نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشگاه پیام‌نور تهران، تهران

2 استاد، دانشکدۀ روابط بین‌الملل وزارت امور خارجه، تهران

3 استادیار دانشگاه پیام‌نور، ایران

چکیده

عام‌گرایی به ‌‌معنای اجرای قواعد حقوق بین‌الملل به ‌صورت یکسان بر همگان است. در مقابل، خاص‌گرایی بیانگر حالتی است که در آن، دولت یا موجودیت به ‌دنبال اجرای ارزش‌ها و هنجارهای خاص‌ خود است، هرچند مغایر قواعد عام تلقی شود. دولت یا موجودیت خاص‌گرا به ‌دنبال تعریف اسباب و شیوه‌هایی است که به‌واسطۀ آن‌ها، در مواردی که حقوق بین‌الملل را مغایر منافع و ارزش‌های خود یافت، بتواند از سیطرۀ حقوق بین‌الملل خارج شود یا آن را به ‌سمت خود متمایل کند. اتحادیۀ اروپا و دولت ایالات متحدۀ امریکا به‌‌منزلۀ دو بازیگر مهم در عرصۀ بین‌الملل، با اتخاذ مواضع و شیوه‌های عمل متفاوت از قواعد عمومی، رویکرد خاص‌گرایانه‌ای را در قبال حقوق بین‌الملل نهادینه کرده‌اند. امریکا و اتحادیه در رویکرد خاص‌گرایانۀ خود از شیوه‌های مشابهی بهره‌ می‌برند؛ شیوه‌هایی همانند کاربست معیار دوگانه، استفاده از تعبیر جایگزین و یکجانبه‌گرایی. خاص‌گرایی امریکایی مبتنی بر حاکمیت‌گرایی و اتکا به قدرت نظامی است؛ همین مسئله منجر شده است تا ویژگی «معافیت‌گرایی» در رویکرد امریکایی، جایگاه ویژه‌ای یابد. در مقابل، اتحادیۀ اروپایی با تأکید بر استقلال نظم حقوق اتحادیه و «کثرت‌گرایی» حقوقی، خاص‌گرایی هدفمند و معتدلی را از خود به ‌نمایش گذاشته است. نوشتار حاضر با تبیین وجوه تشابه و افتراق امریکا و اتحادیۀ اروپا، ضمن رد خاص‌گرایی ناموجه در حقوق بین‌الملل، رویکرد و عملکرد اتحادیه را معتدل‌تر ارزیابی می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative Study of Legal Particularism vis-à-vis International Law: American Exemptionalism vs. European Union Pluralism

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Saleh Taskhiri 1
  • Reza Mousazadeh 2
  • Massoud Alizadeh 3

1 Ph.D. Student of International Law, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

2 Prof., School of International Relations (SIR), Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Prof., Faculty of Law, Garmsar Payame Noor University, Semnan, Iran

چکیده [English]

Universalism is defined as applying the rules of international law equally for all states or entities, while particularism is defined as a situation wherein a state or an entity seeks to apply its particular values and norms even if they are assumed against or inconsistent with the universal rules. The particularistic states or entities seek to find the means and methods through which they can have the possibility of escaping the dominance of international law wherever they find the international law against their interests and values, or at least they can bring it to their own accord. As two key actors in international relations, the EU and the US by adopting positions and practices that differ from the universal rules have institutionalized a particularistic approach to international law. The US and the EU take advantages of similar practices in their own particularistic approach. Applying double standards, using alternative interpretations and unilateralism are some examples of such practices. American Particularism is based on sovereignty and the reliance on military power and this has led the US particularistic approach suffers from the exemptionalism. In contrast, the European Union, with an emphasis on the independence of the EU legal order and legal pluralism, has displayed a purposeful and moderate Particularism. Explaining the similarities and differences between the United States and the European Union, the current study rejects unjustified Particularism in international law and assesses the EU approach and function more moderate.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Legal Particularism
  • Legal Universalism
  • Legal Pluralism
  • Exemptionalism
  • Double Standards

1. انگلیسی

A) Books

Hilpold, P. (2009). EU Law and UN Law in Conflict: The Kadi Case, Max-Planck Years book of United Nations Law, Netherlands, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 13, 141-182.

