Au-delà des limites économiques (dues à la libéralisation des échanges commerciaux), scientifiques (dues aux risques incertains) et juridiques (dues aux instruments non-contraignants), l'encadrement juridique international des mouvements transfrontières des organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM) est-il approprié pour la protection de la santé humaine, la santé animale et la protection de l'environnement, dans son contenu et sa mise en œuvre ? Le contenu du cadre juridique quant aux mouvements transfrontières des OGM est incomplet avec des instruments légaux directement applicables et des instruments indirectement applicables. Pour combler ces lacunes dans le sens d'une meilleure gouvernance des mouvements transfrontières des OGM, la réglementation de catégories additionnelles des mouvements transfrontières des OGM est primordiale ainsi que la mise en place d'un dispositif harmonisé d'identification, de traçabilité et d'étiquetage. Un système de biovigilance internationale est également recommandé, comprenant la vigilance par une évaluation harmonisée des risques, le suivi par un système de gestion harmonisée des risques et l'information par un système harmonisé de communication des risques. Le cadre juridique quant aux mouvements transfrontières des OGM est aussi limité dans ses effets, de par l'absence d'un régime international de responsabilité et de réparation quant aux dommages résultant des OGM car le récent Protocole additionnel de Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur sur la responsabilité et la réparation des dommages résultant des mouvements transfrontières, ne visent que les organismes vivants modifiés (OVM). Il y a également un manque de consensus dans les approches, l'application et le règlement des différends. Dans ce contexte, la mise en place d'un système de compensation collective ou encore d'un fonds d'indemnisation et de régime d'assurance, sont un accompagnement nécessaire à ce régime de responsabilité incomplet, afin de pouvoir indemniser les victimes potentielles et les dommages environnementaux résultant des mouvements transfrontières des OGM. / Beyond economic (due to trade liberalisation), scientific (due to uncertain risks involved) and legal boundaries (due to soft law instruments), is the international legal framework for transboundary movements pertaining to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), adequate for the protection of human and animal health as well as environmental protection, content-wise and in its implementation? The content of this framework is incomplete with direct and indirect legal instruments. In order to fill in the gaps for a better governance of transboundary movements of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), it is of utmost importance to regulate additional categories of transboundary movement of GMOs and to devise a harmonised system of identification, traceability and labelling. A three-pronged international system of “bioalertness” is highly recommended, with the need for a harmonised risk assessment system, an effective risk management system and a harmonised system of communication of information on biotechnological risks. The legal framework pertaining to transboundary movements of GMOs is limited in its effects, in as much as there is no liability regime for the reparation of damages resulting from transboundary movements of GMOs since the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Additionnal Protocol targets only damages resulting from LMOs and it still has to be ratified by States Parties and enter into force. Its implementation is limited to the extent that there is a lack of consensus on the approaches, implementation and dispute resolution procedures. In this context, the setting-up of a collective system of compensation or a compensation fund as well as an insurance regime are a must, to be able to indemnify potential victims and repair environmental damage resulting from transboundary movements of GMOs.

Magister Legum - LLM

In the perilous waters of the Mediterranean Sea, migrants find themselves facing limited choices when in distress. Their options are stark: either to rely on the lifesaving efforts of Non- Governmental Organisations (NGO) aid workers conducting Search and Rescue (SAR) Operations, to be intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard (LCG) and subsequently detained in Libya where their human rights are gravely violated, or to face the tragic fate of perishing at sea. Unfortunately, the criminalisation of SAR Operations, spearheaded by NGO aid workers, hinders the rescue of migrants, thereby exacerbating the risks they face and leaving them vulnerable to interception by the LCG. This interception, as argued in this thesis, inevitably leads to the perpetration of Crimes Against Humanity (CAH) against these vulnerable migrants. This thesis sheds light on the issue of Italy’s increasing criminalisation and vilification of humanitarian aid workers engaged in SAR missions in the Mediterranean Sea. It critically examines the consequences of such criminalisation on the lives and rights of migrants, exploring the complex dynamics between SAR Operations, interception by the LCG, and the commission of CAH. Drawing upon a comprehensive lens of interpretation that integrates legal analysis, human rights principles, and the international legal framework, this study concludes that criminalisation of SAR operations is indeed a contributing factor towards the CAH faced by migrants in Libya. Moreover, it identifies the potential liability of Italian State Officials (ISO) at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for their role in enacting legislations that effectively criminalises SAR operations.