نویسندگان

1 استاد دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

2 دانش‌آموختۀ دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

منطق مورد استفاده در حقوق، نمی‌تواند محدود به منطق صوری باشد، زیرا حقوق، حوزۀ قضاوت‌های ارزشی است که اثبات ریاضی و آزمایش تجربی را برنمی‌تابد. منطق حقوق، منطق اقناع و احتجاج است. نظریۀ احتجاج به بررسی استدلال‌هایی می‌پردازد که در مورد قضاوت‌های ارزشی به‌کار می‌روند. یکی از استدلال‌هایی که در این نظریه کاربرد دارد، «احتجاج مبتنی بر مرجعیت» است. در این احتجاج، مرجعیت نظری یک شخص یا نهاد به‌عنوان دلیلی بر قوت یک ادعا مورد استناد قرار می‌گیرد. نظرهای دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری به‌عنوان نهاد قضایی معتبر، در گفتمان‌های جاری در سطح بین‌المللی به‌وفور مورد استناد و اتکا قرار می‌گیرند؛ اما استناد موفق به مرجعیت نظری دیوان، منوط به حصول برخی شرایط است. بررسی این شرایط در خصوص استناد به مرجعیت نظری دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری به درک نقش این نهاد قضایی در عرصۀ بین‌المللی کمک خواهد کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Theoretical Authority of the International Court of Justice

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohamadreza Ziai Bigdeli 1
  • Hassan Bagherzadeh 2

1 Professor, Public and International Law Department, Faculty of law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph. D Student of Public International Law, Public and International Law Department, Faculty of law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

The logic of law could not be limited to formal logic, because law is the domain of value judgments which are alien to mathematical demonstration and empirical test. The logic of law is logic of persuasion and argumentation. Argumentation theory is about arguments applicable to value judgments. One of the arguments in this theory is "Argument from Authority". In this particular argument, theoretical authority of a person or institution is utilized to argue in favor of a proposition. The Opinions of the International Court of Justice as a renowned international judicial institution are relied upon in many discourses at international level; but successful appeal to theoretical authority of the court needs to meet certain criteria. The survey of these criteria regarding the argument from authority of the international court of justice would help us to understand the role of this judicial institution in international arena.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Argument from Authority
  • Persuasion
  • International Court of Justice
  • Theoretical Authority
  • Logic of Law
  • Argumentation Theory
  • Individual Opinions of Judges

1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

1. الشریف، م. (1393). منطق حقوق: پژوهشی در منطق حاکم بر تفسیر و استدلال حقوقی، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.

 

ب) مقالات

2. الشریف، م. (1386). «صورت‌گرایی در استدلال قضایی: پژوهشی در نسبت بین قیاس قضایی و قیاس صوری»، فصلنامۀ حقوق, 37(2)، ص 39-1.

3. کُپی، ا. م. (1374). «مغالطات غیرصوری»، ترجمۀ رضا محمدزاده، فصلنامۀ پژوهشی دانشگاه امام صادق 1(2)، ص 200-169.

 

2. انگلیسی

A) Books

4. Black's Law Dictionary. (1999). U.S.: West Publishing Co.

5. Chayes, A., ; Chayes, A. H. (1995). The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

6. Descartes, R. (1985). Rules for the Direction of the Mind (J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch, Trans.) The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. 1, London: Cambridge University Press.

7. Franck, T. M. (1995). Fairness in International Law and Institutions, New York: Oxford University Press.

8. Gross, A. G.; Dearin, R. D. (2003). Chaim Perelman, Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

9. Mendes, C. H. (2013). Constitutional Courts and Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10. Perelman, C.,; Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

11. Prott, L. V. (1979). The Latent Power of Culture and the International Judge, Abingdon, Oxon: professional Books Ltd.

12. Shahabuddeen, M. (1996). Precedent in the World Court, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13. Sorm, E. (2010). The good, the bad and the persuasive: Normative quality and actual persuasiveness of arguments from authority, arguments from cause to effect and arguments from example, The Netherlands: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap (LOT) Publications.

14. Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

B) Articles & Book Sections

15. Anzilotti, M. (1928). "Speech by President Anzilotti" (February 6th 1928) Fourth Annual Report of the Permanent Court of International Juctice (June 15th 1927- June 15th 1928) ,. Leyden: A. W. Sijthoff's Publishing Company, Vol. Series E, No. 4, pp. 19-25.

16. Aznar-Gomez, M. J. (2006). "Chapter I. Organization of the Court: Article 2." In A. Zimmermann, C. Tomuschat, & K. Oellers-Frahm (Eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, pp. 205-218. New York: Oxford University Press.

17. Coleman, E. (1995). "There is no Fallacy of Arguing from Authority", Informal Logic, 17(3), pp. 365-383.

18. Damrosch, L. F. (2006). "Article 56", In A. Zimmermann, C. Tomuschat, & Oellers-Frahm (Eds.), The Statute of the International Court Of justice: A Commentary ,. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1183-1198.

19. Georget, P., Golitsyn, V., ; Zacklin, R. (2006). "Article 6". In A. Zimmermann, C. Tomuschat, & K. Oellers-Frahm (Eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary,. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 249-251.

20. Green, L. (1998). "Authority", In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London: Taylor and Francis.

21. Hansen, H. V. (2006). "Whately on Arguments Involving Authority", Informal Logic, 26(3), pp. 319-340.

22. Henderson, M. T. (2007). From Seriatim to Consensus and Back Again: A Theory of Dissent. The Supreme Court Review, 2007(1), pp. 283-344.

23. Hofmann, R.,  Laubner, T. (2006). "Article 57", In A. Zimmermann, C. Tomuschat, & Oellers-Frahm (Eds.), The Statute of the International Court Of justice: A Commentary ,New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1199-1215.

24. Palchetti, P. (2006a). "Article 26", In A. Zimmermann, C. Tomuschat, & K. Oellers-Frahm (Eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 439-465.

25. Palchetti, P. (2006b). "Article 27", In A. Zimmermann, C. Tomuschat, & K. Oellers-Frahm (Eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 467-472.

26. Perelman, C. (1979a). "Disagreement and Rationality". The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 111-116.

27. Perelman, C. (1979b). "The New Rhetoric: a Theory of Practical Reasoning" (E. Griffin-Collart & O. Bird, Trans.) The New Rhetoric and the Humanities, . Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 1-42.

28. Perelman, C. (1980a). "Legal Reasoning", Justice, Law, and Argument, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 125-135

29. Perelman, C. (1980b). "What the Philosopher May Learn from the Study of Law", Justice, Law, and Argument: Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning ,. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 163-174.

30. Perelman, C.; Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1951). "Act and Person in Argument", Ethics, pp. 251-269.

31. Van Eemeren, F. H.,; Grootendorst, R. (2015). "The History of the Argumentum Ad Hominem since the Seventeenth Century", In F. H. Van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics , pp. 611-629. London: Springer International Publishing.

32. Willard, C. A. (1990). "Authority", Informal Logic, 12(1), pp. 11-22.

 

C) Cases

33. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 3.

34. Application for Review of Judgement No. 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1987, p. 1 8.

 

D) Documents

35. International Court of Justice. (1986). Comments of the International Court of Justice on the Report of the UN Joint Inspection Unit on "Publications of the International Court of Justice".

36. International Court of Justice. (2018). Chambers and Committees. Retrieved from http://www.icj-cij.org/en/chambers-and-committees