La presente ricerca si propone di esaminare l’evoluzione del principio di solidarietà interstatale nell’ambito della politica di asilo europea. L’attuazione di tale principio è stata invocata in occasione dei recenti flussi migratori, composti principalmente da persone bisognose di protezione internazionale, che hanno sovraccaricato la capacità di accoglienza di alcuni Paesi euro-mediterranei. Il SECA si è dimostrato fragile e inadeguato, principalmente a causa della mancanza di coordinamento interstatale e di sostegno ai Paesi di primo asilo in difficoltà. E’ emersa pertanto con chiarezza la necessità di tradurre in concreto il concetto di burden-sharing, favorendo una più equa ripartizione intra-europea degli oneri e delle responsabilità in materia di asilo. In primo luogo, la ricerca delinea il concetto di “burden-sharing”, inteso come declinazione del principio di solidarietà e finalizzato a realizzare un’equa distribuzione dei rischi e dei costi tra i membri di un gruppo per il raggiungimento di un obiettivo comune. In particolare, si approfondisce il dibattito sviluppatosi su tale principio in diverse aree del diritto internazionale e i meccanismi adottati per renderlo operativo. Quindi si analizza la natura e il contenuto del principio di solidarietà nell’ambito del diritto dell’Unione Europea, percorrendo le fasi principali dell’evoluzione della politica europea di asilo e esaminando il diritto primario e secondario dell’UE rilevante. Particolare attenzione è dedicata al sistema Dublino, la cui analisi è incentrata sul principio di mutua fiducia, in base al quale si presume che tutti gli Stati membri sono rispettosi del divieto di refoulement e quindi si considerano reciprocamente sicuri. Infine, si esamina la risposta dell’EU all’emergenza umanitaria provocata dalla guerra in Siria al fine di stabilire se l’attuale politica di asilo europea rappresenta una concreta espressione del principio di solidarietà o se, al contrario, l’Unione Europea abbia scelto di percorrere la strada opposta a quella tracciata da tale concetto. / The principle of solidarity among EU Member States and its expression through the fair sharing of responsibility represent one of the constitutive elements of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and, more generally, of the European Union idea. Nevertheless, this principle has not found an effective implementation in European policies yet. The aim of this research is to argue, firstly, that the application of the principle of burden-sharing is a condicio sine qua non for the effectiveness of the CEAS as well as a way to ensure the commitment to international human rights standard. Moreover, it seeks to demonstrate the inefficiency of the instruments adopted so far by the European Union to enhance intra-EU solidarity. The first part analyses the role of the principle of “burden-sharing” in international law and, in particular, its application in security law, environmental law and refugee law. The second chapter examines the legal nature and the content of the principle of solidarity in EU law, identifying its role in primary and secondary law and describing its evolution in the European asylum policy. The third chapter addresses the major dysfunctions of the Dublin System, which allocates to Member States the responsibility for asylum claims examination. In particular, it describes the consequences of this deficiency, such as the difficulties in assuring the respect of fundamental rights standards, and in complying with the duty to gather fingerprints by the Member States situated at the EU external border. Finally the research analyses the instruments adopted by the EU in order to manage the current “refugee crisis”, such as the EU-Turkey agreement, the emergency relocation mechanisms and the hotpost approach. / Le flux massif des réfugiés provenant de la Syrie a pris au dépourvu la capacité d'accueil de certains pays euro-méditerranéens, et mis en relief l'absence de solidarité et de partage équitable de responsabilités entre les États de l'Union européenne. En premier lieu, cette étude définit le concept de “burden-sharing” entendu comme une mesure concrète de solidarité à réaliser à travers la distribution des risques et des coûts parmi les membres d'un groupe pour la réalisation d'un objectif commun. Après avoir analysé l’évolution de ce principe dans le droit international, on évalue sa mise en oeuvre dans l’ordre juridique de l’Union européenne, notamment, dans le Système Européen Commun d'Asile (SECA) consacré par l’article 80 TFUE. En analysant le system Dublin et les réponses les plus actuelles à l’émergence syrienne on conclut que l’Union européenne est encore loin de la complète réalisation du principe du burden sharing.

