University of Bologna Law Review 2021-10-01T19:46:39+02:00 Editorial Office Open Journal Systems <p>The <strong>University of Bologna Law Review – ISSN 2531-6133 (Online)</strong> is a gold open access and double blind peer-review legal journal run by University of Bologna School of Law students, and published by the Department of Legal Studies of the AMS University of Bologna (Italy). </p> What COVID‐19 does to our Universities 2021-03-26T21:47:29+01:00 Matthias Klatt 2021-03-27T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Matthias Klatt What Is Next for Digital Trade in a Post‐Brexit Britain? – Examining the Regulation of Data Flows Under G.A.T.S. & Possible Implications of G.D.P.R. on Britain as a Third Country 2021-05-03T13:43:45+02:00 Abhishek Rana Rishabha Meena <p>Data, much like other currencies, flows cross-border -from one jurisdiction to the other. However, it is hard to regulate the privacy aspects surrounding such free-flowing data by rules strictly based on jurisdiction. This article thereby begins by discussing the importance of data protection regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (G.D.P.R.), followed by a brief analysis of the General Agreement on Trade in Services’ pivotal role in regulating data flows and digital trade, and how it can be further used in checking the World Trade Organisation consistency of various data protection requirements resorted by the European Union (E.U.) so far under the G.D.P.R.. Lastly, the note examines how, post the Brexit transition period, the situation will change for the United Kingdom (U.K.) as it has become a third country for the E.U. data protection regime, with the authors critiquing the various models, including the recent Draft U.K.-E.U. Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, that may help the U.K. in attaining an “adequacy” status, which is requisite for the continuation of an unconstrained digital trade with the E.U. .</p> 2021-05-05T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Abhishek Rana, Rishabha Meena Challenging the Undesired Outcome of FIOST Clauses on Cargo Interests 2021-05-03T13:48:00+02:00 Ahmet Gelgec <p>Loss of, or damage to goods is a frequent occurrence in the shipping industry, which may often occur as a result of improper cargo-handling operations during loading, discharging or even stowing. This highly concerns cargo interests, as they will seek to reimburse their loss from their carriers under bills of lading. Often, the bill of lading may well contain terms of a charterparty by way of incorporation that allow the carrier to contract out their cargo-related operations. Once this is the case, the cargo interest is unjustly left without a remedy for loss of, or damage to his goods vis-à-vis the carrier under English law. This paper, instead of challenging the correctness of the law firmly established concerning the transfer of these obligations via Free In and Out Stowed and Trimmed (FIOST) clauses, rather, aims to propose ideas to tackle the impact arising out of the status quo under English law. Finally, it offers some plausible suggestions for cargo interests to surmount this undesired outcome.</p> 2021-05-11T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Ahmet Gelgec Constituting Over Constitutions 2021-07-16T16:26:51+02:00 Carter Dillard <p>In philosophy, legal theory and law, the <em>Grundnorm</em>, or basic norm, is often assumed to be the constitution, or that which overrides other norms. That is incorrect. This paper argues that the grundnorm should be the norm which regulates human procreation. This norm must proceed from the theoretical absence of human power, or a zero baseline. This essay attempts to correct the grundnorm fallacy with what will be called the Zero-Baseline Model. The correction reorients our human rights regimes and family planning systems, in ways that lead to an inevitable list of specific policy reforms that largely invert current family planning models and policies in use at the United Nations, European Union, the United States, and elsewhere. Those reforms can all be described in a simple narrative of reorienting family planning laws and policies from what would-be parents desire, subjectively, towards what all future children need, objectively. And as the evidence shows, those reforms prove highly effective and much more efficient in promoting child welfare, reducing economic and other inequalities, mitigating the climate and other ecological crises, protecting non-humans, and building democracy, than their alternatives.</p> 2021-07-19T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Carter Dillard Is a Requirement to Wear a Mask Economically Valid During COVID-19? 2021-07-31T09:51:49+02:00 Steve G. Parsons <p>Two of the most important categories of government intervention in response to COVID-19 are business closures and mask mandates. The scientific literature supports the efficacy of mask-wearing to reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses (including COVID-19). However, the efficacy is greater in stopping outbound transmission (meaning that my mask protects you) than inbound transmission (meaning that my mask protects me). Evidence suggests that the full benefits to society of wearing masks are far greater than the full costs to society of wearing masks. The author argues that mask-wearing is far more cost effective than business closures in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Moreover, the author argues that highly infectious diseases have an externality dimension. The person infected with COVID-19 makes a decision regarding whether to wear a mask based on their own perceived costs and benefits of mask-wearing, but that decision has consequences for those they come in contact with: the infected person’s decision not to wear a mask imposes costs on others that are external to the infected person’s decision process not to do so. The author further argues that some possible methods by which to deal with such an external cost (individual negotiations, a tax on spreading COVID-19, or as subsidy for wearing masks) are impractical. This makes a mask-wearing government mandate economically valid.</p> 2021-08-04T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Steve G. Parsons The Price of Transitional Justice: A Cost‐Benefit Analysis of its Mechanisms in Post‐Revolution Phase 2021-10-01T19:46:39+02:00 Eman M. Rashwan <p>Transitional Justice [hereinafter T.J.] in the post-revolution phase refers to the policies that aim to deal with the autocratic past-regime violations against its people to achieve accountability and democracy and promote human rights and the rule of law. To achieve these goals, the United Nations, within its Rule of Law Initiative, issued in 2010, a set of five mechanisms that work as guidelines for nations recovering from conflicts. I argue that whatever the mechanism or combination selected by a society transforming from an autocracy into democracy is, the nature of these mechanisms requires a trade-off between multiple considerations. To explain this inevitable trade-off, I go through each mechanism in detail, analyze it from both legal and economic perspectives, and then provide a basic cost-benefit analysis. I suggest that transitional justice as a constitutional arrangement requires a holistic approach in its adoption and application because this initial cost-benefit analysis cannot be standardized for all cases. I also suggest that transitional justice policies that take into account proportionality, a combination of different mechanisms, customization of the mechanisms upon the relevant case, and adopting these policies in the formality of basic or organic laws may be expected to have the most effective outcomes achieving the goals of T.J. with the least legal complications.</p> 2021-10-06T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Eman M. Rashwan