Private international law and contract law have often been subject to certain degrees of harmonization, at federal, regional and international levels. As a matter of fact, the growing of globalization, the increase of transnational commercial contractual relations, the developments in telecommunications and technologies, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the financial and economic crises in Asia and South America have led both Member States and the business community to establish common rules – or at least common principles – in order to ensure the economic operators a legal certainty, to make easier their activities (thus favoring the development of the economic liberalism ) and to increase a free-market competition. Even before these events, academic experts and practitioners had started studying both similarities and differences among the commercial domestic legislations by way of comparison.

This paper argues that lying should be a crime. In doing so we propose the creation of a wholly new category of crime, which we term “egregious lying causing serious harm.” The paper has two broad objectives: the first is to make the case why such a crime should even exist, and the second is to flesh out how this crime might be constructed. The main contribution of the paper lies in the radical nature of its stated aim: the outright criminalization of certain kinds of lies. To our knowledge, such a proposal has not previously been made. The analysis also contributes to a broader discussion regarding the issue of overcriminalization. We conclude that while criminalizing certain forms of lies might at first blush appear fanciful, the case for doing so is not only plausible, it is indeed necessary.
This paper was originally published in 101 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY 529 (2011).

This paper tries to assess the impact of economic globalization on national labour law. The liberalization of movement of capitals, goods and services created a competition between developed and developing countries. Developed countries in order to not lose this new challenge started to modify their labour legislation, curtailing or erasing consolidated rights in the name of flexibility. Deregulation became the leit motiv of the last thirty years. In this scenario both the soft law and the conventions promoted and adopted by International Labour Organizations (ILO) seem to be ineffective, not enforceable. Nevertheless, a global governance and regulation of labour law is the only practicable path, even though it may appear difficult. This paper finally outlines the possible alternatives in order to implement such corpus of supranational labour law and to enable an effective enforcement.

It is well-known that policymakers have two basic levers to influence behavior, the carrot and the stick, or incentives and penalties. What is not common knowledge, even among policymakers, is that there are two broader levers than incentives and penalties that can influence behavior. Guido Calabresi and Douglas Melamed, in their seminal framework of law, defined two distinct but interlocking levers, entitlements and rules, powerful tools for meeting objectives. An entitlement, as defined by the framework is broader than that used typically with relation to the partisan “entitlement programs” – it refers to any allocation. The rule is the protection of the allocation. Allocations have impacts on behavior as do rules. And, the Calabresi-Melamed framework described herein in terms of four dimensions enlightens the view of how policymakers can achieve objectives with their use. For policymakers to fully understand the distinction between an entitlement and a rule, and how varying combinations of the two can be employed to achieve objectives, they must recognize the interrelationship between: one, the structure of rights (entitlements and rules); two, the attributes of rights (property, liability and inalienability); three, categorical objectives which are in tension; and four, criteria, which are essentially subsets of categorical objectives.

In describing the framework’s four dimensions, this article will bring into view important aspects of the framework, previously overlooked. To date scholars have focused predominately on how the framework enlightens the choice of a rule (again, the protection of an allocation). In part, they have done so, because the seminal article emphasized reasons a court may wish to choose one of four types of rules. In part, they did so because the predominant vehicle for changing an entitlement is legislation and it is often difficult for political reasons to advocate a tool for legislative policymaking – doing so will invariably favor one type of objective over another, for example, efficiency or distribution. This clarification of the framework is of one view of the structure of law and does not advocate an ideology. Yet, in a time when ex ante policy solutions are essential, having clarity about a structural theory which can give policymakers a method to craft policies better suited to meet objectives would provide a powerful arrow in their quiver.

