مجله حقوقی بین المللی

مجله حقوقی بین المللی

قابلیت پذیرش ادله غیرقانونی در حقوق بین الملل: بررسی موردی اسناد ویکی لیکس

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان
سید حسین سادات میدانی 1
نادیا ملانسب 2
1 عضو هیات علمی دانشکده روابط بین الملل وزارت امور خارجه
2 کارشناسی ارشد رشته دیپلماسی و سازمان های بین المللی گرایش حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده روابط بین الملل وزارت امور خارجه
10.22066/cilamag.2022.251944
چکیده
ادلة‌ اثبات دعوا نقش ­بسزایی در پیشبرد اجرای عدالت در دادرسی ­های بین‌المللی دارد. در دعاوی بین‌الدولی این دولت‌ها هستند که خود به‌عنوان اطراف دعوا اقدام به تحصیل و ارائة ادله می‌کنند و گاهی احتمال دارد که یکی از طرف‌‌ها با نقض حقوق بین­ الملل، اقدام به جمع‌‌آوری ادله کند. قابلیت پذیرش ادلة تحصیل‌شدة غیرقانونی، موضوعی بحث‌برانگیز در رویه‌‌قضایی و آموزه‌های علمای حقوق بین‌الملل است. ازجمله این موضوع اخیراً با انتشار اسناد دیپلماتیک از طریق تارنمای ویکی­لیکس مورد بحث قرار گرفته است. در برخی از قضایای بین‌المللی، اصحاب دعوا کوشیده­اند از این تلگراف‌ها به‌عنوان دلیل اثبات حقیقت در محضر دادگاه‌های بین‌المللی و داخلی بهره جویند. پژوهش حاضر تلاش دارد تا به این سؤال پاسخ دهد که قابلیت پذیرش تلگراف­ های دیپلماتیک افشاشده در رویة دادرسی­ های قضایی بین ­المللی چه جایگاهی دارد. مقاله نشان می­دهد که علی‌رغم اهمیت ­یافتن ادلة‌ اثبات دعوا، تا زمانی که اطراف دعوا ایراداتی را بر ادلة ارائه‌شده مطرح نکنند، دادگاه­ ها و دیوان­ های بین­ المللی اکراه دارند که به ابتکار خود، قابلیت پذیرش ادلة ارائه‌شده را بررسی کنند. در این پژوهش در وهلة نخست، مبانی نظری قابلیت پذیرش ادلة تحصی ل­شدة غیرقانونی در حقوق بین­ الملل بررسی و سپس به رویة بین ­المللی در خصوص قابلیت پذیرش تلگراف ­های دیپلماتیک افشاشده پرداخته شده است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
ادله اثبات دعوی
قابلیت پذیرش
ادله تحصیل شده غیرقانونی
تلگراف دیپلماتیک افشاشده
ویکی لیکس
دادرسی های بین‌المللی

عنوان مقاله English

The Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence in International Law: A Case Study of WikiLeaks Documents

نویسندگان English

Seyed Hossein Sadat Meidani 1
Nadia Molanasab 2
1 استادیار
2 MA in Diplomacy and International Organizations, major in International Law and International Economic Organisatons, from International School of Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
چکیده English

Law of Evidence plays a significant role in advancing the implementation of justice in International Proceedings. In international claims, the states collect and present the evidence as the litigants. It is conceivable that one of the parties violates International Law and the other party's rights to obtain evidence through illegal methods. In this regard, the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence has become a controversial issue in jurisprudence and International Law doctrines. This issue has been discussed recently with the diplomatic cables leak through the WikiLeaks website. In some international proceedings, the litigants have tried to use the cables as evidence to prove a fact before international and domestic courts. The present article aims to answer this question: what is the status of the admissibility of disclosed diplomatic cables in the procedure of international judicial proceedings? This article shows that despite the importance of finding the evidence in substantiation of claims, in international judicial proceedings, the international courts and tribunals are reluctant to accept them on their own initiative until the litigants raise objections to that evidence.
 In this study, first of all, the theoretical foundations of the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in International Law have been explained. Then the international practices regarding the admissibility of disclosed diplomatic cables have been illuminated.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Law of Evidence
Admissibility
Illegally Obtained Evidence
Diplomatic Cables Leak
WikiLeaks
International Proceedings

  1. منابع:

    الف. فارسی

    ـ کتاب

    1. ذوالعین، پرویز؛ حقوق دیپلماتیک، چاپ ششم، مرکز آموزش و پژوهش­های بین ­المللی، 1394.
    2. سادات میدانی، سید حسین؛ دیوان بین‌‌المللی دادگستری ادلة‌ اثبات دعوا، جنگل، 1391.
    3. ممتاز، جمشید؛ ایران و حقوق بین‌‌الملل، دادگستر، 1376.
    4. میرعباسی، سیدباقر و سیدحسین سادات میدانی؛ دیوان بین­ المللی دادگستری در تئوری و عمل، جلد 3، جنگل، 1384.