La libertad de establecimiento y la movilidad de las empresas juegan un papel fundamental en el proceso comunitario de integración. Las empresas buscan nuevas formas de cooperación e integración que les permitan ocupar cuotas de mercado cada vez más importantes. De entre las modalidades de integración y cooperación que tienen a su disposición, la fusión transfronteriza de sociedades es, sin duda, una de las más relevantes. Es evidente que las fusiones de sociedades pertenecientes a Estados miembros distintos podrían tener una enorme importancia en el proceso de integración del mercado único. Sin embargo, la posibilidad de llevar a cabo con éxito una fusión transfronteriza en el ámbito comunitario era improbable hasta época reciente. Dos tipos de impedimentos la dificultaban: por una parte, obstáculos a la libertad de establecimiento por parte de los ordenamientos jurídicos de los Estados miembros; por otro, obstáculos de Derecho internacional privado. En cambio, hoy la mayor parte de estos impedimentos han sido superados gracias, en primer lugar, al progresivo reconocimiento del derecho de establecimiento de las sociedades por el Tribunal de Justicia, y en segundo, a la importante Directiva 2005/56/CE relativa a las fusiones transfronterizas de sociedades de capital. Esta Directiva impone a los Estados miembros una serie de normas de mínimos de derecho material a fin de armonizar la tutela de los intereses de los sujetos implicados más débiles (sobre todo, los trabajadores y los socios). De igual manera, establece una serie de normas de conflicto para resolver la cuestión de la ley aplicable a las fusiones transfronterizas. Este trabajo tiene como objetivo principal valorar la relevancia de los pronunciamientos del Tribunal de Justicia y de las actuaciones del legislador europeo orientados a impedir las restricciones a las fusiones transfronterizas de sociedades en el territorio comunitario. / Freedom of establishment and cross-border mobility of companies play a fundamental role in the European process of integration. Companies seek new ways to cooperate and associate which might help them to hold increasingly more important market shares. Among the different cooperation and association methods they can choose from, cross-border mergers are definitely one of the most significant. It is clear that mergers between companies from different Member States could have a great influence on the integration process of the Single Market. Nevertheless, the possibility of successfully completing a cross-border merger in the European Community was unlikely until recent years. Two types of impediments could be distinguished: on the one hand, obstacles to the freedom of establishment set by the Member States; on the other hand, obstacles that stemmed from International Private Law rules. However, today most of those impediments have been overcome, first of all thanks to the gradual recognition of companies’ right of establishment by the Court of Justice, but also to the very important Directive 2005/56/CE on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies. This Directive imposed on the Member States a number of material rules of minimum standards with the intention of harmonizing the protection of the interests of the weakest parties involved (especially employees and members of the company). Likewise, it sets a number of conflict-of-law rules in order to answer the question of the Law applicable to cross-border mergers. The overall aim of this thesis is to assess the relevance of the rulings of the Court of Justice, as well as that of the interventions of the European legislator directed at preventing any restriction to cross-border mergers within the European territory. / Nel processo comunitario d’integrazione, la libertà di stabilimento e la mobilità delle imprese assumono un ruolo fondamentale. L’impresa ricerca nuove forme di cooperazione ed integrazione in modo da poter occupare quote di mercato sempre più importanti. Fra le modalità d’integrazione e cooperazione che le imprese hanno a loro disposizione, la fusione transfrontaliera di società è sicuramente una delle più rilevanti. È evidente que le fusioni di società appartenenti a Stati membri diversi potrebbero avere un’enorme importanza ai fini dell’integrazione del mercato unico. Tuttavia, la possibilità di realizzare con successo una fusione transfrontaliera di società in ambito comunitario era improbabile fino a tempi recenti. Due categorie di impedimenti la rendevano difficile: da un lato, ostacoli alla libertà di stabilimento da parti degli ordinamenti giuridici degli Stati membri; dall’altro, ostacoli di Diritto internazionale privato. Oggi però la maggior parte di questi impedimenti sono stati superati grazie, da un lato, al progressivo riconoscimento da parte della Corte di Giustizia del diritto di stabilimento delle società e, dall’altro, all’importante la Direttiva 2005/56/CE relativa alle fusioni transfrontaliere di società di capitali. Questa Direttiva impone agli Stati membri una serie di norme minime di diritto materiale al fine di armonizzare la tutela degli interessi dei soggetti coinvolti piè deboli (soprattutto lavoratori e soci). Allo stesso modo, pone in essere una serie di norme di conflitto per risolvere la questione della legge applicabile alle fusioni transfrontaliere. Il presente lavoro si pone come obiettivo principale quello di valutare la rilevanza delle pronunce della Corte di Giustizia e degli interventi del legislatore europeo volti ad impedire le restrizioni alle fusioni transfrontaliere di società nel territorio comunitario.

