عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
United Nations Security Council as the primary responsible organ for the maintenance of international peace and security and the superior political part of international order, has a prominent place in international community. However, this prominent position will not prevent International Courts to judicially control acts of this organ. Based on a precedent which has been started since 2008 and in Kadi Case, the European Court of Justice has frequently acted to judicially control Security Council acts in numerous instances. Moreover, other International Courts have declared their opinions on challenge of possibility of Judicial Control of Security Council acts. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Tadic Case, European Court of Human Rights in Behrami and Saramati Case and Nada Case, Special Tribunal for Lebanon in Ayyash Case, and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Kanyabashi Case, confronting this question in exercising of their jurisdiction, have adopted various approaches. However, this possibility has existed for International Criminal Court to judicially control the resolutions which contains referred position by the Security Council. While International Court of Justice has no limitation in this regard, in Lockerbie Case, Namibia Case, Certain Expenses Case, and Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro Case which can control the legitimacy of Council acts, conveniently abstained and preferred to continue to pacific coexistence with Security Council, acting as two organs of an International organization. Thus, there is an emerging International practice related to possibility of Judicial Control of International Courts on Security Council.