Pub Date : 2022-02-02DOI: 10.1163/27725650-01020001
F. Seatzu, Paolo Vargiu
The recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Beg v. Italy has addressed the question of the applicability of the right to fair trial, as defined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (echr), to arbitral proceedings. The judgment has clarified that the scope of Article 6 echr extends to international commercial arbitration. However, a number of questions remain unanswered, especially about the relationship between arbitral tribunals and domestic courts, the significance of fair trial in voluntary proceedings, whether a State is responsible to monitor the respect of due process in arbitral proceedings conducted within its territory and to what extent. Moreover, the ECtHR failed, notwithstanding its foray into the field of arbitration, to clarify the meaning of “impartiality” and “independence” as requirements to sit in arbitral tribunals within the context of Article 6 echr. This article provides an analysis of the judgment in Beg v. Italy and highlights, in light of the questionable approach taken by the ECtHR in the case, the uncertainty that affects the scope of application of Article 6 echr with regard to arbitral proceedings.
{"title":"Three Views of a Secret: Missed Opportunities in the echr’s Recent Case-Law on International Commercial Arbitration","authors":"F. Seatzu, Paolo Vargiu","doi":"10.1163/27725650-01020001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01020001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Beg v. Italy has addressed the question of the applicability of the right to fair trial, as defined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (echr), to arbitral proceedings. The judgment has clarified that the scope of Article 6 echr extends to international commercial arbitration. However, a number of questions remain unanswered, especially about the relationship between arbitral tribunals and domestic courts, the significance of fair trial in voluntary proceedings, whether a State is responsible to monitor the respect of due process in arbitral proceedings conducted within its territory and to what extent. Moreover, the ECtHR failed, notwithstanding its foray into the field of arbitration, to clarify the meaning of “impartiality” and “independence” as requirements to sit in arbitral tribunals within the context of Article 6 echr. This article provides an analysis of the judgment in Beg v. Italy and highlights, in light of the questionable approach taken by the ECtHR in the case, the uncertainty that affects the scope of application of Article 6 echr with regard to arbitral proceedings.","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"130 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128301741","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-27DOI: 10.1163/27725650-01020017
One of the aims of the European Union (EU) has been to establish an area of “freedom, security and justice” founded, inter alia, on the freedom of circulation of people, goods and capitals, in which legal decisions rendered in a Member State are free to circulate within the Union. The functioning of this legal order is based on the mutual trust between domestic courts, according to which, as a matter of principle, all decisions rendered in a Member State are not to be reviewed in other Member States. Automatic circulation of judgments should possibly incentivize the recourse to domestic systems of justice and, in the opinion of the EU institutions, all domestic courts within the Union should be seen as equal and apt to grant an equivalent level of justice. However, individuals and companies carrying out business activities still seem (at least partially) to distrust domestic systems of justice and to prefer recurring to international arbitration, which is sometimes perceived as a more neutral and efficient system of dispute settlement, more suitable for international commercial litigation. This consideration applies both in the field of purely commercial disputes – involving two private parties – as well in international investment arbitration – involving a foreign investor, on the one hand, and the host State where the former decided to carry out its business, on the other. In the last decade, the EU, for its part, has confronted with the continuous recourse to international arbitration on several occasions. As regards the outcomes, however, a clear distinction has to be drawn between international commercial litigation and investor-State dispute settlement (isds). As to international commercial arbitration, the EU legislator has been quite reluctant in regulating it within the normative framework of EU regulations on private international law. Arbitration is, indeed, expressly excluded by the Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels I-bis) and the extension of this exclusion is
{"title":"The European Union and International Arbitration","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/27725650-01020017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01020017","url":null,"abstract":"One of the aims of the European Union (EU) has been to establish an area of “freedom, security and justice” founded, inter alia, on the freedom of circulation of people, goods and capitals, in which legal decisions rendered in a Member State are free to circulate within the Union. The functioning of this legal order is based on the mutual trust between domestic courts, according to which, as a matter of principle, all decisions rendered in a Member State are not to be reviewed in other Member States. Automatic circulation of judgments should possibly incentivize the recourse to domestic systems of justice and, in the opinion of the EU institutions, all domestic courts within the Union should be seen as equal and apt to grant an equivalent level of justice. However, individuals and companies carrying out business activities still seem (at least partially) to distrust domestic systems of justice and to prefer recurring to international arbitration, which is sometimes perceived as a more neutral and efficient system of dispute settlement, more suitable for international commercial litigation. This consideration applies both in the field of purely commercial disputes – involving two private parties – as well in international investment arbitration – involving a foreign investor, on the one hand, and the host State where the former decided to carry out its business, on the other. In the last decade, the EU, for its part, has confronted with the continuous recourse to international arbitration on several occasions. As regards the outcomes, however, a clear distinction has to be drawn between international commercial litigation and investor-State dispute settlement (isds). As to international commercial arbitration, the EU legislator has been quite reluctant in regulating it within the normative framework of EU regulations on private international law. Arbitration is, indeed, expressly excluded by the Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels I-bis) and the extension of this exclusion is","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116037671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-15DOI: 10.1163/27725650-01010004
