دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار بخش حقوق، دانشکدۀ حقوق و الهیات، دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان، کرمان، ایران

2 دانش‌آموختۀ کارشناسی ارشد حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

حقوق بین‌الملل آب همچون سایر رشته‌های حقوقی از مجموعه‌ای از اصول ماهوی و شکلی تشکیل شده است. در واقع جامعۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی اصول حقوقی ماهوی و شکلی متفاوتی را برای رفع مشکل تخصیص و توزیع آبراهه‌های بین‌المللی مقرر کرده است. از مهم‌ترین اصول ماهوی که به‌طور گسترده‌ای در حقوق بین‌الملل، رویۀ دولت‌ها، آثار معتبر نویسندگان حقوقی، حقوق موضوعه و رویۀ قضایی پذیرفته شده، دو اصل بهره‌برداری منصفانه و معقول و اصل منع آسیب شایان توجه است. نظریاتی گوناگون در خصوص ارتباط و نحوۀ اجرای این دو اصل مطرح شده است. دیدگاه غالب حقوقدانان مبتنی بر برتری اصل بهره‌برداری منصفانه و معقول و تلقی اصل منع آسیب به‌مثابۀ تابع اصل بهره‌برداری منصفانه و معقول است. با نگاهی عمیق به مواد کنوانسیون 1997، سایر اسناد حقوقی در این زمینه و همچنین آرای قضایی می‌توان دریافت که اصل منع آسیب، اصل ماهوی مستقلی در حقوق بین‌الملل آب است که تقابلی میان آن و اصل بهره‌برداری منصفانه و معقول وجود ندارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Relationship of Reasonable and Equitable Principle and No-harm Principle in the International Watercourses Law based on the 1997 Convention

نویسندگان [English]

  • Negin Shafiei Bafti 1
  • Shima Soleimani 2

1 Assistant Prof., Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Theology, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran

2 A. in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

International Water Law like other legal branches is composed a set of substantive and procedural principles. In fact, international legal community has established different legal principles in order to solve the problem of allocation and distribution of international watercourses. Two of the most important of these principles that are widely accepted in international law, the practice of governments, the works of legal scholars, case law and jurisprudence, are equitable and reasonable principles and no harm principle. The prevailing view is that the principle of equitable and reasonable use is given priority and the principle of non-harm is in subordinat to this principle. A deeper look at the articles of the 1997 Convention and other legal documents in this field and judicial judgments shows that the principle of non-harm is an independent principle in international water law that there is no conflict between this principle and the principle of equitable and reasonable.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • International Watercourses
  • Equitable and Reasonable Use Principle
  • No-harm Principle
  • Watercourse Convention
  • Helsinki Rules
1.فارسی
الف) کتاب‌ها
1. پورهاشمی، عباس؛ ارغند، بهاره (1392)، حقوق بین‌الملل محیط زیست، چ اول.
 
ب) مقالات
2. بذار، وحید (1396)، «تحلیل محتوای رأی دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در قضیۀ گابچیکوو-ناگیماروس»، فصلنامۀ تعالی حقوق، ش 18.
3. پورهاشمی، عباس؛ نعمتی، اکرم؛ حیدری، فلورا (1392)، «رژیم حقوقی حفاظت محیط زیست آبراهه‌های بین‌المللی با تأکید بر تنگۀ هرمز»، دانشنامۀ حقوق و سیاست، ش 20.
4. زارعی، سحر؛ پورهاشمی، عباس؛ پورنوری، منصور (1396)، «توسعۀ حقوق بین‌الملل محیط زیست در پرتو آراء و رویه‌های قضایی بین‌المللی»، فصلنامۀ علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست، دورۀ 19، ش 3.
5. شولی، علیرضا؛ وطن‌فدا، عطار؛ آوریده، فریبا (1394)، «بررسی نظریه‌های حقوقی و مقررات تقسیم آب در قوانین و معاهدات بین‌المللی آب‌های مرزی»، فصلنامۀ علمی - ترویجی دانشکدۀ علوم و فنون مرز، دورۀ 4، ش 13.
6. شیرازیان، شیرین؛ خطیبی، عطیه (1394)، «حقوق بهره‌برداری غیرکشتیرانی از آبراهه‌های بین‌المللی با نگاهی به توسعة پایدار»، توسعه و محیط زیست، دورة 2، ش4، پیاپی 8.
7. عزیزی، ستار؛ موسوی، مهدی (1393)، «پروندۀ گابچیکوو ناگیماروس: نقش دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در برجسته‌سازی توسعۀ پایدار»، مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش55.
8. محمدی دینانی، منصور؛ ملایی، یوسف؛ بنی‌حبیب، محمدابراهیم (1397)، «اصل بهره‌برداری معقول از منابع آب در حقوق بین‌الملل آب و رویۀ مورد عمل در ایران»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دورۀ 18، ش 3.
9. محبی، محسن؛ رضادوست، وحید (1394)، «تفسیر تکاملی معاهدات در پرتو قضیۀ اختلاف در خصوص کشتیرانی و حقوق مربوط به آن (کاستاریکا علیه نیکاراگوئه)»، مجلۀ حقوق بین‌المللی، ش 53.
10.موسوی، فضل‌الله؛ حسینی، حسین؛ موسوی فر، حسین (1394)، «اصول حقوق بین‌الملل محیط زیست در پرتو آرای مراجع حقوقی بین‌المللی»، فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق عمومی، سال هفدهم، ش 48.
 
