مجله حقوقی بین المللی

مجله حقوقی بین المللی

منزلت دکترین پاکدستی در قضیه برخی دارایی های ایران

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسنده
احسان شهسواری
عضو هیات علمی گروه حقوق دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه مازندران
10.22066/cilamag.2024.2021478.2502
چکیده
در قضیه برخی دارایی‌های ایران، دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری فرصت یافت تا محتوای «دکترین پاکدستی» را ارزیابی و به‌تصریح، از فقدان منزلت عرفی این دکترین و عدم تلقی آن به‌عنوان اصل کلی حقوق بین‌الملل یاد کند. پژوهش حاضر ضمن توصیف دکترین پاکدستی و تشریح تحولات و منزلت آن در رویه‌قضایی و دکترین، رأی دیوان را ازجمله در پرتو نظرات قضات دیوان تحلیل و بررسی کرده و به این نتیجه رسیده است که دیوان در تعقیب رویه‌قضایی خود به‌ویژه در قضیه جاداو، با تأیید رویکرد کمیسیون حقوق بین‌الملل در طرح پیش‌نویس مواد راجع به مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت و طرح پیش‌نویس مواد راجع به حمایت دیپلماتیک، پاکدستی را به‌عنوان عنصری که فی‌نفسه مؤثر در قابلیت پذیرش دعوا، اثبات حق یا زدودن آن باشد، نپذیرفته است. این رویکرد قضایی، مسیر دادرسی‌های بین‌المللی را به‌ویژه نسبت به دولت‌هایی که ادعا می‌شود با دستان ناپاک وارد فرآیند دادرسی می‌شوند هموار می‌کند و در مواردی اطراف دعوا را از اثبات پاکدستی یا زوال آن بی‌نیاز می‌کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
بانک مرکزی
دکترین پاکدستی
صلاحیت
قابلیت پذیرش دعوا
معاهده مودت

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

The Status of Clean Hands Doctrine in the Certain Iranian Assets Case

نویسنده English

Ehsan Shahsavari
Member of department of law- Faculty of Law and Political Sciences- university of Mazandaran- Babolsar-Iran
چکیده English

The "Certain Iranian Assets" case provided an opportunity for the International Court of Justice to examine applicability of the Clean Hands Doctrine. In its judgment, the Court explicitly stated that the Clean Hands Doctrine cannot be regarded as part of customary international law or does not constitute a general principle of law. This case study explores the Clean Hands Doctrine, its evolutions in legal precedent and doctrine, and analyzes the Court’s judgment in light of the opinions of the Court’s judges and relevant legal instruments. The study concludes that the Court, by adhereing its precedent (stare decisis), notably in the Jadhav Case, and endorsing the International Law Commission approach in the 2001 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (the ARSIWA) and the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, affirmed that the Clean Hands Doctrine is not a determinative factor in the admissibility of a claim, the establishment of rights, or their denial. This judicial approach facilitates international adjudication, especially in cases where States have initiated proceedings with unclean hands and, may in some cases, exempt disputing parties from proving their clean hands.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Central Bank of Iran (Bank Markazi)
Clean Hands Doctrine
Competence
Admissibility
Treaty of Amity

  1. الف. فارسی

    1. اسلامی‌پناه، علی، «دکترین به منزلة منبع فرعی حقوق»، فصلنامة پژوهش حقوق خصوصی 32، شمارة 9 (1399).
    2. برزگرزاده، عباس، «تأثیر سوءاستفاده از دادرسی و حق در رسیدگی‌های مقدماتی و ماهوی ایکسید»، دانش حقوق مدنی 11، شمارة 1(1401).
    3. حاجی‌پور، زهرا و آرامش شهبازی، «جایگاه دکترین در منابع حقوق بین‌الملل معاصر»، تعالی حقوق 4، شمارة 1 (1397).
    4. زمانی، سید‌قاسم و وحید بذّار، «دکترین دست‌های پاک در حقوق بین‌الملل و بررسی تطبیقی آن با مشارکت زیان‌دیده در خسارت»، پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی 24، شمارة 1(۱۳۹۹).
    5. محبی، محسن و اعظم امینی، «اصل انصاف و ظرفیت قاعده‏‌سازی آن در رویة دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری»، مجلة حقوقی بین‌المللی 31، شمارة 51 (1393).