Indigenous ways of living are typically described as being harmonious with—if not instrumental for—the protection of the environment. This dissertation moves from the quite different evidence that the protection of biodiversity may encroach on indigenous rights. More specifically, the legal regime of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) establishes obligations for its Parties whose interpretation and/or implementation may lead to the violation of indigenous rights. In this context, this research identifies potential conflicts between the obligations incumbent on CBD Parties pursuant to the CBD and its Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing (ABS) and those stemming from human rights treaties and protecting indigenous rights. This thesis also develops an interpretative approach aiming to prevent or solve conflicts failing the applicability of hierarchy, lex specialis, or lex posterior rules to the relationship between indigenous rights and the protection of biodiversity. This dissertation argues that systemic interpretation offers a valuable interpretative tool to incorporate the rights of indigenous peoples into the CBD regime. Beyond substantive and procedural indigenous rights, another applicable rule between CBD Parties is the principle of self-determination, which this thesis derives from a teleological interpretation of indigenous rights. The dissertation concludes that conflicts between indigenous rights and obligations established in the CBD regime cannot be solved in the abstract but rather need a case-bycase approach. Evidence from two thematic case studies—one on ABS and the other on conservation—shows that indigenous rights and self-determination allow interpreters both to choose between competing interpretations of the CBD regime and to privilege those interpretations that do not threaten the cultural distinctiveness of indigenous peoples. Successful examples of applying this interpretative approach in the thesis concern issues such as the ownership of genetic resources, the notion of traditional knowledge, and the articulation of concrete forms of participation in the application of CBD-related obligations. These findings have a broader significance for the debate on human rights and the environment, the interplay between self-determination and permanent sovereignty over natural resources, as well as for the harmonization of specialized regimes with the rights of indigenous peoples.

Regulating indirect expropriation in international investment law is a challenging task for investment tribunals. No universally agreed definition of the concept exists and international investment treaties (IITs) provide a defective legal framework––paralleled to that of expropriation tout court––to govern the issue. This work contributes to the discourse on indirect expropriation in international investment law by elaborating upon existing literature and scholarship and by examining judicial and arbitral decisions. It suggests an alternative interpretative framework useful to the analysis and decision of international expropriatory cases. To this end, the research adopts an inductive methodology. In light of the decisions of several international fora, the study examines the concept of property (Chapter IV), the concept of taking (Chapter V), the lawfulness or unlawfulness of expropriation (Chapter VI) and the concept of public purpose (Chapter VII) which are deemed as the constitutive elements of the customary international law definition of expropriation to which the concept of indirect expropriation is paralleled in international treaty-law (and practice). The study begins with the analysis of the German and the American domestic experiences on takings in view of the influence that such constitutional and administrative systems have exerted on the development of international criteria and standards for deciding ‘international taking issues’. It is here argued that a comparative approach to indirect takings issues may shed light on current interpretative obstacles faced by arbitral tribunals, chief of which is the lack of an international consensus about the function of property at the international level. A reconceptualization of indirect expropriation as unlawful de facto expropriation is advocated as a prospect for future developments. The adjective indirect is deemed superfluous and it is claimed that non-expropriatory interferences with property rights are to be sanctioned by means of other substantive standards of protection. Such reconceptualization aims at removing trivial categories and misleading labels thus far employed to describe indirectly expropriatory measures and suggests to focus on the actual variables at stake––compensable expropriation vis-à-vis non-compensable regulation by the host State. In addition, a degree of deference to host States is also advised for, to the extent that provisions in IITs are stipulated in a more specific manner that duly defines legitimate regulatory purposes and takes into account the consequences of a State’s unlawful conducts. This would reduce adjudicators’ discretion in the exercise of their interpretative powers. This study cannot and aims not at answering the question concerning where to draw a dividing line between regulation and compensable (indirect) expropriation. This is deemed to remain a case-by-case decision of investment tribunals. Rather, by drawing from both international and national models, the proposed interpretative framework would reconcile or guide arbitral approaches to takings issues towards the development of an intelligible legal methodology.

