L' arbitrabilità dell'embargo internazionale alla prova delle Sezioni Unite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
italiano1. Premessa. - 2. Le sanzioni internazionali contro l'Iraq. - 3. La sussistenza della giurisdizione italiana in relazione agli acta jure gestionis dello Stato iracheno. - 4. L'arbitrabilita oggettiva delle controversie relative ai contratti commerciali investiti dall'embargo commerciale internazionale. - 5. Segue: la sopravvenuta indisponibilita dei diritti controversi per effetto dell'embargo commerciale internazionale. - 6. Segue: la legge applicabile alla questione dell'arbitrabilita oggettiva della controversia. - 7. Segue: la tempistica del controllo del giudice nazionale sull'arbitrabilita oggettiva della controversia. - 8. Conclusioni. EnglishThe article examines the case law of the Italian Supreme Court pertaining to the objective arbitrability of disputes relating to commercial constracts totally or partially falling under the scope of application of international economic sanctions, such as especially the international trade embargo promulgated by the Security Council of the United Nations. The Italian Supreme Court has held that the application of the UN embargo prevents per se the competence of the international arbitrator so that the jurisdiction over the dispute be retained by the national judge. The Author critizes the stance adopted by the Italian Supreme Court by contrasting it with the more liberal solutions promoted by other domestic legal systesmsuch as Canada, France and Switzerland, which notably enforce the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz of the international arbitrator and the principle of autonomy and separability of the arbitration agreement.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.009 |
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".