany had violated international law through its support of Israel in the pending escalation in the Gaza Strip. It is argued here that nothing in the duty to ensure respect for IHL prevents a competent court from adjudicating the responsibility of a Respondent State independently of whether the Third State that is violating or is at serious risk of violating IHL consented to the jurisdiction.
Brief analysis of the Fell 2023 escalation in Israel and Gaza Strip from the perspectives of jus ... more Brief analysis of the Fell 2023 escalation in Israel and Gaza Strip from the perspectives of jus contra bellum and jus in bello (IHL).
In Italian: Brevi riflessioni sull’uso della forza nella recente escalation del conflitto israelo... more In Italian: Brevi riflessioni sull’uso della forza nella recente escalation del conflitto israelo-palestinese SIDIBlog
(2024) 24 Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, 2024
The article deals with the applicability of apartheid in occupied territory. Rather than assessin... more The article deals with the applicability of apartheid in occupied territory. Rather than assessing whether in specific situation of an occupation an occupying power has established an apartheid regime, the article discusses whether there is anything in the law of occupation or in the international regulation of apartheid that makes them mutually exclusive. On the basis of international human rights law, international criminal law, and international humanitarian law considerations, it is argued that apartheid can be applied to occupied territory following the ordinary rules for the application of international human rights law and international criminal law in occupied territory. Accordingly, international law does not bar the application of apartheid in occupied territory, but rather, the law of occupation and apartheid coincide to strengthen the protection of civilians in occupied territories.
Research Handbook on International Arms Control Law, 2022
This chapter discusses the notion of 'demilitarised zone' in international law and identifies the... more This chapter discusses the notion of 'demilitarised zone' in international law and identifies the features common to all demilitarised zones. First, the chapter defines what a 'demilitarised zone' is and distinguishes it from other contiguous notions. The chapter then explores some contentious issues arising from state practice in relation to demilitarised zones. It argues that, when demilitarised zones are established by treaty, the effects of these agreements are limited to the states parties unless third states consent to their obligations in writing, the treaty reflects customary international law, or the effects are extended to all states by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII. The chapter concludes that demilitarised zones are today seen not as having a punitive purpose but as confidence building measures aimed at defusing tensions between states
This article explores the role of the notion of «denazification» in the international legal disco... more This article explores the role of the notion of «denazification» in the international legal discourse pertaining to jus contra bellum and jus in bello in relation to the 2022 Russian aggression against Ukraine. Although the use of this notion has potential legal affects to the application of international law, in the instant case, the denazification argument is insufficient to render the Russian invasion a lawful military operation. To reach this conclusion, the article offers a brief outline of the references to denazification in the Russian legal discourse pertaining to the invasion of Ukraine. Then, the article explores its relevance for jus contra bellum in relation to genocide prevention and struggle against racist regimes. Finally, the article analyses the potential impact of denazification discourse on jus in bello, with specific references to the extent to which it can be used to justify the alteration of the law in force in an occupied territory beyond what it is normally allowed by the law of occupation.
This post explores the role of 'denazification' under the law of occupation, in light of the ongo... more This post explores the role of 'denazification' under the law of occupation, in light of the ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Gloria Gaggioli and Emilie Max (eds), The Role of Human Rights Mechanisms in Implementing International Humanitarian Law (Edward Elgar forthcoming)
This chapter aims at assessing whether HRC fact-finding missions are legally able to assess the v... more This chapter aims at assessing whether HRC fact-finding missions are legally able to assess the violation of certain rules pertaining to the principle of precaution in attack in the absence of cooperation of the concerned attackers. In particular, the question is whether HRC fact-find missions can reach any conclusion through inference in relation to alleged violations of Article 57(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the 1977 First Additional Protocol (API), which embody the duty to verify in advance the objective and expected consequences of an attack, and to choose means and methods of warfare that avoid or minimise incidental civilian casualties or damages. Since these duties bind ‘those who plan or decide upon an attack’ and compliance is dependent on the information available to them before the attack, it may be argued that the lack of cooperation of the attackers may impair the ability of fact-finding missions to assess respect for these rules. Nonetheless, some HRC fact-find missions have offered conclusions on the violations of these duties based on inference. Since these conclusions have raised some criticism, it is necessary to explore in more details whether international law permits HRC fact-find missions to ascertain through inference that the rules under Article 57(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the API have been violated.
The article explores whether and to what extent the notion of apartheid is applicable in occupied... more The article explores whether and to what extent the notion of apartheid is applicable in occupied territory.
This article discusses the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the 2021 Georgia v R... more This article discusses the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the 2021 Georgia v Russia (II) case in relation to the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights to the conduct of hostilities. The article describes the arguments advanced by the Court to support the idea that the Convention does not apply to extraterritorial hostilities in an international armed conflict. In light of past decisions, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and the law of the treaties, it is argued that the Court's conclusion is unconvincing and the arguments seem to be based on extra-legal considerations, rather than on a sound interpretation of the notion of state jurisdiction under the Convention.
This article discusses the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the 2021 Georgia v R... more This article discusses the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the 2021 Georgia v Russia (II) case in relation to the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights to the conduct of hostilities. The article describes the arguments advanced by the Court to support the idea that the Convention does not apply to extraterritorial hostilities in an international armed conflict. In light of past decisions, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and the law of the treaties, it is argued that the Court's conclusion is unconvincing and the arguments seem to be based on extra-legal considerations, rather than on a sound interpretation of the notion of state jurisdiction under the Convention.
This article explores the rules governing the prevention and control of contagious diseases in oc... more This article explores the rules governing the prevention and control of contagious diseases in occupied territory under international law. Although the article refers to the ongoing Covid19 pandemic, its scope is broader and encompasses instances of state practice that have occurred over the last two centuries. After a careful analysis of the relevant treaties and episodes of state practice, the article concludes that occupying powers have duties under international humanitarian law and international human rights law to prevent and control contagious diseases, through cooperation with the local authorities and bringing the necessary medical supplies in the occupied territory. The article stresses that taking these measures, including facilitating the supply of vaccines, is a duty under international law rather than an arbitrary act of international solidarity.
in Anne Peters, Jérôme de Hemptinne and Robert Kolb (eds.), Animals in the International Law of Armed Conflict (Cambridge University Press forthcoming) , 2021
Situations of occupation are as likely to affect the life and well-being of both wild and domesti... more Situations of occupation are as likely to affect the life and well-being of both wild and domestic animals. Notwithstanding these instances, writing a chapter on the legal protection of animals in occupied territory may appear, prima facie, a pointless exercise since the law of occupation never mentions explicitly animals. Unsurprisingly, to the best knowledge of this author, no study on this topic has been published so far. However, as in relation to other areas of IHL, some rules embodied in the law of occupation and concerned with the protection of private and public property apply to animals. The law of occupation also allows, under certain conditions, the application of other branches of international law that may be relevant for the protection of animals. This chapter explores this intricate legal regime, offering an overview of the ways in which international law can offer protection to animals in occupied territory. The indirect nature of this protection, coupled with the scant state practice, will be crucial in order to assess the effectiveness of animal protection in these circumstances.
This article explores the nature and content of international and EU obligations to adopt certain... more This article explores the nature and content of international and EU obligations to adopt certain criminal domestic legislation, and the impact that they have on the Italian legislature. In light of relevant international, EU, and domestic law provisions, the article investigates what is required of Italy to implement obligations of domestic criminalisation. It is argued that the Italian legislature is bound to implement obligations of domestic criminalisation both under international law and the Italian constitutional law. The article ends with an overview of the consequences under international law that Italy may face for failure to implement international and EU obligations of domestic criminalisation.
(2021) 23 International Community Law Review, 2021
This article explores the legal challenges related to the standing of indirectly injured states b... more This article explores the legal challenges related to the standing of indirectly injured states before the International Court of Justice in relation to violations of obligations erga omnes and erga omnes partes. After an examination of the emergence of these kinds of obligations, the article addresses the evolution of the approach of the Court in relation to the issue of standing, in light of the works of the International Law Commission on state responsibility. Especially after the 2012 Belgium v. Senegal case, the Court does not hesitate to recognise the standing of indirectly injured states. Yet, some aspects related to standing-such as the requirement of a special interests and the coordination between the reaction of the directly injured state and the indirectly injured ones-are still imprecise. The Court should take the opportunity to elaborate on these issues in the merits phase of The Gambia v. Myanmar case.
Since 2013, the United Nations Security Council has tasked some peacekeeping forces with combat o... more Since 2013, the United Nations Security Council has tasked some peacekeeping forces with combat operations against armed groups in the context of non-international armed conflicts. In the framework of their mandates, peacekeepers’ main responsibilities are to protect civilians and support the local central government in regaining full control over its territory, while launching offensive military operations against armed groups that go well beyond self-defence or the defence of civilians. Due to their offensive features, these mandates are called here “super-robust mandates” in order to emphasize the increased armed force that they can employ in comparison to traditional robust mandates. These super-robust mandates raise several concerns regarding their compatibility with the principles at the basis of peacekeeping operations and their effectiveness. After briefly outlining the evolution of peacekeeping, this article explores the compatibility of super-robust mandates with the principles of peacekeeping, their characterization as forcible interventions of the Security Council in non-international armed conflicts, and their suitability to reach a just and stable post-conflict arrangement. This article relies on case studies involving the practice of missions currently deployed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in Mali, in Central African Republic, and in South Sudan.
This article explores the legality of the land closure imposed upon the Gaza Strip by Israel. Aft... more This article explores the legality of the land closure imposed upon the Gaza Strip by Israel. After having considered the area under occupation, the article argues that the legality of the closure must be determined under international humanitarian law, international human rights law, the principle of self-determination of peoples, and the Israeli-Palestinian agreements. In light of these rules, the arbitrary closure of the Gaza Strip should be considered illegal because it breaches the unity between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and because it violates the freedom of movement of the local population. Moreover, the closure breaches the relevant rules pertaining to the transit of goods in occupied territory. This article concludes that most of the violations caused by the closure affect peremptory rules which produce obligations erga omnes, so that any state in the international community is entitled to react under the law of state responsibility.
Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 2021
This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into ... more This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into account their tasks under the Statute of the Court and the legal value of their pleadings in international law. Pleadings of counsel constitute State practice for the formation of international customary law and treaty interpretation, and that they are attributable to the litigating State under the law on State responsibility. Accordingly, in principle, counsel present the views of the litigating State, which in practice approves in advance the pleadings. This consideration is relevant in discussing the role of counsel assisting Sates in politically sensitive cases, where there is no necessary correspondence between the views of the States and that of their counsel. Especially when less powerful States are parties to the relevant disputes, the availability of competent counsel in politically sensitive cases should not be discouraged since it advances the legitimacy of the international judicial function.
This article explores whether domestic courts can deny jurisdictional immunity of a state as a co... more This article explores whether domestic courts can deny jurisdictional immunity of a state as a countermeasure. The article offers a survey of state practice that, according to some scholars, would support this argument, demonstrating that the corresponding practice is scarce, and that relevant domestic legislation denying jurisdictional immunity is not adopted as a countermeasure. Typically, countermeasures are adopted by political organs, which are responsible for the state's international relations and which can assess what is a lawful response to a violation of international law. Domestic courts are not entitled to adopt countermeasures without the involvement of the executive organs that are competent for the international relations of the state. This article demonstrates that a domestic court's denial of sovereign immunity as a countermeasure is unlawful without a prior determination of the government, and it is highly impractical when that determination is provided.
Massimo Starita (ed), La povertà nel diritto internazionale e dell’Unione europea (Editoriale Scientifica), 2025
The chapter addresses the role of international humanitarian law in relation to fight against pov... more The chapter addresses the role of international humanitarian law in relation to fight against poverty in occupied territory.
This post explores the nature of the duty to ensure respect for international humanitarian law (I... more This post explores the nature of the duty to ensure respect for international humanitarian law (IHL) embodied in Common Article 1 of the Four Geneva Conventions and in other IHL provisions. The duty imposes positive and negative obligations upon States in relation to other States’ conduct that violates or poses a serious risk of violating IHL. The post focuses on negative obligations under this duty, which was recently invoked by Nicaragua before the ICJ in its application against Germany (e.g., paras 12, 17, 31, 88), in which Nicaragua alleged that Germany had violated international law through its support of Israel in the pending escalation in the Gaza Strip. It is argued here that nothing in the duty to ensure respect for IHL prevents a competent court from adjudicating the responsibility of a Respondent State independently of whether the Third State that is violating or is at serious risk of violating IHL consented to the jurisdiction.
Brief analysis of the Fell 2023 escalation in Israel and Gaza Strip from the perspectives of jus ... more Brief analysis of the Fell 2023 escalation in Israel and Gaza Strip from the perspectives of jus contra bellum and jus in bello (IHL).
In Italian: Brevi riflessioni sull’uso della forza nella recente escalation del conflitto israelo... more In Italian: Brevi riflessioni sull’uso della forza nella recente escalation del conflitto israelo-palestinese SIDIBlog
(2024) 24 Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, 2024
The article deals with the applicability of apartheid in occupied territory. Rather than assessin... more The article deals with the applicability of apartheid in occupied territory. Rather than assessing whether in specific situation of an occupation an occupying power has established an apartheid regime, the article discusses whether there is anything in the law of occupation or in the international regulation of apartheid that makes them mutually exclusive. On the basis of international human rights law, international criminal law, and international humanitarian law considerations, it is argued that apartheid can be applied to occupied territory following the ordinary rules for the application of international human rights law and international criminal law in occupied territory. Accordingly, international law does not bar the application of apartheid in occupied territory, but rather, the law of occupation and apartheid coincide to strengthen the protection of civilians in occupied territories.
Research Handbook on International Arms Control Law, 2022
This chapter discusses the notion of 'demilitarised zone' in international law and identifies the... more This chapter discusses the notion of 'demilitarised zone' in international law and identifies the features common to all demilitarised zones. First, the chapter defines what a 'demilitarised zone' is and distinguishes it from other contiguous notions. The chapter then explores some contentious issues arising from state practice in relation to demilitarised zones. It argues that, when demilitarised zones are established by treaty, the effects of these agreements are limited to the states parties unless third states consent to their obligations in writing, the treaty reflects customary international law, or the effects are extended to all states by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII. The chapter concludes that demilitarised zones are today seen not as having a punitive purpose but as confidence building measures aimed at defusing tensions between states
This article explores the role of the notion of «denazification» in the international legal disco... more This article explores the role of the notion of «denazification» in the international legal discourse pertaining to jus contra bellum and jus in bello in relation to the 2022 Russian aggression against Ukraine. Although the use of this notion has potential legal affects to the application of international law, in the instant case, the denazification argument is insufficient to render the Russian invasion a lawful military operation. To reach this conclusion, the article offers a brief outline of the references to denazification in the Russian legal discourse pertaining to the invasion of Ukraine. Then, the article explores its relevance for jus contra bellum in relation to genocide prevention and struggle against racist regimes. Finally, the article analyses the potential impact of denazification discourse on jus in bello, with specific references to the extent to which it can be used to justify the alteration of the law in force in an occupied territory beyond what it is normally allowed by the law of occupation.
This post explores the role of 'denazification' under the law of occupation, in light of the ongo... more This post explores the role of 'denazification' under the law of occupation, in light of the ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Gloria Gaggioli and Emilie Max (eds), The Role of Human Rights Mechanisms in Implementing International Humanitarian Law (Edward Elgar forthcoming)
This chapter aims at assessing whether HRC fact-finding missions are legally able to assess the v... more This chapter aims at assessing whether HRC fact-finding missions are legally able to assess the violation of certain rules pertaining to the principle of precaution in attack in the absence of cooperation of the concerned attackers. In particular, the question is whether HRC fact-find missions can reach any conclusion through inference in relation to alleged violations of Article 57(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the 1977 First Additional Protocol (API), which embody the duty to verify in advance the objective and expected consequences of an attack, and to choose means and methods of warfare that avoid or minimise incidental civilian casualties or damages. Since these duties bind ‘those who plan or decide upon an attack’ and compliance is dependent on the information available to them before the attack, it may be argued that the lack of cooperation of the attackers may impair the ability of fact-finding missions to assess respect for these rules. Nonetheless, some HRC fact-find missions have offered conclusions on the violations of these duties based on inference. Since these conclusions have raised some criticism, it is necessary to explore in more details whether international law permits HRC fact-find missions to ascertain through inference that the rules under Article 57(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the API have been violated.
The article explores whether and to what extent the notion of apartheid is applicable in occupied... more The article explores whether and to what extent the notion of apartheid is applicable in occupied territory.
This article discusses the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the 2021 Georgia v R... more This article discusses the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the 2021 Georgia v Russia (II) case in relation to the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights to the conduct of hostilities. The article describes the arguments advanced by the Court to support the idea that the Convention does not apply to extraterritorial hostilities in an international armed conflict. In light of past decisions, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and the law of the treaties, it is argued that the Court's conclusion is unconvincing and the arguments seem to be based on extra-legal considerations, rather than on a sound interpretation of the notion of state jurisdiction under the Convention.
