Search

This article explores the conditions and modalities under which a state can incur responsibility in relation to violations of international law involving military applications of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. While the question of how to attribute and allocate responsibility for wrongful conduct is one of the central contemporary challenges of AI, the perspective of state responsibility under international law remains relatively underexplored. Moreover, most scholarly and policy debates have focused on questions raised by autonomous weapons systems (AWS), without paying significant attention to issues raised by other potential applications of AI in the military domain. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of state responsibility in relation to military AI. It discusses state responsibility for the wrongful use of AI-enabled military technologies and the question of attribution of conduct, as well as state responsibility prior to deployment, for failure to ensure compliance of AI systems with international law at the stages of development or acquisition. Further, it analyses derived state responsibility, which may arise in relation to the conduct of other states or private actors.

Military artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled technology might still be in the relatively fledgling stages but the debate on how to regulate its use is already in full swing. Much of the discussion revolves around autonomous weapons systems (AWS) and the ‘responsibility gap’ they would ostensibly produce. This contribution argues that while some military AI technologies may indeed cause a range of conceptual hurdles in the realm of individual responsibility, they do not raise any unique issues under the law of state responsibility. The following analysis considers the latter regime and maps out crucial junctions in applying it to potential violations of the cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL) – the principle of distinction – resulting from the use of AI-enabled military technologies. It reveals that any challenges in ascribing responsibility in cases involving AWS would not be caused by the incorporation of AI, but stem from pre-existing systemic shortcomings of IHL and the unclear reverberations of mistakes thereunder. The article reiterates that state responsibility for the effects of AWS deployment is always retained through the commander's ultimate responsibility to authorise weapon deployment in accordance with IHL. It is proposed, however, that should the so-called fully autonomous weapon systems – that is, machine learning-based lethal systems that are capable of changing their own rules of operation beyond a predetermined framework – ever be fielded, it might be fairer to attribute their conduct to the fielding state, by conceptualising them as state agents, and treat them akin to state organs.

The Peace Palace in The Hague is more than a mere venue where international law is practiced. Initiated after the 1899 Peace Conference it provided a material home for the emergent international community and as such, we argue, helped to sing this community into existence. This article traces the process of materialising the grand international ideal of ‘peace through justice’ by shedding light on its bureaucratic backstage of transnational diplomacy. Taking a ritual perspective on gift-giving as a way to constitute relationships, we analyse how three sets of gifts were crucial to (the) building (of) the emergent international community: finding a proper site (as a gift from the Dutch government), securing Andrew Carnegie’s financial gift, and collecting materials and artworks donated by the States as gifts to the Palace. We examine how each of these arrangements involved a complex web of public and private transnational actors, temporalities, and bickering over nitty gritty details as the conditions of possibility for giving and receiving gifts, and constituting the international community.

In this paper we introduce a computational control framework that can keep AI-driven military autonomous devices operating within the boundaries set by applicable rules of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) related to targeting. We discuss the necessary legal tests and variables, and introduce the structure of a hypothetical IHL-compliant targeting system.

The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) plays a fundamental role in defining and asserting the boundary between men and women in football. Its decisions condition the way the game is played, the way players and clubs contract, and the way the FIFA World Cup is organized and experienced by people around the world. FIFA’s private transnational governance regime is, at least hypothetically, as prone to gender bias and discrimination as states or international organizations. Nevertheless, feminist legal scholars have rarely directed their sights on transnational private regulators such as FIFA. This article suggests to take the feminist legal critique beyond its traditional battlegrounds and highlights FIFA as a transnational governance site deserving feminist scrutiny. While it does not advocate for the introduction of specific policies, it aims to provide a convincing justification and a helpful roadmap for future feminist engagements with FIFA.

