Category Archives: International Security

The Global Sumud Flotilla in Italy’s Discourse: Between Political Caution and Legal Reasoning

Leave a reply

The phenomenon of flotillas carrying humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza is not a recent development. Since 2010,[1] several initiatives have sought to challenge the Israeli naval blockade and deliver humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip. In particular, between 2025 and 2026, two operations were organized by the Global Sumud Flotilla, which is described by its organizers as the largest independent initiative aimed at breaking the naval blockade imposed by Israel and delivering humanitarian aid to civilians in the Gaza Strip.[2] Both operations departed from the port of Barcelona: the first on 31 August 2025[3] and the second on 12 April 2026.[4] Italian diplomatic and parliamentary practice has devoted extensive attention to the events related to the Flotilla, which raise longstanding questions of international law. This contribution will focus on 1) the Italian position on the lawfulness of the Israeli naval blockade, 2) the rights of Italian volunteers on board, and 3) the attacks on the Flotilla and its interceptions by Israel on the high seas.

Continue reading →

Continuity and Caution: Italy’s Evolving Legal Approach to Supporting Ukraine

Leave a reply

Throughout 2025, the Russia-Ukraine conflict continued to occupy a significant place within Italian political and parliamentary debates, although its centrality was, to some extent, reduced by the emergence of other pressing geopolitical developments.[1] First approved in 2022, the provision of weapons and military equipment to Ukraine has been subject to periodic renewals,[2] and most recently reconfirmed in December 2025 for the year ahead,[3] signalling a sustained commitment on the part of the Italian Government. In the context of this last authorization for the “transfer of means, materials and equipment in favour of the governmental authorities of Ukraine”, adopted with the favourable opinion of the Government, a deliberate terminological adjustment was introduced in the text of the decree-law during the parliamentary proceedings of a joint session (21 January 2026, XIX Legislature) of the Committees on Foreign and European Community Affairs (III) and on Defence (IV) of the Chamber of Deputies. More specifically, one of the parties of the governing coalition successfully proposed to remove from the title the adjective “military” in reference to the “means, materials and equipment” for which the authorization for transfer was extended. However, the adjective was retained in the text of Article 1, even though the provision was supplemented by adding the words “and of civil defence”.

Such a modification, albeit formally limited in scope, appears to carry broader political significance. It may be understood as reflecting an effort to recalibrate the characterization of the assistance provided, by shifting from what some members of the Government perceive as a primarily military paradigm to a more comprehensive framework encompassing the civil defence dimension. This conceptual broadening arguably aligns with the Government’s consistently articulated emphasis on the defensive nature of its support, reinforcing the narrative that assistance is directed not only at military resilience but also at the protection of the civilian population and critical infrastructure. At the same time, the amendment may be read as an attempt to further anchor such measures within a discourse of proportionality and restraint, thereby mitigating potential concerns regarding escalation or direct involvement in the conflict.[4]

Continue reading →

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

Leave a reply

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 or Not to Cooperate: The Repercussions of the Elmasry Case and Italy’s Gradual Distancing from the International Criminal Court

Leave a reply

In 2025, Italy was requested for the first time to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in arresting and surrendering a suspect; it failed to do so and was therefore found non-compliant and referred to the Assembly of States Parties (ASP). The “Elmasry case”, from the name of the Libyan suspect Italy first arrested and then brought back to Libya thus violating its obligations to cooperate with the ICC, revealed the Italian Government’s ambiguity with regard to its conditional support to international criminal justice.[1] Additionally, the case exposed a legal disagreement concerning the role of the Minister of Justice under Italian implementing legislation (Law no. 237 of 20 December 2012). In particular, the Minister of Justice, Mr. Carlo Nordio, appeared to rely on the view that the Government retained a margin of discretionary assessment as to the transmission and execution of the ICC’s cooperation requests.[2] However, as it will be explained below, the ICC has found Italy’s defences to be inconsistent with the obligations under the Rome Statute. In this connection, a case is currently pending regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions of Law no. 237. This note will focus on the aftermath of the Elmasry case, at both the domestic and international levels, showing that, unless legal changes are made, there is a real risk that this episode will be only the first in a series of failures to cooperate by Italy.

Continue reading →

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

1 Reply

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 Support to Ukraine’s War Effort: Neither Unconditional Military Aid, Nor Unconditional Peace

2 Replies

In 2024, the Russia-Ukraine conflict remained one of the main topics of debate in foreign policy matters in Italy. Among the aspects discussed by governmental representatives, the most significant ones are the extent of Italian support to Ukraine’s war effort, the final aim this support pursues (i.e., the conditions attached to a future peace arrangement), and military aid to Russia from other States.

Continue reading →

The Enforcement of Arrest Warrants Issued by the International Criminal Court: Between the Duty to Cooperate and Realpolitik

1 Reply

In late 2024 and early 2025 the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued several arrest warrants in the context of politically sensitive investigations, including those regarding the ongoing armed conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine.[1] Some of these decisions concern alleged perpetrators holding high-level political positions in States that are close allies of Italy, such as Israel. Furthermore, in January 2025, Italy was requested by the Court to execute on its territory an arrest warrant issued against General Osema Almasri Najeem in the context of the investigation in Libya. Italy’s recent behaviour in relation to arrest warrants in the situations in Palestine and Libya is indicative of a shift from the traditionally supportive attitude to a more cautious (and lees cooperative) one in its relations with international criminal tribunals. This contribution analyses the Italian Government’s conduct, which shows a discrepancy between the rhetorical support for the ICC and the lack of actual cooperation in the execution of its requests.

Continue reading →

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

Leave a reply

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

1 Reply

In Italy, as in several other countries, the debate on the legality of arms transfers to Israel assumed considerable political importance in late 2023 and early 2024.[1] After an initial period of shock over the Hamas attack on Israeli territory on 7 October, public and parliamentary attention to arms transfers to Israel increased in parallel with the growing number of Palestinian civilian casualties caused by the Israeli army’s actions in the Gaza Strip. Between November 2023 and April 2024, the Italian Government had to address the issue on at least five occasions during parliamentary debates.

Continue reading →

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

Leave a reply

In October 2023, the Yemen-based and Iran-backed Houthi movement started a series of attacks (continuing well into 2024) against several vessels navigating the Red Sea, with the declared intention to support the population of Gaza in the rekindled Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On 10 January 2024, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2722, taking note of “the right of Member States, in accordance with international law, to defend their vessels from attacks, including those that undermine navigational rights and freedoms”. This ambiguously-worded text does not provide for an autonomous legal basis for reaction and leaves open the question of the legality of the forcible measures subsequently taken by (mostly Western) States.

Continue reading →