Giuliana Lampo | LUISS Guido Carli (original) (raw)

Papers by Giuliana Lampo

Research paper thumbnail of Jurisdiction Beyond Territorial Sovereignty: Defining the Scope of Exclusive Flag-State Jurisdiction Under Art. 92 UNCLOS

Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 2022

Under Art. 92 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ships sailing the ... more Under Art. 92 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ships sailing the high seas are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their flag State. Despite being considered a pivotal rule in the international law of the sea, the scope of this provision is nonetheless still unclear: indeed, as Art. 92 does not characterise the term 'jurisdiction', it leaves open the question of whether it only encompasses enforcement jurisdiction or also prescriptive and adjudicative one. In the well-known 'Lotus' case, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) ruled that exclusive flag-State jurisdiction only refers to enforcement jurisdiction. This understanding prevailed until two recent cases (M/V 'Norstar' and 'Enrica Lexie' Incident) ruled that States are prohibited from attaching legal consequences to the conduct of foreign ships and of the people on board altogether. Against this backdrop, the work discusses the extent of the exclusivity of flag-State jurisdiction over ships sailing the high seas. It contends that jurisdiction under Art. 92 UNCLOS only encompasses the faculty to impede or otherwise interfere with the actual movement of ships, hence the jurisdiction to enforce.

Research paper thumbnail of The Relationship between Intra-EU Investment Arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty in Light of Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

G. PASCALE e S. TONOLO, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Role of the Treaty on Treaties in Contemporary International Law, ESI, 2022

Research paper thumbnail of Italy's Exercise of Foreign Investment Screening Power against Chinese Takeover An Assessment under International Law

The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law, 2021

In March 2021, Italy vetoed the acquisition of an Italian company operating in the field of semic... more In March 2021, Italy vetoed the acquisition of an Italian company operating in the field of semiconductors by a Chinese group. It did so by using its so-called golden power, meaning the power to interfere with the management of companies to protect strategic economic sectors, introduced in 2012 and substantially revised in 2019 and 2020. The present comment offers an evaluation of the compatibility of Italy's inward investment screening powers with international law norms on the promotion and protection of foreign investments by trying to outline the limits posed by the latter on domestic foreign investment screening mechanisms.

Research paper thumbnail of Le domande riconvenzionali

Trattato di diritto dell'arbitrato, diretto da D. Mantucci - Vol. XIII, 2020

International investment arbitration is facing a legitimacy crisis due to its inherently asymmetr... more International investment arbitration is facing a legitimacy crisis due to
its inherently asymmetric structure that is perceived as favouring investors. The possibility for a State to bring a counterclaim against an investor is one of the means by which this asymmetry could be levelled and the host States’ faith in the system could be restored. This chapter examines the conditions that must exist in order to bring a counterclaim and the possible obstacles to its success. The first condition is the consent of the parties: arbitral tribunals must assess whether an arbitral clause in an investment treaty encompasses counterclaims, a question which requires careful examination of the treaty wording. Moreover, for a counterclaim to be admissible, it shall be strictly connected to the primary claim; such connection must be both factual and juridical, meaning that the parties must pursue the same legal aim. However, counterclaims have usually been unsuccessful on the merits because of the lack of international law obligations upon investors, which could form the substantive basis of the claim. Nonetheless, this chapter argues that there is a tendency in international investment arbitration towards making investors accountable for their actions when carrying out an investment. Indeed, arbitral tribunals are progressively adopting a more permissive approach when dealing with counterclaims presented by host States. Furthermore, the most recent investment treaties expressly provide for investors’ obligations.

Research paper thumbnail of The First (Tricky) Interpretation of the Consent to Arbitrate in CARICOM-DR FTA: The Lee-Chin v Dominican Republic Award

Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2020

Research paper thumbnail of L'impatto del Covid-19 sui diritti degli investitori stranieri: le misure di contenimento dell'epidemia come espressione del "power to regulate" dello Stato ospite

P. Acconci ed E. Baroncini (a cura di ), Gli effetti dell'emergenza Covid-19 su commercio, investimenti e occupazione. Una prospettiva italiana, 2020

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. -2. Il "power to regulate" e la tutela della salute nell'arbitrato in ... more SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. -2. Il "power to regulate" e la tutela della salute nell'arbitrato in materia di investimenti. -3. Il "power to regulate" come contenuto di una norma di diritto internazionale generale. -4. L'esistenza di un margine di apprezzamento statale. -5. Il "power to regulate" come manifestazione del principio di proporzionalità. --6. Considerazioni conclusive.