     

    ـ مقاله

    1. سادات میدانی، سیدحسین؛ «مجموعه مقالات پیرامون رأی دیوان بین ­المللی دادگستری در قضیة سکوهای نفتی دعوا جمهوری اسلامی ایران علیه ایالات متحدة امریکا»، دفتر مطالعات حقوقی، مرکز پژوهش‌‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی، شمارة 46، 1384.

     

    ب. انگلیسی

    - Books

    1. Aguilar Mawdsley, Andrés, “Evidence before the International Court of Justice”, In: Macdonald, Ronald St. John (ed.), Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya, Dordrecht, Boston and London, Martinus Nijhoff, 1994.
    2. Aust, Anthony, Handbook of International Law, Oxford University Press, 3rd Edition, 2010.
    3. Behrens, Paul, Diplomatic Law in a New Millennium, Oxford University Press, 2017.
    4. Denza, Eileen, Diplomatic Law, Oxford University Press, 3rd Edition, 2008.
    5. Feller, A.H., The Mexican Claims Commission 1923–1934, New York, 1935.
    6. Riddell, Anna, Plant, Brendan, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009.
    7. Rosenne, Shabtai, The Law and Practice of the International Court 1920–2005, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 4th Edition, 2006.
    8. Zimmermann, Andreas, et al. (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice, Oxford University Press, 2012.

     

    - Articles

    1. Bertrou, Gregoire, Alekhin, Sergey, “The Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence in International Arbitration: Does the End Justify the Means?”, The Paris Journal of International Arbitration, 2018.
    2. Blair, Cherie, Vidak Gojkovic, Ema, “WikiLeaks and Beyond: Discerning an International Standard for the Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence”, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, vol. 33, Issue 1, 2018.
    3. Boykin, James, Malik, Havalic, “Fruits of the Poisonous Tree: The Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence in International Arbitration”, Transnational Dispute Management, 2014.
    4. Brower, Charles N., “Evidence before International Tribunals: The Need for Some Standard Rules”, International Lawyer, vol. 28, No. 1, 1994.
    5. Carty, Anthony, “The Corfu Channel Case- And the Missing Admiralty Orders”, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, vol. 3, Issue 1, 2004.
    6. Chen, Siyuan, “Re-Assessing the Evidentiary Regime of the International Court of Justice: A Case For Codifying its Discretion to Exclude Evidence”, International Commentary on Evidence, vol. 13, Issue 1, 2015.
    7. Hasan Shah, Nasim, “Discovery by Intervention: The Right of A State to Seize Evidence Located within the Territory of the Respondent State”, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 53, No. 3, 1959.
    8. Higgins, Rosalyn, “Respecting Sovereign States and Running a Tight Courtroom”, The International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 50, No. 1, 2001.
    9. Highet, Keith, “Evidence, the Court and the Nicaragua Case”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 81, No. 1, 1987.
    10. Kazazi, Mojtaba, Shifman, Bette E., “Evidence before International Tribunals-Introduction”, International Law FORUM du Droit International, vol. 1, No. 4, November 1999.
    11. Lalaj, Ana, “Burning Secrets of the Corfu Channel Incident”, In: Ostermann, Christian F. (ed.), The Cold War International History Project Working Paper Series, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Working Paper No. 70, 2014.
    12. Mansour Fallah, Sara, “The Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence before International Courts and Tribunals”, The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, vol. 19, Issue 2, 2020.
    13. Marco, Roscini, “Digital Evidence as a Means of Proof before the International Court of Justice”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, vol. 21, No. 3, 2016.
    14. Ospina, Edvardou Valencia, “Evidence before the International Court of Justice”, International Law Forum du Droit International, vol. 1, No. 4, 1999.
    15. Palchetti, Paolo, “Making and Enforcing Procedural Law at the International Court of Justice”, Question of International Law, vol. 61, 2019.
    16. Reisman, W. Micheal, Freedman, Eric E., “The Plaintiff’s Dilemma: Illegally Obtained Evidence and Admissibility in International Adjuducation”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 76, No. 4, 1982.
    17. Thirlway, Hugh, “Dilemma or Chimera? The Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence in International Adjudication”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 78, Issue 3, 1984.
    18. Tomka, Peter, Proulx, Vincent-Joel, “The Evidentiary Practice of the World Court”, Working Paper 2015/010, National University of Singapore, 2015.

