مشروعیت و آستانه جدایی چاره ساز درحقوق بین الملل

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل دانشکده علوم انسانی دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان

2 دانشیار دانشکده علوم انسانی دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان

10.22066/cilamag.2019.78316.1428

چکیده

پاسخ به مسئله مشروعیت جدایی یکجانبه، در حقوق بین‌الملل قراردادی یافت نمی‌شود. ازاین­رو باید حکم این موضوع را در حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی جستجو کرد. به علت اختلاف­نظر جدی در رویه دولت‌ها و نظریات علمای حقوق، به نظر می‌رسد که باید از رویه‌قضایی داخلی (به‌عنوان یکی از مظاهر برجسته عملکرد دولت‌ها) و رویه‌قضایی بین‌المللی استفاده کرد. بررسی آرای داخلی و رویه کمیسیون آفریقایی حقوق بشر و مردم، حاکی از پذیرش نظریه جدایی چاره‌ساز در پاسخ به مشروعیت جدایی یکجانبه است. در خصوص آستانه موردنظر جهت تحقق جدایی چاره‌ساز نیز میان دولت‌ها و حقوق‌دانان اختلاف‌نظر وجود دارد. رویه‌قضایی از میان دو آستانه بالا و متوسط، آستانه اخیر را پذیرفته است و ملهم از شرط محافظ مندرج در اعلامیه روابط دوستانه، انکار نظام‌مند مشارکت «مردم» را در اداره امور محلی و ملی و تبعیض گسترده علیه آن‌ها برای ایجاد حق جدایی کافی می‌داند. در هر حال، جدایی یکجانبه باید آخرین راه چاره باشد. در این مقاله، مشروعیت و آستانه لازم جهت حصول حق جدایی چاره‌ساز بررسی می­شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Legitimacy and Remedial Secession Threshold in International Law

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Veisi Chameh 1
  • Sattar Azizi 2
1 PhD student in International Law, Faculty of Humanities, University of Bu Ali Sina, Hamadan
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Humanities, University of Bu Ali Sina, Hamadan
چکیده [English]

Regarding legitimacy and requisite threshold which must be met to create the remedial secession, there is yet no consensus between the views of jurists and countries. Some countries are led to believe that the very existence of people should be threatened by the central government and genocide or crimes against humanity must be committed against them. But most of the countries and jurists including the authors  who are inspired by safeguarding clause included in the Declaration of Friendly Relations consider systematic denial in people`s participation in managing local affairs and extensive discrimination against them adequate for making the right to secession.
By all means, unilateral secession should be considered as a last remedy and resort and there should be no alternative for maintaining territorial integrity. In this article, legitimacy and required threshold for achieving remedial secession will be discussed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • The Right of Self-Determination
  • the Right of External Self-Determination
  • Remedial secession
  • Unilateral Declaration
  • Judicial Precedence
  • Verification of Customary Rules
  • Non-Colonial Situation

الف. فارسی

  • ·      حبیبی، همایون و علی نواری؛ «ارزیابی وجود حق بر جدایی چاره‌ساز یا جبرانی به‌عنوان قاعده حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، شماره 51، پاییز و زمستان 1393.
  • ·      رنجبریان، امیرحسین و رضوان باقرزاده؛ «شناخت قانون‌سازی بین‌المللی در پرتو ملاحظه کلی قانون‌سازی در علم حقوق»، فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، شماره 74، 1395.
  • ·      عزیزی، ستار؛ «استقلال کوزوو: بررسی مشروعیت جدایی یکجانبه در حقوق بین‌الملل»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، شماره 38، بهار و تابستان 1387.
  • ·      _________؛ «درخواست رأی مشورتی درباره استقلال کوزوو، تأملی بر نظریه کتبی ایران در پرتو نظریات کتبی دیگر دولت‌ها»، سالنامه ایرانی حقوق بین‌الملل و تطبیقی، شماره 4، 1387.
  • ·      _________؛ «رویکرد متعارض دولت‌ها به حق تعیین سرنوشت خارجی: بررسی نظریات کتبی دولت‌ها در رأی مشورتی کوزوو»، مجله پژوهش‌های حقوقی، سال هشتم، شماره 16، زمستان 1388.
  • ·      _________؛ «موضع و دلایل حقوقی روسیه در شناسایی جمهوری‌های آبخازیا، اوستیای جنوبی و عدم شناسایی کوزوو»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، شماره 42، بهار و تابستان 1389.
  • ·      _________؛ «رویکرد دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری به حق تعیین سرنوشت در رأی مشورتی کوزوو»، فصلنامه حقوق، مجله دانشکده حقوق­وعلوم­­سیاسی، دوره 40 شماره 8، زمستان 1389.
  • ·      فلسفی، هدایت‌الله؛ «ماجرای تفسیر در دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری»، مجموعه مقالات همایش نقش دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در تداوم و توسعه حقوق بین‌الملل، انجمن ایرانی مطالعات سازمان ملل متحد، 1389.

