ماهیت و کارکردهای استدلال از راه مفهوم مخالف در رویه‌قضایی بین‌المللی

پیری, حیدر; عزیزی, ستار

doi:10.22066/cilamag.2021.129173.1920

ماهیت و کارکردهای استدلال از راه مفهوم مخالف در رویه‌قضایی بین‌المللی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

¹ مدرس مدعو، گروه حقوق دانشکدة علوم انسانی و اجتماعی دانشگاه کردستان

² دانشیار دانشکدة علوم انسانی دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان

10.22066/cilamag.2021.129173.1920

چکیده

دیوان بین المللی دادگستری و سَلف آن (دیوان دائمی بین المللی دادگستری) در بسیاری از آرای خود به مناسبت های مختلف (هم رأساً و هم در پاسخ به استدلال هی طرفین دعوا) به استدلال از راه مفهوم مخالف پرداخته اند. این سؤالها مطرح هستند که معیار و ضابطة وجود و عدم مفهوم مخالف در قوانین موضوعه و گزاره های حقوقی چیست؟ دیوان دائمی و دیوان جدید تا چه حد و چگونه به استدلال از راه مفهوم مخالف توسل جسته اند؟ این شیوه از استدلال از چه اهمیتی برخوردار است و در این میان آیا در ایجاد یک چارچوب حقوقی قابل پیشبینی و توسعة منسجم حقوق بین الملل سهیم بودهاند؟ تحلیل آرا و نظرات در خصوص مفهوم مخالف به طور خاص کمک می کند تا ماهیت آن را بهتر شناخته، ارزیابی بهتری از محتوا و کارکردهای آن داشت. فرضیة نویسندگان مقالة حاضر این است که با تتبع در رویه‌قضایی بین‌المللی به این نتیجه می‌توان رسید که استدلال از راه مفهوم مخالف، یکی از روش‌های اساسی و انعطاف‌پذیر استدلال در حقوق بین‌الملل است. دیوان دائمی و جدید از این روش استدلال برای توجیه آرای خود (متقاعدکردن طرفین دعوا برای پذیرش یک تصمیم حقوقی)، در فرایند تفسیر معاهدات برای رسیدن به مراد واقعی طرفین اسناد و به تعبیری کشف روح قانون و به‌عنوان وسیله فرعی در تعیین محتوای قواعد که باید در قضایای خاص اعمال شود (استنباط و کشف حکم حقوقی)، استفاده می‌کنند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Contrario Reasoning in International Jurisprudence: A Study of Its Function and Nature

نویسندگان [English]

Heidar Piri ¹
satar azizi ²

¹ Visiting Lecturer, Law Department, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan

² Associate Prof., Law Department, Faculty of Humanity, BuAli Sina University, Hamedan

چکیده [English]

A contrario reasoning has been widely used in the Permanent Court of International Justice & its successor (International Court of Justice) on various occasions. The questions ariseing are, what is the criterion for the existence and non-existence of a contrario in the statutory law and legal propositions? To what extent and how has a contrario reasoning been used in the PCIJ and ICJ jurisprudence? What is the importance of this essential argument? And finally, have they contributed to the creation of a predictable legal framework and the coherent development of international law? Analysis of the judgments and advisory opinions regarding this concept help us to understand the nature of the concept and to assess its scope in a better way. Having Followed up the judicial procedure, it is concluded that a contrario reasoning is one of the basic and flexible methods of reasoning in international law. The ICJ and its predecessor have used this form of reasoning to justify their decisions, in the process of interpreting a treaty to discover the spirit of the law, and as a supplementary means for the determination of the content of rules to be applied in certain cases. This form of legal reasoning has also been cited many times and in various contexts in all major substantive fields of international law.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

A Contrario
International Jurisprudence
Legal Reasoning
Interpretation of Treaties
Methods of Interpretation
ICJ

مراجع

الف. فارسی
- فلسفی، هدایت‌الله؛ حقوق بینالملل معاهدات، فرهنگ نشر نو، 1383.
- · کاتوزیان، ناصر؛ فلسفة حقوق، جلد 3، شرکت سهامی انتشار، 1385.
- محقق داماد، سیدمصطفی؛ اصول فقه، مرکز نشر علوم اسلامی، 1386.
ب. انگلیسی

