مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی

مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی

قواعد آمرۀ حقوق بین‌الملل؛ تکامل یا تحول در منابع حقوق بین‌الملل (با بررسی تطبیقی نظام‌های حقوقی ملی)

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان
سید فضل الله موسوی 1
حسین خلف رضایی 2
1 استاد دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران
2 دانش‌آموختۀ دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل دانشگاه تهران
10.22059/jcl.2015.54417
چکیده
جامعۀ بین‌المللی با اقتباس از نظام‌های حقوقی ملی، برخی اصول و قواعد امری را در حقوق بین‌الملل مطرح ساخته است. در این رویکرد، بعضی هنجارها به‌عنوان ضامن ارزش‌ها، نظم عمومی و منافع حیاتی جامعه فراروی دولت‌ها قرار گرفتند که به حقوق الزامی یا قواعد آمرۀ حقوق بین‌الملل موسوم شدند. این قواعد برای پدیدار شدن فرایندی مختص به خود دارد که به‌نظر می‌رسد راهی جدا از منابع صوری کلاسیک حقوق بین‌الملل، یعنی موارد مندرج در مادۀ 38 اساسنامۀ دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری است. از سوی دیگر، ابهام و اجمال مفهومی قواعد آمره، تحقق مقصود آن‌ها را با مشکل روبه‌رو ساخته است و همین موضوع، ضرورت تبیین و پرداختن به آن‌ها را آشکار می‌سازد.
 
کلیدواژه‌ها
تعهدات ارگاامنس
جامعۀ بین‌المللی
جنایات بین‌المللی
قواعد آمره
منابع حقوق بین‌الملل
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Peremptory Norms in International Law; Development or Revolution of Sources of International Law (A Comparative Analysis of National Legal Systems)

نویسندگان English

Sayyed Fazlollah Mosavi 1
Hossein Khalaf Rezaee 2
1 Professor, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Ph.D. in International Law, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

Contemporary international law introduces a notion of peremptory norms comparable to hierarchy of norms in national legal system. A jus cogens is a norm of international law considered so fundamental that it overrides all other sources of international law. A rule of jus cogens has a specific process of emergence that will be essentially different from other sources of international law which reflected in Article 38(1) of ICJ Statute. Unfortunately, there is not a precise definition of jus cogens norms. The vagueness of the definition and thereby its instances is one problematic issue that harden realization of ideals of the international community.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Jus cogens
Sources of International Law
International Community
International Crimes
Erga Omnes Obligations

  1. الف) فارسی:

    1. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله (1383)، حقوق بین‌الملل معاهدات، چاپ دوم، تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو.
    2. کسسه، آنتونیو (1388)، حقوق بین‌الملل، ترجمۀ دکتر حسین شریفی طرازکوهی، چاپ دوم، تهران: نشر میزان.
    3. کلسن، هانس (1387)، نظریۀ حقوقی ناب: مدخلی به مسائل نظریۀ حقوقی، ترجمۀ دکتر اسماعیل نعمت‌اللهی، چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات سمت.

     

    ب) لاتین:

    1. Abi-Saab, Georges (1999), The Uses of Article 19, EJIL, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 339-351.
    2. Bassiouni, Cherif (1996), International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 63-74.
    3. Bianchi, Andrea (2008), Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 491–508.
    4. Crawford, James (2000), Third Report on State Responsibility, International Law Commission, Fifty-second session, UN Doc. A/CN.4/507.
    5. Crawford, James (2010), International Crimes of States, in: Crawford, James et al. (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford University Press, pp. 405-414.
    6. Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970.
    7. Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, ACT No. XV, Declaration of the Powers, on the Abolition of the Slave Trade, 8th February 1815.
    8. Fitzmaurice, Gerald (1958), Third Report on the Law of Treaties, Yearbook of ILC(YILC), vol. II.
    9. Ford, Chrisropher A. (1995), Adjudicating Jus Cogens, Wisconsin International Law Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 145-181.
    10. Frowein, J. (1984), Jus Cogens, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. 7, pp. 327-330.
    11. Frowein, Jochen Abraham (1994), Reaction by not Directly Affected States to Breaches of Public International Law, General Course on Public International Law, vol. 248, pp. 345-438.
    12. Glare (ed.) (1982), Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford University Press.
    13. ICJ (1949), Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), Judgment of 9 April 1949, Merits, ICJ Reports 1949.
    14. ICJ (1951), Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, ICJ Reports 1951.
    15. ICJ (1951), The Fisheries case, (United Kingdom v. Norway),Judgment of 18 December 1951, ICJ Reports 1951.
    16. ICJ (1960), South West Africa case, ICJ Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Vol. X.
    17. ICJ (1971), Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa), ICJ Reports 1971.
    18. ICJ (1986),Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, ICJ Reports 1986.
    19. ICJ (1995), East Timor (Portugal v. Australia),Judgment, ICJ Reports 1995.
    20. ICJ (1996), Case Concerning theApplication of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime of Genocide(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Judgment of 11 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996.
    21. ICJ (1996), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Rep. 1996.
    22. ICJ (2004), The Legal Consequences of the Construction of the Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004.
    23. ILC (1976),YILC, Vol. II, Part Two.
    24. ILC (1994), Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session, General Assembly, Official Records, Forty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/49/10).
    25. ILC (2001), Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, UN Doc. A/56/10.
    26. ILC,First Report on State Responsibility, International Law Commission, Fiftieth Session (1 May 1998), A/CN.4/490/Add.
    27. Institut de Droit International (2005), Obligations and Rights Erga Omnes in International Law, Krakow Session, Resolution.
    28. International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) (1970), Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Second Phase, ICJ Reports 1970.
    29. International Law Commission (“ILC”),First Report on State Responsibility, International Law Commission, Fiftieth Session (5 May 1998), A/CN.4/490/Add.2.
    30. Janis, W. Mark (1988), The Nature of Jus Cogens, Connecticut Journal of International Law, Vol. 3, pp. 359–363.
    31. Jennings, Robert (1967), General course on principles of international law, General Course on Public International Law, vol. 121.
    32. Malanczuk, P. (1987), Counter-Measures and Self-Defence as Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness in the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility, in: Spinedi, M., and Simma, B. (eds.), United Nations Codification of StateResponsibility, pp. 197-286.
    33. Mosler, H. (1980), The International Society as a Legal Community, The Netherlands: Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff.
    34. Orakhelashvili, Alexander (2006), Peremptory Norms in International Law, Oxford University Press.
    35. Paust, Jordan (1991), The Reality of Jus Cogens, Connecticut Journal of International Law, Vol. 7, pp. 81–85.
    36. Pellet, Alain (1999), Can aState Commit a Crime? Definitely, Yes!, EJIL, Vol. 10, pp. 425-434.
    37. Permanent Court of International Justice (“PCIJ”) (1927), The Case of the S.S. "Lotus", Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A.-No. 10, 7 September 1927.
    38. Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations of the United States (1987).
    39. Shelton, Dinah (2006), Normative Hierarchy in International Law, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, pp. 291-323.
    40. Simma, Bruno (1994), From Bilateralism to Community Interest, General Course on Public International Law, vol. 250.
    41. Simma, Bruno (1995), The Contribution of Alfred Verdross to the Theory of International Law, EJIL, vol. 6, pp. 33–54.
    42. Sur, Serge (1988), Discussion Statement, in: A. Cassese and J. H. H. Weiler (eds.), Change and Stability in International Law-Making, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, pp. 125-128.
    43. Tams, Christian J. (2005), Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law, Cambridge University Press.
    44. Tomuschat, Christian (1999), International Law: Ensuring the Survival of Mankind on the Eve of a New Century, General Course on Public International Law, vol. 281.
    45. Trindade, Antônio Augusto Cançado (2005), International Law for Humankind: Towards A New Jus Gentium, General Course on Public International Law, Vol. 316.
    46. United Nations (1969), United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, Official Records, First Session, 80th meeting, UN doc. A/CONF.39/11.
    47. United Nations (1986), United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, Official Records, Vol. I, Statement of 12.03.1986.
    48. United Nations, United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, Official Records (UNCLT) (1968),First Session, March/May 1968, Vol. I, Statement of 4.5.1968.
    49. Verdross, Alfred (1966), Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law, AJIL, Vol. 60, pp. 55-63.
    50. Verdross, Alfred von (1937), Forbidden Treaties in International Law: Comments on Professor Garner's Report on The Law of Treaties, American Journal of International Law (“AJIL”), Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 571–577.
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی
دوره 6، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 1
بهار و تابستان
فروردین 1394
صفحه 369-391