This article assesses how the obligation to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) – also referred to as the law of armed conflict – applies in situations where multiple states cooperate militarily in an ad hoc manner. Following an examination of the particular accountability issues raised by ad hoc military coalitions, the article applies doctrinal legal analysis to: (1) the grave breaches regime, (2) the customary obligation to investigate alleged war crimes, (3) the obligation to ensure respect for IHL, and (4) the notion of complicity under international law. It is concluded that the interplay of these different legal regimes and standards requires the investigation of the conduct of other states in a variety of different circumstances during ad hoc military cooperation. However, Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) and the potential immunities of state officials from criminal jurisdiction complicate the implementation of these obligations in practice. As such, in addition to the legal conclusions reached regarding the obligation to investigate’s operation in ad hoc military coalitions, more fundamental issues are brought into focus, namely the tension between state sovereignty and current developments towards accountability for serious violations of IHL.

Artificial intelligence (AI) decision-support systems significantly impact how States make warfare decisions, conduct hostilities, and whether they comply with international humanitarian law. Decision-support systems, even if they do not autonomously execute targets, can play a critical role in the long chain of human-machine and machine-machine decision-making infrastructure, thus contributing to the co-production of hostilities.Due to a lack of a definition of the treaty terms weapons, means or methods of warfare, it is unclear whether non-weaponized AI decision-support systems should be subjected to a legal review prescribed by Article 36 of the Additional Protocol I. It remains a challenge to determine exactly what should be subjected to review beyond weapons.This chapter suggests that based on the following four criteria it can be determined whether an item should be subjected to a legal review: (i) it poses a challenge to the application of international humanitarian law; (ii) it is integral to military decision-making; (iii) it has a significant impact on military operations; (iv) and it contributes to critical offensive capabilities. These four criteria are derived from a detailed analysis of the conceptualization of the terms weapons, means or methods of warfare by states. If an item meets all four criteria, it should not be deployed without the issue of legality being explored with care.By applying the legal review to AI decision-support systems, States fulfil the duty to observe international humanitarian law in decision-making and mitigate risks to unlawful conduct in warfare. The author further promotes the conceptualization of Article 36 as a review of technologies of warfare.

The paper presents a formal model and an experimental verification of the system controlling the International Humanitarian Law compliance for the autonomous military device.

In 2015, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) commissioned John Ruggie, the architect of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), to help FIFA embed human rights into its operations, taking the UNGPs as the “authoritative standard.” In the following years, FIFA made a number of human rights-related commitments and policy changes. However, progress has been more limited in relation to women’s rights. Cases of women’s rights abuses related to football occur regularly and remain unresolved. In this article we explore key elements for a feminist transformation of FIFA’s policies and practices based on the gender framework developed by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights in 2019. We consider the use of indicators as one way to achieve this transformation. Overall, we aim to answer the following research question: how can the 2019 UNGP gender framework help FIFA engage in a feminist transformation of their human rights policies and practices in a way that includes FIFA’s confederations and member associations?

In this introductory chapter, the editors contextualise the topic of returning foreign fighters and provide a general overview of the book’s structure and contents, presenting its different parts and chapters.

States have been reluctant to repatriate their foreign fighters and families for a variety of reasons. One of these is of a legal nature, namely that prosecution at home would be too difficult because of a lack of evidence. After a brief overview of possible other options, this chapter will focus on the prosecution of returning foreign fighters before national courts. While acknowledging that securing evidence is and will remain difficult, this chapter points to a number of evidentiary and charging opportunities that show potential in somewhat overcoming this challenge. These could assist prosecutors in focusing on what should have their priority, namely the actual acts committed, such as war crimes and other international crimes. This chapter will also demonstrate that, in addition to membership of a terrorist organisation, there are other charges out there that do not require establishing what the returning foreign fighter has actually done while being abroad. The aim of presenting these in this chapter should not be seen as an endorsement—their critical examination will make this quite clear—but as a demonstration of the fact that the refusal to repatriate and prosecute can only be explained by a lack of political will, and not because of a lack of prosecutorial options.

The issue of the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts (`PERAC') has gained momentum in recent times, especially in the post-2000s period. This development follows the more general trend of `greening' international law, which is now a cross-cutting theme permeating the entire international legal order. Against this background, I periodize the different phases of international PERAC-related processes by reference to specific historical events with symbolic value. My objective is twofold: at first, I endeavour to demonstrate that the process of greening both the practice and the law of PERAC is being increasingly driven by actors other than States. At a second step, I explore the extent to which greening within PERAC has taken place. To do that, I offer certain concrete examples drawn from two recent legal initiatives, undertaken by the International Law Commission and the International Committee of the Red Cross, respectively.