 

ب. انگلیسی

- Books

  • Bayefski, Anne F., Self-Determination in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned: Legal Opinion, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2000.
  • Buchheit Lee, C. Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination, Yale University Press, 1978.
  • Cassese, Antonio, Self-Determination of People: A Legal Reappraisal, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  • Crawford, James, Creation of States in International Law, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2006.
  • Weatley, Steven, Democracy, Minorities and International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005.

 

- Articles

  • Borgen, Christopher J., “Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: Self-Determination, Secession and Recognition”, http://www.asil.org/insights 080229.cfm, vol. 12, 2008.
  • Buchanan, Allen, “Theories of Secession”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 26, No.1, 1997.
  • Buchanan, Allen, “Uncoupling Secession from Nationalism and Intra-State Autonomy from Secession”, in: Negotiating Self-Determination, edited by Hurst Hannum and Eileen F. Babbit, Lexington Books, 2005.
  • Boyle, A., & Crawford, J., “Annex A Opinion: Referendum on the Independence of Scotland - International Law Aspects. (Scotland Analysis: Devolution and the Implications of Scottish Independence). UK Government. 2012.
  • Crawford, James, “The Right of Self-Determination in International Law: The Development and Future”, in: Peoples Rights, edited by Philip Aleston, Oxford University Press, 2001.
  • Dugard, John and David Raic, “The Role of Recognition in the Law and Practice of Secession”, in: Secession: International Law Perspectives, edited by Marcelo Kohen, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
  • Fierstein, Daniel, “Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: an Incident Analysis of Legality, Policy and Future Implications”, Boston University Law Journal, 2008.
  • Hanna, Roya M., “Right to Self-Determination in Resecession of Quebec”, Maryland Journal of International Law, vol. 23, 1999.
  • Hannum, Hurst, “Rethinking Self-Determination”, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 34, 1993.
  • Hilpold, Peter, “Self-determination and Autonomy: Between Secession and International Self-Determination” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, vol. 24, 2017.
  • Mullerson, Rein, “Precedents in the Mountains: on the Parallels and Uniqueness of the Cases of Kosovo, South Ossettia and Abkhasia”, Chinese Journal of International Law, 2009.
  • Murswiek, Dietricht, “The Issue of a Right to Secession-Reconsidered”, Modern Law of Self-Determination, edited by Christian Tomuschat, 1st ed., Springers, 1993.
  • Pechalova, Tanita, “Remedial Secession as Right of Self-Determination: The Cases of Kosovo and Abkhazia”, A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirment for the Degree of Masters in International and European Law, Awarded by Tilburg University Law School, Netherlands, 2017.
  • Peters, Anne, “Does Kosovo Lie in the Lotus-Land of Freedom?”, Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 24, No.1, 2011.
  • Ratner, Steven, “Drawing a Better Line: Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 90, 1996.
  • Ryngaert, Cerdic and Christine Griffioen, “The Revelance of the Right to Self-determination in the Kosovo Matter: in Partial Response to the Agora Papers”, Chinese Journal of International Law, vol. 8, No. 3, 2009.
  • Schachter, Oscar, “Micronationalism and Secession, Recht Zwischen Umbruch undBewahrung, Berlin, 1995.
  • Tancredi, Antonello, “A Normative Due Process in the Creation of States Trought Secession”, in: Secession: International Law Perspectives, edited by Marcelo Kohen, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
  • Tomuschat, Christian, “Self-Determination in a Post-Colonial World”, in: Modern Law of Self-Determination, edited by Christian Tomuschat, 1st ed., Springers, 1993.
  • Tomuschat, Christian, “Secession and Self-Determination”, in: Secession: International Law Perspectives, edited by Marcelo Kohen, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
  • Van den Driest, Simone, “Crimea’s Separation from Ukraine: An Analysis of the Right to Self-Determination and (Remedial) Secession in International Law”, Netherland International Review, vol. 62, 2015.

 

- Instruments and Reports

  • Advisory Opinion, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, ICJ Reports, 2010.
  • Constitution of Ethiopia, 1994.
  • Declaration on Principle of International Law Concerning Friendly Relation and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of United Nations. G.A. Resolution 2625, 24 October, 1970.
  • International Tribunal for the Prosecutionof Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Commited in the Territory of Yugoslavia Since 1191, Case No. IT-95-16-T, 14 January, 2000.
  • Katangese Peoples Congress v. Zaire, African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, comm. No.75/92, 1995. Available at: http://www1.umn.edu/ humanrts/Africa/comcases/75-92.html.
  • Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al. v. Cameroon, African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, comm. No. 266/03, 2003. Available at: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/Africa/comcases/266=03.html.
  • Oral Statement of Albania, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • Oral Statement of Germany, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • Oral Statement of Jordan, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • Oral Statement of Netherlands, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • Oral Statement of Romania, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • Reference re Secession of Quebec, S.C.R.217 (Supreme Court of Canada), 20 August 1998.
  • Separate Opinion of Judge Trindade, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • Separate Opinion of Judge Yusuf, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • Wood, M., Special Rapporteur, International Law Commission, Second Report on Identification of Customary International Law, A/CN.4/672. 2014.
  • Written Statement (WS) of Germany, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • WS of Ireland, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • WS of Netherlands, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • WS of Poland, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • WS of Russia, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • WS of Stovenia, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.
  • WS of Swiss, International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010.