L. Mistelis, G. Rao
Multilateralism in international investment law is a multifaceted concept with a complex and eventful history. Multilateralism is a paradigm for international investment relations and is also present in the caselaw of investment arbitral tribunals, regardless of whether they consider bilateral or multilateral investment treaties. Indeed, in most cases, they interpret treaty provisions as part of a multilateral system. Further, multilateralism is present every time States act in concert with other States or consider other States’ investors’ legitimate interests. It also emerges that, in some instances, multilateralism has become mandatory. For example, this is the case concerning sustainable development or climate change. In these areas, international law requires multilateralism. States are under an obligation to co-operate for purposes of achieving or promoting multilateral solutions. However, concerning the international investment law context, such a concept is not present. The general assumption is that States’ participation in multilateral practises is left to their discretion: it is voluntary or consensual. In this article, we question that assumption. In this article, we offer a brief review of multilateral experiences in international investment law in the 20th century and provide an analysis of multilateralism in a historical context. Then we turn our attention to the current state of affairs to appreciate it in light of the past. Further, we discuss the future, and in particular, mandatory multilateralism in international law with respect to sustainable development. Here we identify the principles, which might justify mandatory multilateral approaches. Finally, we consider whether the principles justifying mandatory multilateralism in international law are applicable in the context of international investment law as well. We attempt to answer this question in the affirmative and point out further areas of research.
{"title":"Multilateral Principles in a Bilateral World","authors":"L. Mistelis, G. Rao","doi":"10.1163/27725650-01010004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01010004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Multilateralism in international investment law is a multifaceted concept with a complex and eventful history. Multilateralism is a paradigm for international investment relations and is also present in the caselaw of investment arbitral tribunals, regardless of whether they consider bilateral or multilateral investment treaties. Indeed, in most cases, they interpret treaty provisions as part of a multilateral system. Further, multilateralism is present every time States act in concert with other States or consider other States’ investors’ legitimate interests.\u0000It also emerges that, in some instances, multilateralism has become mandatory. For example, this is the case concerning sustainable development or climate change. In these areas, international law requires multilateralism. States are under an obligation to co-operate for purposes of achieving or promoting multilateral solutions. However, concerning the international investment law context, such a concept is not present. The general assumption is that States’ participation in multilateral practises is left to their discretion: it is voluntary or consensual. In this article, we question that assumption.\u0000In this article, we offer a brief review of multilateral experiences in international investment law in the 20th century and provide an analysis of multilateralism in a historical context. Then we turn our attention to the current state of affairs to appreciate it in light of the past. Further, we discuss the future, and in particular, mandatory multilateralism in international law with respect to sustainable development. Here we identify the principles, which might justify mandatory multilateral approaches. Finally, we consider whether the principles justifying mandatory multilateralism in international law are applicable in the context of international investment law as well. We attempt to answer this question in the affirmative and point out further areas of research.","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115123763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-15DOI: 10.1163/27725650-01010005
G. Adinolfi
In the more recent decades, international investment law (“iil”) and arbitration have been going through a process of recalibration prompted by both the intensification of cross-border capital flows and the States’ growing concerns over the potential restraints iil may impose upon the pursuit of public interests. The present contribution will pay attention to a specific feature that can be observed within these developments, i.e. the role played by soft law in investment arbitration and, more generally, under iil, also with a view to assessing the impact on the formation of binding international law of instruments formally devoid of normative force within the international legal order. After an introduction (Section 1), the contribution is articulated into four sections. Section 2 will first define the field of investigation. The case law of investment tribunals and the treaty practice under the more recent iia s will be then explored as to the reliance on soft law instruments for the purposes of settling procedural (Section 3) and substantive issues (Section 4). Some final remarks will close (Section 5).
{"title":"Soft Law in International Investment Law and Arbitration","authors":"G. Adinolfi","doi":"10.1163/27725650-01010005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01010005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In the more recent decades, international investment law (“iil”) and arbitration have been going through a process of recalibration prompted by both the intensification of cross-border capital flows and the States’ growing concerns over the potential restraints iil may impose upon the pursuit of public interests. The present contribution will pay attention to a specific feature that can be observed within these developments, i.e. the role played by soft law in investment arbitration and, more generally, under iil, also with a view to assessing the impact on the formation of binding international law of instruments formally devoid of normative force within the international legal order. After an introduction (Section 1), the contribution is articulated into four sections. Section 2 will first define the field of investigation. The case law of investment tribunals and the treaty practice under the more recent iia s will be then explored as to the reliance on soft law instruments for the purposes of settling procedural (Section 3) and substantive issues (Section 4). Some final remarks will close (Section 5).","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131673121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-15DOI: 10.1163/27725650-01010006
M. Malaguti
In 2021, the new Italian Model Bilateral Investment Treaty has been published. It replaced the 2003 Model bit and can be considered as a significant example of the “new generation of bit s”, which try to better balance investor rights with the public prerogatives of States. The Model Treaty also introduces significant innovations as to the conduct of arbitrators and the corporate social responsibility of investors and is also aimed at coordinating Italian and European foreign investment policies. This article offers a view of this new Model bit and tries to insert it in the broader context of the proposed reforms regarding international investment law and arbitration.
{"title":"The New Italian Model Bit Between Current and Future Trends","authors":"M. Malaguti","doi":"10.1163/27725650-01010006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01010006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In 2021, the new Italian Model Bilateral Investment Treaty has been published. It replaced the 2003 Model bit and can be considered as a significant example of the “new generation of bit s”, which try to better balance investor rights with the public prerogatives of States. The Model Treaty also introduces significant innovations as to the conduct of arbitrators and the corporate social responsibility of investors and is also aimed at coordinating Italian and European foreign investment policies. This article offers a view of this new Model bit and tries to insert it in the broader context of the proposed reforms regarding international investment law and arbitration.","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134537814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-15DOI: 10.1163/27725650-01010012
L. Cappuccio
Luigi Bonanate’s book “Costituzione italiana: articolo 11” analyses Article 11 of the Italian Constitution through the prism of its application. Bonanate provides the reader, in a clear and compelling style, with a complete interpretation of Article 11, combining the analysis of the preparatory work in the Constituent Assembly with its doctrinal interpretation and political application. The book does not only analyse the drafting of this article, but also focuses on the “political history of Article 11”, on the contemporary debate by the scientific community and, finally, on its relations with the international legal system.
{"title":"Art. 11 of the Italian Constitution between text and context","authors":"L. Cappuccio","doi":"10.1163/27725650-01010012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01010012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Luigi Bonanate’s book “Costituzione italiana: articolo 11” analyses Article 11 of the Italian Constitution through the prism of its application. Bonanate provides the reader, in a clear and compelling style, with a complete interpretation of Article 11, combining the analysis of the preparatory work in the Constituent Assembly with its doctrinal interpretation and political application. The book does not only analyse the drafting of this article, but also focuses on the “political history of Article 11”, on the contemporary debate by the scientific community and, finally, on its relations with the international legal system.","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"512 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116700964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-15DOI: 10.1163/27725650-01010010
C. Milo
After uncovering Russian espionage activities on Italian territory, Italy expelled two Russian diplomats allegedly involved in such activities. The Italian decision, as well as the Russian response, offer a classic example of States’ reaction to acts of non-violent espionage. This comment offers a legal assessment of the events that unfolded in March 2021 and takes into account the implications, in matters concerning espionage, of declarations of persona non grata, diplomatic immunity and, generally, customary international law.
{"title":"Russian Diplomatic Espionage in Italy","authors":"C. Milo","doi":"10.1163/27725650-01010010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01010010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000After uncovering Russian espionage activities on Italian territory, Italy expelled two Russian diplomats allegedly involved in such activities. The Italian decision, as well as the Russian response, offer a classic example of States’ reaction to acts of non-violent espionage. This comment offers a legal assessment of the events that unfolded in March 2021 and takes into account the implications, in matters concerning espionage, of declarations of persona non grata, diplomatic immunity and, generally, customary international law.","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127056915","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-15DOI: 10.1163/27725650-01010008
F. Vona
On 24 February 2021, the Italian Corte Suprema di Cassazione delivered a landmark ordinance unequivocally establishing that the existence of a situation of environmental degradation in the country of origin of an international protection seeker, which entails grave human rights violations, justifies the recognition of the humanitarian protection status. In ruling that the assessment of vulnerability, for the purpose of granting humanitarian protection, must also be conducted in relation to environmental and climatic conditions which are capable of seriously affecting the enjoyment of human rights, the Supreme Court potentially paves the way for a first wave of rights-based climate lawsuits before Italian civil courts.
