معیارها و اصول حاکم بر ترجیح امنیت بر حقوق و آزادی‌ها با مطالعه در رویۀ قضایی دیوان عالی امریکا

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی دانشگاه علوم قضایی و خدمات اداری، تهران

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

در ادارۀ امور جامعه، تقابل امنیت و نظم با حقوق و آزادی‌ها امری محتمل است و این موضوع را مطرح می‌سازد که راهکار مقرر برای این شرایط چه می‌تواند باشد؟ به‌نظر می‌رسد در شرایط یادشده، گریزی از ترجیح امنیت و نظم بر حقوق و آزادی‌ها و تحدید آن‌ها برای نیل به توازنی مجدد برای چنین وضعیتی نیست. اما بدون شک نمی‌توان بدون تعیین معیار و اصولی در این خصوص به صدور حکم برتری و ترجیح امنیت و نظم مبادرت نمود. موضوع پژوهش حاضر، بررسی موضوع یادشده و دستیابی به پاسخ این پرسش است که معیارها و اصول حاکم بر ترجیح امنیت بر حقوق و آزادی‌ها در آرای صادره از دیوان عالی امریکا کدام‌اند؟ نتایج پژوهش حاکی از دستیابی به مؤلفۀ «تهدید واقعی به خشونت» و بررسی آن با عنوان «تهدیدات قطعی و مسلم» و همچنین «ضرورت» و اتخاذ آن‌ها به‌عنوان معیارهای ترجیح امنیت و نظم بر حق‌ها و آزادی‌ها در رویۀ قضایی دیوان عالی امریکا و حاکمیت اصول: الف) اعمال ترجیح به‌موجب و از طریق قانون، ب) خدشه‌دار نشدن دادرسی عادلانه، ج) معقول بودن تحدیدات اعمالی و د) عدم تبعیض در مرحلۀ تصمیم‌گیری و پیش از ترجیح امنیت و نظم بر حق‌ها و آزادی‌ها، و نظارت قضایی در مرحلۀ پس از اتخاذ تصمیم مبنی بر ترجیح می‌باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Criterias and Principles of Security Preferring on Rights and Freedoms with Study on U.S. Supreme Court Precedent

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hasan Lotfi 1
  • ali sohrablu 2
1 Assistant Professor Public Law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services
2 Ph.D student of public law, university of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

In administration of society, the confrontation between security and order with rights and freedoms is possible and it raises this question that what can be the solution for these conditions? It seems in this circumstances, The only option is to prefer security and order to the rights and freedoms and restrict them to achieve new and desirable balance. But, without a doubt, we can not issue a ruling of preferring security on rights and freedoms without the determination of criteria and principles in this regard. The subject of this article was to examine this issue in the U. S. Supreme Court's precedent. Ours finding shows the achievement to the “true threat to violence” and study of that in light of “definite threats” and “necessity” and adopt them as criteria for preferring security and order on rights and freedoms in U. S. Supreme Court precedent and governing of this principles: A) Rule of Law, B) Protecting a fair trial, C) Reasonableness of restrictions, D) Non-discrimination in the stage of decision-making and before preferring security and order on rights and freedoms and “Judicial Review” after make a decision on preferring security.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Security
  • order
  • Definite Threats
  • Rights and Freedoms
  • U. S. Supreme Court

مراجع

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. راسخ، محمد (1395)، حق و مصلحت؛ مقالاتی در فلسفۀ حقوق، فلسفۀ حق و فلسفۀ ارزش، ج2، چ4، تهران: نشر نی.