     

    - Case Law

    1. Al Matri v. Council, Case T-200/11, ECLI: EU: T: 2013:275.
    2. Al Nashiri v. Poland, ECHR, Application, No. 28761/11, 24 July 2014.
    3. Armed Activities on The Territory of Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo Uganda, I.C.J., Judgment, 2022.
    4. Bank Mellat v. Council, Case T-496/10, ECLI: EU: T: 2013:39.
    5. Bank Saderat Iran v. Council, Case T-494/10, ECLI: EU: T: 2013:59.
    6. Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Bosnia and Herzegovina Serbia and Montenegro, I.C.J., Judgment, 2007.
    7. Case Concerning Corfu Channel, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Albania, Merits, I.C.J., Judgment, 1949.
    8. Case Concerning Oil Platforms, Islamic Republic of Iran United States of America, I.C.J., Judgment, 6 November 2003.
    9. Case Concerning S. Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, United States of America v. Iran, I.C.J., Judgment, 1980.
    10. Dalmine v. Commission, Case T-50/00 ECR II-2405, 2004.
    11. El-Masri v. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ECHR, Judgment, No. 39630/09, 2012.
    12. Persia International Bank v. Council, Case T-493/10, ECLI: EU: T: 2013:398.
    13. Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al, Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), Request for the Admission of a Document and Submissions in Favor of the Admissibility of Diplomatic Cables Published on the WikiLeaks Website, Case No. STL-11-01/T/TC, 17 April 2015.

     

    1. Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL, Decision on Public with Confidential Annexes A and B, Prosecution Motion to Call Three Additional Witnesses, Case No. SCSL-03-01-T-993, 29 June 2010.
    2. Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL, Defense Opening Statement, Case No. SCSL-03-01-T, 13 July 2009.
    3. Prosecutor v. Taylor, The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), Decision on the Urgent and Public with Annexes A-C, Defence Motion to Re-Open its Case in Order to Seek Admission of Documents Relating to the Relationship between the United States Government and the Prosecution of Charles Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-T-1171, 27 January 2011.
    4. The Prosecutor v. Salim Jamil Ayyash et al., STL, Badreddine Defense Motion for Certification to Appeal the Decision on the Admissibility of Documents Published on the WikiLeaks Website, 2015.
    5. The Prosecutor v. Salim Jamil Ayyash et al., STL, Badreddine Reply, 2015.
    6. The Prosecutor v. Salim Jamil Ayyash et al., STL, Decision on the Admissibility of Documents Published on the WikiLeaks Website, 2015.
    7. United States v. Manning Bradley E., United States Army First Judicial Circuit, PFC, Special Findings, 15 August 2013.

     

    - Documents

    1. Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court 2002, 2271 UNTS 3, Adopted 9 September 2002.
    2. Annex II to Council Decision (CFSP) 2010/413/CFSP, 26 July 2010, Concerning Restrictive Measures against Iran and Repealing Common Position, 2007/140/CFSP, OJ L195/39, 2010.
    3. Annex V to Council Regulation, No. 423/2007, 19 April 2007, Concerning Restrictive Measures against Iran, OJ L103/1, 2007.
    4. Special Court of Lebanon, Rules of the Court.
    5. Special Court of Sierra Leone, Rules of the Court.
    6. Statute of International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998.
    7. Statute of Special Court of Lebanon.
    8. Statute of Special Court of Sierra Leone.
    9. Statute of the International Court of Justice, Rules of the Court.
    10. Statute of the International Court of Justice.
    11. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.

     

    - Website

    1. Clinton, Hillary, Consulate General of the United States, Eurasian University in Astana, Kazakhstan, 30 November 2010.
    2. Clinton, Hillary, Remarks by Secretary of State Clinton on Internet Freedom, S. Department of State, 15 February 2011.
    3. Clinton, Hillary, Remarks to the Press on Release of Purportedly Confidential Documents by WikiLeaks, S. Department of State, 29 November 2010.
    4. Cobain, Ian, The Guardian, CIA Rendition: More than a Quarter of Countries ‘Offered Covert Support’, 5 February 2013.
    5. Crowley, Philip J., Daily Press Briefing, S. Department of State, 1 December 2010.
    6. Freehills, Herbert Smith, García-Perrote, Guillermo, “Admissibility of Hacked Evidence in International Arbitration”, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 7 July 2021.
    7. The Guardian, U.S. Embassy Cables: The Protracted Case against Charles Taylor, 15 April 2009, at: <https://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202468>, last seen 28th July 2022.

  • تاریخ دریافت 27 مرداد 1400
  • تاریخ بازنگری 06 فروردین 1401
  • تاریخ پذیرش 06 اردیبهشت 1401