Ignatieff, M. (2005). American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, In American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (pp. 1-26), United States of America, Princeton University Press.

Larik, J. (2010). Two Ships in the Night or in the Same Boat Together: How the ECJ Squared the Circle and Foreshadowed Lisbon in its Kadi Judgment, Yearbook of Polish European Studies, 13, 149-173.

Timmer, A.; Goldschmidt, J.; Buyse, A. & Mihr, A. (2013). Report state-of-the-art literature review human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Large-Scale Frame Project (FP7 Collaborative Project GA No. 320000- 2320000- 2017), Utrecht University.

 

B) Article

Bogdandy, A. V. & Dellavalle, S. (2008). "Universalism and Particularism as Paradigms of International Law",. New York, U.S.A: IILJ Working Paper 2008/3 (History and Theory of International Law Series), International Law and Justice Working Papers, Max-Planck-Institute Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and New York University School of Law.

Bradford, A. & Posner, E. A. (2011). "Universal Exceptionalism in International Law", Harvard International Law Journal, 52 (1), 1-54.

Bubnytė, K. (2015). "Human Rights Universalism and Particularism in the Jurisprudence of Lithuanian Courts", Vilnius University, Lithuania, 52-64.

Cantwell, D. (2015). "A Tale of Two Kadis: Kadi II, Kadi v. Geithner & U.S.Counterterrorism Finance Efforts", Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 53, 652-700.

Carrera, S.; Somer, M. D. & Petkova, B. (2012). "The Court of Justice of the European Union as a Fundamental Rights Tribunal Challenges for the Effective Delivery of Fundamental Rights in the Area of Freedom Fundamental Rights in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice", CEPS Papers in Liberty and Security in Europe, No. 49 (August 2012), (pp. 1-26).

Ceaser, J. W. (2012). "The Origins and Character of American Exceptionalism", American Political Thought, 1, 1-26.

Cleveland, S. H. (2007). "Foreign Authority, American Exceptionalism, and the Dred Scott Case", Chicago-Kent Law Review, 82, 393-455.

Cohen, H. G. (2003). "The American Challenge to International Law: A Tenative Framework for Debate", Yale J. Int'l L., 28, 551-578.

Czina, V. (2016). "Member State Particularism within the EU: an Analysis Based on the Most Recent Developments of the “Hungarian Affair", Conference of “United or Divided We Stand? Perspectives on the EU’s Challenges” (Brussels, 9-10 May 2016), (pp. 1-23). Brussels.

De B´urca, G. (2009). "The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi", Retrieved 6 20, 2107, from Judicial Studies Degree Program and Judicial Studies Doctoral Program at the University of Nevada, Reno: http://www.judicialstudies.unr.edu/JS_Summer09/JSP_Week_1/DeBurca%20ECJ-Kadi.pdf,

De B´urca, G. (2010). "The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order After Kadi", Harvard International Law Journal, 51 (1), 1-50.

Douglas-Scott, S. (2011). "The European Union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon", Human Rights Law Review, 11 (4), 645-682.

Fabbrini, F. & Larik, J. (2013). "Dialoguing for Due Process: Kadi, Nada, and the Accession o the EU to the ECHR", The Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies (Working Paper No. 125 – November 2013), 22 pages.

Finn, J. (1996). "Particularism versus Uniformity: development of Australasian Intellectual property law in the 19th century", the Australia and New Zealand Law and History Society Conference (Brisbane, July 1996), (pp. 1-15).

Gabor, F. A. (1986). "Emerging Unification of Conflict of Laws Rules Applicable to the International Sale of Goods: Uncitral and the New Hague Conference on Private International Law", Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 7 (4), 697-726.

Harman, G. (2005). "Moral Particularism and Transduction", Philosophical Issues, 15, 44-55.

Hoffmann, L. (2011). "Becoming Exceptional? American and European Exceptionalism and Their Critics: A Review", L'Europe en Formation, 1 n 359, 83-106.

Isiksel, N. T. (2010). "Fundamental rights in the EU after Kadi and Al Barakaat", European Law Journal, 5, 551–577.

Jancic, D. (2013). "Recasting monism and dualism in European parliamentary law: The Lisbon Treaty in Britain and France", London: The London School of Economic and Political Science, 29 pages.

