نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

با توجه به اینکه شرایط زیست‌محیطی کرۀ زمین پیوسته رو به وخامت می‌رود و با درنظرداشتن اهمیت توسعۀ پایدار و قوانین حاکم بر نظام تجارت جهانی، همۀ کشورها از حق تنظیم و اجرای معیارهای قانونی به‌منظور حمایت و ارتقای وضع بهداشت عمومی، ایمنی و محیط‌زیست اتباع خود برخوردارند. این حق و خطرهای تهدیدکنندۀ دولت میزبان در نظام تجاری، موضوع دفاع از معیارهای مربوط به بهداشت، ایمنی و محیط‌زیست (HSE) را در مقابل مراجع حل‌وفصل اختلاف بین‌المللی پیش می‌آورد. از آنجا که معیارهای تنظیمی HSE باید مبتنی بر علم و قواعد علمی باشند، در حل‌و‌فصل اختلافات حاصل از این معیارها، مسئلۀ نقش علم و محدودیت‌های آن بسیار حائز اهمیت است. لذا این مقاله درصدد بررسی این موضوع است که با توجه به محدودیت‌های علم و وجود اختلافات علمی میان دانشمندان، تحت چه شرایطی و چگونه می‌توان از یافته‌های علمی در داوری معیارهای HSE بهره برد؟ بررسی‌های دقیق نشان می‌دهد که با وجود محدودیت‌های علمی و عدم قطعیت علمی در برخی موارد، علم محور اصلی حرکت به سمت توسعۀ پایدار است، زیرا مبنای عینی برای توسعه و گسترش معیارهای HSE را فراهم می‌کند. لذا از طریق تأکید بر فرایند تولید علم، روش‌های علمی و نظارت دقیق، می‌توان محکی را به وجود آورد که با تکیه بر آن بتوان اعتبار سرمایه‌گذاری‌های علمی را ارزیابی کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The role of science in evaluation of HSE measures in international arbitration processes

نویسندگان [English]

  • Zahra Safe 1
  • Elham Aminzadeh 2

1 Ph.D. Student in international law, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Prof, Public and International Law Department, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Since the environmental situation of the planet earth is continuously becoming more deteriorated, and as the importance of sustainable development and the rules governing the world trade system in growing; all countries have the right to introduce legislative acts to support and improve public health, safety and environment of their own. Such right and the risks threatening the host government in trade system, brings about the issue of defending the health, safety and environmental measures against international disputes settlement authorities. Whereas HSE regulatory measures should be based on science and scientific rules, in arbitrations of disputes resulting from this measure, the role of science and its limitations are of importance. Therefore this paper tries to survey the subject that due to the limitations of science and scientific disagreements between scientists, under which circumstances and how could the scientific findings be used in HSE measures arbitrations? Scrutiny’s indicate that despite the scientific limitations scientific uncertainty in some cases, science is the main axis in moving towards sustainable development; because it provides an objective basis for the development of HSE standards. So through emphasis on the process of production of science, scientific methods and scrutiny, a measure could be formed, relying on which the validity of scientific investments could be assessed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Science
  • Health
  • Safety and Environmental Measures
  • Sustainable Developmen

الف) فارسی

- مقالات

1. اکبری، جواد و زیباکلام، سعید (1390). «عقلانیت در فلسفۀ علم پوپر»، فلسفۀ علم، دورۀ 1، شمارۀ 2.

2. رمضانی‌ قوام‌آبادی، محمدحسین (1392). «بررسی تطبیقی اجرای اصل احتیاط در پرتو آرا و تصمیمات مراجع بین المللی»، فصل‌نامۀ پژوهش‌های حقوق عمومی، سال پانزدهم، شمارۀ 40.

3. ژیان‌احمدی، طاهره (1374). «مدیریت علم و تکنولوژی در اقتصادهای در حال گذار»، رهیافت، شمارۀ 10.

4. منصوری، علیرضا (1394). «عقلانیت در علم و تکنولوژی»، ذهن، شمارۀ 61.

5. موسوی، سیدفضل‌الله و آرش‌پور، علیرضا (1394). «جایگاه اصل احتیاطی در حقوق بین‌الملل محیط‌زیست»، فصل‌نامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دورۀ 45، شمارۀ 2.

 

ب) انگلیسی

- Books

6. Andresen, Steinar (2000). The Whaling Regime, in Science and Politics in International Environmental Regimes: Between Integrity and Involvement, Manchester University Press.

7. Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka (2002). the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR, Intersentia.

8. Brems, Eva (2003). The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights: Accommodating Diversity within Europe, in Human Rights and Divercity (David P.Forsythe & Patrice C. McMahon).

9. Claude, Richard (2002). Science in The Service of Human Rights, University of Pennsylvania press, Philadelphia.

10. Cole, Stephen (1992). Making Science: Between Nature and Society, Harvard University Press, London.

11. Erich, vranes (2009). Trade and the Environment fundamental issues in International and WTO Law, Oxford university press.

12. Kennedy, Daniel & Southwick, James (2002). International Trade Policy and Domestic Food Safety Regulation: The Case for Substantial Deference by the W'TO Dispute Settlement Body under the SPS Agreement, The Political Economy of International Trade Law, Cambridge University Press.