The Year in Review seeks to provide readers with an overview of developments with significant relevance to international humanitarian law (IHL)/the law of armed conflict (LOAC) that took place during 2021. More specifically, the Year in Review assesses: (i) potential situations of armed conflict, including a classification of them as international or non-international armed conflicts, belligerent occupation, or situations not meeting the relevant legal requirements for the application of IHL; (ii) a summary of relevant proceedings and developments relating to the prosecution of serious violations of IHL—war crimes—at international, hybrid, and domestic courts and tribunals; and, (iii) an overview of developments in the IHL-related fields of arms control and disarmament.

This book, a follow-up publication to the 2016 volume Foreign Fighters under International Law and Beyond, zooms in on the responses that the international community and individual States are implementing in response to (prospective and actual) returning foreign fighters (FFs) and their families, focusing on returnees from Syria and Iraq to European countries. As States and international organisations are still ‘learning by doing’, the role of the academic community is to help steer the process by bridging the divide between international standards and their implementation at the national level and between security concerns and human rights law. Furthermore, the academic community can and should assist in identifying ways forward that are both effective, sustainable and international law-compliant. Those are, ultimately, the goals that the present volume seeks to pursue. The observations, recommendations and calls for caution included in this book will be useful in future debates on (returning) FFs, both in the academic world and in the world of policy makers and practitioners, as well as to the public at large.

The case for family courts having a bigger or exclusive role in making and monitoring arrangements for the families and, in particular, the children of alleged foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) is strong. These courts can be a conduit for a whole of government approach in respect of children potentially impacted by radicalisation or extremism and/or children of alleged FTFs. As part of the broader rule of law framework, the family justice system works in cooperation with the criminal justice system to ensure the proper administration of justice in both of these jurisdictions. What makes family law better suited to addressing cases of (potentially) radicalised children or children of alleged FTFs, however, is the best interests of the child principle—a foundational principle of family law regardless of the jurisdiction. What this chapter proposes to do is to put forward the case for family courts and pertinent child support and protection services as a more long-term and sustainable response to the plight of accompanied and orphaned children of alleged FTFs: a response that respects the applicable international legal obligations.

This book explores the close, complex and consequential – yet to a large extent implicit – relationship between international law and time. There is a conspicuous discrepancy between international law’s technical preoccupation with the mechanics of temporal rules and the absence of more foundational considerations of how time – both as an irrepressible physical dimension manifesting in the passage of time, and as a social construct shaped by diverse social and cultural factors – impacts and interacts with international law. Divided into five parts and 21 chapters, this book explores key aspects of the relationship between international law and time and puts the spotlight on time’s fundamental significance for international law as a legal order and as a discipline. Pursuing diverse approaches to international law, the authors consider the notion, significance, manifestations, uses and implications of time in international law in a wide range of contexts, and offer insights into the various ways in which international law and international lawyers cope with time, both in terms of constructing narratives and in devising and employing particular legal techniques.

Since the Euromaidan events of 2014, Ukraine has embarked on a reformist trajectory to ‘Europeanize’ the country and deliver the promise of good governance to its citizens. The series of legislative and public policy reforms that followed had financial and ideological support from Ukraine’s Western partners. To date, studies have focused on documenting and analyzing the course of international donors’ involvement in Ukraine’s reforms. What is lacking, however, is an analysis of the many different domestic responses to external pressure from donors to implement reforms. Examining Ukraine’s Constitutional Court case law on judicial self-government and anti-corruption from 2020, this article examines this court’s legal response to the politics of reform led by international donors and domestic actors in Ukraine. It reveals the problematic nature of constitutional decision-making in a country that has recently been facing considerable pressure from political incumbents and civil society. The article identifies a pattern that characterizes the political process (a ‘troubled nexus’) around the reforms in Ukraine and draws a parallel between Ukrainian developments and the situation in Moldova and Georgia, two countries that have been confronted with similar reform challenges since the enactment of the respective Association Agreements with the EU in 2016.