     

    ب) خارجی

    A) books

    1. Antieau, Chester James and Rich, William J., (1997), Modern Constitutional Law: The States and the Federal Government, West Group.
    2. Dworkin, Ronald, (1985), Principle, Policy, Procedure, in: A Matter of Principle,Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

     

    B) Articles, Thesis and Reports

    1. Ann Ruane, Kathleen, (2014), "Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment", Congressional Research Service, No. 7-5700, p.1-35.
    2. Chemerinsky, Erwin, (2009), "Civil Liberties and the War Terror: Seven Years after 9/11 History Repeating: Due Process, Torture and Privacy during the War on Terror", SMU Law Review, Vol. 62, p.1-16.
    3. Delmas Marty, Mireille, (2007), "The Paradigm of the War on Crime Legitimating Inhuman Treatment?", Journal of  International Criminal Justice, No. 5, p.584-598.
    4. Joyner, Christopher C., (2004), "The United Nations and Terrorism: Rethinking Legal Tensions between National Security, Human Rights and Civil Liberties", International Studies Perspectives, No. 5, p.240-257.
    5. Michaelsen, Christopher, (2006), "Balancing Civil Liberties against National Security? A Critique of Counterterrorism Rhetoric", University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 29, p.1-21.
    6. Newland, Erica, (2015), "Executive Orders in Court", The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 124, No. 6, p.2026-2099.

    10. Kelly, Honathan J., (2014), "Balancing National Security and Freedom: Reactions to Terrorism and its Effect on Citizens Civil Liberties, Civil Rights and Privacy", Thesis on Master of Arts in Government, Johns Hopkins University.

    11. R. Stone, Geoffrey, (2009), |"Free Speech and National Security", Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 84, p.939-962.

    12. Relyea, Harold C., (2008), "Presidential Directives: Background and Overview", Congressional Research Service, Order Code 98-611 GOV.

    13. Stoudmann, Grard, (2002), "Finding a balance between ensuring security and protecting human rights in the fight against terrorism", Helsinki Monitor, Vol. 13, Issue 4, p.281-284.

    14. Waldron, Jeremy, (2003), "Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance", The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 11, p.191-210.

    15. Zucca, Lorenzo, (2009), "A transatlantic divide on the balance between fundamental rights and security", Boston College International & Comparative Law Review, Vol. 32, 231-240.

     

    C) Cases and Documents

    16. The Word "Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC- 6/86 of 9 May 1986, Series A, No. 6.

    17. U.S. Supreme Court, American Freedom Defense Initiative et al v. King County, 15-584 (2016).

    18. U.S. Supreme Court, Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).

    19. U.S. Supreme Court, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

    20. U.S. Supreme Court, Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006).

    21. U.S. Supreme Court, Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980).

    22. U.S. Supreme Court, Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980).

    23. U.S. Supreme Court, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).

    24. U.S. Supreme Court, Cornelius v. NAACP Leg. Def. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985).

    25. U.S. Supreme Court, Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996).

    26. U.S. Supreme Court, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld  542 U.S. 507 (2004).

    27. U.S. Supreme Court, Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).

    28. U.S. Supreme Court, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

    29. U.S. Supreme Court, Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001).

    30. U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803).

    31. U.S. Supreme Court, McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Commission, 572 U.S. (2014).

    32. U.S. Supreme Court, Michigan State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

    33. U.S. Supreme Court, Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010).

    34. U.S. Supreme Court, Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. (2017).

    35. U.S. Supreme Court, Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. (2017).

    36. U.S. Supreme Court, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, (1977).

    37. U.S. Supreme Court, Per Curiam  of Supreme Court of United States of America,  Nos. 16–1436 (16A1190) and 16–1540 (16A1191), Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. U.S. Supreme Court, International Refugee Assistance Project and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. Hawaii, June 26, 2017.

    38. U.S. Supreme Court, Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983).

    39. U.S. Supreme Court, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009).

    40. U.S. Supreme Court, Rasul v Bush, 542 US 466 (2004).

    41. U.S. Supreme Court, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).

    42. U.S. Supreme Court, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

    43. U.S. Supreme Court, Shelton v. Tucker, 364 US 479 (1960).

    44. U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. (2012).

    45. U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

    46. U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).

    47. U.S. Supreme Court, Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003).

    48. U.S. Supreme Court, Washington v. Trump, 2017 WL 462040 (WD Wash., Feb. 3, 2017).

    49. U.S. Supreme Court, Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).

    50. U.S. Supreme Court, Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957).

    51. U.S. Supreme Court, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

    52. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-REV-2016/pdf/GPO-CONAN-REV-2016-11.pdf

مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی
دوره 9، شماره 2
پاییز و زمستان
مهر 1397
صفحه 779-804

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار