دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار، گروه حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدة حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 کاندیدای دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدة حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

حقوق نرم از جمله موضوعات جدید در حقوق بین‌الملل بوده و دامنة نفوذ آن در حال گسترش روزافزون است. شاید امروزه کمتر نهادی را بتوان یافت که از این ابزار برای پیشبرد اهداف خود بهره نبرد. از زمرۀ این نهادها، دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری است. در این نوشتار با روش دگماتیک حقوقی سعی شده تا جایگاه و کارکرد حقوق نرم در آرای دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری بررسی شود. دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در آرای متعدد خود به موضوع حقوق نرم پرداخته است. دیوان از یک سو معیار تفکیک حقوق نرم از سخت را بیان کرده و از سوی دیگر، قابلیت استناد به حقوق نرم را به نمایش گذاشته است. بدین‌منظور در موارد متعددی از حقوق نرم برای تقویت استدلالات خود و نیز احراز عنصر روانی عرف بین‌المللی بهره برده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Nature and Function of Soft Law in the Practice of the International Court of Justice

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad hosein Ramazani Ghavamabadi 1
  • Mohammad Alipour 2

1 .Associate Prof , Department of international Law, Faculty of Law , University of Shahid Besheshti , Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. candidate in International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Shahid Besheshti, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Soft law is one of the new topics in international law and the scope of its influence is expanding. Perhaps today fewer institutions can be found that do not use this tool in order to reach their goals. One of these institutions is the International Court of Justice. This paper attempts to examine the status and function of soft law in the practice of the International Court of Justice in a legal dogmatic way. The International Court of Justice has dealt with the issue of soft law in numerous cases. The Court, on the one hand, expresses the criterion of separation of soft law from the hard law and on the other hand, shows the ability to cite soft law. For this purpose, the court has, in many cases, enjoyed soft law to reinforce its arguments and to assert the opinio juris of international custom.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Hard law
  • soft law
  • International Court of Justice
  • function of soft law
  • Customary International law
1. فارسی
الف) کتاب‌ها
1. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله (1395)، صلح جاویدان و حکومت قانون،تهران: آسیم.
 
ب) مقالات
2. حبیب‌زاده، توکل؛ عطار، محمدصالح (1391)، «ارزیابی مفهومی «حقوق نرم» در نظام منابع حقوق بین‌الملل»، مجلۀ پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، دورۀ شانزدهم، ش 2.
3. شیروی، عبدالحسین؛  وکیلی مقدم، محمدحسین (1394)، «حقوق نرم»، مجلة حقوق تطبیقیدانشگاه تهران، دورۀ 6، ش 1.
4. محمودی، زهرا (1395)، «حقوق نرم در پرتو تصمیمات نهادهای قضایی و شبه‌قضایی بین‌المللی»، مجلۀ حقوق تطبیقی دانشگاه مازندران، سال دوم، ش 1.
5. ویرلی، میشائیل (1376)، ترجمة اردشیر امیرارجمند، «شکل‌گیری قواعد بین‌المللی در دنیای رو به تحول»،نقدمفهوم حقوق قوام‌نیافته، مجلة تحقیقات حقوقی،ش 19.
6. هداوند، مهدی؛ سیف‌اللهی، آرمان (1388)، «جایگاه حقوق نَرم در توسعة حقوق بین‌الملل»، فصلنامة راهبرد، سال هجدهم، ش 50.
 
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
1. Alston, P. & R Goodman (2007), International Human Rights in Context Law: Politics, Morals, oxford university press.
2. mCassese, Antonio (2005), International Law, oxford university press.
3. Falsafi, Hedayatollah (1395), permanent peace and rule of law, Tehran, Acim publications (In Persian).
 
B) Articles
4. Abbott, KennethW.(2000), “Hard and Soft Law in International Governance”, International Organization, Vol. 54, issue 3.
5. Chinkin, C. M. (1989), “The Challenge of Soft Law: Development and Change in International Law”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 4.
6. Cihangir, Nagihan (2017), “the role of soft law and the interplay between soft law and hard law in the context of international human rights”, Law & Justice Review, Year:8, Issue:14
7. Falsafi, Hedayatollah (1396), Doctoral lectures publications (In Persian).
8. Gasser, H.P., (1995), “For better protection of the natural environment in armed conflict: A proposal for action“, American Journal of International Law, Vol 89, issue 3
9. Gunther F. Handl (1998), “A Hard Look at Soft Law”, American Society of International Law, Vol. 82.
10. Guzman, Andrew T, (2002), “A Compliance-Based Theory of International Law”, California Law Review, Vol. 90, Issue 6
11. Habibzadeh, Tavakol & Attar Mohammad Saleh (1391), “Conceptual evaluation of "soft law" in the system of international legal resources”, Comparative Law Researches, Vol 16, No 2 publications (In Persian).
12. Hadavand, Mehdi & Arman Saifollahi (1388), “The Status of Soft Law in Development of International Law”, The scientific research journal of rahbord, Vol 18, No 50 publications (In Persian).
13. Ingelse, Chris (1993), “Soft Law”, 20 Polish Year Book International Law
14. Lipson, Charles.(1991), “Why Are Some International Agreements Informal? “, International Organization. Vol 45, Issue 4
15. Mahmodi, Zahra (1395), “Soft Law in the Light of decisions of international Judicial and Semi Judicial Bodies”, comparative law review, Vol 2, No 1 publications (In Persian).
16. Mann, Yossi.(2012), “Saudi Arabia's policy toward non-OPEC countries”, Diplomacy & Statecraft 23, No. 2.
17. Meyer,Timothy, (2009), “Soft Law as Delegation”, Fordham international law journal , Vol. 32, Issue 3.
18. Pronto, Arnold N, (2015), “Understanding the Hard/Soft Distinction in International Law, VanderbIlt Journal OF Transnational Law, Vol 48
19. Robilan Di, Anna,(2006), “Genealogies of Soft Law”, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 54, Issue 3.
20. Shaffer,C. Gregory, & Mark A. Pollack. (2009), “Hard vs. soft law: Alternatives, complements, and antagonists in international governance”, Minn. L. Rev. Vol. 94.
21. Shelton, Dinah L.,(2008), “Soft Law”, Handbook of International Law, Routledge Press, The George Washington University Law School.
22. Shiravi, Abdolhossein & Mohammad Hosein Vakili Moghadam ( 1394), “soft law”, Comparative Law Review, Vol 6, No 1 publications (In Persian).
23. Virley, Michael (1376) “The formation of international rules in an evolving world, a critique of the concept of "soft law"”, Ardeshir Amir Arjmand translated, legal research quarterly , Vol 1, No 122 publications (In Persian).
24. Von Engelhardt, Marie, (2009),“Opportunities and Challenges of a Soft Law track to Economic and Social Rights-The Case of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food. ” Verfassung und Recht in Übersee/Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America,Vol 42, no 4.
25. Weil, Prosper, (1983):  “Towards relative normativity in international law? ” American Journal of International Law, Vol 77, no 3.
 
C) Judgment Documents
26. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), ICJ, Judgment of 19 December, 1978.
27. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 11 July 1996
28. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment of 18 November 2008.
29. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986.
30. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United states of America) 1996.
31. Legal Consequences for states of the Continued Presence of South Africa In Namibia (South West Africa) Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971.
32. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. 136, 171 (July 9, 2004).
33. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226, 242–243 (July 1996).
34. Arrest Warrant of April 11 2000 (Congo v. Belgium), 2002 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 14).
35. the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project(Hungary vs. Slovakia) Judgment of 25 September 1997.
36. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of Congo), Judgment of 30 November 2010.
37. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971.
38. Ecomhr, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and The Netherlands v. Greece 19 November 1969, (Appl. no. 3321-3323.67 and 3344/67) (The Greek Case).
39. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening) Judgment of 3 February 2012.
40. Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment of 31 March 2014.
 
D) Websites