Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Quartino -- Indice-Sommario -- Prefazione -- Il Conflitto del Nagorno-Karabakh: Analisi e prospettive di soluzione secondo diritto (Natalino Ronzitti) -- Documentazione - a cura di Chiara Altafin -- I - La Repubblica di Azerbaigian -- II - La secessione del Nagorno-Karabakh -- III - Documenti relativi al conflitto -- IV - Crisis management e sicurezza regionale -- V - Diritti dell'uomo e diritto internazionale umanitario -- VI - Il Consiglio d'Europa -- VII - Unione Europea -- VIII - CSCE/OSCE -- IX - NATO -- X - Nazioni Unite -- Cartina della Regione -- Bibliografia -- Ultimato di stampare.

Abstract
The conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine has again raised the problem of neutrality in the light of the massive shipment by Western States of military assets to Ukraine and the restrictive measures (sanctions) against the Russian Federation. The resolutions by the UN General Assembly and the qualification of the Russian Federation as an aggressor have induced to consider the relationship between neutrality and the UN Charter. This article examines the problem of neutrality according to recent practice and argues that neutrality is still alive, notwithstanding its transformation from its origin. The notion of non-belligerency is also in conformity with international law. Neutrality is no longer an institution of jus in bello but belongs to jus ad bellum and the principle of equality of belligerents should not be applied, except for those rules that have purely humanitarian nature. Permanent neutrality is still a valid institution as the practice shows. Lastly, this article deals with neutrality and non-international conflicts, concluding that the recognition of belligerency, that is the mechanism allowing the application of neutrality to this category of conflict, is almost obsolete.

The general rule on the prohibition on use of force in international relations has rendered controversial the cases in which states may lawfully resort to armed force. Even self-defense, which is undoubtedly a lawful action, is the object of contentious interpretations of its precise content and modalities of exercise. Are there lawful instances of recourse to armed action in addition to self-defense and use of force authorized by the United Nations? This is greatly disputed and the controversy also embodies the legality of intervention for rescuing nationals abroad. The latter's lawfulness is the object of this article, which revisits previous work by the author more than 30 years ago, taking into account new state practice, the scarce jurisprudence, the works of the ILC, the relevant UN declarations and international conventions and the opinions of qualified jurists. The main finding is that the practice of intervention for rescuing nationals abroad, once the prerogative of the Western States, now includes actions by other states belonging to different regional groups. The Russian Federation is the most notable example. This article examines the various circumstances in which the necessity for a rescue operation arises and the justifications that may be invoked. It concludes that intervention for rescuing nationals abroad in mortal danger is allowed by a norm of customary international law, which constitutes an autonomous exception to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations.

La Cour constitutionnelle italienne, par un arrêt historique, a déclaré que l'on ne pouvait pas donner exécution à l'arrêt de la C. I. J. condamnant l'Italie pour violation de la règle coutumière sur l'immunité de juridiction des États. Par conséquent la Cour constitutionnelle a annulé non seulement la loi qui avait été édictée pour conformer l'ordre juridique italien au jugement de la C. I. J., mais a également déclaré l'illégitimité constitutionnelle de la loi qui avait donné exécution à l'article 94 de la Charte des Nations Unies, dans la mesure où elle prescrit au juge italien de donner exécution à l'arrêt de la C. I. J. Allemagne c. Italie. L'arrêt de la Cour constitutionnelle soulève des problèmes pratiques qui surclassent la question théorique du dualisme et des rapports entre l'ordre juridique interne et l'ordre juridique international. La question est que l'Allemagne, forte de l'arrêt de la C. I. J., pourrait saisir à nouveau la Cour ou prendre d'autres mesures si les tribunaux italiens soumettaient l'Allemagne à leur compétence. On doit aussi se demander si l'arrêt italien peut contribuer à contenir l'interprétation conservatrice de la C. I. J. et à faire démarrer un développement plus conforme aux droits de l'homme, y compris le droit d'accès au juge, qui avait été inauguré par la jurisprudence Ferrini, mais que la C. I. J. a brusquement interrompu.

This article examines the case of the Enrica Lexie, a commercial ship having on board military personnel engaging in anti-piracy duties who was involved in an incident with persons on a fishing vessel off the Indian coast. It takes into consideration India's claim to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over the Italian marines indicted of having killed two Indian fishermen, the judgments passed by India's courts and the multiple aspects of the ensuing controversy between India and Italy. It is argued that the two marines enjoy functional immunity, even if it is admitted that India has jurisdiction over the case. The article concludes that new conventional law is needed for incidents like that of the Enrica Lexie paralleling Article 97 UNCLOS on collisions on the high seas.