The article explores the question of interpretation of unilateral acts in international law both from the perspective of ascertaining their binding force (law determination) and from the perspective of ascertaining their content (content determination). It argues that the objective intention of the author to be bound is what distinguishes binding commitments of unilateral origin from non-binding ones. In turn, this involves the interpretation of a unilateral act in accordance with its content and the circumstances surrounding its making. In practice, the use of clear and specific wording in conjunction with a set of contextual indicators are indicia of the intention to create a binding unilateral commitment. Against this backdrop, the article continues by addressing the question of interpretation of unilateral acts from the standpoint of ascertaining their content. It shows that the text of the act is the primary consideration in determining its content—and that its context as well as the circumstances surrounding its making are also interpretative elements that need to be taken into account. Due to the unilateral origin of these acts the interpretative rule applicable to international agreements can only be used as a point of reference when it comes to interpreting the content of these acts. In this light, the article concludes that more practice is needed in order to elucidate the exact role and weight that should be ascribed to non-textual elements in the context of interpreting unilateral acts. At the same time, the article argues in favour of adopting a broader approach to the concept of ‘interpretation’ in international law. Viewing interpretation not merely as content determination but also as law ascertainment allows us to better assess the persuasive value of arguments in favour or against certain interpretative rules when practice is scant—as is the case with unilateral acts.

This article will briefly present a number of international human rights law considerations related to the topic of citizenship stripping of foreign fighters, that is: “individuals, driven mainly by ideology, religion and/or kinship, who leave their country of origin or their country of habitual residence to join a party engaged in an armed conflict”, most notably the conflict in Syria and Iraq. After that, the article will focus on considerations in the context of international humanitarian law, which have been less frequently the subject of academic debate. This contribution concludes that citizenship stripping is not only highly problematic under international human rights law, but also from the perspective of international humanitarian law. The measure – which is likely to constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment – violates Article 3 Common to the four Geneva Conventions, but it also undermines accountability for international humanitarian law violations already committed and can engender new violations through the non-removal of the suspect from the conflict zone. One of the few positive sides of the connection between the measure and international humanitarian law is that even if nationality is deprived, this will not have an effect on the international humanitarian law obligation to treat that deprived person humanely. In that sense, international humanitarian law provides a welcome – albeit temporary – safety net of decent treatment for people who have become victims of countries’ refusal to take responsibility for their own citizens.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is not known as a human rights court. Instead, its primary focus is on applying and interpreting the regulations of international (and sometimes national) sport governing bodies (SGBs). It is only recently that the intersection between the CAS jurisprudence and human rights has become of interest in the academic literature and public debates. In particular, the Mutu and Pechstein decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in October 2018 made clear that the CAS does not escape the indirect scrutiny of the Strasbourg court. Nevertheless, until today, very few publications have been dedicated to the interplay between the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the CAS. This paper aims to contribute to remedying this want by charting the CAS awards in which a reference to the ECHR or a decision of the ECtHR was made and tracing the impact and function of such references in the CAS jurisprudence. The findings highlight the various functions of the references to the ECHR in CAS awards, the discrepancies between some of the interpretations of the ECHR advanced by the CAS and the ECtHR’s own understanding of the Convention, and the limited success of appellants to challenge SGBs’ decisions on the basis of the ECHR. The paper concludes by arguing that the CAS would need to be institutionally reformed in order for human rights to act as an effective check on the transnational power of SGBs in CAS proceedings.

In computational argumentation, values adjudicate between conflicting arguments, where values hold of an argument as a whole rather than of any constituent parts; preference rankings between values determine the winning argument. We propose a novel formal framework towards an account for motivated reasoning, which is the widespread, natural observation that an agent constructs (instantiated) arguments from those propositions which are a selective subset of the set of all available propositions; and more specifically, an agent selects those propositions which accord with their values; as such, the propositions and arguments indirectly reflect an agent’s values. Conflicts between arguments are grounded in conflicts between the values associated with the constituent propositions rather than with the arguments per se.