     

    ب. انگلیسی

    - Books

    1. Borchard, Edwin. The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad: Or, the Law of International Claims, New York. The Banks Law Publishing Company, 1915.
    2. Crawford, James. State Responsibility: General Part, Cambridge University,
    3. Fitzmaurice, Gerald. the general principles of international law considered from the standpoint of the rule of law, Hague Academy Collected Courses, 1957.
    4. Rousseau, Charles. Droit international public, t. V, Les rapports conflictuels, Paris, Sirey, 1983.
    5. Schwebel, Stephen M. Justice in International Law: Selected Writings of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 297-301.
    6. Villiger, Mark E. Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.

     

    - Articles

    1. Amianto, Lodovico. “The Role of ‘Unclean Hands’ Defenses in International Investment Law”, McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution, Volume 6, Number 1, 2020.
    2. Anenson, T. Leigh. "Announcing the Clean Hands Doctrine", UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 51, issue. 5, June 2018.
    3. Dumberry, Patrick. “State of Confusion: The Doctrine of ‘Clean Hands’ in Investment Arbitration After the Yukos Award”, Journal of World Investments and Trade, vol. 17, 2016.
    4. Fitzmaurice, Malgosia. “Case Analysis: The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case: The Law of Treaties”, Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 11, 1998.
    5. Jia, Wang. “Certain Iranian Assets: The Judgment on Preliminary Objections and the Terrorism Exception to State Immunity”, US-China Law Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2021.
    6. Kaldunski, Marcin. "Principle of Clean Hands and Protection of Human Rights in International Investment Arbitration", Polish Review of International and European Law, vol. 4, issue. 2,
    7. Laplante, Lisa J. "The Law of Remedies and the Clean Hands Doctrine: Exclusionary Reparation Policies in Peru's Political Transition", American University International Law Review, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2007.
    8. Lawrence, William J. “Application of the Clean Hands Doctrine in Damage Actions”, Notre Dame Law Review, Volume 57, Issue 4, 1982.
    9. Lekkas, Sotirios-Ioannis. “The Uses of the Outputs of the International Law Commission in International Adjudication: Subsidiary Means or Artefacts of Rules?”, Netherlands International Law Review, Volume 69, issue 2, 2022.
    10. Seifi, Jamal, and Kamal Javadi. "The Consequences of the “Clean Hands” Concept in International Investment Arbitration", in: Asian Yearbook of International Law, Volume 19, 2013.
    11. Shapovalov, Aleksandr. "Should a Requirement of ‘Clean Hands’ Be a Prerequisite to the Exercise of Diplomatic Protection? Human Rights Implications of the International Law Commission's Debate", American University International Law Review, Volume, 20, Issue 4, 2005.
    12. Young, Stewart M. “Destruction of Property (on an International Scale): The Recent Oil Platforms Case and the International Court of Justice's Inconsistent Commentary on the Use of Force by the United States”, North Carolina Journal of International Law, Volume 30, Number 2, 2004.
    13. Zwolankiewicz, Agata. “The Principle of Clean Hands in International Investment Arbitration: What is the Extent of Investment Protection in Investor-State Disputes?,” The Journal of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2021.

     

    - Judgments, Orders, and Advisory Opinions (and Related Materials)

    1. Al-Warraq v Indonesia, Arbitration under the OIC Investment Agreement (1981), Award of 15 December 2014.
    2. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (DRC v. Belgium), ICJ, Judgment of 14 February 2002, Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert.
    3. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. USA), ICJ, Judgment of 31 March 2004.
    4. Bank Markazi v. Peterson, Supreme Court of the United States, April 20, 2016.
    5. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Application instituting proceedings, 2016.
    6. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Judgment of 13 February 2019
    7. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Judgment of 13 February 2019, Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Brower.
    8. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Judgment of 13 February 2019, Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Momtaz.
    9. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Judgment of 30 March 2023.
    10. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Judgment of 30 March 2023, Dissenting opinion of Judge Sebutinde.
    11. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Judgment of 30 March 2023, Separate opinion, partly concurring and partly dissenting of Judge ad hoc Barkett.
    12. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Observations and submissions of Iran on the preliminary objections of the USA, 2017.
    13. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Preliminary objections submitted by USA, 2017.
    14. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Rejoinder of the USA, 2021.
    15. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Reply of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2020.
    16. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Verbatim Record of 8 October 2018.
    17. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Verbatim Record of 10 October 2018.
    18. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Verbatim Record of 11 October 2018.
    19. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA), ICJ, Verbatim Record of 12 October 2018.
    20. Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40), Award (6 December 2016).
    21. Deborah Peterson, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. (Civil Action Nos. 01-2094 (RCL), 01-2684(RCL)) (Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2007).
    22. Delimitation of the maritime boundary between Guyana and Suriname, PCA, Award of 17 September 2007.
    23. Diversion of Water from the Meuse, PCIJ Series A/B, No. 70 (1937), Dissenting Opinion of M. Anzilotti.
    24. Diversion of Water from the Meuse, PCIJ Series A/B, No. 70 (1937), Individual Opinion by Mr. Hudson.
    25. Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), PCIJ Series A, No. 9 (1927).
    26. Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of Philippines, case ICSID No. ARB/11/12, award (10 December 2014).
    27. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), ICJ, Judgment of 25 September 1997.
    28. Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Limited v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2016-39, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Bifurcation), 31 Jan 2018.
    29. Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v Ghana, ICSID Case No ARB/07/24, Award (18 June 2010).
    30. Holmann v. Johnson [1775], 98 Engl. Rep. 1120 (1. Cowp. 341).
    31. Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Advisory Opinion of 18 July 1950 (second phase), ICJ, Dissenting Opinion by Judge Read.
    32. Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), ICJ, Counter-Memorial of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 2017.
    33. Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), ICJ, Judgment of 17 July 2019, Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Jillani.
    34. Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), ICJ, Judgment of 17 July 2019, Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Iwasawa.
    35. Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), ICJ, Judgment of 17 July 2019.
    36. Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), ICJ, Reply of the Republic of India, 2018.
    37. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004.
    38. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ, Written Statement of the Government of Israel, 2004.
    39. Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, PCIJ Series A/B, No. 53 (1933), Dissenting Opinion by M. Anzilotti.
    40. LESI, S.p.A. and Astaldi S.p.A. v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3), Decision on Jurisdiction of July 12, 2006.
    41. Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), ICJ, Judgment of 2 February 2017.
    42. Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions, PCIJ Series A, No. 5 (1925).
    43. Metalpar S.A. and Buen Aire S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/5, 27 April 2006.
    44. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA), Judgment of 27 June 1986, Dissenting opinion of Judge Schwebel.
    45. Oil Platforms (Iran v. USA) Counter-claims, ICJ, Counter-Memorial and Counter-Claim submitted by the USA, 1997.
    46. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. USA), ICJ, Judgment of 6 November 2003.
    47. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. USA), ICJ, Rejoinder submitted by the USA, 2001.
    48. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. USA), ICJ, Reply and Defense to Counter-Claim submitted by the Iran, 1999.
    49. Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, US District Court, District of Columbia, 30 May 2003.
    50. Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, Award of 15.4.2009, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5.
    51. Rumeli Telekom AS and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri AS v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award (29 July 2008).
    52. South American Silver Limited (Bermuda) v. Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, 7 November 2018.
    53. US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (USA v. Iran), Judgment of 24 May 1980, ICJ, Dissenting opinion of Judge Morozov.
    54. US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (USA v. Iran), Judgment of 24 May 1980, Dissenting opinion of Judge Tarazi.
    55. Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 27, 18 July 2014.

     

    - Documents

    1. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries (the ARSIWA), ILC, 2001.
    2. Executive Order 13599 on Blocking Property of the Government of Iran and Iranian Financial Institutions, February 5, 2012.
    3. First report on subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law, ILC (A/CN.4/760), 2023.
    4. Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, 2012.
    5. Second report on State responsibility, Yearbooks of the ILC, Volume II (Part I), 1999.
    6. Sixth report on diplomatic protection, Yearbooks of the ILC, Volume II (Part I), 2005.
    7. USA Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, 2002.
    8. Yearbooks of the ILC, Volume I, 2004.

  • تاریخ دریافت 10 بهمن 1402
  • تاریخ پذیرش 23 بهمن 1402