Athena – Critical Inquiries in Law, Philosophy and Globalization <p><strong>Athena <span class="foot-title">–</span> Critical Inquiries in Law, Philosophy and Globalization – ISSN <span class="foot-title">2724-6299</span></strong> is an open access and double blind peer-review scholarly journal that sets out to analyse the problems relating to the legal, political, and social changes attendant on globalization, proposing to provide these problems with theoretical answers. It is published by the CIRSFID- AI.</p> CIRSFID – AI - Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna en-US Athena – Critical Inquiries in Law, Philosophy and Globalization 2724-6299 <p>Copyrights and publishing rights of all the texts on this journal belong to the respective authors without restrictions.</p><div><a href="" rel="license"><img src="" alt="Creative Commons License" /></a></div><p>This journal is licensed under a <a href="" rel="license">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</a> (<a href="">full legal code</a>). <br /> See also our <a href="/about/editorialPolicies#openAccessPolicy">Open Access Policy</a>.</p> Post-Pandemic Frontiers of Global Justice. A Preliminary Analysis <p>The socio-political effects of the current pandemic crisis tend to reproduce and reinforce inequalities within societies and at the global level. Moreover, the ongoing situation has provided the occasion for increasing awareness on the risks associated with the current ecological crisis. This article presents and discusses the challenges that the pandemic crisis poses to theories of global justice, relying on Martha Nussbaum’s work on the frontiers of justice and expanding its scope to include a fourth frontier. Within the context of growing inequalities in the individuals’ endowment of resources and opportunities and of stricter restrictions on freedoms, a liberal conception of global justice should focus on conceptualizing rights and duties of justice from a multidimensional perspective. The increase in inequalities in a global scenario characterised by vulnerability and interdependence requires comprehensive solutions, both redistributive (towards people and peoples) and regenerative (towards the ecosystem).</p> Elisa Piras Copyright (c) 2022 Elisa Piras 2022-04-12 2022-04-12 2 1 1 28 10.6092/issn.2724-6299/14242 Space Sustainability in the Context of Global Space Governance <p>The article aims at discussing the importance and role of space sustainability in the context of global space governance. After having presented the Outer Space Treaty provisions reflecting a global governance approach to space resources exploitation, as well as their interpretation by space law scholars, reference is made to State practice eventually posing challenges to a global approach on the use of space resources; such as, in the fields of asteroid mining and debris mitigation. Against this background, it is argued that the concept of space sustainability was developed to eventually remedy shortcomings of the said legal framework. The concept, based on a two-pronged approach, combines top-down and bottom-up initiatives; hence, it appears to provide a solution to the perceived inadequacy of (some) international space law institutions, taking additionally into account the needs of (private) investors and society ‒while using space resources‒, as a result of its flexibility.</p> Anthi Koskina Konstantina Angelopoulou Copyright (c) 2022 Anthi Koskina, Konstantina Angelopoulou 2022-04-12 2022-04-12 2 1 29 72 10.6092/issn.2724-6299/13756 International Law and the Struggle for the Future: Historicizing Agenda 2030 for Radical Critique of International Legal Ideology <p>This paper addresses the UN’s ‘Agenda 2030’ from a historical-materialist perspective, interrogating its potential to effectively ‘transform our world’ in the face of the ‘crisis of the future’. It explores the ideological dimensions of the international legal form, critically reflecting upon the role of international lawyers in the reproduction of global capitalist relations, on the limits of international law as an instrument of social transformation and of the Agenda as a roadmap to a ‘better future’. Specifically, it demonstrates how the a-historical and depoliticized legal language of the Agenda conceals and legitimises the inherently ‘unsustainable’ logics of value and capital accumulation. Finally, the paper denounces the Agenda’s ideology of Progress, pointing to its epistemological ‘blindspots’ and proposing a reclaiming of utopian and revolutionary thinking in order to rescue international legal theory’s capacity to imagine a different future and act towards a new mode of sociability and human-nature relationship.