In The Face of Financialization: Cities and the Human Right to Adequate Housing

The right to housing is a human right with broad but frequently overlooked implications, particularly in the urban environment. This difficulty is heightened in the context of what is known as the “financialization of housing”. Financialization involves the interconnections between global financial markets and housing, and, at the extreme, has prompted a climate in which housing is conceived less as a social good and more as a commodity. The result of the financialization turn is cities with a severe lack of affordable housing, a reality that is now a global phenomenon. This naturally leads to economic exclusions and displacements from cities, but, on a deeper level, also entails major collective consequences for the social and cultural fabric. Financialization thus threatens the right to housing in cities, particularly when the right is examined and understood in its full sense. And yet, cities have a duty to ensure the right to housing even in the face of financialization. Drawing on the jurisprudence of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights through its individual communications procedure, the European Court of Human Rights, and domestic cases from South Africa and the United States, this paper aims to elucidate this duty of cities in the realm of housing. A substantive rather than purely procedural shape of protection for the right to housing is pushed, which deliberates the connections between housing and the wider societal context, and the implicated concerns of resources, property, and urban community. In present times, our appreciation of home as a necessary nexus of safety, comfort, and productivity has come to the fore, as have our fears around economic insecurity, forcing us to confront and closely interrogate the right to housing.

The Arbitral Award in the Enrica Lexie Case and its Questionable Recognition of Functional Immunity to the Italian Marines Under Customary International Law

The dispute between Italy and India on the Enrica Lexie incident has finally been decided by the Award handed down on 21 May 2020 by the Arbitral Tribunal to which the Parties had referred the case. After having concluded that it had jurisdiction on the issue of the immunity of the two Italian marines involved in the case at hand, the majority judgment (by three votes to two) affirmed that under customary international law the latter enjoyed functional immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of India. This article will argue that the Arbitral Tribunal’s conclusions are unconvincing, first and foremost, considering that, based on State practice, it is not possible to affirm without reservations that a settled customary rule exists under international law conferring immunity to all State officials, and regardless of the type of functions they perform. In fact, immunity has often been recognized as applying only to certain categories of State officials, and on the basis of the governmental nature of the functions they perform on behalf of the State. Given the doubtful existence under customary international law of a clear rule establishing the functional immunity of all State officials, for all the acts performed in the exercise of their functions, this article argues that the Arbitral Tribunal should have firstly ascertained the existence of a specific customary rule on the immunity of the military abroad, together with the exact content of such rule and, secondly, whether this was applicable in the case of the Enrica Lexie. As current practice stands, military forces abroad are entitled to immunity only under specific circumstances, which do not seem to occur in the present case. In particular, this article maintains that the Italian marines were not entitled to functional immunity. While the acts they performed did indeed fall within their typical functions, they were exercised on behalf of a private subject and not on behalf of the Italian State.

Cities and Countryside: An International Law Perspective

Cities, as spaces of socio-cultural organization and economic interaction among people, have always played a dominant role in the development and implementation of international law. Today, a new strand of legal scholarship focuses on cities and local communities as competitors and partners with the nation State in a new project of modernization and democratization of international law. This paper looks at this new trend against the background of the historical narrative of cities in the development of international law. At the same time, it calls attention to the fact that half of humanity still lives and works in rural areas, in the vast countryside of the world. Rural communities have been the servants of the city since the beginning of time. Today, their dignity and rights are beginning to be recognized by acts of the United Nations such as the 2007 Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the 2018 Declaration on the Rights of Peasants. Yet, these people remain a disadvantaged and vulnerable class. A true modernization and democratization of international law requires that we keep a balanced approach to the legal recognition of the voices and rights of urban communities and those of the people who work and live in the countryside of the world.

The Agreement between Greece and Italy on the Delimitation of their Respective Maritime Zones: An Italian Perspective

In 2020 Greece and Italy concluded a maritime delimitation agreement, extending the already-established boundary line between their respective continental shelf areas to the other maritime areas to which they are entitled under international law. The Greek authorities hailed the agreement as a great success, stressing that it fully reflects their position vis-à-vis maritime delimitation in the Mediterranean and it meets their national interests in the Ionian Sea. This article critically analyzes the agreement, in the light of various recent events, and it finds that it serves Italian interests too. In particular, the 2020 Italo-Greek agreement furthers Italy’s growing interest in delimiting the maritime zones to which it is entitled under international law, so as to prevent its rights and jurisdiction over them being impaired by the proclamation of overlapping zones by its neighbours. It also sets the stage for future proclamation by Italy of an EEZ covering the waters adjacent to its territorial sea in the Ionian Sea.

The Shifting Status of Cities in International Law? A Review, Several Questions and a Straight Answer

Witnessing the sometimes confusing and often nebulous debate on the position of cities in international law, one could wonder what cities are and what they do in contemporary international law. One could also wonder whether allowing cities to actively participate in the formation and implementation of international norms, and to contribute to international multilateral negotiations on issues of global concern such as sustainable development, climate change or human rights, does really imply a change in their status in international law. In this contribution, the reasons why cities are not subjects of international law, or better, why cities and local authorities still matter in international law because they are part of a State, are systematically assessed. Specific attention is paid to the status and role of transnational city networks. Before concluding, this article makes some final comments on the prospects for cities and transnational city networks in international law.

The Enrica Lexie Award Amid Jurisdictional and Law of the Sea Issues

This article analyzes the Enrica Lexie Arbitral Award, first of all, in relation to international law issues concerning the application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The article then focuses on the question of the functional immunity of the two marines, from the point of view of the Tribunal’s assertion of its incidental jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as well as of the Tribunal’s affirmation of the existence of a customary international law rule applicable in the present case. Both conclusions appear unconvincing, also in light of the role of the two marines on board a merchant ship. In any case, the fact remains that the judgment has the merit of finally putting an end to a long-standing dispute, to the satisfaction of the two parties involved.

A Satisfactory Answer? The Enrica Lexie Award and the Jurisdiction Over Incidental Questions

This article situates the Enrica Lexie award’s stance on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the marines’ immunity within the broader debate on the scope of the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals over incidental questions. After illustrating the Tribunal’s approach to the question at hand, the paper appraises those instances where an international tribunal with limited jurisdiction can decide issues and apply rules that are “external” to its principal jurisdiction. It then focuses on the question of the jurisdiction over incidental issues, which is the most debated avenue for an international tribunal to engage with substantive matters falling outside the scope of the tribunal’s ratione materiae jurisdiction. Finally, the Tribunal’s approach in the Enrica Lexie award is critically assessed against the above debate. It is submitted that, although the award arguably put an end to the longstanding dispute between India and Italy, the Tribunal’s reasoning does not seem to be in line with the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction over incidental questions as roughly sketched in relevant case law.