Étude croisée Italie / Canada sur l'immunité des États et le jus cogens en droit international
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans sa décision de principe dans l'affaire Ferrini, en 2004, la Cour de cassation italienne a statué que, selon le droit international contemporain, les États étrangers ne peuvent plus bénéficier de l'immunité relativement à la juridiction civile des autres États dans les cas d'atteintes graves aux droits humains ou au droit humanitaire correspondant à des violations du jus cogens.La Cour a depuis maintenu cette position, sans fléchir, dans une série de décisions subséquentes, malgré l'incompatibilité avec la jurisprudence de nombreux tribunaux internationaux et nationaux, dont ceux du Canada.Après s'être attardé aux décisions judiciaires d'Italie, leur contexte et les motifs à l'appui donnés par la Cour de cassation, il s'agit de voir si l'on peut en tirer des enseignements au profit de l'expérience canadienne.Tout en reconnaissant que les systèmes juridiques du Canada et de l'Italie sont fort différents quant au statut et à la mise en œuvre du droit international sur l'immunité des États, nous concluons que la jurisprudence italienne peut s'avérer utile comme modèle pour reconsidérer la position canadienne.Cette révision devrait s'effectuer principalement sur la base de techniques d'interprétation bien établies (notamment, la présomption de conformité du droit interne avec le droit international) suivant lesquelles la jurisprudence canadienne pourra se mettre au diapason des règles les plus fondamentales du régime juridique international actuel.In its 2004 landmark decision in the Ferrini case, the Italian Court of Cassation has ruled that in contemporary international law foreign States no longer enjoy immunity from the civil jurisdiction of other States when they are accused of serious violations of human rights or humanitarian law corresponding to breaches of jus cogens.The Court has inflexibly upheld this position in a series of subsequent decisions, notwithstanding its inconsistency with the jurisprudence of a number of international and domestic courts, including Canada's.After dwelling upon this Italian case law, its context and the reasons given by the Court of Cassation in support thereof, the paper assesses whether lessons may be drawn from it for the Canadian experience.Although the Canadian and Italian legal systems are significantly different with regard to the status and enforcement of the international law of State immunity, the paper concludes that the Italian jurisprudence may provide useful guidance for a reconsideration of the Canadian position.This reconsideration should be primarily based on wellestablished interpretive techniques (such as the presumption of conformity of domestic law with international law) whereby the Canadian jurisprudence may be aligned with the most fundamental rules of the current international legal order.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".