</p> Matheus Gobbato Leichtweis Copyright (c) 2022 Matheus Gobbato Leichtweis 2022-04-12 2022-04-12 2 1 73 115 10.6092/issn.2724-6299/13853 The Cosmopolitan “No-Harm” Duty in Warfare: Exposing the Utilitarian Pretence of Universalism <p>This article demonstrates <em>a priori </em>cosmopolitan values of restraint and harm limitation exist to establish a cosmopolitan “no-harm” duty in warfare, predating utilitarianism and permeating modern international humanitarian law. In doing so, the author exposes the atemporal and ahistorical nature of utilitarianism which introduces chaos and brutality into the international legal system. Part 2 conceptualises the duty as derived from the “no-harm” principle under international environmental law. Part 3 frames the discussion within legal pluralism and cosmopolitan ethics, arguing that divergent legal jurisdictions without an international authority necessitates a “public international sphere” to mediate differences leading to strong value-commitment norm-creation. One such norm is the “no-harm” duty in warfare. Part 4 traces the duty to the Stoics, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, African traditional culture, Hinduism, and Confucianism. Parts 5 and 6 explain how the duty manifests in principles of distinction and proportionality under international humanitarian law.</p> Ozlem Ulgen Copyright (c) 2022 Ozlem Ulgen 2022-04-12 2022-04-12 2 1 116 151 10.6092/issn.2724-6299/14648 Fear of Arbitration and Hope for Transition: Why Should We Care About the Interaction Between Investment Arbitration and Transitional Justice? <p>Investment arbitration has experienced an exponential growth in the past years. Recently, there has been abundant discussion on how it influences matters of public policy, with strong criticism referring to its ability to restrain state regulatory capacity, specifically through the freezing of public authorities for fear of investment claims. Among these issues, a key consideration, yet one still under-explored, is how investment arbitration interacts with <em>transitional justice</em>. Considering that building a long-term and lasting peace is the overarching obligation of states coming out of war, this field of study cannot be understated. This paper aims to study the relationship between investment arbitration and <em>transitional justice</em>. To do this, it analyzes how core principles of transitional justice relate to key features of investment arbitration. The analysis concludes that, while investment arbitration and peacebuilding are not fundamentally opposite fields, the characteristics of each system may result in contrast with the other. Further, if this tension is not addressed by public policy, investment arbitration may become an obstacle for the implementation of measures necessary to secure <em>transitional justice </em>for victims of armed conflict.</p> Juan Pablo Gómez-Moreno Copyright (c) 2022 Juan Pablo Gómez-Moreno 2022-04-12 2022-04-12 2 1 152 203 10.6092/issn.2724-6299/13761 The Evolving Qualification of Unilateral Coercive Measures: A Historical and Doctrinal Study <p>Unilateral coercive measures are deeply rooted in the history of statehood, yet their legal qualification continues to evolve. In a factually unequal international order, the governments of core countries continue to apply such measures as a foreign policy tool in driving peripheral countries to submission despite human rights concerns and a growing consensus on the illegality of their conduct. As most legal scholars struggle to define what constitutes a unilateral coercive measure, the conditions that beget coercive measures and the historical progress that led to today’s predominant views are largely overlooked. Thus, this article is the fruit of a historical and doctrinal study of unilateral coercive measures and their qualification, as it aims to provide an insight as to what lies ahead in light of the historical precedent and the current progress in the field of public international law, human rights law and international criminal law.</p> Aytekin Kaan Kurtul Copyright (c) 2022 Aytekin Kaan Kurtul 2022-04-12 2022-04-12 2 1 204 253 10.6092/issn.2724-6299/13760 Foreword Silvia Bagni Annalisa Furia Luigi Sammartino Copyright (c) 2022 Silvia Bagni, Annalisa Furia, Luigi Sammartino 2022-05-16 2022-05-16 2 1 I VII 10.6092/issn.2724-6299/14647