نویسندگان

1 استاد گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌الملل دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانش‌آموختۀ دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

اصل احتیاط از هنگام ظهور در سپهر حقوق بین‌‌الملل تا به امروز، موضوع بحث‌‌های مفصل میان دکترین بوده است. عبارت‌‌پردازی‌‌های متفاوت از اصل و انعکاس آن در اسناد بین‌‌المللی با خصوصیت الزام‌‌آوری متفاوت، سبب شده است که تقریب آرا حاصل نشود. مطالعة ادبیات مرتبط با موضوع بر نقش خاص اتحادیة اروپایی و دول عضو آن در قوام هرچه بیشتر اصل مهر تأیید می‌‌زند؛ نقشی که تنها به مواضع جانبدارانه از اصل در دعاوی بین‌‌المللی محدود نشده است و تجلی این مفهوم در اسناد، مقررات و آرای مراجع قضایی‌‌گسترة موصوف را نیز دربر می‌گیرد. این مقاله با روشی توصیفی-تحلیلی و از طریق کنکاش در قوانین داخلی دول اروپایی و آن دسته از اسناد و آرای قضایی اتحادیه که با اصل احتیاط ارتباط دارند، در پی آن است که وصف عرفی‌‌ را برای اصل احتیاط در اتحادیة اروپایی تأیید یا رد کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Precautionary Principle: A Customary Principle in the EU?

نویسندگان [English]

  • Abbas Ali Kadkhodae 1
  • Asma Salari 2

1 Professor, Public and International Law Department, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

The precautionary principle has been widely discussed in academic, legal and political areas. Debates stem due to various definitions and wordings of the principle and the fact that it has been reflected in both binding and nonbinding international instruments in various fields. The role of the European Union and its members is undisputed in the evolution of the principle. It can be found in different contexts; from its statements in international disputes to Jurisprudence of its judicial organs. This paper, with an analytical-descriptive approach, examines the situation of the precautionary principle in Domestic legal systems of European countries, primary and secondary rules of the EU and the jurisprudence of general courts, ECJ and ECHR to prove or deny the customary nature of the principle in this region.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • The precautionary principle
  • environment and public health
  • secondary rules
  • European Court of Justice
  • a regional Customary Principle

الف) فارسی

رمضانی قوام‌‌آبادی، محمدحسین (1392). «بررسی تطبیقی اجرای اصل احتیاط زیست‌‌محیطی در پرتو آرا و تصمیمات مراجع بین‌‌المللی»، فصل‌نامۀ پژوهش حقوق عمومی، شمارۀ 40، 167-179.

موسوی، سید فضل‌الله، آرش‌‌پور، علیرضا (1394). «جایگاه اصل احتیاطی در حقوق بین‌‌الملل محیط‌‌زیست»، فصل‌نامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی،شمارة 48، 141-164.

 

ب) انگلیسی

Bodansky, Daniel (2004). Deconstructing the Precautionary Principle in Caron, David D., Scheiber, Harry N. (eds.), Bringing new law to ocean waters, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publications.

De Sadeleer, Nicolas (2002). Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules, Oxford University Press, New York.

De Sadeleer, Nicolas (2007). Lessons from International, EU and Nordic Legal Regimes in De Sadeleer, N. (ed.), Implementing the Precautionary Principle Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, London, Earth Scan.

De Sadeleer, Nicolas (2007). Origin, Status and Effects of the Precautionary Principle in De Sadeleer, Nicolas (ed.), Implementing the Precautionary Principle Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, London, Earth Scan.

De Sadeleer, Nicolas (2004). The Effect of Uncertainty on the Threshold Levels to which the Precautionary Principle Appears to be Subject in Applegate, J. S., Environmental Risk, Ashgate/Dartmouth Publication. Vol. II

De Sadeleer, Nicolas (2010). The Principle of Prevention and Precaution in International Law: Two Heads of the Same Coins? inFitzmaurice, Malgosia, Ong, David, M., Mercouris, Panos, (eds.), Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Feintuck, M. (2005). "Precautionary Maybe, but What's the Principle? The Precautionary Principle, the Regulation of Risk, and the Public Domain", Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 32, No. 3, 371-398.

Jiang, Patrick (2014). "A Uniform Precautionary Principle under EU Law", PKU Transnational Law Review, Vol.2, No. 2, 490-518.

Hollo, Erkki (2007). Finland in De Sadeleer, Nicolas (ed.), Implementing the Precautionary Principle Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, London, Earth Scan.

Michanek, Gabriel (2007). Sweden in De Sadeleer, Nicolas (ed.) Implementing the Precautionary Principle Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, London, Earth Scan.

Ruessmann, Laurent A. (2002). "Putting the Precautionary Principle in its place: Parameter for the Proper Application of a Precautionary Approach and the Implications for Developing Countries in Light of the Doha WTO Ministerial", American University International Law Review, Vol. 17, 905-948.

Sands, Philippe, Peel, Jacqueline (2012). Principles of InternationalEnvironmental Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Zander, Joakim (2010). The Application of the Precautionary Principle in Practice, Cambridge, University PressCambridge.

Vander Zwaag, David (2013). "The ICJ, ITLOS and the Precautionary Approach: Paltry Progressions, Jurisprudential Jousting", University of Hawai'i Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 2, 617-632

 

C) Cases

Case 53/80, 1981 E. C. R.(Nisin Case; Koninklijke Kaasfabriek Eyssen BV).

Case 174/82, 1983 E. C. R.(Sandoz Case).

Case C-405/92, 1993, E.C.R. I-5175(Mondiet Case).

Case C-435/93, 1994, E.C.R. I-67 (wild bird Case; Association Pour la Protection desAnimaux Sauvages et prefet de maine et loire de Prefet de la laire-Atlantique).

Case C-180/96, UK. v. Commission, 99 E.C.R. I-8105 (mad cow Case).

Case E-3/00 (EFTA corn flakes Case).

Case T-13/ 99 (Pfizer Case).

Case T- 70/99, 2002 E. C. R. II- 3495 (Alpharma Case).

Case T-74/00 (Artegodan Case).

Case C-236/01, 2003 E.C.R. I-8150 (Monsanto Case).

Case C-127/02, 2005, E.C.R. I 6515 (Wadenzee Case).

Case C-14/06 and Case C-295/06 2007, E.C.R. I-7441 (Electrical and electronic equipment Case).

Case T-229/04 Sweden v Commission, 2007 E.C.R. I-2437 (ParaquatCase).

Case C-77/09 (Gowan Case).

Case T‑333/10 (Animal Trading Company Case).

Case T‑257/07, 2011, (TSE Case).

Case C‑269/13 P (Acino Case).

Joined Cases C-358/14, C-477/14 andC-547/14(Electronic Cigarettes Cases).

 

D) Documents

Communication from the Commission on Consumer Health and Food Safety, 1997.

Court of justice of European Union, (2016), CJEU press release No. 48/16. Luxembourg.

ECHR Factsheet on Environment and the European Convention on Human Rights (2016), Retrieved from: http://www.echr.coe.int/documents/fs_environment_eng.pdfAccessed: 20/12/2016

Summary of the Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle, 2001.

TMA Asser Institute Report (2011). Considerations on the application of the Precautionary Principle in the chemicals sector, 9-70, Retrieved from: http://ec.europa .eu/environment/chemicals /reach /publications_en.htm, Accessed: 10/5/2016.