This thesis lies at the junction of migration control and refugee protection. As asylum is a migration-related matter, it can be difficult for States to dissociate it from the fight against irregular immigration. Asylum, as a measure for protecting refugees and other persons in need of international protection, may thus easily come into conflict with policies and practices derived from strict border control considerations. This thesis concentrates upon this tension and aims, primarily, to investigate - with a specific focus on the European Union (EU) geographical context - whether the implementation of bilateral agreements linked to the readmission of irregular migrants can hamper refugees’ access to protection, understood here as the combination of the right to non-refoulement and an individual’s right to have access to asylum procedures and effective remedies before return. The material content and the normative scope of these protection standards is thus analysed through the lens of international refugee and human rights law and in respect of the traditional rules of treaty interpretation. The central objective of this thesis is to develop the concept of agreements linked to readmission by broadening – to my knowledge, for the first time - the scope of legal analysis to the multifaceted framework of bilateral cooperation arrangements connected to the readmission of irregular migrants from the EU to third countries of origin or transit. This encompasses written accords employed to facilitate the forced return of undocumented migrants from the territory of an EU Member State (standard readmission agreements and diplomatic assurances on the fair and humane treatment of the deportee, especially if formalized within MoUs), and those agreements for technical and police cooperation that are de facto utilized by EU Member States to divert migrants back to the ports of departure before they arrive to the destination country. In order to fully understand the real impact of bilateral agreements linked to readmission on refugee rights, it is necessary to acknowledge that the study of legal texts alone will not suffice in gaining a sufficiently comprehensive approach. Rather, equal attention has also to be accorded to the implementation of the law, and, as a result, a number of case studies have been incorporated as an integral element of the methodological framework. This thesis concludes that the text of agreements linked to readmission does not seem to raise per se issues of incompatibility with core refugee rights. However, in situations of informal border controls, massive arrivals, public emergency, and pre-arrival maritime interceptions, the enforcement of these bilateral agreements can de facto hamper refugees’ access to protection. Therefore, this thesis will make a number of recommendations as a platform for further discussion among legal scholars and policy-makers.

The acknowledgment that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Committee of Ministers are flooded with repetitive cases has brought increasing attention to the issue of full and timely execution of the Court’s judgments. Efforts have been made to render the system of supervision of the execution more transparent, independent, and participatory. The involvement of actors other than the intergovernmental Committee of Ministers appears particularly significant. This dissertation focuses on specific entities that, while somewhat neglected in the literature, would seem to be ideally situated to promote the execution of ECtHR judgments – i.e., National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), which are commonly portrayed as “bridges” between the State and civil society, and between the national and international levels. The dissertation provides a comprehensive examination of the current level of engagement by NHRIs with the Committee of Ministers for furthering the execution of ECtHR judgments. Participating NHRIs have generally provided detailed information on the state of legislation, administrative practice, and case-law in their respective countries, and they have proposed measures to prevent future human rights violations. Nonetheless, the findings show that a relatively low number of NHRIs have submitted communications to the Committee of Ministers to date and that the impact of these communications on the actions undertaken by States and the decisions adopted by the Committee of Ministers is often difficult to assess. The activities carried out by NHRIs at the domestic level to encourage the execution of ECtHR judgments are also systematically identified with a view to illustrating the multifarious ways in which NHRIs can contribute to the execution process. On the basis of these findings, the dissertation highlights and accounts for the unfulfilled potential of NHRIs in promoting the execution of ECtHR judgments; it further puts forward proposals to strengthen the involvement of NHRIs in the process.

The concept of decentralised international cooperation promotes the involvement of sub-national actors, both local communities and local authorities, in the governance of transboundary natural resources and spaces. This concept describes a global legal phenomenon that can be observed in different regions of the world wherever decentralised cooperative mechanisms are at work. These mechanisms are context-specific and tailor cooperation to geographical peculiarities and local needs. They have a transboundary but localised spatial dimension that is ecologically functional, complements inter-state cooperation, and enables the participation of sub-national actors across borders. This thesis explores both the theoretical and practical dimensions of decentralised international cooperation. This concept is framed in existing international environmental law principles and regimes, and is used as an interpretative approach to provide an innovative and bottom-up reading of international environmental law. I argue that this concept acknowledges and legitimises the role of local actors at the international level and has implications in terms of effective participation, benefit-sharing, and environmental governance more generally. Four case studies are used to show how this concept has been operationalised in the European and southern African contexts: respectively, two European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs) – the ZASNET and Alpi Marittime-Mercantour – and two Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) – the Kavango Zambezi and Great Limpopo. A comparative analysis of these cases provides a useful approach not only for understanding and potentially strengthening existing instances of decentralised international cooperation, but also for facilitating the developement of such cooperation in other contexts. This comparison revealed a number of trends (legal harmonisation, stretching of normative boundaries, etc.) that may be useful in improving biodiversity conservation. Moreover, the availability of institutional mechanisms appears to affect how quickly and efficiently participation of local actors can take place. The main strengths of decentralised international cooperation are that it promotes the transboundary dimension of nature conservation and the active involvement of sub-national actors. By so doing, it bridges between governance levels and can contribute to shaping a more appropriate and participatory framework for the governance of shared natural resources.

