تاثیر مقرره مسدودساز اتحادیه اروپا بر قراردادهای تجاری بین المللی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

2 گروه حقوق خصوصی و اسلامی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

قوانین مسدودساز با هدف خنثی سازی آثار قوانین فراسرزمینی کشور ثالث وضع می‌شود و از یکسو، تمامی اشخاص مشمول را از رعایت این قوانین منع می‌کند و از سوی دیگر، تمهیدات حمایتی را برای این اشخاص به منظور جبران ضررهای عدم تبعیت از قوانین فراسرزمینی تدارک می‌بیند. اتحادیه اروپا مقرره مسدودساز را برای جلوگیری از تسری آثار تحریم‌های یکجانبه آمریکا علیه ایران، لیبی و کوبا تصویب کرد. این مقرره پس از خروج آمریکا از برجام اصلاح و برخی قوانین تحریمی آمریکا علیه ایران نیز مسدود شد. در حال حاضر، اشخاص مشمول مقرره بر سر دوراهی قرار گرفته‌اند؛ از یکسو ممکن است در روابط قراردادی خود با اشخاص مورد تحریم آمریکا، با نقض تحریم‌های فراسرزمینی آمریکا توسط مقامات آمریکایی تنبیه گردند و از سوی دیگر با نقض مقرره مسدودساز و پیروی از تحریم‌های آمریکا از سوی کشور متبوع خود جریمه شوند. فرضیه مقاله این است که در صورت نقض مقرره مسدودساز، فارغ از اعمال مجازات اداری و کیفری، از حیث حقوق مدنی نیز، شخص مورد تحریم که طرف قرارداد با متعهد اروپایی است می‌تواند با استناد به این مقرره الزام متعهد را از مرجع حل اختلاف درخواست کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Impacts of European Blocking Regulation on International Commercial Contracts

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohsen Izanloo 1
  • Arash Badkoubeh Hezaveh 2
1 Associated Professor of Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran
2 Private and Islamic Law Department of Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

Blocking statutes are enacted to neutralize the effects of third-country extraterritorial laws and, on the one hand, prohibit all covered persons from complying with these laws and, on the other hand, provide protective measures to protect covered persons against damages caused by non-compliance. The European Union passed the Blocking Regulation to counteract the effects of US unilateral sanctions against Iran, Libya, and Cuba. The Regulation was amended after the withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA, then, another US sanction law against Iran was blocked. Currently, the covered persons face a dilemma; they are punished by American authorities in the case of violating US extraterritorial sanctions in their contractual relations with US-sanctioned operators. In return,they also may be fined by their countries if they comply with the Blocked Laws because of violating the Blocking Regulation. The hypothesis of the article is that irrespective of applying administrative and criminal sanctions in the case of violation of the Blocking Regulation by the covered persons, from the civil viewpoint, the sanctioned person being a party to the contract with covered persons can litigate and invoke this Regulation against them. The claimant can ask the dispute resolution tribunals to enforce the covered undertaking.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Blocking Statutes
  • Rome 1 Regulation
  • Secondary Sanctions
  • The Principle of Proportionality
  • European Court of Justice
  • Burden of Proof
  1. الف. فارسی

    1. رضایی، سیدیاسر؛ «مبانی نظری صلاحیت فراسرزمینی دولت از منظر حقوق بین­ الملل عمومی»، مجلة حقوقی دادگستری، شمارة 76، زمستان 1390.
    2. ابراهیمی، سیدنصرالله؛ «اعمال فراسرزمینی قوانین داخلی و آثار آن»، مجلة مجتمع عالی آموزش قم، سال دوم، شمارة 78، پاییز و زمستان 97.
    3. بذار، وحید؛ «مروی بر کارایی قوانین انسداد اتحادیة اروپا و چین برای مقابله با تحریم‌های فراسرزمینی امریکا»، منتشرشده در

    https://unstudies.ir/iauns-forum، 31/05/2022

     