13. Kriebel, David (2004). The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science, in World Health Organization Europe, The Precautionary Principle: Protecting Public Health, The Environment, and The Future of our Children (Marco Martuzzi and Joel Tickner).

14. McNelis, Natalie (2003). The Role of the Judge in the EU and WTO: Lessons from the BSE and Hormones cases, in The Role of The Judge in International Trade Regulation (Thomas Cottier & Petros Mavroidiseds).

15. Mulkay, Michael (2014). Science and the Sociology of Knowledge, Routledge, Vol. 15.

16. Popper, Karl (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Routledge, Vol. 56.

17. Raffensperger, Carolyn & Tickner, Joel (1999). Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Island Press, Washington, D.C.

18. Skodvin, Tora & Arild Underdal (2000). Exploring the Dynamics of the Science-Politics Interaction, in Science and Politics in International Environmental Regimes: Between Integrity and Involvement (Steinar Andresen).

19. Trebilcock, Michael & Soloway, Julie (2002). International Trade Poliry and Domestic Food Safery Regulation: The Case for Substantial Dejerente by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body under the SPS Agreement, in Thepolitical Economy of International Trade Law (Daniel Kennedy & James Southwick).

 

- Articles

20. Atik, Jeffery (1997). "Science and International Regulatory Convergence", Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, Vol. 17.

21. Chamovitz, Steve (1998). "Environment and Health under WTO Dispute Settlement", International Law, Vol. 32.

22. Croley, Steven & John Jackson (1996). "WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governments", American Journal of International Law, Vol. 90.

23. Desmedt, Axel (1998). "Hormones: 'Objective Assessment' and (or as) Standard of Review", Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 10.

24. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter (2000). "Six Years on the Bench of the World Trade Court", Journal of World Trade, Vol. 36.

25. Howse, Robert (2000). "Democracy, Science and Free Trade: Risk Regulation on Trial at the World Trade Organization", Michigan Law Review, Vol. 98.

26. Oesch, Matthias (2003). "Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution", Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 6.

27. Puckett, Jim (1999). "When Trade Is Toxic: The WTO Threat to Public and Planetary Health", Asiapac Enviromental Exchange, available at: http://www.ban.org/Library/when_trade.pdf.

28. Randall, A. (2009). "We Already Have Risk Management-Do We Really Need the Precautionary Principle?", International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 3, 1, 39-74.

29. Rogers, M. D. (2011). "Risk management and the record of the precautionary principle in EU case law", Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 14, 467-484.

30. Van Asselt, M.B.A. & Van Bree, L. (2011). "Uncertainty, precaution and risk governance", Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, 401-408.

31. Wirth, David (1994). "The Role of Sience in the Uruguay Round and NAFTA Trade Disciplines", CornellInternational Law Journal, Vol. 27.

32. Wilson, K. (2011). "A framework for applying the precautionary principle to transfusion safety", Transfusion Medecine Reviews, 25 No. 3, 177-83.

- Documents

33. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Apr. 15, 1994.

34. Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/D526/AB/R, WI/DS48/AB/R (Jan. 16, 1998).

35. Appellate Body Report, Japan-Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, WT/DS245/AB/R, (Nov. 26, 2003).

36. Appellate Body Report, United States-Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC-Hormones Dispute, WT/DS320/AB/R (Oct. 16, 2008).

37. Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Mankind, G.A. res. 3384 (XXX). 30 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No.34), U.N. Doc. A/I0034 (1975).

38. Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Chile, Jan. 1, 2004, U.S. -Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 108-77, 117 Stat. 910 (2003) codified at 19 U.S.C 3805 (2006).

39. Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15, 1994, 1867 UN.T.S.154, 33 I.L.M. 1144 (1994).

40. North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Can.-Mex., preamble, Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993).

41. Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, U.N. Doc.A/CONF.199/20 (2002).

42. Panel Report, European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/R, (Sept. 18, 2000).

43. Panel Report, European Communities-Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS293 (Sept. 29, 2006).

44. Report of the Panel, Thailand - Restrictions on Importation of and Internal Taxes on Cigarettes, Doc. DSI/R (Nov. 7, 1990).

45. The Joint Action and Learning Initiative on National and Global Responsibilities for Health Lawrence O. Gostin, Gorik Ooms, Mark Heywood, Just Haeld, Sigrun Møgedal, John-Arne Røttingen, Eric A. Friedman, and Harald Siem, World Health Report (2010).

46. World Conference on Science, Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge, (jul.1, 1999).

 

- Cases

47. Continental Shelf (Libya v. Malta), 1985 I.C.J. 36, (June 3).

48. Decision on Jurisdiction, Tokyo’s Tokeles v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18 (Apr. 29, 2004).

49. Decision on Jurisdiction, EI Paso Energy Int’l Co. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, p. 70 (Apr. 27, 2006).

50. MTD Equity v. Chile, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, P 104 (May 25, 2004).

51. Occidental Exploration and Prod. Co. v. Ecuador, Case No. UN 3467, (London Ct. Intel’s Arb., July 1, 2004).

52. S. Bluefin Tuna (Austl. & N.Z. v. Japan), 119 I.L.R. 508, (Arb. Trib. 2000).

53. S. Bluefin Tuna (Austl. & N.Z. v. Japan), (Int'l Trib. for the Law of the Sea, 1999).