VITALBA AZZOLLINI - ALESSANDRO MORELLI
The essay examines the regulation in the field of the health emergency, especially regarding the extension of the state of emergency and the obligation of vaccination. The Authors show that the public debate is based on political factors rather than on medical-scientific and legal reasons. The reconstruction of the exact regulatory framework is a necessary condition to allow accurate democratic control over the management of the emergency by the Government.
The essay deals with the legal problems arising from the widespread diffusion of remote biometric identification systems. These unparalleled technologies, based on artificial intelligence, are capable to involve some of the principal challenges that digital algorithmic technologies are posing to contemporary constitutionalism. Starting from the attempt of the most recent proposal of European regulation to dedicate more stringent rules to this issue, the analysis focuses on the difficulties of legal rules to regulate these instruments of surveillance and the overall threats to fundamental rights
The essay highlights the suggestiveness but also the ambiguity of the notion of "dialogue between the courts", as well as its compromission due to the use of partial methodological bases. A bug that is found in the jurisprudence of both the Court of the European Union and the Constitutional Court.
The author therefore underlines the need to distinguish cases of "dialogue" from cases of multiple and mutually non-communicating monologues.
Democratic backsliding is a commonplace in the contemporary constitutional language. Duly elected governments which are able to reform formal constitutions in a counter democratic way. That is common said about Poland or Hungary and the cause, as common said, is populism. In Italy, or in other Eu countries which can be considered as advanced democracies, if this expression can be used or sounds good, this is not the problem. There is populism but populism is not a problem in Italy, USA or UK and so on. The real problem, in the opinion explained in this essay, is biopolitcs. The Foucault idea for which the power of surveillance is governance e by pleasure is the actual power and this power is not in the hands of a government or a State or a democracy, it is in the hands of net corporations, big as a modern State and surely not democratic. So the aim of a constitutional scholar who wants to defend democracy is not a discourse about populism, or the crisis of representation. The real discourse is about the real essence of internet and how we can make available fundamental rights in the code.