موانع آمره بودن قاعده منع توسل به زور

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

چکیده

نظریه قاعده آمره، نخستین بار در چارچوب کنوانسیون 1969 وین در زمینه حقوق معاهدات وارد حقوق بین‌الملل موضوعه شد. بر اساس ماده 53 این کنوانسیون، سه شاخص عام‌بودن قاعده، تخطی‌ناپذیری و شناسایی و پذیرش تخطی‌ناپذیری آن از سوی جامعه بین‌الملل دولت‌ها در کل خود، شاخص‌های شناسایی قاعده آمره هستند. از سوی دیگر، باور به آمره‌بودن قاعده منع توسل به زور گسترده است اما سنجش قاعده منع توسل به زور با شاخص‌های فوق، نشان می‌دهد این قاعده را نمی‌توان آمره قلمداد نمود چرا که آمره‌بودن (یا تخطی‌ناپذیری) آن به اندازه کافی مورد شناسایی و پذیرش دولت‌ها در کل خود قرار نگرفته و همچنین این قاعده به­موجب دفاع مشروع و اقدام نظامی بر مبنای مجوز شورای امنیت به­ترتیب قابل اعتذار و تخطی است. اما در مقابل، قاعده منع تجاوز ،به­واقع تخطی‌ناپذیر و بدون استثناست و آمره‌بودن آن به­صورت ضمنی مورد شناسایی و پذیرش دولت‌ها در کل خود قرار گرفته است. بنابراین به نظر می‌رسد قاعده آمره حقوق بین الملل توسل به زور، قاعده منع تجاوز باشد

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Impediments to Peremptory Status of Prohibition on Use of Force

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohsen Abdollahi 1
  • Keyvan Behzadi 2
1 Associate Professor in International Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran
2 Corresponding Author, Ph.D. Student of International Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, k1.behzadi@gmail.com.
چکیده [English]

The theory of jus cogens entered into the international positive law by virtue of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. According to its article 53, there are three criteria for identification of a peremptory norm which are (i) being a norm of general international law, (ii) non-derogability, and (iii) recognition and acceptance of non-derogability by the international community of States as a whole. Furthermore, belief in the peremptory status of the ban on use of force is widespread but an evaluation of the prohibition on use of force based on the above-mentioned criteria demonstrates that the prohibition on use of force could not be considered as a peremptory norm since such nature has not been sufficiently recognized by the States. furthermore, it is derogable and apologetic under Security Council’s authorization to use force and self-defense, respectively. In contrast, the prohibition on aggression is indeed non-derogable and without any exception and also its peremptory nature has been implicitly recognized by the international community of States as a whole. Thus, it appears that the peremptory norm of international law on use of force should be the prohibition on aggression.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Prohibition on Use of Force
  • jus cogens
  • self-defense
  • Collective Security System
  • Positivism
  • الف. فارسی

    ـ کتاب‌

    • فلسفی، هدایت‌الله؛ حقوق بین‌الملل معاهدات، چاپ سوم، ویراست سوم، فرهنگ نشر نو، 1391.
    • کاسسه، آنتونیو؛ نقشزوردرروابطبین‌الملل، ترجمه: مرتضی کلانتریان، چاپ دوم، آگه، 1393.

     

    ـ مقاله

    • زمانی، سیدقاسم؛ «جایگاه قاعده آمره در میان منابع حقوق بین‌الملل»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، شماره 22، بهار و تابستان 1377.

     

    ب. انگلیسی

    - Books

    • Dinstein, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, Cambridge University Press, 5th Ed., 2011.
    • Goldstein, J. S., Pevehouse, J. C., International Relations, Pearson, 2014.
    • Weisburd, A. M., Use of Force: The Practice of States Since World War II, Penn State University Press; 1st Edition, 1997.

     

