دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه حقوق عمومی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

حکومت‌ها همواره به‌منظور حفاظت از امنیت ملی و مقابله با تهدیدات داخلی و بین‌المللی، در پی کسب اطلاعات محرمانه و راهبردی سایر کشور‌ها هستند تا بدین‌وسیله سیاست‌های خود را به‌صورت پنهان، در کشور هدف پیاده کنند. این امر، در بیشتر موارد، سبب ورود خسارت‌های متعدد به کشور قربانی می‌شود. اما سؤال این است که آیا جاسوسی از سوی دولت‌ها،‌ می‌تواند برای آنان ایجاد مسئولیت کند یا خیر؟ با عنایت به نبود هیچ مقرره‌ای در حقوق بین‌الملل در خصوص جاسوسی، اختلاف نظرهای بسیاری در خصوص وضعیت حقوقی عمل جاسوسی وجود دارد. پژوهش حاضر ابتدا، جایگاه جاسوسی در حقوق بین‌الملل را روشن می‌سازد و سپس اصلی‌ترین عنصر تحقق مسئولیت، یعنی انتساب را ارزیابی می‌کند. در نهایت پس از احراز مسئلة انتساب، در بخش پایانی تحقیق، شرایط اقامة دعوا در محاکم و اقدامات جایگزین تجزیه‌وتحلیل می‌شود. یافته‌های تحقیق نشان داد عمل جاسوسی به‌دلیل مغایرت با اصول و قواعد حقوق بین‌الملل فعل متخلفانة بین‌المللی محسوب می‌شود و ارتکاب آن موجب مسئولیت است؛ لیکن با توجه به آنکه معمولاً امکان طرح دعوای حقوقی در محاکم بین‌المللی وجود ندارد، توسل به شیوه‌های سیاسی و اقدام متقابل، مؤثرترین راهکار توصیه‌شده در پرونده‌های جاسوسی است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Espionage in International Law and State Responsibility

نویسندگان [English]

  • Elham Aminzadeh 1
  • Amir Lohrasbi 2

1 Associate Prof., Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 MA. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Governments have always sought to obtain the secret and strategic intelligence of other countries in order to protect national security and respond to domestic and international threats, thereby applying their covert policies in the target country. This, in most cases, inflicts numerous injuries on the victim country. But the question is, can espionage make the government responsible for that act? Given the absence of any regulations in international law on espionage, there is a strong disagreement over the legal status of espionage. The present study first elucidates the position of espionage in international law and then assesses the attribution of espionage to the responsible State. Finally, the terms of the international courts' proceedings and alternative measures are analyzed. Research results show that espionage is a wrongful international act because of its incompatibility with the principles of international law, but it is not usually possible to take legal action in international courts. The best solution is to use political ways and countermeasures in espionage cases.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • attribution
  • Espionage
  • International Law
  • International Wrongful Act
  • Intelligence gathering
  • state responsibility
A) Books
1. Andrew, Christopher; Aldrich, Richard J., & Wark, Wesley K. (2009). Secret Intelligence: A Reader, USA, Routledge Publishing.
2. Garner, Bryan A. (2009), Black's Law Dictionary, 9th edition, USA, Thomson West Publishing.
3. Johnson, Loch K. (2006), Handbook of Intelligence Studies, USA, Routledge Publishing.
4. Johnson, Loch K. (2007), Strategic Intelligence: Understanding the hidden side of government, USA, Praeger Security International.
5. Moore, Greg (2014), Encyclopedia of U.S. Intelligence, USA, Auerbach Publications.
6. Scott, L.V., Jackson, Peter (2004), Understanding Intelligence in the Twenty-First Century (Studies in Intelligence), USA, Routledge Publishing.
7. Sharp Sr., Walter G. (1999), Cyberspace and the Use of Force, Ageis Research Corp.
8. Smith Jr, W. Thomas (2003), Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency, USA, InfoBase Publishing.
9. Thomas, Ann Van Wynen (1972), The concept of aggression in international law, USA, Southern Methodist University Press.
10. Treverton, Gregory F. (1988), Covert Action: The CIA and the Limits of American Intervention in the Postwar World, UK, I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.
11. Wright, Quincy (1962), Essays on Espionage and International Law, Columbus, Ohio State University Press.
 
