نویسندگان

1 گروه حقوق، واحد نجف‌آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف‌آباد، ایران

2 گروه حقوق، واحد نجف‌آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف‌آباد، ایران و گروه حقوق، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

ضرورت نظامی از مفاهیم مهم حقوق جنگ است که هم در حق بر جنگ و هم در حق در جنگ مطرح می‌شود. ضرورت نظامی در حق بر جنگ به قواعد محدودکننده و تنظیم‌کنندۀ اوضاع و احوالی که دولت‌ها به موجب آن می‌توانند به زور متوسل شوند، می‌پردازد. لیکن در حقوق مخاصمات مسلحانه به محدودیت‌های مربوط به روش‌ها و ابزارهای مورد استفادۀ طرفین در جریان یک مخاصمه اشاره دارد. این نوشتار در پی پرداختن به این مسئله است که جایگاه حقوقی ضرورت نظامی در مخاصمات مسلحانه چگونه است. در پاسخ و با استفاده از روش توصیفی-تحلیلی و ملاحظۀ منابع عرفی و موضوعی حقوق بین‌الملل باید گفت نوعی تحول در این حوزه رخ داده است. در گذشته غاغلب ادعا می‌شد که در صورت اقتضای ضرورت نظامی می‌توان از مقررات حاکم بر مخاصمات مسلحانه عدول کرد. این ادعا بدین‌معنا بود که ضرورت نظامی فراتر و مافوق حقوق است، لیکن این دیدگاه امروزه دیگر کارایی ندارد. امروزه مطابق حقوق بشردوستانۀ بین‌المللی باید گفت که اگر ضرورت، حقوقی نمی‌شناسد، پس حقوق و مقرراتی هم وجود ندارد. در نتیجه ضرورت نظامی را باید به‌عنوان یک استثنا هم در حوزۀ حق در جنگ و هم حق بر جنگ قلمداد کرد، البته در مقام استثنا نیز خود الزاماتی دارد که بدون احراز آنها، ضرورت محقق نخواهد شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Military Necessity as an Exception in Law of Armed Conflicts

نویسندگان [English]

  • Valiollah Noori 1
  • Seyed Ghasem Zamani 2
  • Masoud Raei 1

1 Law Department, Najaf Abad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najaf Abad, Iran

2 Law Department, Najaf Abad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najaf Abad, Iran – Law Department, Allameh Tabatabaee University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Military necessity is an important concept in both jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum refers to the legal norms which restrict the circumstances in which states can resort to the use of force, while jus in bello refers to the placing of limits on the manner in which hostilities are conducted. In the past, it was often claimed that a belligerent party is at liberty to deviate from the law of international armed conflict when military necessity so demanded. This claim, which actually means that military necessity is superior to the law, is now completely defunct. At present, it is indisputable that if ‘necessity knows no law’, then there is no law. At present military necessity can only be considered as an exception to the humanitarian rules, but of course there is some requirements for this exception that military necessity cannot be achieved without them.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Military Necessity
  • Law of Armed Conflicts
  • Exception
  • Military Objective
  • Additional Protocol I 1977

1. فارسی

1. ایپسون نات (1387). رزمندگان و غیر رزمندگان، ترجمۀ کتایون حسین‌نژاد، در: فلک دیتر(ویراستار)، حقوق بشردوستانه در مخاصمات مسلحانه، به اهتمام و ویرایش سید قاسم زمانی و نادر ساعد، کمیتۀ ملی حقوق بشردوستانه، تهران: مؤسسۀ مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهر دانش.

2. ممتاز، جمشید؛ شایگان، فریده (1393). حقوق بین‌الملل بشردوستانه در برابر چالش‌های مخاصمات مسلحانۀ عصر حاضر، تهران، مؤسسۀ مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهر دانش.

 

2. انگلیسی

A) Books

3. Cohen David (1987). The Development of the Modern Doctrine of Necessity: A Comparative Critique, in: Justification and Excuse: Comparative Perspectives, Albin Eser et al. (eds.), Juris Publishing.

