نقدی بر تفکیک قواعد اولیه و قواعد ثانویه در مسئولیت بین‏المللی دولت‏ها

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه حقوق بین ‏الملل، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. ‏

2 گروه حقوق بین‏الملل، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. ‏

چکیده

نوشتار حاضر از طرفی رویکرد هربرت هارت[1] در نظام حقوقی و نگرش او به حقوق بین‏الملل را مورد هدف قرار می‏دهد و از طرفی دیگر در پی یافتن ریشه‏های تفکیک قواعد اولیه و ثانویه در حقوق مسئولیت بین‏المللی و ارائۀ انتقاداتی نسبت به این تفکیک است. تئوری حقوق بین‏الملل با انتقادات وارده بر حکومت قانون در این نظام عجین شده است. این تفکیک ناشی از انطباقی ناقص با سنّت فلسفۀ حقوق تحلیلی بوده است. مسئلۀ قواعد در حقوق بین‏الملل به همین تفکیک بسنده نمی‏کند و دقیقاً مشخص نیست که جایگاه سایر قواعد در این منظومه کجاست؟ سیاق قاعده‏سازی در جامعۀ بین‏المللی تا حدی پیچیدگی دارد که نمی‏توان به‏سادگی قائل به مفهوم تمایز در این نظم شد. این تمایز در بهترین حالت در سنّتی پوزیتیویستی قابلیت طرح دارد. این نوشتار مبتنی بر رویکرد انتقادی جریان اصلی در حقوق بین‏الملل، در صدد بررسی این است که چه نسبتی میان تفکیک قواعد اولیه و ثانویه در حقوق مسئولیت بین‏المللی با نظریه‏های تفکیک قواعد در دیدگاه‏های هربرت هارت و هانس کلسن[2] وجود دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Critics to the distinction between primary and secondary ‎rules in the law of international responsibility of states

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyed Amirhamed Talebian 1
  • Seyed Hadi Mahmoudi 2
1 Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Shahidbeheshti University, Tehran, Iran. ‎
2 Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Shahidbeheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

On the one hand, this article aims at analyzing Herbert Hart's approach to the legal system and his attitude to international law, and on the other hand, it seeks to find the roots of the separation of primary and secondary rules in international responsibility law and presents criticisms towards this separation. The theory of international law is mixed with the criticism of the rule of law in this system. This separation was caused by an incomplete understanding of analytical law philosophy. The issue of rules in international law is not enough for this separation, and it is not clear exactly where the position of other rules is in this system. The context of rule-making in the international community is so complicated that it is not possible to simply differentiate between rules in this order. This distinction can be drawn in the best case in a positivist tradition. This article, based on the mainstream critical approach in international law, aims to investigate the relationship between the demarcation of primary and secondary rules in international responsibility law with theories of rules demarcation in the theories of Herbert Hart and Hans Kelsen.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • International ‎Society
  • ‎ Rulemaking
  • ‎ Primary and ‎Secondary Rules
  • ‎ Responsibility
  • ‎ Herbert Hart's ‎Theory.‎

مراجع

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. کمیسیون حقوق بین‏الملل سازمان ملل متحد، مسئولیت بین‏المللی دولت: متن و شرح مواد کمیسیون حقوق بین‏الملل (1395). ترجمۀ علیرضا ابراهیم گل. تهران: مؤسسۀ مطالعات و پژوهش‏های حقوقی شهر دانش.
    2. فلسفی، هدایت‏الله (1393). حقوق بین‏الملل معاهدات. تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو.
    3. هارت، هربرت (1395). مفهوم قانون. ترجمۀ محمد راسخ. تهران: نشر نی.
    4. کدخدایی، عباسعلی و عابدینی، عبدالله (1391). اوصاف خودبسندگی نظام سازمان جهانی تجارت در نظام حقوقی بین‏المللی. مجلۀ حقوقی بین‏المللی، (96)، 34-8.