This article discusses the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the 2021 Georgia v R... more This article discusses the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the 2021 Georgia v Russia (II) case in relation to the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights to the conduct of hostilities. The article describes the arguments advanced by the Court to support the idea that the Convention does not apply to extraterritorial hostilities in an international armed conflict. In light of past decisions, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and the law of the treaties, it is argued that the Court's conclusion is unconvincing and the arguments seem to be based on extra-legal considerations, rather than on a sound interpretation of the notion of state jurisdiction under the Convention.
This article explores the rules governing the prevention and control of contagious diseases in oc... more This article explores the rules governing the prevention and control of contagious diseases in occupied territory under international law. Although the article refers to the ongoing Covid19 pandemic, its scope is broader and encompasses instances of state practice that have occurred over the last two centuries. After a careful analysis of the relevant treaties and episodes of state practice, the article concludes that occupying powers have duties under international humanitarian law and international human rights law to prevent and control contagious diseases, through cooperation with the local authorities and bringing the necessary medical supplies in the occupied territory. The article stresses that taking these measures, including facilitating the supply of vaccines, is a duty under international law rather than an arbitrary act of international solidarity.
in Anne Peters, Jérôme de Hemptinne and Robert Kolb (eds.), Animals in the International Law of Armed Conflict (Cambridge University Press forthcoming) , 2021
Situations of occupation are as likely to affect the life and well-being of both wild and domesti... more Situations of occupation are as likely to affect the life and well-being of both wild and domestic animals. Notwithstanding these instances, writing a chapter on the legal protection of animals in occupied territory may appear, prima facie, a pointless exercise since the law of occupation never mentions explicitly animals. Unsurprisingly, to the best knowledge of this author, no study on this topic has been published so far. However, as in relation to other areas of IHL, some rules embodied in the law of occupation and concerned with the protection of private and public property apply to animals. The law of occupation also allows, under certain conditions, the application of other branches of international law that may be relevant for the protection of animals. This chapter explores this intricate legal regime, offering an overview of the ways in which international law can offer protection to animals in occupied territory. The indirect nature of this protection, coupled with the scant state practice, will be crucial in order to assess the effectiveness of animal protection in these circumstances.
This article explores the nature and content of international and EU obligations to adopt certain... more This article explores the nature and content of international and EU obligations to adopt certain criminal domestic legislation, and the impact that they have on the Italian legislature. In light of relevant international, EU, and domestic law provisions, the article investigates what is required of Italy to implement obligations of domestic criminalisation. It is argued that the Italian legislature is bound to implement obligations of domestic criminalisation both under international law and the Italian constitutional law. The article ends with an overview of the consequences under international law that Italy may face for failure to implement international and EU obligations of domestic criminalisation.
(2021) 23 International Community Law Review, 2021
This article explores the legal challenges related to the standing of indirectly injured states b... more This article explores the legal challenges related to the standing of indirectly injured states before the International Court of Justice in relation to violations of obligations erga omnes and erga omnes partes. After an examination of the emergence of these kinds of obligations, the article addresses the evolution of the approach of the Court in relation to the issue of standing, in light of the works of the International Law Commission on state responsibility. Especially after the 2012 Belgium v. Senegal case, the Court does not hesitate to recognise the standing of indirectly injured states. Yet, some aspects related to standing-such as the requirement of a special interests and the coordination between the reaction of the directly injured state and the indirectly injured ones-are still imprecise. The Court should take the opportunity to elaborate on these issues in the merits phase of The Gambia v. Myanmar case.
Since 2013, the United Nations Security Council has tasked some peacekeeping forces with combat o... more Since 2013, the United Nations Security Council has tasked some peacekeeping forces with combat operations against armed groups in the context of non-international armed conflicts. In the framework of their mandates, peacekeepers’ main responsibilities are to protect civilians and support the local central government in regaining full control over its territory, while launching offensive military operations against armed groups that go well beyond self-defence or the defence of civilians. Due to their offensive features, these mandates are called here “super-robust mandates” in order to emphasize the increased armed force that they can employ in comparison to traditional robust mandates. These super-robust mandates raise several concerns regarding their compatibility with the principles at the basis of peacekeeping operations and their effectiveness. After briefly outlining the evolution of peacekeeping, this article explores the compatibility of super-robust mandates with the principles of peacekeeping, their characterization as forcible interventions of the Security Council in non-international armed conflicts, and their suitability to reach a just and stable post-conflict arrangement. This article relies on case studies involving the practice of missions currently deployed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in Mali, in Central African Republic, and in South Sudan.
This article explores the legality of the land closure imposed upon the Gaza Strip by Israel. Aft... more This article explores the legality of the land closure imposed upon the Gaza Strip by Israel. After having considered the area under occupation, the article argues that the legality of the closure must be determined under international humanitarian law, international human rights law, the principle of self-determination of peoples, and the Israeli-Palestinian agreements. In light of these rules, the arbitrary closure of the Gaza Strip should be considered illegal because it breaches the unity between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and because it violates the freedom of movement of the local population. Moreover, the closure breaches the relevant rules pertaining to the transit of goods in occupied territory. This article concludes that most of the violations caused by the closure affect peremptory rules which produce obligations erga omnes, so that any state in the international community is entitled to react under the law of state responsibility.
Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 2021
This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into ... more This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into account their tasks under the Statute of the Court and the legal value of their pleadings in international law. Pleadings of counsel constitute State practice for the formation of international customary law and treaty interpretation, and that they are attributable to the litigating State under the law on State responsibility. Accordingly, in principle, counsel present the views of the litigating State, which in practice approves in advance the pleadings. This consideration is relevant in discussing the role of counsel assisting Sates in politically sensitive cases, where there is no necessary correspondence between the views of the States and that of their counsel. Especially when less powerful States are parties to the relevant disputes, the availability of competent counsel in politically sensitive cases should not be discouraged since it advances the legitimacy of the international judicial function.
