Massimo Lando
Biographic Data
| ID | 5578995 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Massimo Lando |
| GIVEN NAMES | Massimo |
| FAMILY NAME | Lando |
| SIGNATURE | LANDO M |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Cambridge |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-5223-4840 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 12 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 1 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 12 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2015 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2025 |
| H-INDEX | 1 |
Provisional Measures and the End of Prima Facie Jurisdiction
This article argues that, in provisional measures cases, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) now examines jurisdiction by assessing not only an applicant’s arguments for jurisdiction, but also a respondent’s arguments against it. This more granular examination is different from the ICJ’s traditional prima facie test. The change in approach was demonstrated in the 2008 provisional measures order in Georgia v Russian Federation . This article …
Reframing the English Foreign Act of State Doctrine
This article proposes a way to reframe the English foreign act of State doctrine. The doctrine is an established rule of English common law but its contours and application remain ill‐defined, despite the Supreme Court's restatement in Belhaj v Straw . The doctrine in its current form emerges from the accretion of precedents over some 350 years, but still lacks a unifying framework bringing its different strands together. This article argues that…
Three Goals of States as They Seek Advisory Opinions from Itlos
In most international tribunals, states alone can submit requests for advisory opinions. 1 This is also true of requests to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) sitting in plenary composition. The United Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 2 does not expressly confer advisory jurisdiction on ITLOS. In practice, the Tribunal's advisory jurisdiction is governed by Article 138 of its Rules of Procedure, under which interna…
Massimo Lando, Review of Lorenzo Palestini, La Protection des Intérêts Juridiques de l’État Tiers dans le Procès de Délimitation Maritime
The legal position of third states in maritime delimitation is a most complex and debated topic, raising numerous questions of international law.Such questions mainly concern the delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf because, within the 12-nautical-mile (nm) territorial sea, it is extremely unlikely that third states could claim any interest. 1From the point of view of substantive law, questions include whether t…
Secret Custom or the Impact of Judicial Deliberations on the Identification of Customary International Law
The literature on the identification of rules of customary international law is extensive. Commentators have focused on isolating the methodologies by which international courts and tribunals identify customary international law, with most of the debate revolving around the use of induction, or deduction and assertion as methods of custom identification. However, the existing literature has overlooked that the choice among custom identification m…
Stability of maritime boundaries and the challenge of geographical change
Geographical phenomena impacting the shape of coastlines may have implications for the stability of maritime boundaries delimited by agreement or judicial process. Sea level rise resulting from human-caused climate change has recently arisen as an additional phenomenon compelling the re-assessment of the stability of maritime boundaries over time. In a recent article published in this Journal, Dr. Snjólaug Árnadóttir has argued that a solution to…
Judges ad hoc of the International Court of Justice
Judges ad hoc of the International Court of Justice have been widely criticized for their supposed lack of impartiality. This criticism may seem all the more powerful if one takes into account that judges ad hoc were created as a means to avoid the Court’s bias and appearance of bias. However, recent developments in the appointment of judges ad hoc indicate that, far from being a detriment to the states’ perception of the Court’s impartiality, ju…
Plausibility in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice
In 2009, the International Court of Justice introduced plausibility as a requirement for indicating provisional measures under Article 41 of its Statute. Upon its introduction, plausibility was conceived as a test to establish that the rights asserted by applicant states might exist under international law. However, the Court subsequently developed the plausibility test into a higher standard, which requires the Court also to assess that the alle…
Delimiting the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles at the International Court of Justice
In both Nicaragua v. Colombia cases, the International Court of Justice upheld that international tribunals may delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles prior to the establishment of the continental shelf's outer limits. However, both the 2012 judgment on the merits in the first case, and the 2016 judgment on preliminary objections in the second case, raise a number of controversial issues. This article discusses the contentious as…
Judicial Uncertainties Concerning Territorial Sea Delimitation Under Article 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Recent international jurisprudence has shown considerable uncertainty with regard to the delimitation of the territorial sea. While international tribunals endorse a two-stage approach to territorial sea delimitation, there is a lack of judicial consensus on the practical implementation of such an approach. This article argues that the rule-exception relationship between equidistance and special circumstances, as reflected in the drafting history…
The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
In the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission , the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) was called upon to clarify the existence of its advisory jurisdiction as a full Tribunal under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). ITLOS unanimously upheld its advisory jurisdiction, yet its reasoning is not convincing. ITLOS’s interpretation of Article 21 of its Statute appears unpers…
Intimations of Unconstitutionality
Judgment 238/2014 of the I talian Constitutional Court reopens the debate on the extent of the immunity enjoyed by states for violations of jus cogens . The decision, which questions the authority of the ICJ 's 2012 judgment in G ermany v I taly , could certainly have effects on the formation of customary international law. In addition, it revives the discussion on the relationship between national and international law and on the supremacy of th…
Judicial Uncertainties Concerning Territorial Sea Delimitation Under Article 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Recent international jurisprudence has shown considerable uncertainty with regard to the delimitation of the territorial sea. While international tribunals endorse a two-stage approach to territorial sea delimitation, there is a lack of judicial consensus on the practical implementation of such an approach. This article argues that the rule-exception relationship between equidistance and special circumstances, as reflected in the drafting history…
Intimations of Unconstitutionality
Judgment 238/2014 of the I talian Constitutional Court reopens the debate on the extent of the immunity enjoyed by states for violations of jus cogens . The decision, which questions the authority of the ICJ 's 2012 judgment in G ermany v I taly , could certainly have effects on the formation of customary international law. In addition, it revives the discussion on the relationship between national and international law and on the supremacy of th…
The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
In the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission , the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) was called upon to clarify the existence of its advisory jurisdiction as a full Tribunal under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). ITLOS unanimously upheld its advisory jurisdiction, yet its reasoning is not convincing. ITLOS’s interpretation of Article 21 of its Statute appears unpers…
Delimiting the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles at the International Court of Justice
In both Nicaragua v. Colombia cases, the International Court of Justice upheld that international tribunals may delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles prior to the establishment of the continental shelf's outer limits. However, both the 2012 judgment on the merits in the first case, and the 2016 judgment on preliminary objections in the second case, raise a number of controversial issues. This article discusses the contentious as…
Judicial Uncertainties Concerning Territorial Sea Delimitation Under Article 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Recent international jurisprudence has shown considerable uncertainty with regard to the delimitation of the territorial sea. While international tribunals endorse a two-stage approach to territorial sea delimitation, there is a lack of judicial consensus on the practical implementation of such an approach. This article argues that the rule-exception relationship between equidistance and special circumstances, as reflected in the drafting history…
Plausibility in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice
In 2009, the International Court of Justice introduced plausibility as a requirement for indicating provisional measures under Article 41 of its Statute. Upon its introduction, plausibility was conceived as a test to establish that the rights asserted by applicant states might exist under international law. However, the Court subsequently developed the plausibility test into a higher standard, which requires the Court also to assess that the alle…
Judges ad hoc of the International Court of Justice
Judges ad hoc of the International Court of Justice have been widely criticized for their supposed lack of impartiality. This criticism may seem all the more powerful if one takes into account that judges ad hoc were created as a means to avoid the Court’s bias and appearance of bias. However, recent developments in the appointment of judges ad hoc indicate that, far from being a detriment to the states’ perception of the Court’s impartiality, ju…
Secret Custom or the Impact of Judicial Deliberations on the Identification of Customary International Law
The literature on the identification of rules of customary international law is extensive. Commentators have focused on isolating the methodologies by which international courts and tribunals identify customary international law, with most of the debate revolving around the use of induction, or deduction and assertion as methods of custom identification. However, the existing literature has overlooked that the choice among custom identification m…
Stability of maritime boundaries and the challenge of geographical change
Geographical phenomena impacting the shape of coastlines may have implications for the stability of maritime boundaries delimited by agreement or judicial process. Sea level rise resulting from human-caused climate change has recently arisen as an additional phenomenon compelling the re-assessment of the stability of maritime boundaries over time. In a recent article published in this Journal, Dr. Snjólaug Árnadóttir has argued that a solution to…
Three Goals of States as They Seek Advisory Opinions from Itlos
In most international tribunals, states alone can submit requests for advisory opinions. 1 This is also true of requests to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) sitting in plenary composition. The United Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 2 does not expressly confer advisory jurisdiction on ITLOS. In practice, the Tribunal's advisory jurisdiction is governed by Article 138 of its Rules of Procedure, under which interna…
Massimo Lando, Review of Lorenzo Palestini, La Protection des Intérêts Juridiques de l’État Tiers dans le Procès de Délimitation Maritime
The legal position of third states in maritime delimitation is a most complex and debated topic, raising numerous questions of international law.Such questions mainly concern the delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf because, within the 12-nautical-mile (nm) territorial sea, it is extremely unlikely that third states could claim any interest. 1From the point of view of substantive law, questions include whether t…
Reframing the English Foreign Act of State Doctrine
This article proposes a way to reframe the English foreign act of State doctrine. The doctrine is an established rule of English common law but its contours and application remain ill‐defined, despite the Supreme Court's restatement in Belhaj v Straw . The doctrine in its current form emerges from the accretion of precedents over some 350 years, but still lacks a unifying framework bringing its different strands together. This article argues that…
Provisional Measures and the End of Prima Facie Jurisdiction
This article argues that, in provisional measures cases, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) now examines jurisdiction by assessing not only an applicant’s arguments for jurisdiction, but also a respondent’s arguments against it. This more granular examination is different from the ICJ’s traditional prima facie test. The change in approach was demonstrated in the 2008 provisional measures order in Georgia v Russian Federation . This article …
Political science (12 works) · Law (10 works) · International law (9 works) · International Law and Human Rights (7 works) · International Maritime Law Issues (7 works) · Law (7 works) · Public international law (7 works) · International court (6 works) · Arctic and Russian Policy Studies (5 works) · Convention (4 works)