     

    ب) انگلیسی و فرانسوی

    1. Ago, Roberto (1957). Positive Law and International Law. American Journal of International Law, 51(4), 691-733.
    2. Ajevski, Marjan (2014). Fragmentation in International Human Rights Law – Beyond Conflict of Laws. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 32:2, 87-98.
    3. Bobbio, N (1998). Nouvelles réflexions sur les normes primaires et secondaires in N Bobbio, Essais de théorie droit (Bruylant/LGDJ) 159ff.
    4. Bull, Hedley (1995). The Anarchical Society : A Study of Order in World Politics. Macmillan Press LTD, First ed. 1977 & Second ed., London.
    5. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.United States ofAmerica), International Court of Justice, Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986.
    6. Case Concerning the Gabdikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), International Court of Justice, Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997.
    7. Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Conslar Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), International Court of Justice, Judgment of 24 May 1980, ICJ Reports 1980.
    8. Chimni, B. S. (2008). An outline of a Marxist course on public international law. 53-91 in Marks, Susan (ed.), International Law on the ‎Left: Re-examining Marxist Legacies, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge ‎University Press‏.
    9. Chimni, Bhupinder S. &‏ ‏Anghie, Antony, (2004). "Third World Approaches to International Law and Individual Responsibility in ‎Internal Conflict" in Steven R Ratner and Anne Marie Slaughter (eds), The Methods of International Law.
    10. Chimni, Bhupinder S. (2017). International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches. Cambridge ‎University Press.
    11. Combacau, J., and Alland, D. (1985). "Primary" and "Secondary" rules in the law of state responsibility: categorizing international obligations. The Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol 16, 81-109.
    12. Coyle, Sean, Hart (2002). Raz and the concept of legal system. Law and Philosophy 21: 275–304.
    13. Crawford, James (2002). The ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: A Retrospect. The American Journal of International Law, 96, 874-890.
    14. Crawford, James (2002). The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility.
    15. D’aspremont, Jean (2014). The idea of ‘rules’ in the sources of international law. The British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 84 (1), 103-130.
    16. Falsafi, Hedayatollah, (2014). International Law of Treaties, Farhang Nashre-no (In Persian).
    17. Gaillard, Emmanuel (2008). Aspects philosophiques du droit de I'arbitrage international (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2008), translated into English as Legal Theory of International Arbitration (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010).
    18. Georgiev, Dencho (1993). Politics or Rule of Law: Deconstruction and Legitimacy in International Law. 4 The European Journal of International Law, 1-14.
    19. Gould, Harry (2011). Categorical obligation in international law. International Theory.
    20. Grabowski, Andrzej (2016). The Missing Link in the Hart–Dworkin Debate. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 36, (3), 476-481.
    21. Handl, Günther (1985). Liability as an obligation established by a primary rule of international law: some basic reflections on the international law commission's work. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 16, 49-79.
    22. Hart, Herbert, (2016). The Concept of Law, Translated by Mohammad Rasekh, Ney Publication (In Persian).
    23. ILC Yearbook, 1970, Volume 2, p.306, paragraph 66 (c) & especially second Report of Roberto Ago, A/CN.4/233, 20 April 1970, (1970-II) Yearbook of ILC 178-9.
    24. International Law Commission of the United Nations, International Responsibility of State: Commentaries of ILC articles (2016), translated by Alireza Ebrahimgol, Shahredanesh (In Persian).
    25. Kadkhosaei, Abbasali, and Abedini, Abdollah, (2016). "Self-help in the World Trade Organization in International Legal System", International Law Review, 96 (In Persian).
    26. Kelsen, Hans (1997). Theorie generale du droit de l'etat, Paris, Bruxelles, Bruylant.