This article explores whether domestic courts can deny jurisdictional immunity of a state as a co... more This article explores whether domestic courts can deny jurisdictional immunity of a state as a countermeasure. The article offers a survey of state practice that, according to some scholars, would support this argument, demonstrating that the corresponding practice is scarce, and that relevant domestic legislation denying jurisdictional immunity is not adopted as a countermeasure. Typically, countermeasures are adopted by political organs, which are responsible for the state's international relations and which can assess what is a lawful response to a violation of international law. Domestic courts are not entitled to adopt countermeasures without the involvement of the executive organs that are competent for the international relations of the state. This article demonstrates that a domestic court's denial of sovereign immunity as a countermeasure is unlawful without a prior determination of the government, and it is highly impractical when that determination is provided.
paper for the conference International Law Responses to the Situation in Gaza, 18 June 2024, Univ... more paper for the conference International Law Responses to the Situation in Gaza, 18 June 2024, University of Milan
Paper to be presented at the conference La povertà nel diritto internazionale e dell’Unione europ... more Paper to be presented at the conference La povertà nel diritto internazionale e dell’Unione europea (Poverty in International and EU Law), Annual Conference of the Italian Society of International Law, University of Palermo, 5-7 June 2024
Paper presented at the roundtable What Does International Law Have to Say about Hostilities in Ga... more Paper presented at the roundtable What Does International Law Have to Say about Hostilities in Gaza?, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, 14 Nov 2023
Paper presented at the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Branch of the International Law Assoc... more Paper presented at the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Branch of the International Law Association – International Law Weekend on Beyond International Law, Fordham Law School, New York City, 19-21 Oct 2023;
Paper presented in Italian at the conference Hostilities in the Gaza Strip: Metaphors, Rules, Myt... more Paper presented in Italian at the conference Hostilities in the Gaza Strip: Metaphors, Rules, Myths, and Stereotypes, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, 12 Dec 2023;
18th Annual Conference of the European Society of International Law, Is international law fair?, Aix-en-Provence, Thursday 31 August to Saturday 2 September 2023, 2023
This paper aims at assessing how fair some contemporary robust peacekeeping missions are and how ... more This paper aims at assessing how fair some contemporary robust peacekeeping missions are and how fairness can be improved when the UN Security Council (UNSC) creates such a mission. The turning point of the analysis was the creation of the MONUSCO Intervention Brigade in 2013, ten years ago.
From a traditional perspective, peacekeeping missions dispatched by the UNSC are governed by three principles: non-use of armed force except in personal self-defence, neutrality, and the consent of the belligerents. The UN Secretary-General (UNSG) identified these principles in 1958 in relation to the 1956 UNEF I mission that was dispatched to monitor a ceasefire between Israel and Egypt. However, the progressive involvement of UN peacekeepers in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) rendered these principles difficult to apply in practice.
From the difficulties of the ONUC mission in Congo in the 60’s to the failure of the missions in former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Rwanda in the 90s, it became apparent that more force should have been authorised by the UN Security Council to protect civilians involved in NIACs. Rather than repudiating the three principles, the UNSC and the UNSG reinterpreted them: the use of armed force in personal self-defence evolved into the use of armed force in defence of the mandate; the neutrality of the mission turned into its impartiality, shifting from the lack of involvement in the underlying armed conflict to treating all the actors threatening civilians equally; the requirement of the consent of all belligerents metamorphosed in the request of consent by the host state only.
Even though the UNSC kept invoking the principles of peacekeeping, this process of progressive increasing of the robustness of some peacekeeping missions peaked after 2013 when an offensive unit (the MONUSCO Intervention Brigade) was created to neutralise armed groups in the DRC. In 2016, a similar unit (the Regional Protection Force) was created within UNMISS in South Sudan. Always in 2016, MINUSMA in Mali was deployed against forces that were labelled as ‘terrorists’, mixing peacekeeping and counterterrorism for the first time.
This paper will analyse how fair these new robust peacekeeping missions are considering the evolution of the principles of peacekeeping. The original model was fair in so much it rested on the consent of all the belligerents, it mandated peacekeepers not to take any offensive action, and it prohibited them from interfering with the underlying armed conflict. The most recent practice from MONUSCO, UNMISS, and MINUSMA presents peacekeepers openly fighting against armed groups on the side of the governments, often in situations where the governments have poor human rights records. The paper will investigate whether it is fair to use peacekeepers to support the authority of a government and to conduct counterterrorist activities; whether it is fair to deploy peacekeepers against some specific actors involved in an armed conflicting; whether it is fair to seek the consent of only some specific belligerents. And, finally, whether it is fair to call UN missions of this kind ‘peacekeeping’, or whether this practice is undermining confidence in traditional peacekeeping missions without providing more protection for the civilians caught in non-international armed conflicts.