B) Articles
12. Baker, Christopher D. (2004), "Tolerance of International Espionage: A Functional Approach", American University International Law Review, Vol. 19, Issue 5, pp. 1091-1114.
13. Beim, Jared (2018), "Enforcing a Prohibition on International Espionage", Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, Issue 2, pp. 647-672.
14. Chesterman, Simon (2006), "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold War: Intelligence and International Law", Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, Issue 4, pp. 1071-1130.
15. Deeks, Ashley S. (2016), "Confronting and Adapting: Intelligence Agencies and International Law", Virginia Law Review, Vol. 102, Issue 3, pp. 599-686.
16. Demarest, Geoffrey B. (1996), "Espionage in International Law", Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 24, Issue 2, pp. 321-348.
17. Fleck, Dieter (2007), "Individual and State Responsibility for Intelligence Gathering", Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, Issue 3, pp. 687-710.
18. Forcese, Craig (2011), "Spies without Borders: International Law and Intelligence Collection", Journal of National Security Law & Policy, Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 179-210.
19. Forcese, Craig (2016), "Pragmatism and Principle: Intelligence Agencies and International Law", Virginia Law Review Online, Vol. 102, pp. 67-84.
20. Goldsmith, Jack (2013), "How Cyber Changes the Law of War", European Journal of International Law, Vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 129-138.
21. Hathaway, Haley (2012), "The Law of Cyber-Attack", California Law Review, Vol. 100, Issue 4, pp. 817-886.
22. Henderson, Ian (2011), "International Law Concerning the Status and Marking of Remotely Piloted Aircraft", Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 39, Issue 4, pp. 615-628.
23. Huddleston, Angela (2010), "THE RESPONSIBILITY GAP: THE CIA, COVERT ACTIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW", Available at: http://works.bepress.com/angela_huddleston/1/.
24. Jackamo, Thomas J. III (1992), "From the Cold War to the New Multilateral World Order: The Evolution of Covert Operations and the Customary International Law of Non-Intervention", Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 32, Issue 4, pp. 929-978.
25. Jackamo, Thomas J. III (1992), "From the Cold War to the New Multilateral World Order: The Evolution of Covert Operations and the Customary International Law of Non-Intervention", Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 32, Issue 4, pp. 929-978.
26. Kilovaty, Ido (2016), "World Wide Web of Exploitations - The Case of Peacetime Cyber Espionage Operations under International Law: Towards a Contextual Approach", Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp. 42-78.
27. La Raza L.J (1984), "The Legality of Covert Action under Contemporary International Law", La Raza Law Journal, Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp. 139-167.
28. Navarrete, Inaki, Buchan, Russell (2019), "Out of the Legal Wilderness: Peacetime Espionage, International Law and the Existence of Customary Exceptions", Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 51, Issue 4, pp. 897-954.
29. Pun, Darien (2017), "Rethinking Espionage in the Modern Era", Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp. 353-[ii].
30. Raboin, Bradley (2011), "Corresponding Evolution: International Law and the Emergence of Cyber Warfare", Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, Vol. 31, Issue 2, pp. 602-668.
31. Radsan, A. John (2007), "The Unresolved Equation of Espionage and International Law", Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, Issue 3, pp. 595-624.
32. Scott, Roger D. (1999), "Territorially Intrusive Intelligence Collection and International Law", Air Force Law Review, Vol. 46, pp. 217-226.
33. Sulmasy, Glenn, Yoo, John (2007), "Counterintuitive: Intelligence Operations and International Law", Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, Issue 3, pp. 625-638.
34. Williams, Robert D. (2011), "(Spy) Game Change: Cyber Networks, Intelligence Collection, and Covert Action", George Washington Law Review, Vol. 79, Issue 4, pp. 1162-1200.
 
C) Cases
35. ICJ Report (1980), United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, (United States of America v. Iran).
36. ICJ Report (1986), Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, (Nicaragua v. United States of America).
37. ICJ Report (1996), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion.
38. ICJ Report (2005), Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda).
39. ICJ Report (2014), Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data, (Timor-Leste v. Australia).
40. Permanent Court of International Justice [PCIJ] (1927), The Case of the S.S. Lotus, (France v Turkey).
41. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (1999), International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
 
D) Documents
41. Draft articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts (2001), adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session.
42. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (January 1967), Entry into force:October 1967.
43. Convention on Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) (7 December 1944), Entry into force: 4 April 1947.
44. General Assembly, (1 December 1949), Essentials of peace, (A/RES/290(IV)).
45. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (18 April 1961), Entry into force: 24 April 1964.
46. General Assembly, (19 December 1966), Status of the implementation of the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty, (A/RES/2225(XXI)).
47. General Assembly, (24 October 1970), Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, (A/RES/2625(XXV)).
48. General Assembly, (14 December 1974), Definition of Aggression, (A/RES/ 3314(XXIX)).
49. General Assembly, (9 December 1981), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, (A/RES/36/103).
50. Convention on the Law of the Sea (10 December 1982), Entry into force: 16 November 1994.
51. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 December 1966), entered into force: 23 March 1976.
 
E) Sites
52. MI5, WHAT WE DO: ESPIONAGE: https://perma.cc/9DWG-6UZ4 Last Visit: 28/7/2019.
53. Kruzel, john J. (June 15, 2009), Cybersecurity Poses Unprecedented Challenge to National Security, Lynn Says: https://archive.defense.gov/news/ newsarticle.aspx?id=54787.
54. Biddle, Sam (Aug. 19, 2016), The NSA Leak is Real, Snowden Documents Confirm: https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/the-nsa-was-hacked-snowden-documents-confirm.