نویسنده

پژوهشگر و مدرس دانشگاه

چکیده

دولت‌ها و سازمان‌های بین‌المللی در نظام حقوق بین‌الملل به‌واسطۀ دارا بودن شخصیت حقوقی بین‌المللی قادر به اقامۀ دعوا به‌دلیل زیان‌های وارده از نقض قواعد موجود در نظام بین‌المللی‌اند. نظامی که حقوق بین‌الملل در آن آمیخته و همگام با تحولات آن، گشتارهای بدیعی را در ذهن و دستان خود تجربه می‌کند؛ ذهنیتی که در حرکت به‌سوی قرار دادن بشر به‌عنوان غایت منتفع از حقوق و دستانی که در کلاف سردرگم و سخت حاکمیت دولت قرار گرفته است. اگرچه در عرصۀ بین‌المللی موضوع جبران خسارت و قابلیت اقامۀ دعوای مستقیم در رژیم‌های حقوق بشر و حقوق بشردوستانۀ بین‌المللی نمودی عینی به خود گرفته، با این حال، تحولات بین‌المللی در تلاش برای گذار از تنگنای مزبور و عبور از موانعی عمدتاً شکلی و مرتبط با آیین دادرسی است تا مگر بشر را در آینۀ فردای حقوق بین‌الملل، همچون نظام حقوقی منطقه‌ای اتحادیۀ اروپا، برخوردار از حق اقامۀ مستقیم دعوا علیه دولت‌ها و متمتع از حقوق ذاتی خویش به پاس انسان‌بودنش به نظاره بنشینیم؛ تصویری که دکترین غالب بین‌المللی در طرح آن نقشی تمام زده است. ارزش امروزین، جبران خسارت کامل از افراد و امکان اقامۀ دعوا بدین مقصود است؛ اما واقعیت بین‌المللی معاصر، مجال حضور حاکمیت به‌عنوان مدافع مصلحت‌اندیش برای حمایت دیپلماتیک از اتباع خود یا گردن فراز برای چشم‌پوشی از جبران خسارت از سایر افراد به‌دلیل نقض‌های حقوق بشر و بشردوستانه در تمثالی چون مصونیت دولت است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Impediments to Remedy for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law: Contemporary Developments in International Law

نویسنده [English]

  • Abdollah Abedini

Researcher and University Lecturer

چکیده [English]

Due to their international personality, States and international organizations in current legal system are able to bring an international claim as to injuries resulting from breach of obligations. The system in which international law intertwined with it, during its evolutions experiences novel transformations intellectually and virtually. On the one hand, the system is thinking to place human as the ultimate benefit of law, and on the other hand, its hands have tackled with States sovereignty. However, reparation and remedy and directly bringing lawsuit have partially been realized in human rights law and humanitarian law regimes. International system is attempting to cross the impediments which are largely procedural to benefit human from the right of direct filing lawsuit -such as European Union legal system- against States. In this regard, international doctrines have endeavored to enhance the issue. The prominent value in current international system is full remedy and the possibility of bringing lawsuit for human. However, it seems States sovereignty as an impediment in various forms such as immunity with respect to human rights law and humanitarian law breaches are trying to ignore the reparation for related victims in contemporary international law. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Reparation
  • Right of Persons to Access to Justice
  • International Human Rights
  • International Humanitarian law
  • Statute of Limitation
  • State Immunity. 

  1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

  1. زمانی، سید قاسم (1384). حقوق سازمان‌های بین‌المللی، تهران: مؤسسۀ مطالعات و پژوهش‌‌های حقوقی شهر دانش.
  2. عبداللهی، محسن؛ شافع، میرشهبیز (1386). مصونیت قضایی دولت در حقوق بین‌الملل، چ دوم، معاونت پژوهش، تدوین و تنقیح قوانین و مقررات ریاست جمهوری.
  1. کدخدایی، عباسعلی؛ داعی، علی (1390). سلب مصونیت دولت: بررسی تحلیلی قوانین و مقررات ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا در سلب مصونیت از جمهوری اسلامی ایران نزد محاکم این کشور، چاپ و انتشارات نهاد ریاست جمهوری.

