Post-Doc Researcher at the University of Florence, Ph.D. in "Human Rights: Evolution, Protection and Limits" at the University of Palermo (2019). Visiting at the University of Notre Dame (US; January 2018 - March 2018). Graduated in Law at the Catholic University of Milan (2015).
less
Uploads
Papers by Diego Mauri
teachings will be tackled. Importantly, a solid argument for a prohibition of laws is based on the moral unacceptability of autonomous killing, which may assume also a legal standing through the so-called Martens Clause. The history and the actual content of the Clause will be analyzed in order to explore whether – and to what extent – it
can be interpreted so as to offer a legal ground for rejecting laws. It will be argued that the Holy See is in a particularly fit position to advocate for a renewed appraisal of the Martens Clause that may help the pro-ban front to structure a more principled debate.
often clash with the obligation of restitutio in integrum stemming from the violation of international
law, namely of human rights provisions such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Frequently, the European Court on Human Rights indicates the re-opening of terminated proceedings
as (one of) the most appropriate form for redress. The Italian Constitutional Court, however,
has recently held that the lack of specific clauses allowing for the re-opening of civil and administrative
proceedings which have resulted in the violation of the ECHR does not contravene the Constitution.
The arguments resorted to in order to justify such decision – the circumstance that no precise
duty seems to stem from the European Court’s jurisprudence; the need to preserve the legitimate
interests of third parties; the convenience of a normative reform by the Parliament – are not fully
convincing though. On such premise, the present contribution aims at analyzing the European
Court’s jurisprudence on re-opening clauses with a view to testing the Italian Constitutional Court’s
reasoning and advocating for a more principled appraisal of such jurisprudence: the focus will be
mostly on the state of the art at both the ECHR and the international level
teachings will be tackled. Importantly, a solid argument for a prohibition of laws is based on the moral unacceptability of autonomous killing, which may assume also a legal standing through the so-called Martens Clause. The history and the actual content of the Clause will be analyzed in order to explore whether – and to what extent – it
can be interpreted so as to offer a legal ground for rejecting laws. It will be argued that the Holy See is in a particularly fit position to advocate for a renewed appraisal of the Martens Clause that may help the pro-ban front to structure a more principled debate.
often clash with the obligation of restitutio in integrum stemming from the violation of international
law, namely of human rights provisions such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Frequently, the European Court on Human Rights indicates the re-opening of terminated proceedings
as (one of) the most appropriate form for redress. The Italian Constitutional Court, however,
has recently held that the lack of specific clauses allowing for the re-opening of civil and administrative
proceedings which have resulted in the violation of the ECHR does not contravene the Constitution.
The arguments resorted to in order to justify such decision – the circumstance that no precise
duty seems to stem from the European Court’s jurisprudence; the need to preserve the legitimate
interests of third parties; the convenience of a normative reform by the Parliament – are not fully
convincing though. On such premise, the present contribution aims at analyzing the European
Court’s jurisprudence on re-opening clauses with a view to testing the Italian Constitutional Court’s
reasoning and advocating for a more principled appraisal of such jurisprudence: the focus will be
mostly on the state of the art at both the ECHR and the international level