Paper to be presented at the conference Non-involvment in Armed Conflicts, 23 Feb 2023, Universit... more Paper to be presented at the conference Non-involvment in Armed Conflicts, 23 Feb 2023, University of Padua. In the presentation, I'll discuss the compatibility with the law on neutrality with weapons supply. The presentation will discuss this topic in light of the ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Paper presented at the conference "Emerging Issues of Relationship between International Humanita... more Paper presented at the conference "Emerging Issues of Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law"
Lecture for the Nicaraguan Branch of the International Law Association, in cooperation with the I... more Lecture for the Nicaraguan Branch of the International Law Association, in cooperation with the International Legal Podcast Hablemos de Derecho Internacional, 20 May 2021, https://t.co/zrvjAkuJJG?amp=1
Paper to be presented at the roundtable Long COVID: International Law, Human Rights and the Endur... more Paper to be presented at the roundtable Long COVID: International Law, Human Rights and the Enduring Challenges of COVID-19, International Law Workshop, University of Tel Aviv, 19 April 2021, online;
In Italian: Obblighi dei belligeranti in relazione al Covid-19, conferenza Covid-19 e diritto int... more In Italian: Obblighi dei belligeranti in relazione al Covid-19, conferenza Covid-19 e diritto internazionale umanitario
Conference: The Italian Implementation of International and EU Obligations of Domestic Criminalisation, 2020
In Italian: Fonti e contenuti degli obblighi internazionali di adottare norme penali a livello in... more In Italian: Fonti e contenuti degli obblighi internazionali di adottare norme penali a livello interno
L’internationaliste Marco Longobardo analyse l’accentuation des tensions au Proche-Orient. Le spé... more L’internationaliste Marco Longobardo analyse l’accentuation des tensions au Proche-Orient. Le spécialiste du droit de l’occupation alerte sur la spirale dangereuse de mépris du droit et sur le sort des populations civiles.
The Panel will use Dr Wheeler’s new book, Fairness and the Goals of International Criminal Trials... more The Panel will use Dr Wheeler’s new book, Fairness and the Goals of International Criminal Trials as a starting point from which to discuss how international criminal courts and tribunals can achieve accountability, peace, reconciliation, and justice for the victims of atrocity crimes. The conversation will particularly focus on the important role that fairness plays in achieving these goals, and the need for courts and tribunals to prioritize it when making trial decisions. The discussants will also query whether trials, as opposed to other transitional justice mechanisms like truth-commissions and reparations programmes, are the best way to achieve those goals. This event is ideal for anyone interested in public international law, international criminal justice, international human rights or transitional justice.
Coffee and tea will be served at 5.30pm.
Programme
Speakers
Sara Elizabeth Dill (Anethum Global)
Dr Miracle Chinwenmeri Uche (University of Westminster)
Dr Caleb H Wheeler (University of Cardiff)
Chair
Dr Marco Longobardo (University of Westminster)
Speakers' Bios
Sara Elizabeth Dill is a partner at Anethum Global. She holds a bachelor of arts in political science and economics, a juris doctorate with a focus on litigation and international law, and an LLM in international human rights law. She serves as the Vice- Chair of the International Bar Association’s War Crimes Committee. She is serving as one of the experts advising Ukrainian lawyers and judges as to war crimes prosecutions and trial monitoring, and is lead counsel in the litigation against Facebook and Instagram regarding their content moderation policies in relation to the Israel – Palestine conflict. She was a founding member of the Dulles Justice Coalition, an organization of lawyers quickly mobilized to provide legal assistance in response to the Muslim Ban. She serves on the board of Vantage Point, an innovative use of virtual reality to provide training and raise awareness on sexual harassment and assault.
Dr Miracle Chinwenmeri Uche is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Westminster Law School where she teaches international law and global justice, criminal law, and a War and Peace research module. Miracle has been researching justice for victims and their participation in the investigation and prosecution of core international crimes. In her PhD thesis, Miracle proposed ways to foster victim-oriented justice at the International Criminal Court and in domestic jurisdictions through the key principle of complementarity — this remains the focus of her research. Miracle has worked on socio-cultural integration, and development projects in the Netherlands and Nigeria through Stichting Unity in Diversity.
Dr Caleb H Wheeler is a lecturer in law at Cardiff University, UK. He is an international criminal law expert who has written extensively on international criminal courts and tribunals, international criminal trials and the rights of trial participants. His second book, Fairness and the Goals of International Criminal Trials was published by Routledge in April 2023. Dr Wheeler is also a qualified lawyer in the United States, where he was in practice for five years before entering academia.
Dr Marco Longobardo is a Reader in International Law at the University of Westminster. He undertook his doctoral studies at the Sapienza University of Rome. He is the author of The Use of Armed Force in Occupied Territory (Cambridge University Press, 2018), for which he was awarded the 2021 Paul Reuter Prize. He is the Reviews Editor of the Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies and a member of the advisory boards of the International Community Law Review and of the Journal du Droit Transnational.
In 2013, the UN Security Council created an Intervention Brigade in the framework of its mission ... more In 2013, the UN Security Council created an Intervention Brigade in the framework of its mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, MONUSCO. The Intervention Brigade was tasked by the UN Security Council to target and neutralise armed groups in the Eastern part of the DRC, and to promote the stabilisation of the country. Although this was the first offensive unit ever deployed by the UN in the framework of a peacekeeping mission, the UN Security Council affirmed that the Intervention Brigade was created on an exceptional basis, had no precedential value, and would not have undermined the established principles of peacekeeping. After 10 years of its continued deployment and active participations in military operations in the DRC, the Intervention Brigade raises a number of important legal issues about how it contributed to the protection of civilians and stabilisation of DRC, and on whether it radically changed the UN approach to peacekeeping. Many doubt that 10 years of this experiment can be considered exceptional and with no precedential effect. This roundtable will discuss some of these questions. Speakers will provide an appraisal both on the work of the Intervention Brigade in DRC (with specific reference to stabilisation, protection of civilians, and protection of women) and on how it has influenced the development of peacekeeping in general.