The purpose of the Year in Review is to provide readers with an overview of events that took place in 2020 with significant relevance to international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL). These events include: (i) an outlook on ongoing hostilities and related developments, including the analysis of their classification as international (IAC) and/or non-international armed conflicts (NIAC); (ii) a summary of relevant proceedings and decisions by international courts and tribunals as well as those of national courts under the principle of universal jurisdiction, and (iii) an overview of developments, including the status of relevant treaties, regarding conventional and non-conventional arms control and disarmament, and weaponization of the outer space.

This position paper presents a discussion on the problem of implementing the rules of International Humanitarian Law in AI-driven military autonomous devices. We introduce a structure of a hybrid data- and knowledge-driven computational framework of a hypothetical targeting system built from the ground up with IHL compliance in mind. We provide a model and a discussion of necessary legal tests and variables.

Within the broader context of the problems raised by the interaction between humans and machines in weaponry and targeting, this paper deals with the specific issue of the mens rea required to establish responsibility for the war crime of indiscriminate attacks, in the context of attacks performed with semi-autonomous weapons or with the support of artificial intelligence (AI) in targeting decision-making. The author presents the difficulties that are determined by the interaction between humans and machines, and highlights that an interpretation that would allow for risk-taking mental elements such as dolus eventualis and recklessness in the framework of the war crime of attacking civilians would be better able to capture the criminality of the conduct of the person who knowingly accepts the risk of killing civilians as part of an AI-powered attack where the result of hitting the civilian target is one of the possible outcomes. However, the article indicates that this construction can be employed only in specific circumstances, since in most scenarios even these lowered mens rea requirements would not be met. In most human-machine teaming scenarios, lower types of intent such as dolus eventualis would still be insufficient for the ascription of criminal responsibility for such indiscriminate attacks against civilians. This is because of the specific risks posed by the integration of autonomy in the targeting process and the resulting changes to the cognitive environment in which human agents operate, which significantly affect specific components of mens rea standards.

The Olympic Games incarnate the global. They bring together, physically and virtually, athletes and fans from all around the world. It’s hard to think of any other social gathering (besides the FIFA World Cup) that exemplifies better a universal event experienced (in very different ways) by humanity in its entirety. And yet, the Games remain as well a profoundly local affair proceeding on a narrow portion of a city’s territory. How does the intimate connection between global and local translate legally in the context of the Olympic Games? What are the legal mechanisms that define the development of the Olympic city? How do they affect the agency of local citizens and their democratic sovereignty? This chapter aims to identify, describe and assess the transnational legal process that frames the transformation that the host city undergoes in order to host the Games and will situate it in the broader research agenda on cities and international law harboured by this handbook.