- Books
- Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.
- Corten, O; Klein, P (eds), The Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, Oxford: OUP, 2010.
- De Visscher, Charles, Problèmes d’interprétation Judiciaire en Droit International Public, Paris, 1963.
- Klingler, Joseph. Between the Lines of the Vienna Convention? Wolters Kluwer, 2019.
- Linderfalk, Ulf, On the Interpretation of Treaties: The Modern International Law as Expressed in the 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2007.
- McNair, Lord, The Law of Treaties, Oxford, 1986.
- Oppenheim’s International Law (9th ed., R. Jennings & A. Watts eds, Oxford 2008).
- Scalia, A, “Common Law Courts in a Civil Law System”, in: A Matter of Interpretation, Princeton University Press, 1997.
- Sinclair, I, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Manchester University Press,1984.
- Villiger, Mark. ‘The Rules on Interpretation: Misgivings, Misunderstandings, Miscarriage?’ in: E Cannizzaro (ed), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention, Oxford: OUP, 2011.
- Articles
- Abdulqawi A. Yusuf; Peat, Daniel, “A Contrario Interpretation in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice”, CJCCL, 2017, Vol. 3(1).
- Schreuer, CH, “Diversity and Harmonization of Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration”, Transnational Dispute Management, Vol. 3.
- Garner, James W.; Jobst, Valentine, “Codification of International Law: Part III– Law of Treaties”, AJILS, Vol. 29, 1935.
- Senegacnik, A. “Expressio Unius (Est) Exclusio Alterius”, Max Plank Encyclopedias of International Law, 2018.
- Cases
- Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Colombia), 2016, ICJ Rep.
- Asylum Case (Columbia/Peru), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Bedawi Pasha, ICJ Rep 1950.
- Barbados v. Republic of Trinidad & Tobago, Permanent Court of Arbitration, Award of April 11, 2006.
- Barcelona Traction. Light and Power Company Limited, ICJ Rep, Judgement, 1970.
- Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v Iran), 1980, ICJ Rep.
- Case of S.S. Wimbledon, “Counter-Memorial (Additional Volume)”, PCIJ (Series C) No. 3.
- Certain Iranian Assets, Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States, Preliminary Objections, 2019.
- Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger), Judgment, 2013, ICJ Rep.
- Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras), Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, ICJ Rep 1990.
- Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Judgment, ICJ Rep. 1986.
- Prosecutor v. Zenjil Delalic et al., ICTY Case No. IT-96-21-T, Trial Chamber, Judgment, 1998.
- Provident Mutual Life Insurance Co (United States) v Germany, Arbitral Award, Germany–United States Mixed Claims Commission, Decision 18 September 1924, 7 UNRIAA.
- Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary objections, Judgment of 17 March 2016.
- Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland (Railway Sector Landwarów- Kaisiadorys), Advisory Opinion of 15 October 1931, PCIJ (Ser A/B) No. 42.
- Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), Judgment, ICJ Rep. 1960.
- S.S. Wimbledon, PCIJ, Series A, No. 1, 1923.
- Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application by Honduras for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, ICJ Re, 2011 (II).
- Reports and Instruments
- American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogota), 30 April 1948, (entered into force 6 May 1949).
- Convention on Asylum (Havana, February 20, 1928), Entry into force: 21 May 1929.
- Convention on Freedom of Transit and Statute of Freedom of Transit, 20 April 1921, (entered into force 31 October 1922).
- Klaipėda Convention (or Convention and Transitory Provision concerning the Territory of Memel) Lithuania and the Countries of the Conference of Ambassadors, signed in Paris on May 8, 1924 (entered into force August 1925).
- Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council” (25 November 1979) UN Doc S/13646.
- Report of the ILC to the General Assembly, Commentary to Article 28 of the Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties, 1966.
- Sir Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur, “Third Report on the Law of Treaties”, UN doc. A/CN.4/167, reproduced in YILC, 1964, Vol. II.
- Treaty of Peace with Germany (Treaty of Versailles), 28 June 1919, (entered into force 10 January 1920).