Nel vigente codice civile è possibile riscontrare la presenza di un impianto di norme imperative poste a tutela dei diritti successori dei legittimarii. A tali soggetti l’ordinamento riconosce il diritto, sussistendone i presupposti, di agire nei confronti dei beneficiari delle disposizioni lesive della quota ideale di patrimonio ereditario loro spettante per veder restituito nell’asse ereditario il bene la cui disposizione sia stata lesiva, ovvero l’imputazione del corrispondente valore.
Questa tutela, che viene genericamente definita "azione di riduzione", consta in realtà di tre autonome azioni: l’azione di riduzione in senso stretto, l’azione di restituzione nei confronti dei beneficiari delle disposizioni ridotte e l’azione di restituzione nei confronti dei terzi acquirenti.
La prima azione ha lo scopo di rendere inefficaci nei confronti dei legittimarii attori (nella misura necessaria per reintegrare la quota di legittima ad essi spettante) le disposizioni lesive. Le seconde due azioni consentono invece di ottenere la restituzione dei beni oggetto delle disposizioni ridotte.
Qualora non sia possibile per il donatario restituire il bene, in quanto né ha precedentemente disposto, questi rimane comunque obbligato nei confronti dei legittimari per il soddisfacimento delle loro pretese, in quanto, presupposto per agire nei confronti del terzo avente causa del donatario è l’infruttuosa preventiva escussione del patrimonio del donatario medesimo.
Posto che l’azione di riduzione deve essere esperita sulla base del valore che il bene donato ha al momento di apertura della successione, si afferma in dottrina che il donatario sia obbligato nei confronti dei legittimarii per il medesimo importo.
Il presente studio si propone di analizzare in chiave critica tale affermazione e suggerire una lettura diversa, orientata da principi generali del nostro ordinamento, individuando un "limite" all’esposizione patrimoniale del donatario che non sia più in possesso del bene donato.

Con l'approvazione del Regolamento 593/2008 nello stesso momento in cui, in Europa viene pubblicata la versione definitiva del DCFR, vera e propria codificazione del diritto europeo dei contratti e delle obbligazioni contrattuali ed extracontrattuali, e a livello mondiale UNCITRAL avalla formalmente i Principi UNIDROIT dei contratti commerciali internazionali; il legislatore comunitario è intervenuto con una presa di posizione di netta chiusura verso gli strumenti di soft law. Il Regolamento 593/2008 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali esclude infatti la facoltà delle parti di scegliere quale lex contractus principi e regole non statuali, compromettendo seriamente la diffusione di questi strumenti quanto meno nell’ambito dell’Unione Europea.
Questo articolo si propone di dimostrare come questa decisione rappresenti una grande occasione perduta oltre che una scelta nel merito tutt’altro che convincente.

The following paper aims to foster the development and use of alternative legal models which can be employed in the modern world economy. The positive aspects, which indeed may prove very useful in transnational economic activities, of such alternative models will be revealed through the comparison of the globally widespread common law models with other legal models sprouting outside the western legal tradition.
The main focus of this paper is on those models which have developed from China?s relations with other developing countries, especially with African ones; however, many discourses made and issues mentioned might well be adaptable to other south-south, or east-south, international economic relations.

The following jurisprudence paper examines the implications of postmodern thought upon our conception of law. It will be argued that, despite the absolute, all-consuming moral relativism towards which postmodernism seems to lead in its most extreme form, its acceptance in fact in no way undermines the possibility of finding solid ground for our legal principles. This paper contends that moral objectivity can be found in the individual experience of suffering generated by these very subjective concoctions. Subjective concoctions or not, they are real in that they imbue a sense of value into conditions, and may thus serve as foundational principles for law. While our value systems are stripped of all claim to objective authority, ultimately, all postmodernism does is force us to set aside our larger concepts of “justice,” and instead root our legal conceptions at this far more fundamental level of human experience.

.       

The present work aims to provide an analysis of the liability of professional underwriters deriving from the transfer of corporate bonds issued beyond legal limits under Italian law. After a brief introduction over the new limits for the issuance of bonds, enacted in 2003 by the Corporate Law Reform, the paper focuses on section 2412 (2) of Italian Civil Code, scrutinizing what plaintiffs can invoke the cause of action set forth by the rule and against what defendants, and analyzing the nature and origins of this liability. The following part of the paper examines the relationship between section 2412(2), banks' liability for negligent lending, and Italian rules over circulation of securities. The final part of the work suggests alternative ways (that is securitization and credit derivatives) to transfer the credit risk linked to bonds issued beyond the legal limit without triggering the statutory liability.

Contemporary piracy represents a large and complex threat to international security. The crime has evolved to the extent that it no longer conforms to its antiquated definition, and the rationales that underlie the ‘high seas’, ‘private ends’ and ‘two ships’ requirements of the crime articulated within UNCLOS 1982 have no relevance in the new millennium. Piracy should be redefined to include the kinds of maritime crimes that are commonly perpetrated on the seas, and a very broad notion of universal jurisdiction should attach to the crime, such that any state would be permitted to enter the territorial sea of another state for the purpose of apprehending and prosecuting pirates.