 

 

ب) مقالات

  1. داعی، علی (1390). «حق دادخواهی و جبران خسارت از قربانیان نقض‌های شدید حقوق بین‌الملل بشردوستانه»، رسالۀ دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
  1. سادات میدانی، سید حسین (1383). «ارزیابی عملکرد محاکم داخلی امریکا در انتساب اعمال گروه‌های لبنانی و فلسطینی به جمهوری اسلامی ایران»، ماهنامۀ اطلاع‌رسانی حقوقی، ش 4.
  2. ظاهری، علیرضا (1383). «تحولات قاعدۀ مصونیت دولت: تأثیر قانون صلاحیت دادگستری جمهوری اسلامی ایران و قانون مبارزه با تروریسم ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا»، مجلۀ حقوقی، ش 30.
  3. عبداللهی، محسن (1383). «خسارات تنبیهی در حقوق بین‌الملل»، مجلۀ حقوقی، ش 30.
  4. عبداللهی، محسن؛ خلف رضایی، حسین (1389). «معادلۀ تعارض اصل مصونیت دولت با قواعد آمرۀ حقوق بشر»، نامۀ مفید، ش 79.

2. انگلیسی

 

A)    Book

 

  1. Aust, Anthony (2005). Handbook of International Law, Cambridge University Press.
  1. Bröhmer, Jürgen (1997). State Immunity and The Violation of Human Rights, Kluwer Law International.
  2. Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Louise Doswald-Beck (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I: Rules, Cambridge University Press.
  3. Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Louise Doswald-Beck (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. II: Practices, Cambridge University Press.
  4. Rossene, Shabtai (2004). The Perplexities of Modern International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
  1. De Schutter, Olivier (2010). International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials, Commentary, Cambridge University Press.
  1. Trapp, Kimberley N. (2011). State Responsibility for International Terrorism, Oxford University Press.

 

B)     Articles

 

  1. Bartsch, Kerstin and Björn Elberling (2003). “Jus Cogens vs. State Immunity, Round Two: The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulou et al. v. Greece and Germany Decision”, German law Journal, Vol 4. No. 5.
  2. Bassiouni, M. Cherif (1996). “Searching for Peace and Achieving Justice: The Need for Accountability”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 59.
  3. Bianchi, Andrea (1999). “Immunity Versus Human Rights: The Pinochet Case”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, no. 2.
  4. Dupuy, Pierre-Marie (1999). “The Danger of Fragmentation or Unification of the International Legal System and the International Court of Justice”, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol.31.
  5. Higgins, Rosalyn (1999). “International Law in a Changing International System”, Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 58.
  6. Keitner, Chimène I. (2010). “The Reargument Order in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Its Potential Implications for Transnational Human Rights Cases”, ASIL Insights, Volume 16, Issue 10.
  7. Mazzeschi, Riccardo Pisillo (2003). “Reparation Claims by Individuals for State Breaches of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights: An Overview”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 1.
  8. Menon, Jaykumar A. (2006), “The Alien Tort Statute: Blackstone and Criminal/Tort Law Hybridities”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 4.
  9. Orakhelashvili, Alexander (2002). “State Immunity in National and International Law: Three Recent Cases Before the European Court of Human Rights”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 15.
  10. Sandoz, Yves et la (1987). “Commentary on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions”, International Review of Red Cross, 1987.
  11. Sassòli, Marco (2007), “Implementation of international humanitarian law: Current and inherent Challenge”, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 10.
  12. Simma, Bruno and Dirk Pulkowski (2006). “Of Planets and the Universe: Self-contained Regimes in International Law”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 17.
  13. Zegveld, Liesbeth (2003). “Remedies for Victims of Violations of International Humanitarian Law”, International Review of Red Cross, Vol. 85.
  1. Caplan, Lee M. (2003). “State Immunity, Jus Cogens and Human Rights: A Critique of Normative Hierarchy Theory”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97.
  2. De Sena, Pasquale and Francesca De Vittor (2005). “State Immunity and Human Rights: The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, no.1.
  1. Gattini, Andrea (2011). “The Dispute on Jurisdictional Immunities of the State before the ICJ: Is the Time Ripe for a Change of the Law?”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 24.
  1. Potesta, Michele (2010). “State Immunity and Jus Cogend Violations: The Alian Tort Statute Against The Backdrop of The Latest Developments in The Law of Nations”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, no. 2.
  2. Prosper Weil (1983). “Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 77.
  3. Reinisch, August (2008). “The Immunity of International Organizations and the Jurisdiction of their Administrative Tribunals”, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 7, No. 2.