U članku se analiziraju procesnopravni aspekti priznanja i izvršenja arbitražnih odluka koje su poništene u državi gdje su donesene. Rad se koncentrira na relativno nedavno odlučene slučajeve u SAD i Nizozemskoj, u kojima su sudovi primijenili ponešto drugačiji pristup od onoga koji je primijenila sudska praksa u Francuskoj prije više godina. Pravno rezoniranje francuske sudske prakse kod priznanja poništenih arbitražnih odluka temelji se na primjeni domaćega prava o priznanju i izvršenju arbitražnih odluka. Naime, domaće pravo Francuske povoljnije je od režima priznanja prema Newyorškoj konvenciji o priznanju i izvršenju stranih arbitražnih odluka iz 1958. Sudovi u SAD i Nizozemskoj nedavno su primijenili drugačiji pristup prilikom priznanja i izvršenja poništenih odluka. Sudovi u ovim državama preispitivali su sudske presude kojima su poništene arbitražne odluke te odlučili kako se u određenim okolnostima može otkloniti učinkovitost takvih presuda i priznati odnosno izvršiti poništena arbitražna odluka unatoč odluke o poništenju koju je donio nadležni sud u državi sjedišta arbitraže. Iako pristupi sudova u SAD i Nizozemskoj imaju nekih sličnosti, ipak se pravno rezoniranje sudova u ove dvije jurisdikcije bitno razlikuje. U svojoj odluci iz studenoga 2017. Vrhovni sud Nizozemske (pre)naglašava iznimni karakter okolnosti koje bi opravdale priznanje i izvršenje poništene arbitražne odluke, tako da bi se na prvi pogled mogao steći utisak kako je ponešto ublažena razlika ovoga pristupa sa pravnim rezoniranjem sudova u SAD. Međutim, detaljna analiza ova dva pristupa ukazuje da suštinske razlike ostaju. U članku se iznosi kritika općenito priznanja ili ovrhe poništenih arbitražnih odluka. Osobito se kritizira različitost pravnih pristupa na kojima se u pojedinim državama temelji priznaje poništenih arbitražnih odluka kada je priznanje jednostrano, tj., ne temelji se na nekoj međunarodnoj konvenciji kao što je Europska (Ženevska) konvencija o međunarodnoj trgovačkoj arbitraži iz 1962. U članku se nadalje sugerira postavljanje međunarodno prihvaćenih standarda u interesu pravne sigurnosti i predvidivosti, ukoliko je među arbitražnim stručnjacima prevladavajuće mišljene o načelnoj prihvatljivosti priznanja i izvršenja poništenih arbitražnih odluka., This contribution examines the procedural aspects of the enforcement of arbitral awards that were set aside in the jurisdiction where they were rendered. It focuses on recent cases in the United States and the Netherlands, which adopted a different line of reasoning than the approach taken by French judiciary many years ago. According to the latter, an arbitral award set aside in the ‘country of origin’ may be enforced in France in reliance on national law. Namely, French law on enforcement is more favourable than the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral. The courts in the United States and in the Netherlands in recent cases have taken a different approach. They examine the judgment setting aside the award and ignore the effects of the annulment in certain circumstances. Even though there are some common denominators, there are substantial differences between the line of reasoning of the courts in the US and the Netherlands. They remain distinct although a more recent decision of the Dutch Supreme Court emphasises an exceptional nature of such enforcement so that the difference between the two approaches may seem somewhat mitigated. However, a closer look reveals that substantial discrepancies between the courts in these two jurisdictions have remained. The article provides for a critical view on the enforcement of annulled arbitral awards in general. In particular, it points to drawbacks of variety of unilateral approaches amongst various jurisdictions. Additionally, it suggests the development of internationally accepted standards for the sake of legal certainty and predictability of arbitration, should the acceptance of the enforcement of annulled arbitral appear a majority view amongst academics and arbitration practitioners., Diese Arbeit analysiert prozessrechtliche Aspekte der Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Schiedssprüchen, welche im Land, nach dessen Recht sie ergangen sind, aufgehoben wurden. Die Arbeit fokussiert sich auf die vor kurzem beschlossenen Fälle in den Niederlanden und den USA, an welche die Gerichte anders als die in Frankreich vor einigen Jahren herangegangen sind. In Frankreich dürfen die Gerichte bei der Anerkennung aufgehobener ausländischer Schiedssprüche das inländische Recht über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung der Schiedssprüche anwenden. Französisches Recht bietet nämlich ein günstigeres Umfeld im Vergleich zu dem im Jahr 1958 erlassenen New Yorker Übereinkommen über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Schiedssprüche. Die Gerichte in den USA und den Niederlanden haben vor kurzem eine andere Vorgehensweise bei der Anerkennung und Vollstreckung aufgehobener Schiedssprüche gewählt. Sie haben die Rechtssprüche, durch welche die Schiedssprüche aufgehoben wurden, überprüft, und