The present article addresses the issue of the loan of organs between international organizations, focusing on the most recent practice of the European Union (EU) and, in particular, on the loan of the Commission and the European Central Bank to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). The hypothesis is that the loan of the two EU institutions to the ESM bridges two autonomous international organizations and that, for this reason, the EU can indirectly influence the activities of the ESM. The bridge is built on normative grounds, as EU institutions are bound to respect EU law even when they are borrowed by other international organizations, as the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) held in the Pringle case. In a more recent case, the Ledra Advertising, the same Court specified that the duty to respect EU law extends also to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This last consideration might have a positive impact on the protection of human rights in the context of austerity measures adopted by the ESM. Moreover, it might give to the EU an important tool for the enhancement of human rights protection in the relations with other international organizations. In this regard, the most recent practice of the EU reveals at the same time promises and perils.

International Health Regulations (IHR) of the World Health Organization (WHO) are fundamental to ensure an adequate response of the international community to health emergencies such as the spread of the virus Ebola in 2014. This notwithstanding, WHO's Member States appear reluctant to comply with the IHR and in particular they violate the ban on unnecessary trade and travel restrictions. After having presented the lack of compliance with the IHR, the present article analyses the means at the disposal of the WHO for sanctioning the behaviour of its Member States, both from the perspective of WHO's internal rules and from the perspective of the law of international responsibility, evaluating if countermeasures might represent a viable solution. The conclusions will offer a broad reflection on the codification process of the rules on the responsibility of international organisations concluded by the International Law Commission in 2011.

The present article offers an overview of the Italian practice related to the conclusion of bilateral agreements for the management of migration flows, with a view to analyzing the international and constitutional law implications. This practice consists in the conclusion of agreements following a simplified procedure, or secret agreements, which inevitably encroach upon the prerogatives of the Parliament. Given the specificity of the subject-matter of such agreements and the violation of human rights that their implementation causes, this article suggests a more cautious approach. In this regard, the recent judgment of the Tribunale Ammistrativo Regionale del Lazio (TAR) is particularly welcomed as it will contribute to increasing knowledge of the various international agreements concluded by the Italian Government on migration-related issues. Reaffirming the duty of the Government to publish the text of all international agreements concluded by it might also contribute to enhancing control of the Parliament.

The Russian aggression against Ukraine provoked an unprecedented response from “Western” States, which promptly and increasingly transferred weapons to the latter State. The present article, looking in particular at the Italian domestic practice, argues that supplying weapons to Ukraine is legitimate under ius ad bellum, since Ukraine is lawfully exercising its right to self-defence. This conclusion will be reached through an analysis of the arguments advanced by Russia to justify the “special military operation” launched on the 24 February 2022.

No abstract