نویسندگان

1 استاد، دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

3 استادیار، دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

قیاس در نظام حقوق بین‌الملل از جمله مفاهیم پیچیده و چندوجهی است که در رویۀ دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری به مناسبت‌های مختلف به‌کرات استفاده شده است. هرچند دیوان در بیشتر موارد در خصوص توسل به قیاس در متدولوژی سکوت اختیار کرده، اما تحلیل آرا و نظرها در خصوص این مفهوم به‌طور خاص به ما کمک می‌کند تا ماهیت مفهوم را بهتر بشناسیم و ارزیابی بهتری از دامنۀ آن داشته باشیم. دیوان با استفاده از ظرفیت‌های قیاس و نقش مؤثر آن در فرایند تفسیر، روشن کردن محتوای قواعد، دمیدن روح نوآوری و عنصر ترقی به پیکرۀ حقوق بین‌الملل و رفع خلأ، ابهام و اجمال در مقررات، استنباط‌های اثرگذاری انجام داده که در فهم محتوا، کارکردها و معیارهای حقوقی قیاس راهگشاست. مقالۀ حاضر ضمن آنکه ابعاد فلسفی- حقوقی مفهوم قیاس و شناخت درست ظرفیت‌های آن را در راستای توسعۀ حقوق بین‌الملل و پویایی و یکپارچه‌سازی آن مورد توجه قرار می‌دهد، بر تحلیل نقش قیاس در رویۀ قضایی دیوان بین‌المللی، متمرکز شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Discovery of Legal Rule through Analogy by the International Court of Justice

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyed Mohammad Ghari Seyed Fatemi 1
  • Heidar Piri 2
  • Seyed Hadi Mahmoody 3

1 Professor, International Law Department, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D Student in International Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, International Law Department, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Analogy in international legal system, is one of the complex and multifaceted concepts that have always been discussed among international law scholars, and have been widely used in the International Court of Justice proceedings for various occasions. Although the Court, in most cases, has been silent about resorting to analogy in its methodology; but analysis of ICJ judgments and opinions regarding this concept in particular helps us to understand the nature of the concept and assess its scope in a better way. The Court, have made effective inferences by using the capacities of analogy and its effective role in the interpretation process, clarifying the content of the rules, blowing the spirit of innovation and the element of advancement into the international law as a whole, and filling gaps, eliminating the ambiguity and brevity in the international provisions, that make it possible to understand the content, functions and its legal criteria. This paper, while considering the philosophical- legal aspects of the concept of analogy and proper understanding of its capacities for the development, dynamism and integration of international law, is focused on analyzing the role of analogy in the judicial procedure of the ICJ.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Analogy
  • Legal Reasoning
  • ICJ
  • Legal Rule
  • Silence and gap in Law
  • International Law

1. فارسی

1. سیمایی صراف، حسین (1395). قیاس در استدلال حقوقی، تهران: شهر دانش.

2. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله (1396). سیر عقل در منظومۀ حقوق بین‌الملل، تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو.

3. -------------- (1390). صلح جاویدان و حکومت قانون، تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو.

 

2. لاتین

A) Books

5. Danilenko, Gennadiĭ Mikhaĭlovich (1993). Law Making in International Communities, London, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

6. De Visscher, Charles (1963). Problemes d'interpretation Judicaire en droit indternational public, paris, pedone.

7. Ian Brownlie (2008). Principles of Public International Law, Oxford.

8. Vadi, Valentina (2016). Analogies in International Investment Law and Arbitration, Cambridge University Press.

 

B) Articles

9. De Visscher, Ch, (1971). “Les Conditions d application des Lois de la Guerre Aux Operations Militaires des Nations Unies, Report Provisoire”, AIDI, Vol.I.

10. Dominic, Ch, (1984). “Methodology of International Law”, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, North-Holland, Vol.7.

11. Jain, Neha, (2014). “General Principles of Law as Gap-Fillers”, International Legal Theory Colloquium, New York Law School.

12. Juthe, Andre, (2005). “Argument by Analogy”, Argumentation, Vol.19, Issue.1.

13. Kammerhofer, Jörg, (2004). “Uncertainty in the Formal Sources of International Law: Customary International Law and Some of Its Problems”, EJIL, Vol.15.

14. Macagno, F; Walton, D, (2009). “Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories”, Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol.42, No.2.

15. Seyersted, F, (1964). “International Personality of International Organizations: Do Their Capacities Really Depend on Their Constitutions”, IJIL, Vol.4.

16. Stefan Talmon, (2015). “Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ’s Methodology between Induction, Deduction and Assertion”, The European Journal of International Law, Vol.26, No.2,

17. Worster, William Thomas, (2014). “The Inductive and Deductive Methods in Customary International Law Analysis: Traditional and Modern Approaches”, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Vol.45.

 

C) Cases

18. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case (Greece v. Turkey), ICJ, 1978.

19. Arrest Warrant (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), ICJ, 2002, Separate Opinion of Judge Bula-Bula & Judge Van Den Wyngaert.

20. UNCITRAL, AWG Group Ltd v. The Argentine Republic, Decision on Liability, 30 July 2010.

21. Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v. United States of America), ICJ, 1984.

22. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), Merits,1986.

23. Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, 1998.

24. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), ICJ, 1984.

25. International Status of South-West Africa, ICJ, Advisory Opinion of July 1950.

26. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment, ICJ, 2012.

27. Nicaragua v. United States of America, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ, 1984.

28. Nottebohm Case, Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, Second Phase, ICJ, 1955.

29. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Judgment 15 July 1999, Case No.IT-94-1-A, A.Ch.

30. Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion 1949, Dissenting Opinion by Judge Badawi Pasha.

31. South-West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa), Preliminary Objections, ICJ, 1966.

32. Victor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Decision on Provisional Measures