Waiting for Negotiations: An Italian Way to Get Out of the Deadlock

Author:

Bufalini Alessandro

Abstract

AbstractThe outcome of Judgment 238/2014 does not directly rely on the fact that the international dispute on state immunity involves two member states of the EU. Also, it is difficult to envisage at the European level any normative development on the international rules on state immunity. It seems, however, that some useful lessons can be learnt from the judicial dialogue between the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, and constitutional courts. In very general terms and for many reasons, the relationship between constitutional courts and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) cannot rely on particularly sophisticated techniques of judicial dialogue.This encourages us to consider the importance of involving state-level political organs as one of the counterparts to the dialogue. The potential power of judges to address these political organs in order to find a diplomatic solution raises the thorny question of whether this availability of alternative means of dispute settlement at the international level might impact on (or somehow restrict) the right of access to justice for Italian victims. Since both ICJ and the Italian Constitutional Court (ItCC) seem to agree that negotiation is the alternative dispute settlement par excellence (and the only means available to settle the present dispute at the international level), the ItCC might have given more importance to the availability of alternative means of redress—in the form of negotiations between the two states—in order to wear down the absolute character of the principle of judicial protection enshrined in Article 24 of the Italian Constitution.Of course, a negotiated solution depends upon the willingness of both parties, whereas an Italian political initiative aimed at unilaterally granting reparation to the victims is always possible. Moreover, the latter solution may stop the enforcement of Judgment 238/2014 and reduce Italy’s exposure to international responsibility for non-compliance with the 2012 ICJ Judgment. So long as Italian victims and their heirs are compensated, the restriction on their right to seek justice through the courts might become more tolerable for the Italian tribunals.

Publisher

Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Reference31 articles.

1. Arcari, Maurizio, ‘Forgetting Article 103 of the UN Charter?: Some perplexities on “equivalent protection” after Al-Dulimi’, Questions of International Law: Zoom-In 6 (2014), 31-41

2. Bassini, Marco/Oreste Pollicino, ‘Defusing the Taricco Bomb through Fostering Constitutional Tolerance: All Roads Lead to Rome’, VerfBlog, (5 December 2017), available at https://verfassungsblog.de/defusing-the-taricco-bomb-through-fostering-constitutional-tolerance-all-roads-lead-to-rome/

3. Battini, Stefano, ‘È costituzionale il diritto internazionale?’, Giornale di diritto amministrativo 3 (2015), 367-377

4. Bernardi, Alessandro/Cristiano Cupelli (eds), Il caso Taricco e il dialogo tra le Corti: L’ordinanza 24/2017 della Corte costituzionale (Naples: Jovene Editore 2017)

5. Bílková, Veronika, ‘The Standard of Equivalent Protection as a Standard of Review’, in Lukasz Gruszczynski/Wouter Werner (eds), Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (Oxford: OUP 2014), 272-288

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3