    - Articles

    • Akehurst, Michael, “The Hierarchy of the Sources of International Law”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 47, 1975.
    • Bassiouni, M. Cherif., “International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes”, Law & Contemporary Problems, Vol. 59, 1996.
    • Charlesworth, Hilary, Chinkin, Christine, “The Gender of Jus Cogens”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1993.
    • Christenson, Gordon A., “The World Court and Jus Cogens”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 81, No. 1, 1987.
    • D’Amato, Anthony, “It’s Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s Jus Cogens”, Connecticut Journal of International Law, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1990.
    • Delahunty. Robert J., “Paper Charter: Self-Defense and the Failure of the United Nations Collective Security System”, Catholic University Law Review, Vol. 56, Issue 3, 2007.
    • Focarelli, Carlo, “Promotional Jus Cogens: A Critical Appraisal of Jus Cogens’ Legal Effects”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 77, 2008.
    • Green, J. A., “Questioning the Peremptory Status of the Prohibition of the Use of Force”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 32, Issue 2, 2011.
    • Johnson, Samuel J., “Jus Cogens: Theory, Case Studies, Justifications and Problems of International Peremptory Norms”, Grove City College Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 5, 2014.
    • Kahgan, Carin, “Jus Cogens and the Inherent Right to Self-Defense”, ILSA J. International & Comparative Law, Vol. 3, 1996-1997.
    • Kelsen, Hans, “Collective Security and Collective Self-Defense under the Charter of the United Nations”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 42.
    • Kupchan, Charles, A., Kupchan, Clifford A., “The Promise of Collective Security”, International Security, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1995.
    • Laursen, Andreas, “The Use of Force and (the State of) Necessity”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 37, 2004.
    • Linderfalk, Ulf, “The Effect of Jus Cogens Norms: Whoever Opened Pandora’s Box, Did You Ever Think about the Consequences?”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 5, 2008.
    • Reisman, W. Michael, “Coercion and Self-Determination: Construing Charter Article 2(4)”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 78, No. 3, July 1984.
    • Schachter, Oscar, “The Right of States to Use Armed Force”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 82, No. 5/6, 1984.
    • Schwarzenberger, Georg, “International Jus Cogens?”, Texas Law Review, Vol. 43, 1964-1965.
    • Simma, Bruno, “NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, 1999.
    • Stephan, Paul B., “The Political Economy of Jus Cogens”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 44, 2011.
    • Tunkin, Grigory I., “Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law”, University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 3, 1971.
    • Verdross, Alfred,“Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 60, 1966.
    • Weil, Prosper, “Towards Relative Normativity in International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 77, 1983.
    • Weisburd, A. Mark., “The Emptiness of the Concept of Jus Cogens, As Illustrated by the War in Bosnia-Herzegovina”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1995.

     

    - Cases

    • Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda), Preliminary Objection, 3 Feb. 2002, I.C.J. Rep., 2002.
    • Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, 27 Jun. 1986, I.C.J. Rep., 1986.
    • Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Merits, 2003, I.C.J. Rep., 6 Nov. 2003.
    • Jurisdictional Immunities of the States (Germany v. Italy), Merits, 3 Feb. 2012, I.C.J. Rep., 2012.

     

    - Documents

    • Ago, Roberto, Yearbook of International Law Commission, Vol. 2, 1980, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/318/Add.5-7.
    • Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Yearbook of International Law Commission, 2005, Vol. II, Part Two, U.N. Doc. A/64/10.
    • Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Yearbook of International Law Commission, 2005, Vol. II, Part Two, U.N. Doc. A/64/10.
    • G.A. Res. 3314 (XXIX), Definition of Aggression, 14 Dec. 1974, Art. 5, para. 1.
    • G.A. Res. 42/22, Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, 18 Nov. 1987, para. 3.
    • I.L.C. Rep., Yearbook of International Law Commission, vol. 2, 1963, U.N, Doc. A/CN.4/163.
    • I.L.C. Rep., Yearbook of International Law Commission, vol. 2, 1966, U.N, Doc. A/CN.4/191.
    • I.L.C. Rep., Yearbook of International Law Commission, vol. 2, 1976, U.N, Doc. A/31/10.
    • Report of Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression, p. 4, U.N. GAOR, 23rd Sess., 1968, U.N. Doc. A/7185/Rev. 1.
    • Sixth Committee Rep., 1179th mtg., p. 14, U.N. GAOR, 25th Sess., Sept. 24 1970, U.N. Doc A/C.6/SR.1179.
    • Special Comm. on Principles of Int’l Law Concerning Friendly Rel. and Co-Operation Among States, Rep., p. 119, U.N. GAOR, 25th Sess., 1970, Supp. No. 18, U.N. Doc. A/8018.
    • Statute of International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 Jul. 1998.
    • Tladi, Dire, Special Rapporteur, First Report on Jus Cogens, International Law Commission, 68th Sess., 2016, U.N. Doc.A/CN.4/693.
    • Tladi, Dire, Special Rapporteur, Second Report on Jus Cogens, International Law Commission, 69th Sess., 2017, U.N. Doc.A/CN.4/706.
    • Tladi, Dire, Special Rapporteur, Third Report on jus cogens, International Law Commission, 70th Sess., 2018, U.N. Doc.A/CN.4/714.
    • Tladi, Dire, Special Rapporteur, Fourth Report on Peremptory Norms of General International Law (jus cogens), International Law Commission, 71st Sess., 2019, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/727.
    • United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, 1st Session Vienna, 26 March-24 May 1968, Official Records, p. 471, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/11.