Research paper thumbnail of L'impatto delle misure di contenimento dell'epidemia di Covid-19 sui diritti degli investitori stranieri: riflessioni in tema di responsabilità statale

Diritto del Commercio Internazionale, 2020

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione: il possibile impatto delle misure di contenimento dell'epidemia sui di... more SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione: il possibile impatto delle misure di contenimento dell'epidemia sui diritti degli investitori stranieri. -2. Le clausole pattizie a tutela di interessi fondamentali dello Stato ospite. -3. Segue. Il power to regulate. -4. Possibili esimenti di diritto internazionale generale: in particolare, la forza maggiore. -5. Segue: lo stato di necessità. -6. Conclusioni.

Research paper thumbnail of La clausola della nazione più favorita come strumento per l'estensione degli obblighi pattizi in materia di investimenti: il caso Tatneft v. Ukraine

Rivista dell'Arbitrato, 2019

Estratto II) STRANIERA Sentenze annotate REGNO UNITO -HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY... more Estratto II) STRANIERA Sentenze annotate REGNO UNITO -HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, COMMERCIAL COURT, 13 July 2018, PAO Tatneft v. Ukraine; Mr Justice Butcher. Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 1797 (Comm).

Research paper thumbnail of A Novel Interpretation by the Court of Cassation of the Crime of Enlistment in a Terrorist Organization: The Blurred Line Between Prevention and "Securitarism"

Italian Yearbook of International Law, 2019

Research paper thumbnail of A Controversial Ruling by the Corte di Cassazione on the Domestic Rank of Treaties Other than the European Convention on Human Rights

Italian Yearbook of International Law, 2018

Research paper thumbnail of Jurisdiction Beyond Territorial Sovereignty: Defining the Scope of Exclusive Flag-State Jurisdiction Under Art. 92 UNCLOS

Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 2022

Under Art. 92 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ships sailing the ... more Under Art. 92 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ships sailing the high seas are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their flag State. Despite being considered a pivotal rule in the international law of the sea, the scope of this provision is nonetheless still unclear: indeed, as Art. 92 does not characterise the term 'jurisdiction', it leaves open the question of whether it only encompasses enforcement jurisdiction or also prescriptive and adjudicative one. In the well-known 'Lotus' case, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) ruled that exclusive flag-State jurisdiction only refers to enforcement jurisdiction. This understanding prevailed until two recent cases (M/V 'Norstar' and 'Enrica Lexie' Incident) ruled that States are prohibited from attaching legal consequences to the conduct of foreign ships and of the people on board altogether. Against this backdrop, the work discusses the extent of the exclusivity of flag-State jurisdiction over ships sailing the high seas. It contends that jurisdiction under Art. 92 UNCLOS only encompasses the faculty to impede or otherwise interfere with the actual movement of ships, hence the jurisdiction to enforce.

Research paper thumbnail of The Relationship between Intra-EU Investment Arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty in Light of Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

G. PASCALE e S. TONOLO, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Role of the Treaty on Treaties in Contemporary International Law, ESI, 2022

Research paper thumbnail of Italy's Exercise of Foreign Investment Screening Power against Chinese Takeover An Assessment under International Law

The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law, 2021

In March 2021, Italy vetoed the acquisition of an Italian company operating in the field of semic... more In March 2021, Italy vetoed the acquisition of an Italian company operating in the field of semiconductors by a Chinese group. It did so by using its so-called golden power, meaning the power to interfere with the management of companies to protect strategic economic sectors, introduced in 2012 and substantially revised in 2019 and 2020. The present comment offers an evaluation of the compatibility of Italy's inward investment screening powers with international law norms on the promotion and protection of foreign investments by trying to outline the limits posed by the latter on domestic foreign investment screening mechanisms.

