Category Archives: United Nations

Selective Condemnations and Creeping Endorsements: Italy’s Recent Practice on the Prohibition of the Use of Force

The frequent recourse to armed force by States in 2025 and early 2026 has seriously challenged the prohibition of the use of force under Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter. States responsible for these conducts are increasingly reluctant to justify them under international law and face limited condemnation within the international community.[1] The Italian Government and Parliament have adopted variable positions on the legality of these military operations, selectively condemning the use of force. While Italy has frequently denounced the Russian aggression against Ukraine, often invoking Article 2(4) of the UN Charter,[2] it has shown a more lenient stance on military operations conducted by the United States (US) and Israel.

Here, Italy’s position is presented with respect to the ongoing Israeli military operations in Gaza and in the West Bank, the US intervention in Venezuela and President Donald Trump’s threats regarding Greenland, and the two US-Israeli operations against Iran.

Continue reading →

To Cooperate, but on Its Own Terms: Italy, the WHO, and the Defence of Health Sovereignty

In 2025 and 2026, Italy’s position towards the World Health Organization (WHO) and global health governance more in general was marked by a significant ambivalence. On the one hand, the Government repeatedly reaffirmed the need for international cooperation in the field of public health, acknowledging that global health emergencies cannot be addressed through unilateral action. On the other, Italy’s diplomatic and parliamentary practice showed a growing insistence on the preservation of the State’s margin of discretion in the implementation of international health standards.

During the 158th session of the WHO Executive Board in 2026, for instance, Italy affirmed that WHO is most effective when focused on its core functions and comparative advantages, and that its action should be “underpinned by national ownership”, since Member States retain “primary responsibility and prerogatives for health policies and health systems”.[1] The same attitude emerged in other contexts: Italy’s explanation of vote on the United Nations General Assembly resolution on Global Health and Foreign Policy, the domestic debate on a possible withdrawal from the WHO, the rejection of all the 2024 amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), and Italy’s abstention on the WHO Pandemic Agreement.

Continue reading →

The Future Recognition of the State of Palestine: Shades of Pragmatism

On 22 September 2025, the High-level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, held in New York, was closed by French President Emmanuel Macron, who announced that ten new States were recognizing the State of Palestine that day.[1] A few days later, on 25 September, the co-chairs of the Conference, France and Saudi Arabia, issued a joint statement to express satisfaction for the adoption by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, with a majority of 142 votes (including that of Italy), of the New York Declaration,[2] which had been drafted during the Conference from late spring onwards.[3] In their statement, the two countries welcomed the new acts of recognition but also stated that the “Conference, and the recognition of Palestine, aims at the realization of a sovereign, democratic and economically viable State of Palestine”, which is thus seen as an “objective” yet to be achieved.[4]

The New York Declaration recalls that “recognition is a sovereign decision of each individual State”.[5] Accordingly, the Italian Government decided not to recognize the State of Palestine. Indeed, when, in late July, some countries announced their intention to recognize the Palestinian State during the forthcoming 80th session of the UN General Assembly, the Italian President of the Council of Ministers, Ms. Giorgia Meloni, said that such moves would risk being “counterproductive”, as they would lead to the false belief that the problem has been solved.[6] On his part, the Minister of Defence, Mr. Guido Crosetto, affirmed that those acts could amount to a “political provocation”.[7] Along the same lines, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Mr. Antonio Tajani, later stated that an act of recognition that is not grounded on the conditions supporting the birth of a State would push peace between Israel and Palestinians further away.[8] It should be stressed that, although these concerns are based on the alleged consequences of recognizing Palestine as a State, they are not per se irreconcilable with a position grounded in international law. In fact, in describing such action as “counterproductive” (as President Meloni had also done), the Minister for Relations with Parliament, Mr. Luca Ciriani, explicitly labelled it as “premature recognition”, one that is performed “in the absence of an actual State”.[9]

Continue reading →

Italy’s reaction to the United States’ attack against Venezuela

The political and legal shockwaves caused by the unilateral US attack on the territory of Venezuela on 3 January 2026 are still being felt. However, the belief that this blatant use of force and the abduction of the President of Venezuela and his wife mark historical events and that other States’ reactions will contribute to shaping new coordinates of international law and international relations is already widespread (see here).

In this respect, the Italian authorities quickly expressed support for the US’s conduct, albeit with some ambiguity.

Continue reading →

Italy’s Stance on the Israeli-Palestinian Question and the Gaza War: Continuity and Change

Throughout 2024, the Italian Government and Parliament remained actively engaged with the ongoing hostilities between Hamas and Israel and with their destabilising effect on the broader Middle East. Attention was also directed towards the intensification of Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip, which have resulted in a severe humanitarian crisis.[1] More specifically, Italy’s position can be summarised as follows: 1) condemnation of the attacks perpetrated by both State and non-State actors against Israel; 2) recognition of Israel’s right to self-defence in accordance with international law but, at the same time, a strong emphasis on the need to guarantee humanitarian access to Gaza and a condemnation of settler violence in the West Bank; 3) endorsement of a two-State solution negotiated between the parties as the sole viable solution to the conflict.

Continue reading →

Between order and (international) law: Minister Crosetto’s strategic realism and the future of multilateral institutions

The speech delivered by Italy’s Minister of Defence, Guido Crosetto, at the University of Padua on 20 June 2025, is an unusually frank address by a sitting member of government. It stands out not only for its candid tone but also for its breadth, spanning global order, European decline, security, technological supremacy, and international law. It offers particular value to foreign observers of Italian international practice for the way it lays bare the strategic doubts that animate the highest political levels of the Country.

From the standpoint of international law, the speech is significant because it reflects a realist understanding of law’s place in the international order. Far from viewing international law as an autonomous normative system, Minister Crosetto implicitly portrays it as a superstructure – one dependent on political preconditions that are now faltering. This is quite a common reading of international law as the by-product of a political and economic configuration that may not survive in its present form. The Minister’s remarks are also noteworthy for their recognition of the crisis of multilateralism, and the consequent risks for institutions – such as the United Nations and NATO – which are ordinarily seen as pillars of the present legal order.

Continue reading →

The Legality of Arms Transfers to Israel after 7 October: The Relationship Between the International Legal Framework on Arms Trade and Law No. 185 of 1990

Continue reading →

The Response to the Houthis’ Attacks in the Red Sea: Bathing in Ambiguity

Continue reading →

The Hamas Attack of 7 October and Israel’s Military Response

Continue reading →