Programme Chair: Dr Marco Longobardo (Westminster Law School) Speakers: Dr Jennifer Giblin (Edge Hill University) Dr Alexander Gilder (University of Reading) Professor Gina Heathcote (University of Newcastle) Dr Sidonia Lucia Kula (SOAS) Marie-France Nguo (Westminster Law School)
The panel will reflect on the scholarly legacy of Professor Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz, who passed away on 29 September 2022 at the age of 103. A former member of the UN International Law Commission, of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, and of the Institut de Droit International, Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz has shaped the research and practice of international law until the very end of his life, when in 2017 he published his last monograph. His publications have focused in particular on the legal personality of states, international organisations, international courts and tribunals, the rights of states, and state responsibility. He was a prolific author who has influenced the research in these fields by publishing in English, French, and Italian. One year after his death, this panel aims at reflecting on the impact of Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz’s scholarship on the development and the future of international law. While remembered by Italian academia in a series of events and publications, internationally, his death and legacy received less coverage. This panel will bring together generalist international lawyers from outside Italy, with different background and expertise, to discuss topics pertaining to the law of international organisations, the law of international courts and tribunals, and state responsibility. The event will be in hybrid form (online and in person). The event is free but registration is needed. Programme: Chair: Dr Marco Longobardo (University of Westminster) Panellists: Dr Fernando Lusa Bordin (Cambridge) Dr Devika Hovell (LSE) Dr Yusra Suedi (Manchester) Prof Martins Paparinskis (UCL and International Law Commission)
Lecture for the seminar series on International Humanitarian Law and the Conflict in Ukraine orga... more Lecture for the seminar series on International Humanitarian Law and the Conflict in Ukraine organised by the University of Turin.
Roundtable on The Role of Third Parties in the Armed Conflict in Ukraine (in Italian) organised b... more Roundtable on The Role of Third Parties in the Armed Conflict in Ukraine (in Italian) organised by the Interest Group on International Law and Armed Conflicts of the Italian Society of International Law.
Programme
Chair: Dr Marco Longobardo (University of Westminster)
Speakers:
Professor Anne Pete... more Programme
Chair: Dr Marco Longobardo (University of Westminster)
Speakers:
Professor Anne Peters and Leonhard Kreuzer (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg), Professor Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris), Dr Maria Monnheimer (Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich) and Dr Alice Ollino (University of Milano-Bicocca).
Today there is a huge emphasis on the role of domestic courts in punishing international crimes. ... more Today there is a huge emphasis on the role of domestic courts in punishing international crimes. There is a significant trend that speaks of success, especially in relation to German and other European prosecutions of Daesh and some Syrian government crimes. However, recent practice in states such as the UK, the US and Australia demonstrates that more attention to obstacles preventing domestic prosecution of international crimes is needed. This panel will explore recent legislative and governmental measures affecting the prosecution of international crimes in the UK, US, and Australia, assessing their compatibility with international law.
Programme
Chair: Dr Marco Longobardo, University of Westminster
Martedì 26 febbraio 2019, alle ore 10,30-12,30, Piazzale dell’Ateneo Nuovo 1, Milano, Edificio U6... more Martedì 26 febbraio 2019, alle ore 10,30-12,30, Piazzale dell’Ateneo Nuovo 1, Milano, Edificio U6, Sala Lauree
Uploads
Papers by Marco Longobardo
https://www.ejiltalk.org/alleged-violations-of-the-duty-to-ensure-respect-for-ihl-and-the-monetary-gold-principle/
Published in Armed Groups and International Law, 15 Nov 2023, https://www.armedgroups-internationallaw.org/2023/11/15/some-reflections-on-the-use-of-force-in-the-recent-escalation-of-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/
Available at http://www.sidiblog.org/2023/10/15/brevi-riflessioni-sulluso-della-forza-nella-recente-escalation-del-conflitto-israelo-palestinese/
https://www.ejiltalk.org/alleged-violations-of-the-duty-to-ensure-respect-for-ihl-and-the-monetary-gold-principle/
Published in Armed Groups and International Law, 15 Nov 2023, https://www.armedgroups-internationallaw.org/2023/11/15/some-reflections-on-the-use-of-force-in-the-recent-escalation-of-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/
Available at http://www.sidiblog.org/2023/10/15/brevi-riflessioni-sulluso-della-forza-nella-recente-escalation-del-conflitto-israelo-palestinese/
From a traditional perspective, peacekeeping missions dispatched by the UNSC are governed by three principles: non-use of armed force except in personal self-defence, neutrality, and the consent of the belligerents. The UN Secretary-General (UNSG) identified these principles in 1958 in relation to the 1956 UNEF I mission that was dispatched to monitor a ceasefire between Israel and Egypt. However, the progressive involvement of UN peacekeepers in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) rendered these principles difficult to apply in practice.
From the difficulties of the ONUC mission in Congo in the 60’s to the failure of the missions in former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Rwanda in the 90s, it became apparent that more force should have been authorised by the UN Security Council to protect civilians involved in NIACs. Rather than repudiating the three principles, the UNSC and the UNSG reinterpreted them: the use of armed force in personal self-defence evolved into the use of armed force in defence of the mandate; the neutrality of the mission turned into its impartiality, shifting from the lack of involvement in the underlying armed conflict to treating all the actors threatening civilians equally; the requirement of the consent of all belligerents metamorphosed in the request of consent by the host state only.
Even though the UNSC kept invoking the principles of peacekeeping, this process of progressive increasing of the robustness of some peacekeeping missions peaked after 2013 when an offensive unit (the MONUSCO Intervention Brigade) was created to neutralise armed groups in the DRC. In 2016, a similar unit (the Regional Protection Force) was created within UNMISS in South Sudan. Always in 2016, MINUSMA in Mali was deployed against forces that were labelled as ‘terrorists’, mixing peacekeeping and counterterrorism for the first time.
This paper will analyse how fair these new robust peacekeeping missions are considering the evolution of the principles of peacekeeping. The original model was fair in so much it rested on the consent of all the belligerents, it mandated peacekeepers not to take any offensive action, and it prohibited them from interfering with the underlying armed conflict. The most recent practice from MONUSCO, UNMISS, and MINUSMA presents peacekeepers openly fighting against armed groups on the side of the governments, often in situations where the governments have poor human rights records. The paper will investigate whether it is fair to use peacekeepers to support the authority of a government and to conduct counterterrorist activities; whether it is fair to deploy peacekeepers against some specific actors involved in an armed conflicting; whether it is fair to seek the consent of only some specific belligerents. And, finally, whether it is fair to call UN missions of this kind ‘peacekeeping’, or whether this practice is undermining confidence in traditional peacekeeping missions without providing more protection for the civilians caught in non-international armed conflicts.