Research paper thumbnail of Le domande riconvenzionali

Trattato di diritto dell'arbitrato, diretto da D. Mantucci - Vol. XIII, 2020

International investment arbitration is facing a legitimacy crisis due to its inherently asymmetr... more International investment arbitration is facing a legitimacy crisis due to
its inherently asymmetric structure that is perceived as favouring investors. The possibility for a State to bring a counterclaim against an investor is one of the means by which this asymmetry could be levelled and the host States’ faith in the system could be restored. This chapter examines the conditions that must exist in order to bring a counterclaim and the possible obstacles to its success. The first condition is the consent of the parties: arbitral tribunals must assess whether an arbitral clause in an investment treaty encompasses counterclaims, a question which requires careful examination of the treaty wording. Moreover, for a counterclaim to be admissible, it shall be strictly connected to the primary claim; such connection must be both factual and juridical, meaning that the parties must pursue the same legal aim. However, counterclaims have usually been unsuccessful on the merits because of the lack of international law obligations upon investors, which could form the substantive basis of the claim. Nonetheless, this chapter argues that there is a tendency in international investment arbitration towards making investors accountable for their actions when carrying out an investment. Indeed, arbitral tribunals are progressively adopting a more permissive approach when dealing with counterclaims presented by host States. Furthermore, the most recent investment treaties expressly provide for investors’ obligations.

Research paper thumbnail of The First (Tricky) Interpretation of the Consent to Arbitrate in CARICOM-DR FTA: The Lee-Chin v Dominican Republic Award

Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2020

Research paper thumbnail of L'impatto del Covid-19 sui diritti degli investitori stranieri: le misure di contenimento dell'epidemia come espressione del "power to regulate" dello Stato ospite

P. Acconci ed E. Baroncini (a cura di ), Gli effetti dell'emergenza Covid-19 su commercio, investimenti e occupazione. Una prospettiva italiana, 2020

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. -2. Il "power to regulate" e la tutela della salute nell'arbitrato in ... more SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. -2. Il "power to regulate" e la tutela della salute nell'arbitrato in materia di investimenti. -3. Il "power to regulate" come contenuto di una norma di diritto internazionale generale. -4. L'esistenza di un margine di apprezzamento statale. -5. Il "power to regulate" come manifestazione del principio di proporzionalità. --6. Considerazioni conclusive.

Research paper thumbnail of L'impatto delle misure di contenimento dell'epidemia di Covid-19 sui diritti degli investitori stranieri: riflessioni in tema di responsabilità statale

Diritto del Commercio Internazionale, 2020

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione: il possibile impatto delle misure di contenimento dell'epidemia sui di... more SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione: il possibile impatto delle misure di contenimento dell'epidemia sui diritti degli investitori stranieri. -2. Le clausole pattizie a tutela di interessi fondamentali dello Stato ospite. -3. Segue. Il power to regulate. -4. Possibili esimenti di diritto internazionale generale: in particolare, la forza maggiore. -5. Segue: lo stato di necessità. -6. Conclusioni.

Research paper thumbnail of La clausola della nazione più favorita come strumento per l'estensione degli obblighi pattizi in materia di investimenti: il caso Tatneft v. Ukraine

Rivista dell'Arbitrato, 2019

Estratto II) STRANIERA Sentenze annotate REGNO UNITO -HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY... more Estratto II) STRANIERA Sentenze annotate REGNO UNITO -HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, COMMERCIAL COURT, 13 July 2018, PAO Tatneft v. Ukraine; Mr Justice Butcher. Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 1797 (Comm).

Research paper thumbnail of A Novel Interpretation by the Court of Cassation of the Crime of Enlistment in a Terrorist Organization: The Blurred Line Between Prevention and "Securitarism"

Italian Yearbook of International Law, 2019

Research paper thumbnail of A Controversial Ruling by the Corte di Cassazione on the Domestic Rank of Treaties Other than the European Convention on Human Rights

Italian Yearbook of International Law, 2018