Post-conflict situations, regime changes, and peace processes within situations of active hostility pose tremendous challenges for the governments and societies involved. The inherent dilemma between justice and the international obligations to investigate and prosecute a legacy of large-scale human rights abuses, and the role of alternative justice mechanisms, which seek to pursue more abstract goals such as peace and reconciliation, has its roots in the current discourse of transitional justice. By analyzing the provisions in which the obligations to investigate and prosecute are enshrined or derived, this work disentangles the common misconception that such procedural obligations are naturally rooted and clearly spelled out in the most important international humanitarian and human rights instruments considered by this study. It also dispels the notion that successor governments facing a transition operate in a normative vacuum: international law, human rights bodies, the ICC, and the UN impose limitations on the sovereign exercise of states’ prerogatives, thus shaping local approaches to policies of justice. But an uncompromising call for prosecution overlooks realpolitik considerations, practical difficulties, and the peculiar needs of fragile successor governments with limited power and room for maneuver. Granted that the rule of law cannot be reestablished in a society in which perpetrators enjoy impunity, since de facto and de jure impunity do per se constitute a breach of states parties’ duties under the conventions, criminal prosecution cannot be the only tool for reckoning with the past because punishment also encompasses non-criminal sanctions. A pluralistic notion of accountability and an integrated approach to peacemaking are thus advocated. International law is only capable of adjusting to the peculiarities of transitions if it is flexibly understood and applied. To remain relevant as a legal regime it needs to accord with political realities but should always be interpreted in a manner consistent with its rationale.

The DPRK is the only State that attempted to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1993 and 2003. In accordance with Article X(1) of the NPT, a withdrawing State is required, inter alia, to submit notifications of withdrawal to all States Parties to the NPT and to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). However, the role of the UNSC in such a case is not defined in Article X(1) of the NPT. Thus, both in 1993 and 2003, there were disagreements among the UNSC members on the involvement of the UNSC into the matter and its possible actions to respond to the announcements of withdrawal from the NPT. The UNSC was criticized for either not fully deploying its mandate under the UN Charter, or intervening in the matter of withdrawal. In some cases, actions of the UNSC were regarded as an infringement of the sovereign right of States to leave Treaties. This PhD dissertation assesses the powers of the UNSC under the UN Charter that gives the UNSC the mandate to take actions in case of threat to international peace and security. The dissertation focuses on Article 39 of the UN Charter, under which the UNSC defines such threat; and on the competence of the UNSC to pass binding decisions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The dissertation concludes that the UNSC has the authority to define withdrawal from the NPT as a threat to international peace and the security and consequently to take actions under Chapter VII.

The duty not to betray the social group is an ancient socio-political concept adopted by authorities to regulate the loyal behaviour of their members. Such duty has been legally regulated for centuries and now forms part of the domestic legal systems of contemporary states. Known in English as allegiance, the duty of fidelity is a fundamental concept of law that gains notoriety in times of armed conflicts. However, allegiance has been overlooked by scholars of international law as a factor in the design, interpretation and application of the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) that protect individuals during armed conflicts and limit the capacity of states to choose methods of warfare. This study analyses the role that the concept of allegiance plays in the rules of IHL applicable in international armed conflicts. This is done by determining the contemporary meaning of allegiance in state practice, the ways it has been introduced into international law, and its use by relevant actors in six areas of IHL. The investigation reveals a rich historical practice around the concept of allegiance, its incorporation in rules and discussions of IHL, and the employment of this concept for multiple and diverse purposes: from the alleged basis for conferring protected status to civilians, to the alleged basis for denying protected status to combatants; from a protected element of occupied population, to a corruptible element of enemy population outside occupation; and as a presumption of dangerousness for enemy aliens, the required mens rea for desertion, and a vague term to determine connection between belligerent parties and armed groups. This study clarifies the contemporary understanding of allegiance, and confronts the concept with treaty provisions, case law, and academic debates relevant to the use of allegiance in IHL. Additionally, the study explores the relation between domestic law and international law applicable during international armed conflicts and the overlooked position of individuals of dubious loyalties such as traitors, collaborators, deserters, internal enemies, and corrupters.