In the presentation, I'll discuss the compatibility with the law on neutrality with weapons supply. The presentation will discuss this topic in light of the ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine.
https://www.land.lu/page/issue/3769/FRE/index.html
Interview and French translation by Pierre Sorlut
Coffee and tea will be served at 5.30pm.
Programme
Speakers
Sara Elizabeth Dill (Anethum Global)
Dr Miracle Chinwenmeri Uche (University of Westminster)
Dr Caleb H Wheeler (University of Cardiff)
Chair
Dr Marco Longobardo (University of Westminster)
Speakers' Bios
Sara Elizabeth Dill is a partner at Anethum Global. She holds a bachelor of arts in political science and economics, a juris doctorate with a focus on litigation and international law, and an LLM in international human rights law. She serves as the Vice- Chair of the International Bar Association’s War Crimes Committee. She is serving as one of the experts advising Ukrainian lawyers and judges as to war crimes prosecutions and trial monitoring, and is lead counsel in the litigation against Facebook and Instagram regarding their content moderation policies in relation to the Israel – Palestine conflict. She was a founding member of the Dulles Justice Coalition, an organization of lawyers quickly mobilized to provide legal assistance in response to the Muslim Ban. She serves on the board of Vantage Point, an innovative use of virtual reality to provide training and raise awareness on sexual harassment and assault.
Dr Miracle Chinwenmeri Uche is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Westminster Law School where she teaches international law and global justice, criminal law, and a War and Peace research module. Miracle has been researching justice for victims and their participation in the investigation and prosecution of core international crimes. In her PhD thesis, Miracle proposed ways to foster victim-oriented justice at the International Criminal Court and in domestic jurisdictions through the key principle of complementarity — this remains the focus of her research. Miracle has worked on socio-cultural integration, and development projects in the Netherlands and Nigeria through Stichting Unity in Diversity.
Dr Caleb H Wheeler is a lecturer in law at Cardiff University, UK. He is an international criminal law expert who has written extensively on international criminal courts and tribunals, international criminal trials and the rights of trial participants. His second book, Fairness and the Goals of International Criminal Trials was published by Routledge in April 2023. Dr Wheeler is also a qualified lawyer in the United States, where he was in practice for five years before entering academia.
Dr Marco Longobardo is a Reader in International Law at the University of Westminster. He undertook his doctoral studies at the Sapienza University of Rome. He is the author of The Use of Armed Force in Occupied Territory (Cambridge University Press, 2018), for which he was awarded the 2021 Paul Reuter Prize. He is the Reviews Editor of the Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies and a member of the advisory boards of the International Community Law Review and of the Journal du Droit Transnational.
After 10 years of its continued deployment and active participations in military operations in the DRC, the Intervention Brigade raises a number of important legal issues about how it contributed to the protection of civilians and stabilisation of DRC, and on whether it radically changed the UN approach to peacekeeping. Many doubt that 10 years of this experiment can be considered exceptional and with no precedential effect.
This roundtable will discuss some of these questions. Speakers will provide an appraisal both on the work of the Intervention Brigade in DRC (with specific reference to stabilisation, protection of civilians, and protection of women) and on how it has influenced the development of peacekeeping in general.
Programme
Chair: Dr Marco Longobardo (Westminster Law School)
Speakers: Dr Jennifer Giblin (Edge Hill University) Dr Alexander Gilder (University of Reading) Professor Gina Heathcote (University of Newcastle) Dr Sidonia Lucia Kula (SOAS) Marie-France Nguo (Westminster Law School)
Free registration online and in person at https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-monusco-intervention-brigade-at-ten-tickets-733354441877?aff=oddtdtcreator
The panel will reflect on the scholarly legacy of Professor Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz, who passed away on 29 September 2022 at the age of 103. A former member of the UN International Law Commission, of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, and of the Institut de Droit International, Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz has shaped the research and practice of international law until the very end of his life, when in 2017 he published his last monograph. His publications have focused in particular on the legal personality of states, international organisations, international courts and tribunals, the rights of states, and state responsibility. He was a prolific author who has influenced the research in these fields by publishing in English, French, and Italian.
One year after his death, this panel aims at reflecting on the impact of Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz’s scholarship on the development and the future of international law. While remembered by Italian academia in a series of events and publications, internationally, his death and legacy received less coverage. This panel will bring together generalist international lawyers from outside Italy, with different background and expertise, to discuss topics pertaining to the law of international organisations, the law of international courts and tribunals, and state responsibility.
The event will be in hybrid form (online and in person). The event is free but registration is needed.
Programme:
Chair: Dr Marco Longobardo (University of Westminster)
Panellists:
Dr Fernando Lusa Bordin (Cambridge)
Dr Devika Hovell (LSE)
Dr Yusra Suedi (Manchester)
Prof Martins Paparinskis (UCL and International Law Commission)
Chair: Dr Marco Longobardo (University of Westminster)
Speakers:
Professor Anne Peters and Leonhard Kreuzer (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg), Professor Samantha Besson (Collège de France, Paris), Dr Maria Monnheimer (Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich) and Dr Alice Ollino (University of Milano-Bicocca).
Registration at: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/recent-works-on-due-diligence-in-international-law-tickets-139648974843
Programme
Chair: Dr Marco Longobardo, University of Westminster
Speakers
Dr. Noelle Quenivet, UWE Bristol
Prof. Gabor Rona, Cardozo Law School
Dr. Alexandra Fowler, University of Westminster