Kirby, M. (2010). "Constitutional Law and International Law: National Exceptionalism and the Democratic Deficit?", The Georgetown Law Journal (2009 Hart Memorial Lecture), 98, 433- 458.

Kirchin, S. (2007). "Moral Particularism: An Introduction", Journal of Moral Philosophy, 4 (1), 8-15.

Klabbers, J. (2007). "Kadi Justice at the Security Council?", International Organizations Law Review, 1–12.

Koh, H. H. (2003). "On American Exceptionalism", Stanford Law Review (Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository), 55, 1479-1527.

Kokott, J. & Sobotta, C. (2012). "The Kadi Case – Constitutional Core Values and International Law – Finding the Balance?", The European Journal of International Law, 23 (4), 1015-1024.

Léonard, S. & Kaunert, C. (2012). "Between a Rock and a Hard Place?: The European Union’s Financial Sanctions against Suspected Terrorists, Multilateralism and Human Rights", Cooperation and Conflict (SAGE), 47 (4), 473-494.

Leonhard, A. T. (1968). "Regional Particularism: The Views of the Latin American Judges on the International Court of Justice", University of Miami Law Review, 22, 674-685.

Nolte, G. & Aust, H. P. (2013). "European exceptionalism", Global Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press), 2 (3), 407-436.

Odermatt, J. (2014). "The Court of Justice of the European Union: International or Domestic Court?", Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 3 (3), 696–718.

Orentilicher, D. F. (2003). "Unilateral Multilateralism: United States Policy Toward the International Criminal Court", Cornell Int'l LJ, 36 (3), 415-433.

Peterson, C. H. (1982). "A Response to the Hague Symposium; Particularism in the Conflict of Laws", Hofstra Law Review, 10 (4), 973-1021.

Rosas, A. (2011). "Is the EU a Human Rights Organisation?", Centre For The Law Of EU External Relations (CLEER Working Papers 2011/1).

Safrin, S. (2008). "The Un-Exceptionalism of U.S.Exceptionalism", Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 41, 1307-1354.

Scheeck, L. (2005). "The Relationship between the European Courts and Integration through Human Rights", ZaoeRV (Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht), 65, 837-885.

Schreuer, C. (1995). "Regionalism v. universalism", European Journal International Law, 6, 477-499.

Shenoy, A. V. (2015). "Multicivilizational Perspective of International Human Rights Law: Quest for Global Justice", Conference of “Annual International Studies Convention 2015” (Power, Resistance and Justice in the International System: Perspectives from the South) 22-23 March 2015 (p. 10 pages). School of International Studies Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Simma, B. (2009). "Universality of International Law from the Perspective of a Practitioner", the European Journal of International Law, 20 (2), 265-297.

Wallensteen, P. (1984). "Universalism vs. Particularism: On the Limits of Major Power Order", Journal of Peace Research, 21 (3), 243-257.

Wessel, R. A. (2008). "The Kadi Case: Towards a More Substantive Hierarchy in International Law?", International Organizations Law Review, 5, 323–327.

Williams, A. T. (2013). "The EU interim global justice and the international. In D. &. Kochenov", The European Union's shaping of the international legal order (pp. 38-61), Cambridge University Press.

Wood, M. & Tridimas, T. (2009). "UN and EU Sanctions: Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism – The Kadi case", Chatham House (Summary of the Chatham House International Law Discussion Group meeting held on 22 January 2009), 15 pages.

Wright, R. G. (2008). "Dreams and Formulas: The Roles of Particularism and Principlism in The Law", Hofstra Law Review, 37, 195-222

 

C) Case

Court of Justice of European Union, C-459/03, Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (2006).

Court of Justice of European Union, C-584/10 P - Commission and Others v Kadi (2013).

Court of Justice of European Union, Case 26-62, van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration (1963).

Court of Justice of European Union, Case 6-64, Costa v E.N.E.L (1964).

Court of Justice of European Union, Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (2005).

Court of Justice of European Union, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities )2008.(

Court of Justice of European Union, Opinion of Mr Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 16 January 2008 (on kadi 2008).

Supreme Court of The United States, Bank Markazi (AKA Central Bank Of Iran) v. Peterson ET AL, 578 U.S (2016), No. 14–770. Argued January 13, 2016—Decided April 20, 2016.