In this interview conducted by Alberto di Mauro, Judge Guido Calabresi—honored with the 2020 ISSNAF Lifetime Achievement Award, among numerous other prestigious accolades—discusses his distinctive role as a connector between Italy and the United States in the realms of law and economics.

Judge Calabresi is an ISSNAF Founder and a member of the ISSNAF Honorary Board.

Professor Calabresi, congratulations on your well-deserved ISSNAF Lifetime Achievement Award. How do you feel receiving this recognition from a Foundation dedicated to bridging Italy and North America in scientific research?

I am truly honored to receive the Lifetime Achievement Award from ISSNAF, especially because I see myself as a bridge between Italy and America. Although my family and I moved to the United States in 1939, where I completed all my studies, we’ve always spoken Italian at home. Since the end of the war, I’ve regularly returned to Italy, and I now have an apartment in Florence. When asked about my nationality, I always say I’m both Italian and American. When a student asked which country I supported in the last football World Cup, I said Italy—not because they played better (in fact, they didn’t) but because football is Italy’s national sport. However, if there were a baseball World Cup, I’d cheer for America. As for the ISSNAF award, I’m thrilled because it recognizes my efforts to support young Italians here in the U.S. and my contributions in Italy as well.

Regarding your connection to Italy, could you elaborate on how your work has impacted the country over the years, and how your ideas have influenced the relevant disciplines in Italy?

In Italy, law has traditionally been very formal and often isolated from other disciplines like economics. Through my interactions with scholars such as Stefano Rodotà, Guido Rossi, Guido Alpa, Roberto Pardolesi, Enzo Varano, and many others, I introduced a different perspective—a more integrated and complex understanding of law. This approach has been embraced and is now taught in many Italian universities.

Because of my connections with Italy, several universities there have sent students to Yale to study various fields of law, even those outside my specialty in torts (civil liability). Many of these students focused on areas like administrative law or contracts, so I connected them with professors in those fields. This exchange fostered a virtuous cycle of academic collaboration between the two countries. Italy has also influenced my thinking and, through me, has impacted American law. In the U.S., economics and philosophy have often been used to critique the law. However, from an Italian perspective, there is an equal relationship between law and these disciplines. When a philosophical or economic theory conflicts with the law, it doesn't necessarily mean the law is flawed; the theory itself might need reconsideration. This perspective, which could be seen as a “revenge” of the law, has contributed to a broader and more balanced approach to legal scholarship in America.

As a high court judge, I have also introduced elements of Italian jurisprudence into American law. For instance, when a law that was valid when enacted becomes constitutionally questionable due to changing circumstances, the Italian approach suggests encouraging the legislature to revise the law rather than striking it down immediately. This idea of harmonizing laws through dialogue between the legislature and constitutional courts is something I learned from Italian law and have applied in the U.S., where the tendency is often to view laws in black and white terms.

Since your youth, you've been a strong advocate for the dialogue between law and economics. In today's rapidly changing world, new urgent needs, such as preserving the planet's balance, demand changes in our regulatory frameworks. How do you see market laws influencing this shift?

First, we must recognize that the economy can no longer be viewed solely through a market-based lens. Many economic concepts only work effectively when supported by government actions that create effective incentive systems. The recent Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted this issue, showing the limits of incentives alone. For instance, the distribution of a future vaccine presents a significant challenge. It will not be immediately available to everyone, requiring difficult decisions about who will receive it first. This is a classic example of what Philip Bobbitt and I discuss in our book Tragic Choices: decisions that will inevitably be contentious and imperfect.

Who should receive the vaccine first? Should it go to those in greatest need, as determined by doctors, or to those deemed most important by politicians? Alternatively, should it be distributed randomly through a lottery? Each choice has its drawbacks and will likely face criticism. The methods chosen for vaccine distribution will differ between Italy, Europe, and the United States, reflecting varying national priorities and values.

Historically, similar dilemmas have occurred. For example, during limited wars, the U.S. used different criteria for selecting soldiers, akin to deciding who would be sent to potentially fatal situations. Each country’s approach to vaccine distribution will be unique because there is no universally "correct" method. In Italy, there's often an emphasis on absolute equality, but this ideal is not always upheld in practice. Fifty years ago, the rule for artificial kidney allocation was to provide it to the first patient in need. However, when an Italian doctor was asked how he would handle a situation involving a personal connection, he admitted that personal relationships might influence his decision. He recognized this as a form of corruption but felt that the ideal of absolute equality would remain intact. In contrast, in the U.S., using criteria based on importance or special needs is seen as structural corruption, a corrupt ideal.

Ultimately, whether in Italy or the U.S., the decisions made will reflect different values and priorities, and none of the choices will be perfect. In this sense, every approach has its inherent flaws.