 

 

C)    Cases

 

  1. Permanent Court of International Justice, Chorzow Factory Case, 13 September 1928, Series A, No. 17.
  2. Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI), (United States of America v. Italy), ICJ Reports, 1989.
  3. Furundzija case, ICTY, Case No.: IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 1998.
  4. Barrios Altos Case - Series C No. 75 [2001] IACHR 5 (14 March 2001).
  5. Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, ICJ Reports 1999.
  6. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), ICJ Reports 2001.
    1. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004.
  7. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), ICJ Reports 2010.
  8. Al-Jedda v. UK, ECHR, (2011).
  9. Mamani v. Berzain (Aug. 29, 2011).
  10. Jurisdictional Immunities of The State (Germany v. Italy: Greec Intervening), 3 February 2012.
  11. Joined Cases T‑439/10 and T‑440/10, Fulmen v. Council of the European Union, Fereydoun Mahmoudian v. Council of the European Union, [21 March 2012].
  1. Al-Adsani v. UK, ECHR, 2002.
  2. Fogarty v. UK, ECHR, 2002.
  3. McElhinney v. UK, ECHR, 2002.
  4. Kalogeropoulou v Greece and Germany, ECHR, 12 December 2002.
  5. German Supreme Court: Distomo Massacre Case, BGH - III ZR 245/98 (June 26, 2003).

46.  Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Court of Appeal for Ontario (Canada), 2004.

  1. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Counter Claim, 6 July 2010.
  2. Bennet v. Islamic Republic of Iran, District of Columbia Circuit, September 10, 2010, No. 09-5147.
  3. OSS Nokalva, Inc. v. European Space Agency, District of New Jersey, June 29, 2010, No. 09-3601.
  1. Al-Skeini v. UK, ECHR, (2011).
  2. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Application by The Hellenic Republic for Permission to Interevene, Order, 4 July 2011.

D)    Documents

 

  1. UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1968.
  2. Act Concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, Belgium, Official Journal of 23.03.1999.
  3. Risk Insurance Terrorism Act 2002.
  4. Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 2005.
  5. United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004.
  6. General Comment on the Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties under the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 2004.
  7. Framentation of Interantional Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of Interantional Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission: Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006.
  8. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998.
  9. Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, with commentaries, in, Report of the International Law Commission, 2011.
  1. Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, 2001, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two.
  1. Resolution on the Immunity from Jurisdiction of the State and of Persons Who Act on Behalf of the State in case of International Crimes, Institute of International Law, Session of Naples, 2009.

Websites:

  1. http://conventions.coe.int
  2. http://treaties.un.org
  3. http://tarh.majlis.ir
  4. http://uscode.house.gov
  5. http://www.legislation.gov.uk
  6. http://www.idi-iil.org/
  7. http://www.canlii.org
  1. http://internationallaw.blogfa.com
  2. http://www.pca-cpa.org
  3. http://www.uncc.ch/
  4. http://www.icrc.org