haben beschlossen, dass man unter bestimmten Umständen den aufgehobenen Schiedsspruch anerkennen kann. Obwohl die Gerichte in den USA und den Niederlanden ähnliche Vorgehensweisen bei ihren Rechtssprüchen ausgewählt haben, gibt es trotzdem wesentliche Unterschiede in deren Argumentationen. Aus dem im Jahr 2017 gefassten Rechtsspruch des Obersten Gerichtshofs der Niederlande geht hervor, dass die Umstände, welche die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung des aufgehobenen Schiedsspruches als Ausnahme anzusehen sind, so dass man den Eindruck bekommen könnte, dass die Argumentationen dieser Gerichte ähnlich sind. Nähere Analyse zeigt aber, dass es wesentliche Unterschiede zwischen ihnen gibt. In der Arbeit wird die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung aufgehobener Schiedssprüche kritisiert. Insbesondere kritisiert man unterschiedliche Vorgehensweisen für die Anerkennung aufgehobener Schiedssprüche in einzelnen Staaten, wenn die Anerkennung einseitig ist, beziehungsweise wenn sie sich auf keine völkerrechtliche Konventionen stützt, wie zum Beispiel auf der Europäischen Konvention über Internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit. In der Arbeit wird vorgeschlagen, dass man völkerrechtliche Standards in diesem Bereich festsetzen sollte, falls sowohl Akademiker als auch Schiedsgerichtsexperte die Ansicht vertreten, dass man aufgehobene Schiedssprüche anerkennen und vollstrecken sollte., Nello scritto si analizzano gli aspetti processuali del riconoscimento e dell'esecuzione delle decisioni arbitrali che sono annullate nello stato dove sono state emesse. Il lavoro s'incentra sui casi recentemente risolti negli USA e nei Paesi Bassi, dove le corti hanno adottato impostazioni in parte diverse rispetto a quella della giurisprudenza in Francia diversi anni fa. Il ragionamento giuridico della giurisprudenza francese in occasione del riconoscimento delle decisioni arbitrali annullate si basa sull’applicazione del diritto interno sul riconoscimento e sull’esecuzione delle decisioni arbitrali. Precisamente, il diritto interno francese è più conveniente rispetto al regime di riconoscimento in forza della Convenzione di New York per il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle sentenze arbitrali del 1958. Negli USA e nei Paesi Bassi recentemente si sono adottati approcci diversi in occasione del riconoscimento e dell’esecuzione delle decisioni annullate. Le corti in questi stati hanno vagliato le sentenze giudiziali con le quali sono state annullate le sentenze arbitrali e hanno deciso che in determinate circostanze si possa rimuovere l’efficacia di tali decisioni e riconoscere ovvero dare esecuzione alla decisione arbitrale annullata a prescindere dalla decisione sull’annullamento che è stata emessa dal tribunale competente nel paese sede dell’arbitrato. Benché le impostazioni delle corti negli USA e nei Paesi Bassi hanno alcune similitudini, nondimeno il ragionamento giuridico delle corti in queste due giurisdizioni si differenzia notevolmente. Nella propria decisione del novembre 2017 la Corte suprema dei Paesi Bassi evidenzia (troppo) il carattere eccezionale delle circostanze che giustificherebbero il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione della decisione arbitrale annullata, sì che di primo acchito si potrebbe avere l’impressione che la differenza di questo approccio rispetto all’argomentazione giurisprudenziale statunitense non sia poi così netta. Tuttavia, un’analisi dettagliata di queste due impostazioni dimostra l’esistenza di differenze di fondo. Nel lavoro si espone una critica generale al riconoscimento ed all’esecuzione delle decisioni arbitrali annullate. In particolare, si critica la diversità di impostazioni giuridiche sulle quali nei singoli stati si fonda il riconoscimento delle decisioni arbitrali annullate allorquando il riconoscimento è unilaterale, e cioè si fonda su di una Convenzione internazionale come la Convenzione europea (di Ginevra) sull’arbitrato commerciale internazionale del 1962. Nel lavoro, inoltre, si suggerisce la creazione di standard internazionali riconosciuti al fine di garantire la certezza del diritto e la prevedibilità, qualora tra gli esperti di arbitrato sia invalso il parere di massima sull’accettabilità del riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni arbitrali annullate.

The area of private law was largely omitted from the 1957 Treaty on the European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome), whose major objective was the establishment of a common internal market. Yet, the harmonisation of private law rules appeared useful. In order to enhance the process of creating a common market where a free movement of goods, services, persons and capital was to be ensured, efforts have been made to harmonise substantive and private international law rules on the Community level. On the basis of Article 220 EEC Treaty, a number of legal instruments were adopted in the area of private international law, in particular the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations.