The paper analyses the meanings of resilience in the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility Regulation 2021/241 and the Italian recovery and resilience plan (PNRR).
The paper analyses: 1) The resilience meanings in social sciences: personal, territorial, organisational, administrative; 2) Legal approaches on resilience in common law scholars, focusing the concept of adaptive law; 3) The emerging of resilience in international disaster and humanitarian law, in environmental law and in EU law; 4)The territorial resilience as legal concept in civil law systems? The Italian public law tools facing the recent national and regional statutory provisions about the strengthening of territorial resilience; 5) The Italian legal model of socio-economic and environmental planning and the PNRR. Equal social dignity, cohesion, subsidiarity and participatory democracy in reshaping the public intervention; 6) Between panarchy and epistocracy. Aporias of territorial resilience in post-pandemic governance.
The crisis dictated by the pandemic emergency has highlighted the fractures related to territorial inequalities, between local and regional disparities, between urban centers and internal areas, as well as between suburbs and city centers. With the appeal to build more resilient territories, the new season of European and national programs offers the opportunity to balance cohesion policies, also on a legal level.
In this regard, culture, in its material and intangible aspects, can constitute an important driver capable of freeing the potential of marginal territories and enhancing the role of social formations (e.g. heritage communities), including business ones. Furthermore, the pandemic crisis drastically affects the issues of rights connected to freedom of movement, which is now enriched by the potential offered to mobility by technology and by the knowledge regarding the sharing of resources.
We have learned to live with the state of emergency or at least we are trying to do so. It matters little whether the emergency is due to a pandemic, terrorism, or some other natural disaster: when human lives are at stake, governments act under this threat using their emergency powers. However, resorting to emergency powers – namely granting the government extraordinary powers beyond its constitutional role – can lead to a suspension of the rule of law and undermine human rights. Arguably, every day, in every part of the world, everyone might be adversely affected by emergency measures.
In Europe, scholarship has hugely debated various aspects of emergency regulation, while the legal basis of emergency powers still surprisingly remains unexplored in the main.
In doing so, this article analyses the legal framework on the bases of emergency powers in Europe, focusing on the main international standards on human rights and on the relevant recommendations made by the Venice Commission.
The paper will manage two different flows of problems. Under a first perspective, the purpose is to point out the lesson which is to draw from use of national and local public powers in pandemic; under such a point of view serious problems emerge considering fundamental rights, Rule-of-Law and constitutional provision on local and regional competencies. On the other hand, the paper is focused on the analysis of the measures issued in pandemic time to point out the emerging factors that will strength or reduce inequality within Nord and South of the country, developed areas and the opposite, disadvantaged and advantages members of communities. As a consequence, the paper will indicate possible solutions, taking into account recent recovery and resilience measures taken by Italian Government.
The paper aims to analyze how the administrative organization has affected the retention of the guarantee levels of social rights (i.e., health, education and local social services) following the impact of coronavirus on the various systems.
In particular, the analysis aims to understand how the organizational structures deriving from different balances (public/private; center/periphery; entity of the cost/minimum levels of services; quality “excellence” in the service/quantitative enlargement of the service) have impacted on some section of the population, affecting freedoms in general.
The analysis will draw useful information for the post-emergency which must be based on a new interpretation of the principles of efficiency and effectiveness to understand the space of social and territorial cohesion in the reorganization of services and to make this reorganization structurally efficient in relation to rights and freedoms.