Voters will decide on a proposal to separate the careers of judges and public prosecutors, splitting the self-governing High Council of the Judiciary (CSM) into two distinct bodies.

Though focused on institutional reform, the vote has evolved into a broader political contest between the government-backed “Yes” campaign and opposition forces advocating “No.” No turnout quorum is required for the referendum to be valid.

Analysts say the campaign has been marked by sharp rhetoric and limited public understanding of the legal changes at stake.

Fabrizio Masia, head of pollster EMG, said most voters were likely to base their choice on political loyalties rather than the substance of the reform.“Only a small minority of Italians knows much about the issue,” Masia said, adding that party leaders on both sides were focused on mobilising supporters to secure a narrow win.

Opinion polls released before a mandated two-week blackout period showed a closely contested race, with the “No” camp gaining ground amid indications that some right-wing voters may abstain. Meloni has ruled out resigning if the referendum fails, a move widely interpreted as an effort to dampen opposition turnout driven by the prospect of weakening her government.

Her ruling coalition, which includes Brothers of Italy, the League and Forza Italia, continues to poll ahead of the left, which has struggled to consolidate around the Democratic Party and the 5-Star Movement.

A rejection of the reform could inject momentum into efforts to unite centre-left forces and potentially expose internal strains within the governing bloc, Masia said. Conversely, approval of the measure would strengthen Meloni’s political standing as she approaches the latter part of her term.

Political scientist Emanuele Massetti said a government victory would reinforce its longer-term agenda, particularly with an eye on the 2027 election, as Italy navigates external geopolitical pressures and a sluggish domestic economy.

The event highlighted rapid technological advancements and the steady shift toward models that prevent disputes before they reach the courtroom.

The conference hosted more than 50 speakers, including judges, academics, legal advisors and specialists from leading international institutions.

Their discussions focused on practical strategies, new legal frameworks and the growing role of artificial intelligence in modern judicial processes.

Preventive justice emerged as one of the most prominent themes during the second day of the event.

Experts emphasized that judicial systems around the world are moving toward approaches that reduce litigation through early intervention, alternative dispute resolution and improved access to legal guidance.

Pietro Alpekakos, a Greek judge and expert with the European Judicial Training Network, explained that the concept of justice is no longer limited to resolving disputes after they arise.

He stated that mediation, reconciliation and amicable settlements can significantly reduce case loads and improve the overall experience of individuals seeking legal redress.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, former president of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, presented a structured vision for implementing preventive justice.

He emphasized that judges must examine potential drawbacks and identify steps to mitigate risks when considering preventive measures within their jurisdictions.

Prof. Jauntas Machado, director of the Human Rights Center in Portugal, voiced concerns regarding over-regulation.

He cautioned that excessive legal requirements and compliance frameworks may hinder social and economic life, potentially limiting both individual freedoms and corporate activity.

A major portion of the conference was dedicated to artificial intelligence and its rapidly expanding presence in the legal domain.

Experts explored how AI can support judicial decision-making, improve efficiency and strengthen systems that rely heavily on accurate data analysis.

Prof. Gong Baihua of Fudan University highlighted the benefits of predictive technologies used in risk assessment.

He noted that these systems provide judges with vast datasets and deep analytical capabilities, enhancing the speed and quality of preventative legal measures.

However, Baihua also underscored the importance of addressing risks such as algorithmic bias.

He stressed that any AI used in judicial processes must remain subject to strong legal and ethical frameworks to ensure fairness and accountability.

Prof. Jerome Abrams, a member of the Litigation Section council of the American Bar Association, discussed ongoing efforts to develop constitutional artificial intelligence.

He described this work as a major challenge that requires careful coordination between legal authorities, technologists and policy makers.

Judicial cooperation between countries was another key focus of the conference.

Speakers addressed the complexities of cross-border legal processes and the need for adaptable frameworks that facilitate collaboration among international partners.

Michael Wilderspin, former legal advisor to the European Commission, pointed to difficulties that emerged after the UK’s exit from the European Union.

He noted that while years of EU membership strengthened cooperation in civil and commercial legal matters, new inconsistencies have appeared between English and European laws.

Arbitration was also highlighted as an area where global progress is evident.

Nicolas Rouiller, lawyer and partner at SwissLegal Roeller and Associes, explained that arbitration has become increasingly universal, with 172 countries adhering to or respecting the New York Convention on the Enforcement of Arbitration.

Rouiller emphasized that cooperation between courts and arbitrators remains essential for efficiency.

He noted that courts facilitate enforcement and bring parties together, while arbitrators help reduce pressure on judicial staff and improve the speed of dispute resolution mechanisms.

The conference concluded with calls for continued research, stronger collaboration among nations and the development of balanced regulatory frameworks that support innovation without compromising justice.

Experts agreed that AI and preventive justice will remain at the center of global judicial reform efforts in the coming years.