Abstract This article reveals the different formative layers at work in a mixed system of law, such as that of private law in the United Arab Emirates ( uae) , by focusing on the lack of coherence between competing ‘architectural principles’. This experience of friction is regularly encountered by a skilled interpreter of the law, in the course of his/her activity of ensuring predictable and appropriate legal responses to practical problems. Specifically, this piece tracks the interpretive difficulties surfacing in cases of supervening impossibility of performance for loss or damage to a necessary item, when that loss or damage originates in a causal factor outside of the defendant’s sphere of control (‘extraneous cause’). In such cases, the contract is terminated and the legal question shifts to one of awarding compensation for the loss or damage suffered by the item. In the face of this question, two competing criteria for assigning liability come into play. On the one hand, the civil law distinction between unilateral and bilateral contracts, meaning contracts giving rise to obligations upon only one or both parties to the contract. On the other hand, the categories of trust-based, liability-based and mixed possession in Islamic law. Here, liability is assigned based on the material circumstances that define the manner of possession, as opposed to looking at the abstract scheme of performance and (if available) counter-performance. The categories drawn from Islamic law have the potential to unify a number of apparently scattered provisions in the uae Civil Code: for this reason, the article puts forth a recommendation to follow the approach of the Iraqi Civil Code and acknowledge those categories as an explicit organising principle for assigning liability in the presence of an extraneous cause. The paper makes an additional recommendation to treat the classification of possession (as trust-based or liability-based) as a matter of public policy, unavailable for the parties’ consensual deviation.

Abstract This article revisits the response of the European Union (EU) to the challenges posed by anti-terrorist smart sanctions regimes to fundamental rights, vis-à-vis recent legal developments. Following the Kadi saga, many authors defined the EU judicature as the bastion of the rule of law against executive powers. From the perspective of the Council of the EU, instead, Kadi caused a tremor. The EU courts did not only declare that anti-terrorist sanctions could be reviewed: they also affirmed that such review is in principle full, thus extended to all information substantiating sanctions, irrespective of whether covered by secrecy. In this respect, the European Court of Justice established that it is a task of the judiciary to accommodate security considerations militating against the disclosure of intelligence in court and the right to a fair trial. However, through legal instruments adopted in late 2016, the EU seems to be backing off from these settled principles. To test such assumption, the article proceeds in three steps. Firstly, it outlines the contours of the UN Security Council anti-terrorist sanctions regime, pinpointing the characteristics that make such regime problematic with respect to fair trial rights. Secondly, it surveys the development of EU courts’ case-law on secret evidence. Thirdly, it investigates whether the new legal instruments adopted by EU institutions adhere to the principles enshrined in said EU courts’ decisions, or rather represent a departure from consolidated due process rights.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The article aims at defining the scope of disgorgement in Italian law, which draws on common law experience, and asks whether the Italian legal system can provide similar recourses. English and US law have conceived “disgorgement damages” as a distinctive concept. I verify whether a rule of disgorgement of profits is principled in the Italian legal system as a generally available private law remedy or is just applicable in certain specific cases. I propose 3 hypothetical cases to measure the attitude of different legal systems. The theoretical foundations of disgorgement as a private remedy are located in different branches of private law (compensation, restitution, property law). English and U.S. law place disgorgement in the more general framework of the law of unjust enrichment and restitution. However, disgorgement can be attracted to other branches of law, as I demonstrate with reference to the Italian legal system. By highlighting the functions that disgorgement may perform in each case proposed, I conclude whether disgorgement is applicable by Italian judges, in addition to the express provisions laid down by legislation.

Abstract Proportionality has been largely misunderstood both by its proponents and by its critics. On the one hand, it has been wrongly regarded as a more transparent and at the same time a more controllable alternative to other types of legal discourses. On the other hand, it has been incorrectly viewed as a realm of unlimited subjectivity and pure politics. In fact, proportionality oscillates between law and politics, trying to reconcile the two yet constantly falling into one or another. The article studies the dialectical structure of proportionality and explores proportionality as an argumentative practice.

Abstract The contemporary proliferation of drones and other forms of aerial interventions herald the (re)emergence of air policing as the principal modality for the fabrication of order in the global periphery. Air policing is predominantly framed by international legal analysis as merely ‘killing from above,’ yet this designation obfuscates the concomitant occupation of airspaces entailed by drones and other aerial technologies. Such occupations constitute an assertion of jurisdiction in nominally sovereign airspaces authorised by latent imperial legality. The history of air policing reveals a genealogy of ‘aerial imperial formations,’ enfolded within the abstract airspaces regulated by international law notions of ‘complete and exclusive’ sovereignty. Through a focus on the spatio-legal construction of airspace, this paper proposes a reframing of the nexus of sovereignty, jurisdiction and territory, and suggests that we conceive of the principle of indivisible sovereignty as propounded under international law as profoundly entangled with the conception of sovereignty as divisible that animates jurisdictionally complex imperial law .

Abstract There is still controversy regarding what criterion to use to evaluate causality. The law & economics literature proposes the use of probabilistic causality as a superior criterion, suggesting the elimination of binary causality criteria. This led to explanations that violate our intuitions, fail to explain judicial decision-making, and are considered unjust. This paper proposes that neither binary nor probabilistic causality can provide a satisfactory answer for all scenarios. Probabilistic causality works well for general causal claims (types of claims centrally involved in rulemaking) while binary criteria perform better for single causal claims (types of claims commonly addressed by courts).

Global Jurist offers a forum for scholarly cyber-debate on issues of comparative law, law and economics, international law, law and development, and legal anthropology.Edited by an international board of leading comparative law scholars from all the continents, Global Jurist is mindful of globalization and respectful of cultural differences.We will develop a truly