{"title":"Environmental Disasters and Humanitarian Protection: A Fertile Ground for Litigating Climate Change and Human Rights in Italy?","authors":"F. Vona","doi":"10.1163/27725650-01010008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01010008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000On 24 February 2021, the Italian Corte Suprema di Cassazione delivered a landmark ordinance unequivocally establishing that the existence of a situation of environmental degradation in the country of origin of an international protection seeker, which entails grave human rights violations, justifies the recognition of the humanitarian protection status. In ruling that the assessment of vulnerability, for the purpose of granting humanitarian protection, must also be conducted in relation to environmental and climatic conditions which are capable of seriously affecting the enjoyment of human rights, the Supreme Court potentially paves the way for a first wave of rights-based climate lawsuits before Italian civil courts.","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128710099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-15DOI: 10.1163/27725650-01010003
C. Focarelli
On 3 February 2021, the US Supreme Court affirmed the icj’s Jurisdictional Immunities of the State Judgment of 2012—according to which “a State is not deprived of immunity by reason of the fact that it is accused of serious violations of international human rights law”—adopting, thus, a position opposite to that taken by the Italian Corte Costituzionale in its well-known Judgment No. 238 of 2014. Based on a realist-constructivist theoretical approach to international law, this article argues that the only plausible legal perspective justifying Judgment No. 238 is a dynamic one. However, the Corte Costituzionale has substantially failed to argue the plausibility of the expected change in existing international law that it wished to promote for the future. To take its intended big leap realistically and successfully, the Italian position would have deserved a sounder theoretical analysis of international law and of the world system in which the latter is meant to work.
{"title":"State Immunity and Serious Violations of Human Rights: Judgment No. 238 of 2014 of the Italian Constitutional Court Seven Years on","authors":"C. Focarelli","doi":"10.1163/27725650-01010003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01010003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000On 3 February 2021, the US Supreme Court affirmed the icj’s Jurisdictional Immunities of the State Judgment of 2012—according to which “a State is not deprived of immunity by reason of the fact that it is accused of serious violations of international human rights law”—adopting, thus, a position opposite to that taken by the Italian Corte Costituzionale in its well-known Judgment No. 238 of 2014. Based on a realist-constructivist theoretical approach to international law, this article argues that the only plausible legal perspective justifying Judgment No. 238 is a dynamic one. However, the Corte Costituzionale has substantially failed to argue the plausibility of the expected change in existing international law that it wished to promote for the future. To take its intended big leap realistically and successfully, the Italian position would have deserved a sounder theoretical analysis of international law and of the world system in which the latter is meant to work.","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121335435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-15DOI: 10.1163/27725650-01010013
Orlando Scarcello
Leonardo Pierdominici’s ‘The Mimetic Evolution of the Court of Justice of the EU. A Comparative Law Perspective’ is discussed here. I start considering the methodological tenets of the book, which investigates how the Court of Justice borrowed institutional settings from other jurisdictions and bent them to its needs throughout its history. The five substantive chapters of the book are then considered. Each chapter shows the impact of comparative law on one aspect of the functioning of the Court: the available actions, the appointment of judges, the transparency of decisions, the docket control mechanism, and the style of judgments. I end the review by suggesting a few missing topics that the book may have investigated.
{"title":"Borrowing to Survive: Investigating the Functioning of the Court of Justice of the EU through Comparative Law","authors":"Orlando Scarcello","doi":"10.1163/27725650-01010013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01010013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Leonardo Pierdominici’s ‘The Mimetic Evolution of the Court of Justice of the EU. A Comparative Law Perspective’ is discussed here. I start considering the methodological tenets of the book, which investigates how the Court of Justice borrowed institutional settings from other jurisdictions and bent them to its needs throughout its history. The five substantive chapters of the book are then considered. Each chapter shows the impact of comparative law on one aspect of the functioning of the Court: the available actions, the appointment of judges, the transparency of decisions, the docket control mechanism, and the style of judgments. I end the review by suggesting a few missing topics that the book may have investigated.","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121706703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：