Duelling For Supremacy

Analyses national practices on conflicts between international law and national fundamental principles with a comparative perspective.

This book centres on the ways in which the concept of imperativeness has found expression in private international law (PIL) and discusses “imperative norms”, and “imperativeness” as their intrinsic quality, examining the rules or principles that protect fundamental interests and/or the values of a state so as to require their application at any cost and without exceptions. Discussing imperative norms in PIL means referring to international public policy and overriding mandatory rules: in this book the origins, content, scope and effects of both these forms of imperativeness are analyzed in depth. This is a subject deserving further study, considering that very divergent opinions are still emerging within academia and case law regarding the differences between international public policy and overriding mandatory rules as well as with regard to their way of functioning. By using an approach mainly based on an analysis of the case law of the CJEU and of the courts of the various European countries, the book delves into the origin of imperativeness since Roman law, explains how imperative norms have evolved in the different conceptions of private international law, and clarifies the foundation of the differences between international public policy and overriding mandatory rules and how these concepts are used in EU Regulations on PIL (and in the practice related to these sources of law). Finally, the work discusses the influence of EU and public international law sources on the concept of imperativeness within the legal systems of European countries and whether a minimum content of imperativeness – mainly aimed at ensuring the protection of fundamental human rights in transnational relationships – between these countries has emerged. The book will prove an essential tool for academics with an interest in the analysis of these general concepts and practitioners having to deal with the functioning of imperative norms in litigation cases and in the drafting of international contracts. Giovanni Zarra is Assistant professor of international law and private international law and transnational litigation in the Department of Law of the Federico II University of Naples.

Exploring Italy as a case study, this book investigates how populists in power manipulate categories and instruments of constitutional law.

"At the dawn of the twenty-first century, international politics is increasingly governed by legal rules and institutions. Yet widespread skepticism of its value and transformative potential, and sometimes outright hostility towards it abound. This book provides a normative justification for international law. Namely, it argues that the same reasons which support the development of law at the domestic level, namely the promotion of peace, the protection of individual rights, the facilitation of extensive, complex forms of cooperation and the resolution of collective action problems also support the development of law at the international level. The book offers moral and legal reasons for states to improve, strengthen, and further institutionalize the capacity of international law. The argument thus engages in institutional moral reasoning. It also shows why it should matter to individuals that their states are part of a rule-governed international order. When states are bound by common rules of behavior, their citizens reap the benefits. International law encourages states to protect individual rights and provides a forum where they can communicate, negotiate, and compromise on their differences in order to protect themselves from outside interference and pursue their domestic policies more effectively, including those directed at enhancing their citizen's welfare. Thus, international law makes a critical, irreplaceable, and defining contribution to an international order characterized by peace and justice"--

In view of the 'European sovereignty,' Kirchmair engages with the importance of EU external relations law and the need to structurally conceptualize how international agreements and customary international law relate to EU law. The book explores whether the European Court of Justice or national constitutional courts have the final say.

Homicide has a history. In early modern England, that history saw two especially notable developments: one, the emergence in the sixteenth century of a formal distinction between murder and manslaughter, made meaningful through a lighter punishment than death for the latter, and two, a significant reduction in the rates of homicides individuals perpetrated on each other. Making Murder Public explores connections between these two changes. It demonstrates the value in distinguishing between murder and manslaughter, or at least in seeing how that distinction came to matter in a period which also witnessed dramatic drops in the occurrence of homicidal violence. Focused on the 'politics of murder', Making Murder Public examines how homicide became more effectively criminalized between 1480 and 1680, with chapters devoted to coroners' inquests, appeals and private compensation, duels and private vengeance, and print and public punishment. The English had begun moving away from treating homicide as an offence subject to private settlements or vengeance long before other Europeans, at least from the twelfth century. What happened in the early modern period was, in some ways, a continuation of processes long underway, but intensified and refocused by developments from 1480 to 1680. Making Murder Public argues that homicide became fully 'public' in these years, with killings seen to violate a 'king's peace' that people increasingly conflated with or subordinated to the 'public peace' or 'public justice.'