    ب. انگلیسی

    - Books

    1. Azeredo Da Silveira, Mercedeh, Trade Sanctions and International Sales, Kluwer Law International BV, Netherland, 2014.
    2. Basedow, Jurgen, et al., Encyclopedia of Private International Law, vol. 2, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Gheltenham, 2017.
    3. Calster, Geert Van, European Private International Law: Commrcial Litigation in the EU, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 3rd Edition, 2021.
    4. Cordero-Moss, Giuditta, “EU Mandatory Provisions and Law Applicable to the Merits”, in: Ferrari, Franco, The Impact of the EU Law on Inernational Commercial Arbitration, New York, JurisNet, 2017.
    5. Craig, P., De Búrca, G., EU Law, Text, Cases, and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2011.
    6. De Fazio, Federico, “Proportionality Test and Constitutional Social Rights in Sieckmann”, in: Jan, R. (ed.), Proportionality, Balancing, and Rights, Springer, Switzerland, 2021.
    7. Fazilatfar, Hossein, Overriding Mandatory Rules in International Commercial Arbitration, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Gheltenham, 2019.
    8. Gernet, Marcel, “Blocking Statutes: Private Individuals Entangled in Interstate Conflicts”, in: Sooksripaisarnkit, Poomintr, Blurry Boundaries of Public and Private International Law, Springer, Gateway East, 2022.
    9. Groussot, Xavier, General Principles of Community Law, European Law Publishing, 2006.
    10. Harris, Jonathan, “Mandatory Rules and Public Policy under the Rome I Regulation”, in: Franco, Ferrari, Leible, Stefan (eds.), Rome I Regulation, the Law Applicable to Contractual Obigations in Europe, Sellier Pblications, Munich, 2009.
    11. Koen, Lenaerts, Van Nuffel, Piet, EU Constitutional Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021.
    12. Kunda, Ivana, Internationally Mandatory Rules of a Third Country in European Contract Conflict of Laws, Facuty of Law, University Rijeka, 2007.
    13. Lieberknecht, Markus, The Renaissance of the Blocking Statute, Institute for Comparative Law, Conflict of Laws and International Business Law, Heidelberg, 2020.
    14. McParland, Michel, The European Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015.
    15. Mills, Alex, Party Autonomy in Private International Law, Cambridge University Press, 1st Edition, Cambridge, 2018.
    16. Rosenfeld, Friedrich, “The Rome Regulations in International Commercial Arbitration: The Road Not Taken”, in: Ferrari, Franco, The Impact of the EU Law on Inernational Commercial Arbitration, New York, JurisNet, 2017.
    17. Stoll, T., Blockmans, S., Hagemejer, J., Hartwell, A., Gött, H., Karunska, K. and Maurer, A., Extraterritorial Sanctions on Trade and Investments and European Responses, Study Requested by the INA Committee of the European Parliament, 2020.
    18. Stone, Peter, EU Private International Law, 2nd Edition, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2010.
    19. Szabadaoz, Tamas, Economic Sanction in EU Private Law, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.
    20. Szabados, Tamas, Economic Sanctions in EU Private International Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2021.
    21. Ten Wolde, Mathijs H., Business and Private International Law in the EU, Paris Legal Publisgers, Zutphe, 2021.
    22. Tridimas, Takis, The General Principles of EU Law, Oxford University Press, 2020.
    23. Ventura, Daniel, “Contemporary Blocking Statutes and Regulations in the Face of Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions”, in: Beaucillon, Charlotte, Research Handbook on Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, 2019.
    24. Vural Celenk, Belkis, Application of Third Country Overriding Mandatory Rules, Schulthess, Zurich, 2018.

     

    - Articles

    1. Atwood, James R., “Blocking Statutes and Sovereign Compulsion in American Antitrust Legislation”, Swiss Review of International Competition Law, vol. 27, 1986.
    2. Bonomi, Andrea, “Conversion of the Rome Convention on Contracts into an EC Instrument: Some Remarks on the Green Paper of The EC Commission”, B. Priv. Int’l L., vol. 5, 2003.
    3. Cauffman, Caroline, “The Principle of Proportionality and European Contract Law”, Maastricht Faculty of Law Working Paper, M-EPLI, Working Paper No. 2013-05, 2013.
    4. Hellner, Michael, “Third Country Overriding Mandatory Rules in the Rome I Regulation: Old Wine in New Bottles?”, Journal of Private International Law, vol. 5, Issue 3, 2009.
    5. Lenaerts, K., Guttiérrez-Fons, J.A., “The Constitutional Allocation of Powers and General Principles of EU Law”, CMLR, vol. 47, 2010.
    6. J., Hoda, “The Aerospatiale Dilemma: Why US Courts Ignore Blocking Statutes and What Foreing States Can do about it?”, California Law Review, vol. 106, 2018.
    7. Radicati di Brozolo, Luca G.,, “Mandatory Rules and International Arbitration”, REV. INT’L ARB, vol. 23, No. 1, 2012.
    8. Ruys, Tom, Ryngaert, Cedric, “Secondary Sanctions: A weapon Out of Control? The International Legality of, And European Responses to, US Secondary Sanctions”, The British Yearbook of International Law, 2020.
    9. Sauter, W., “Proportionality in EU Law: A Balancing Act?”, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, vol. 15, 2013.
    10. Siehr, Kurt, “International Contracts, Party Autonomy and Mandatory Rules”, Revue Hellenique De Droit International, vol. 67, Issue 2, 2014.
    11. Spinkes, Cherrie, et al., “Navigating Conflicting Sanctions Regimes”, Global Investigations Review - The Guide to Sanctions, Second Edition, 2021.
    12. Szabadoz, Tamas, “Overriding Mandatory Provisions in the Autonomous Private International Law of the EU Member States”, ELTE LJ, 2020.
    13. Wils, W.P.J., “Optimal Antitrust Fines: Theory and Practice”, World Competition, vol. 29, Issue 2, 2006.

     

    - Theses

    1. Gorda, Iurii, Overriding Mandatory Rules of Third Countries in the Rome I Regulation, Master Thesis, Master International and European Law Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 2017.

     

    - Cases and Documents

    1. Bonell, Michael Joachim, Revised Comments Article 1.4 (Mandatory Rules), Principles of International Commercial Contracts, International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, Rome, 2010.
    2. EBF, “EBF comments on the EU Blocking Regulation”, Doc No. EBF_033606, 1 August 2018.
    3. Financial Markets Law committee, S. Sanctions and the E.U. Blocking Regulation: Issues of Legal Uncertainty, 2019.