    27. Kelsen, Hans (2008). Pure Theory of Law, translated by Max Knight. The Lawbook Exchange.
    28. Kennedy, David & Tennant, Christopher (1994) New Approaches to ‎International Law: a bibliography. Harvard International Law Journal, (35), 417–460.
    29. Kennedy, David (1986). Critical Theory, Structuralism and Contemporary Legal Scholarship. New England Law ‎Review, 21 Issue 2, 209-290.
    30. Kennedy, David (1998). A new stream of international law scholarship. Wisconsin International Law Journal, (7), ‎‎1–49.
    31. Kennedy, Duncan (1997). A Critique of Adjudication: Fin de Siecle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    32. Kolb, Robert (2015). The Jurisprudence of the Permanent Court of International Justice Between Utilitas Publica and Utilitas Singulorum. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 14, 16-34.
    33. Kolb, Robert (2017). The International Law of State Responsibility: An Introduction, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 6-8
    34. Koskenniemi, Martti (2004). What Should International Lawyers Learn ‎from Karl Marx?, Leiden Journal of International ‎Law‎, 30-53.
    35. Koskenniemi, Martti (2005). From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing ‎ 1989), reissued Cambridge University Press.
    36. Linderfalk, Ulf (2009). State Responsibility and the Primary-Secondary Rules Terminology - The Role of Language for an Understanding of the International Legal System. Nordic Journal of International Law, (78), 53-72.
    37. MacCormick, Neil (1996). The Concept of Law and the Concept of Law in RP George (ed.), The Autonomy of Law: Essays of Legal Positivism, Oxford University Press, 163.
    38. Marks, Susan (2007). International Judicial Activism and the Commodity Form Theory of International Law. 18 The European Journal of International Law, (18), 199, 151 & 204.
    39. Marks, Susan (2007). The Riddle of All Constitutions: International law, Democracy, and the critique of Ideology, Oxford University Press.
    40. Marks, Susan (ed.) (2008). International Law on the ‎Left: Re-examining Marxist Legacies, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge ‎University Pres
    41. Mieville, China (2005). Between Equal Rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law, Leiden and Boston: Brill.
    42. Mullerson, R. (2000). Ordering Anarchy: International Law in International Society, Leiden: Martinus Nijhof.
    43. Nollkaemper, A., and Jacobs, D. (2013). Shared Responsibility in International Law: A Conceptual Framework. Michigan Journal of International Law, (34), 408-412.
    44. Nollkaemper, Andre´ (2022). Change in the Law of International Responsibility, Besson, Samantha (ed. Et al), Theories of International Responsibility Law, Cambridge University Press.
    45. Orrego, Cristóbal (2014). Gains and Losses in Jurisprudence since H.L.A. Hart. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, Vol. 59, (2), 111-132.
    46. Payandeh, Mehrdad (2010). The Concept of International Law in the Jurisprudence of H.L.A. Hart. The European Journal of International Law 21 (4), 967–995.
    47. Rainbow Warrior (New Zealand v. France), France-New Zealand Arbitration Tribunal, Award of 30 April 1990, 82 Intl Law Reports.
    48. Raz, Joseph (1971). The Identity of Legal Systems. California Law Review,(59), 795-815.
    49. Schultz, Thomas, (2011) "Secondary rules of recognition and relative legality in transnational regimes", The American Journal of Jurisprudence, Vol. 56, 59-88
    50. Stevenson, Drury D. (2014). Kelsen's View of the Addressee of the Law: Primary and Secondary Norms (June 21, 2014). Kelsen in America Interdisciplinary Conference hosted by Valparaiso University School of Law at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, June 27 – 28, 1-23.
    51. Tamanaha, Brian, Z (2006). A Socio-Legal Methodology for the Internal/External Distinction: Jurisprudential Implications. Fordham Law Review, (75), 1255-1274.
    52. Van Doren, John W., (1980) "Theories of Professors H.L.A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin - A Critique", 29 Cleveland State Law Review, 279-309.
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی
دوره 14، شماره 1
بهار و تابستان 1402
تیر 1402
صفحه 313-334

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار