3 Comments

  1. Marco
    3 July 2016 @ 17:29

    Dear Loris Palmerini,
    could you please explain how could an international court, composed of judges who belong to states with which Italy itself is allied e, Consequently, with interests totally opposed to cause it harm in a ruling of this kind, condemn Italy to leave the territory of a pre-unification state with a lot of compensation for damage from occupation? lei, then, It is aware that in Europe there have been several plebiscites annexation, and therefore, with a judgment of this kind, European states should go against their own interests through its judges at the International Tribunal, since then all the annexes were with this system would claim the same thing? She argues that the right of conquest is not worth the 1840, but my understanding is that the two world wars and in the years to come there were significant territorial changes that occurred as a result of armed conflicts.

    Reply

    • loris
      4 July 2016 @ 11:50

      Marco,
      question azzeccattissima!

      The fact is that the international peace (and war) Today they hold on just a few principles:
      1) territorial integrity : Each state has the right to remain intact, except when the central government is illegal or dictatorial or makes the violation of human rights
      2) Human rights: a government that does not respect human rights, (it should) be replaced with intervention from the international community, provided there is international consensus (then a resolution of the UN Security Council – but where there are vetoes)
      3) law: the case decided in a way that is erga omnes, that also applies to all other

      In short words, if the International Court dared to certify that the invasion of a sovereign state can become legitimate, moreover subjecting the occupied people to a system of destruction of its culture and its languages, jump the first and second law because the judgment would become valid for all. Then nothing would hold up peace, the great powers would begin now to go shopping states, invasions, and soon it would lead to confrontation between them, ie total war. For example, the US would invade Canada and Mexico and throughout the Americas, Russia, Europe and half Asia, China would invade India, Japan and Australia, Africa would become an Islamic protectorate with the Middle East…… do you think this richierebbero ?

      In addition to remember, Marco expensive, that human rights prevail (in laws) on the interests of the states and the constitutions, and what is wrong to decay.

      However, there is a fact: THERE IS NO LEGAL annexation THE LOMBARDO-VENETO, Italy itself has canceled it (of our international pressure) in December 2010, with law enforcement from 2013, and can no longer be rivalidata. So how could they give us wrong?

      Moreover, each territory has its history, its specificities . for example, while it is always possible for an ex-state to hold a referendum to return sovereign, such as did Scotland and can do the Lombardo-Veneto, so it is not for “regions” Italian, that are fictitious administrative entities without international political power or have only one delegated and therefore not sovereign.

      I answered?

      Reply

      • Marco
        4 July 2016 @ 17:24

        Not entirely!
        She claims that as of 1840 It is in force the right to speak of the people on the fate of their states. However, I could not find anything on the net that I confirm the existence of this law (or at least, I assume is an international law on how she talks about it). Could you give me directions on where to find this information? The right to territorial integrity, to my knowledge, was sanctioned for the first time only after the First World War.
        As for human rights, their recognition is not equally considered and consequently realized by all states, but yet, although there is full knowledge and awareness of a thing of this kind, no state and no international organization intervenes to solve such situations, because each population, according to their beliefs and values, It has its own conception of what the human rights deserving of protection.
        Returning to the annexation of Lombardy and Veneto, I find it very hard for an international court to sentence an illegitimacy of Italian sovereignty over its territory, the fact that the Second World War have been decided and redrawn the boundaries of states and, less than a third world war, these borders will remain as they are to those existing now.
        She claims that the Lombardo-Veneto can legally, and then validly in the current state, hold a referendum as a former state, but this statement does not seem incorrect? They are existing states to be able to hold consultations, as in the case of Scotland, which it is a state that still exists, not the former states, otherwise any government that constitute the historical continuation of a state existed in earlier times could claim a right of this kind and we would constantly territorial changes.
        It must also be taken into account that the UN itself has not been able to resolve rather serious situations from the humanitarian point of view and the stability of the territories., as in the case of Kosovo, with a resolution that confirms it as an integral part of Serbia despite the recognition of almost the entire world of its independence and sovereignty , with the European Union wants even associarselo, or in the case of Crimean, recognized as an integral part of Ukraine, yet it annexed by Russia and now an integral part of the latter in effect. It 's really sure geopolitics you remain out of a possible cause for the restoration of the Lombardo-Veneto? Historically, for geopolitical interests we have also arrived to flout international treaties, So it is conceivable that an outcome of a lawsuit of this type?
        I have never had any doubts about the absolute groundlessness and consequent illegality of the referendum process in the Veneto region.

        Reply

Leave a Reply to lorisCancel reply