4. Dinstein Yoram (2004). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed conflict, Cambridge University Press.

5. Fletcher George P., (2000). Rethinking Criminal Law, Oxford University Press

6. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), (1987). Commentary on the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, 8 June 1977, Geneva, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

7. McDougal Myres Smith and Florentino P. Feliciano, (1961). Law and Minimum World Public Order; The Legal Regulation and International Coercion, Yale University Press.

8. Orend Brian (2000). War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective, Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

9. Pictet Jean, (1958). Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. IV, Geneva, International Committee of the Red Cross

10. Rogers Anthony p., (2004). Law on the Battlefield, Manchester University Press.

11. Schabas William (2010). The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute, Oxford University Press.

12. Stone Julius (1954). Legal Controls of International Conflict: A Treatise on the Dynamics of Disputes and War Law, New York, Rinehart.

 

B) Articles

13. Bogliolo Luis Paulo (2012). "Rethinking Military Necessity in the Law of Armed Conflict"http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2201129, last seen: 22 august 2016.

14. Carnahan Burrus M., (1998). "Lincoln, Lieber and the Laws of War: The Origins and Limits of the Principle of Military Necessity", 92 The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 92, No. 2, pp 213-231.

15. Cowling Michael G., (2001). "The Relationship Between Military Necessity and the Principle of Superfluous Injury and Unnecessary Suffering in the Law of Armed Conflict", 25 South African Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 25, pp 131-160.

16. Dinstein Yoram (2009)(last updated), "Military Necessity", Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online Version)

17. CRAIG J.S., (2007). "The Doctrine of Military Necessity and the Protection of Cultural Property during Armed Conflicts", California Western International Law Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, Art. 2, pp 177-219.

18. Green James A., (2009) (last updated), "Self-Preservation", Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online Version).

19. Greenwood Christopher (1995). "Historical Development and Legal Basis", in: Fleck Dieter (ed.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, New York, Oxford University Press.

20. Hayashi Nobuo (2010). "Requirements of Military Necessity in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law", Boston University International Law Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp 39-140.

21. Hayashi Nobuo (A), (2013). "Contextualizing Military Necessity", Emory International Law Review, Vol. 27, pp 189-283.

22. Hayashi Nobuo (B), (2013). "Military Necessity as Normative Indifference", Georgetown Journal of International Law, Vol. 44, 675- 782.

23. Hayashi Nobuo (2016). "Basic Principles", in: Routledge handbook of the law of armed conflict, Rain Liivoja and Tim McCormack (eds.), New York, Routledge.

24. Horton Scott (2006)."Kriegsraison or Military Necessity? The Bush Administration’s Wilhelmine Attitude Towards the Conduct of War", Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 30, Issue 3, pp 576-598.

25. McCoubrey Hillaire (1991). "The Nature of the Modern Doctrine of Military Necessity", 30 Military Law and Law of War Review, 215-252

26. O’Brien William V., (1957). "The Meaning of Military Necessity in International Law", World Polity, Vol. 1.

27. Pertile Marco (2004). "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?", Italian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 14, pp 121-161.

28. Pictet Jean (1985)."Development and Principles of International Humanitarian Law" Course Given in July 1982 at the University of Strasbourg as Part of the Courses Organized by the International Institute of Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

 

C) Cases and Documents

29. Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977

30. Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949

31. Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949

32. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

33. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague, 14 May 1954

34. Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, International Law Commission, 2001

35. Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Oct. 18, 1907

36. Hostage Case (United States v. List), US Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, Judgment of 19 February 1948, Reprinted in: Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council law no. 10.: Nuremberg, October 1946- April, 1949, vol. XI, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1950

37. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004

38. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996

39. International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute, 1998

40. Model Penal Code, official draft and explanatory notes, Complete Text of Model Penal Code as Adopted at the 1962 Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute, at Washington, D.C., May 24, 1962

41. Report on the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Thirty-Second Session, International Law Commission, 45-46, U.N. Doc. A/35/10, 1980

42. San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

43. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Prosecutor v Blaskič, (IT-95-14), Trial Chamber, 2000

44. United States War Department, General Orders No. 100, Apr. 24, 1863 (Lieber Code)