The United Nations 'quasi-prosecutorial' investigative mechanisms: assessing a new institutional model in the international criminal justice landscape

This work aims to provide a theoretical examination of three recently created bodies of the United Nations mandated to investigate the alleged international crimes committed in Syria (IIIM), Iraq (UNITAD) and Myanmar (IIMM). Established as a compromise solution in the paralysis of international criminal jurisdictions, these essentially overlapping entities have been depicted as a ‘new generation’ of UN investigative mechanisms. While non-judicial in nature, they depart indeed from traditional commissions of inquiry in several respects due to their increased criminal or ‘quasi-prosecutorial’ character. After clarifying their legal basis and different mandating authorities, a comparative institutional analysis is thus carried out in order to ascertain whether these ‘mechanisms’ can be said to effectively represent a new institutional model. Through an in-depth assessment of their mandates, the thesis is also intended to outline both the strengths and the criticalities of these organs. Given their aim to facilitate criminal proceedings by sharing information and case files, it is suggested that more attention shall be paid to the position of the person under investigation. To this end, some proposals are made in order to enhance the mechanisms’ frameworks, especially from the angle of procedural safeguards. As a third aspect, the cooperation with judicial authorities is explored, in order to shed light on the actors involved, the relevant legal instruments and the possible obstacles, in particular from a human rights perspective. Ultimately, drawing from the detected issues, the thesis seeks to identify some lessons learned which could be taken into account in case of creation of new ad hoc investigative mechanisms or of a permanent institution of this kind.

Access to climate justice: the main procedural hurdles, and possible solutions, within the italian legal framework and the IBA Model Statute

The thesis deals with standing and justiciability in climate litigation against governments and the private sector. The first part addresses the impacts of climate change on human rights, the major developments in international climate law, and the historical reasons for climate litigation. The second part analyses several cases, divided into categories. It then draws to a comparative conclusion with regard to each category. The third part deals with the Italian legal tradition on standing and justiciability – starting from the historical roots of such rules. The fourth part introduces the ‘Model Statute’ drafted by the International Bar Association, arguing that the 'ratio legis' of this proposal could be implemented in Italy or the EU. The thesis develops arguments, based on the existing legal framework, to help plaintiffs establish standing and justiciability in proceedings pending before Italian courts. It further proposes the idea that 'citizen suits' are consistent with the Italian and EU legal tradition and that the EU could rely on citizen suits to privately enforce its climate law and policies under the ‘European Green Deal.’