According to what was disclosed by the press, Italy's abstention from voting on the resolution presented by the Arab countries for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip during the United Nations General Assembly was inspired by the lack of a condemnation explicit to the attack launched by the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas against Israel on the 7th of the month of October which has just ended.

This would be the explanation of the Italian position supported by Ambassador Maurizio Massari, Italy's permanent representative to the UN, in the context of his speech following the vote.

While recognizing the "work carried out by the Arab countries", this commitment would not have been sufficient to stimulate an intervention in an adhesive sense by the country of Italy in favor of the resolution due to the lack, in the text of the same, of "a clear condemnation of the actions of Hamas".

Nothing in question, if only it were not that the "if" a motivation of this consistency can really be considered satisfactory on an internal and international relational level, and above all coherent with the evolution and unfolding of situations and times, only the near future will reveal it .

The fact, in fact, seems to be one and only one: that is, that the General Assembly of the United Nations would have approved, as in fact it approved, a resolution presented by the Arab States, on the initiative of Jordan, for obtaining a truce in the Gaza Strip.

The United States' opposition was counterbalanced by one hundred and twenty votes in favour, fourteen against, and forty-five abstentions, including the Italian one.

If these are the circumstances, perhaps it will not be superfluous, and probably not even useless, to ask some questions about the possible consequences attributable to the expression of the Italian position both on the internal level and on the international and community relational level strictly understood.

Triepel's concept and statement seem to have remained famous according to which «international law (should) present itself as a force placed above states, in the same sense that all internal law (should be) a force placed above states individuals belonging to the State (same)" since, if this were not the case, "it would not be law".

On this premise, every potential war event would be presented in terms of a context of "disorder" completely opposed to the order of any normative-relational data. The circumstance, especially if considered in relation to recent events, would appear to be anything but negligible, and not only on a purely speculative level.

In the meantime, why should the international community as a whole do (and with the proposal of that resolution it would seem to have tried) its part in the regulation and limitation of the "war phenomenon". Therefore, why, as the years pass with respect to the conflicts that have marked recent humanity, all the thorny questions on the possible "legality" of the use of force in the international context and on the problems also inherent to operations for the so-called "peacekeeping". Saying it differently: if it is true, as it would seem to be true, that, on the international level, there appears to be a general obligation substantiated in the peaceful resolution of disputes, on the other hand, the States would appear to enjoy full autonomy in choosing the instruments they deem most most appropriate for this solution. Finally, because although there is essentially no general rule that prescribes a univocal "modus" of peaceful solution, the duty to find any peaceful solution would seem to remain intact even regardless of the subjectivities involved in the various conflicts that from time to time time we find ourselves having to manage.

But then, in light of international relational dynamics, what ideological and instrumental position can the Italian position be placed in? What meaning does it reflect in terms of the country's relations with the conflict? Would it not have been more appropriate to arrive at the discovery of a general vision of what appears to be the phenomenon concretely considered, in order to arrive, univocally, and even regardless of the specific gleanings, at an agreed and unambiguous solution of humanitarian truce?

Where this has not yet been understood, a genuine change in the role of the international community seems to have taken place, which seems to have lost its apical position of political and behavioral direction. A change which, compared to the current evolution of the time, would seem to appear (the conditional is still a must) fully justifying the UN's position and being directly attributable to the continuous and persistent transformation between the past and the modern "trend" of the community international, which arose as a consequence of the fall of the "bipolar perspective" with consequent critical discussion on it, and the related problems.

In the very complex context, perhaps, the light to follow should be the words of Pope Francis, his heartfelt invitation to stop "weapons attacks" because "terrorism and war do not lead to any solution, but only to the death of so many innocents", "the war is a defeat".

Even considering everything, it would not seem to be of benefit to anyone to show perplexity regarding the potential obsolete nature of the tools available to international law for managing the international community, with respect to which, evidently, a different need would appear to arise: namely that of rewriting presuppositions and foundation of a legal context that needs, perhaps today more than ever, to be relocated on a teleological level in order to be able to regulate situations and state subjects that would otherwise be difficult to regulate.

To date, Italy, with its abstention decision, seems to be placed in a sort of "limbo", which can be interpreted differently depending on your point of view. There seems to be a basic consideration to reflect on: considering the invocation of Pope Francis, perhaps adhering to the UN resolution could have taken on an important and decisive meaning in the geo-political context to express a clear position with respect to the need to favor every useful path to achieve the cessation of a conflict that risks irreversibly compromising the balance of power between nations.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata