نویسنده

استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

ورود ثالث از جمله موضوعات مرتبط با دادرسی‌های قضایی نزد محاکم ملی و بین‌المللی است. هدف این نهاد، حمایت از حقوق کشوری است که طرف یک اختلاف در حال رسیدگی در دیوان نیست، اما تصور می‌کند که ممکن است منافع حقوقی‌اش در جریان این دادرسی متأثر شود. اگرچه مادۀ 59 اساسنامۀ دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری یک حکم را برای ثالث‌ها قابل اجرا نمی‌داند، این مقرره لزوماً مانع از آن نیست که برای کشورهایی که طرف اختلاف نیستند، آثاری به‌بار نیاورد. مادۀ 62 اساسنامه تمهیدی برای حفظ یک منفعت با ماهیت حقوقی ثالث است.     یک یافتۀ دیوان در جریان رسیدگی به یک  دعوا می‌تواند بر وضعیت حقوقی کشورهای ثالث اثر بگذارد. در مادۀ 62 به این مطلب توجه شده است. این مقاله به تجزیه‌وتحلیل مادۀ 62 از دیدگاه رویۀ قضایی دیوان می‌پردازد. از نظر دیوان در اعمال این ماده تنها دو معیار وجود منفعت با ماهیت حقوقی و امکان متأثر شدن آن در نتیجۀ رسیدگی، شرط ورود ثالث است. رویۀ دیوان نشان می‌دهد که این ماده به دیوان اجازه می‌دهد صلاحیتش را بدون رضایت خاص طرف‌های اختلاف اعمال کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Third party intervention in the International court of justice trials under article 62 of its statute

نویسنده [English]

  • Hamid Alhooii Nazari

Assistant Professor, Public Law Department, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Third party intervention is one of the related subjects to the legal procedures of international and national tribunals. The intention of such procedure is to protect the rights of a country which is not party to the proceeding but there is a possibility of legal interests’ affection during the trial. Although under article 59 of the statute of ICJ, the verdict of the court is not mandatory for the third party but this not mean that the verdict does not burden legal effects to the non-parties of the lawsuit. Article 62 of the statute is a provision to protect the legal interest of third party. The findings by the court during the proceeding may effect legal situation of t third countries and article 62 notices this point. This contribution will analyzes article 62 from perspective of the court’s legal practice. The court believes that there are just two factor which make third party intervention possible: presence of an interest of a legal nature and possibility of impacting on the trial. The practice has proof that the court may apply its jurisdiction independently, without any specific consent of the parties to the proceeding.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • third state
  • incidental jurisdiction
  • Intervention
  • interest of a legal nature

الف) فارسی

  1. قانون آیین دادرسی مدنی
  2. اساسنامۀ دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری
  3. جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر، (1363)، ترمینولوژی حقوق، بنیاد راستاد، ص 299.

ب) انگلیسی

  1. Annacker, C., (1994), The legal regime of Erga Omnes obligations in International Law, Austrian J. public International law 46.
  2. Fitzmaurice, G., (1958), “The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951-1954:Questions of jurisdiction, competence and procedure”, BYIL. 34.
  3. I.C.J., Public sitting held on 29 June( 2001), Verbatim Record, CR 2001/4.
  4. Kelsen, Hans, (2008), The law of the United Nations, A critical Analysis fundamental problems, The London institute of world affairs.
  5. Liebelt,Franziska, Third state Intervention before the International court of Justice in International Environmental Law Cases. http://researcharchive. Vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/3387/thesies. Pdf.
  6. Palchetti, Paolo, (2002), Opening the International Court of Justice to Third states: Intervention and Beyond, Max Planck UNYB 6.
  7. Rosenne, S., (1994), Article 59 of the statute of the International Court of Justice revisited, in: M. Rama-Montaldo (ed), International law in an evolving world, Liber Amicorum Eduardo Jimenez de Arechaga.
  8. Rosenne, S., (1965), The law and practice of the international court, Leyden.
  9. Shahabuddeen, Mohamed, (1997), Precedent in the world court, Cambridge.
  10. The Minotaurs Labyrinth: Third state intervention before the International Court of Justice, the law and practice of International Courts and Tribunals 13, 2014.

 

  1. Zimmermann, Andreas & Tomuschat, Christian, (2012), The statute of the International Court of Justice, A commentary second edition, Oxford University press.
  2. Case of the S.S. Wimbledon, P.C.I.J., 1923, Series A, no. 1.
  3. Factory at Corzow, P.C.I.J. 1927, Series A, no. 13.
  4. Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, P.C.I.J., 1939, Series A/B. No. 77.
  5. Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950.
  6. Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Second Phase ,I.C.J. Reports 1955.
  7. Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) I.C.J. Reports 1961.
  8. South West Africa Cases, (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Second phase, I.C.J. Reports 1966.
  9. Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Second Phase, I.C.J. Reports 1970.
  10. Nuclear Tests case (New Zeland V. France), Application by Fiji for permission to intervene, Order, I.C.J. Reports 1974.
  11. Aegean sea continental shelf case (Greece v. Turkey) I.C.J. Reports 1978.
  12. Case concerning the continental shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), application by Malta for permission to intervene, I.C.J. Reports 1981.
  13. Case concerning the continental shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), application by Italy for permission to intervene, I.C.J. Reports 1984.
  14. Case Concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (EL Salvador/Honduras) Application by Nicaragua for permission to Intervene, I.C.J. Reports 1990.
  15. Case concerning certain phosphate lands in Nauru v. Australia I.C.J. Reports 1992.
  16. Case concerning sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), application by the Philippines for permission to intervene, I.C.J. Reports 2001.
  17. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, I.C.J. Reports 2006
  18. Maritime delimitation in the Black sea (Romania v. Ukraine), I.C.J. Reports 2009.
  19. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) Application by Costa Rica for Permission to Intervene, I.C.J. Reports 2011.
  20. Jurisdictional Immunity of the State (Germany v. Italy), Application by the Hellenic Republic for permission to Intervene, I.C.J. Reports 2011.
  21. Jurisdictional Immunity of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), I.C.J. Reports 2012.
  22. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) Application by Honduras for Permission to Intervene, I.C.J. Reports 2011.