ب) انگلیسی
A) Books
1. Birnie, P & Boyle, A (2002), International Law and the Environment, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. Kassa, Tadesse (2013), International Watercourses law in the Nile River Basin: Three States at a Crossroads, (Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, London/New York.
3. Lammers, J (1984), Pollution in International Watercourses, The Hauge: Martinus Nijhoff
4. McCaffrey, Stephan (2007), The Law of International Watercourses, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Poorhashemi, Abbas & Arghnd, Bahareh (1392), International Environmental Law, Dadgustar Publication, First Edition, Spring (In Persian).
6. Sands Philip & Peel Jacqueline & Fabra Adriana & MacKenzie Ruth (2012), The Principles of International Environmental Law, Cambridge University.
7. The Canadian Yearbook of International law (1997), The Primacy of the Principle of Equitable Utilization in the 1997 Watercourse Convention.
 
B) Articles
8. Abu-zeid, Khaled (2001), “International Water Law from Helsinki Rules to the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses”, Water Resources Impact, Vol. 3, No. 4.
9. Alsharhan, S & Wood, W (2003), “Warter Resources Perspective, Evaluation, Management and Policy”, Elsevier Amesterdam the Netherland
10. Amdetsion, Fasil (2012), “Where Water is Worth More Than Gold: Addressing Water Shortages in the Middle East & Africa by Overcoming the Impediments to Basin-Wide Agreements”, SAIS Review, Johns Hopkins University Press, Vol. 32, No. 1.
11. Azizi, Sattar & Moosavi, Mehdi (2014), “Gabcikovo-Nagymarous Project: The Role of International Justice Court in Prominence of Sustainable Development”, Journal of International Law, Issue 53 (In Persian).
12. Bazar, Vahid (2017), “Analysis of the Content of International Court of Justice Opinion in Gabcikovo-Nagymarous Project”, Journal of Law Excellence, Issue 18 (In Persian).
13. Bourne, Charles (1997), “The Primacy of the Principle of Equitable Utilization in the 1997 Watercourses Convention”, Canadian Year Book of International Law, Vol. 35.
14. Caflisch, L (1998), “Regulation of Uses of International Watercourses as cited in: S. Salman & L. Boisson de Chazournes (Eds) International Watercourses-Enhancing Cooperation and Managing Conflict, World Bank Technical Paper, No. 414.
15. Cottier, Thomas & Echandi, Roberto & Leal-Arcas Rafael & Liechti Rachel (2012), “The Principle of Proportionality in International Law”, SSRN electronic Journal, Working Paper No 2012/38.
16. Del Castillo-Laborde Lillian (2009), “Case on International Watercourses” in: Josep W Dellapenna & Joyeeta Gupta, “The Evaluation of the Law and Politics of Water”, Springer.
17. Dellapenna Josep & Gupta Joyetta (2009), “The Evaluation on the Law and Politics of water”, Springer.
18. Fisseha, Yimer (1997), “An Assessment of the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigation Uses of International Watercourses”, Information and Documentation Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vol 3, No 2
19. Mangesha, Zewdu (2015), “The Interplay between the Duty not to Cause Significant Harm and Equitable and Reasonable Utilization Principle”, Bahir Dar University Journal of Law, Vol. 5.
20. Margaret, J Vick (2012), “The Law of International Waters: Reasonable Utilization”, Chi-Kent Journals of International and Comparative Law, 2012, Vol. XII, No 1
21. Mayor, Benoit (2016), “The Relevance of the No-harm Principle to Climate Change Law and Politics”, Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 19
22. McCaffrey, Stephan (1989), “The law of International Watercourses: Some recent Development and unanswered questions”, Denver Journal of the law and policy, Vol. 17, No.2.
23. Mohebi, Mohsen & Rezadoost, Vahid (2015), “Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties in the light of the dispute over Navigation and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)”, Journal of International Law, Issue 53 (In Persian).
24. Mohammadi Dinani, Mansour, Molaei, Yousef & Banihabib, Mohammad Ebrahim (2018), “Reasonable Use of Water Resources in International Water Law and Legal Practice of Iran”, Journal of public Law studies, Vol.4, Issue 3 (In Persian).
25. Moosavi, Fazlollah, Hosseini Hossein & Moosavifar, Hossein (2015), “International Environmental Law Principles in the light of International Judicial Judgements”, Journal of Public Law Research, Issue 48 (In Persian).
26. Pourhashemi, Abbas, Nemati, Akram & Heidari, Flora (2013), “Legal Regime for the Protection of the International Environment with Emphasis on the Strait of Hormuz”, Encyclopedia of Law and Politic, Issue 20 (In Persian).
27. Shirazian, Shirin & Khatibi, Atiyeh (2015), “Non-navigational International Watercourse Law looking at Sustainable Development”, Sustainability, Development and Environment, Vol 2, Issue 4 (In Persian).
28. Shooli, Alireza, Vtanfada, Jabar &Avaride, fariba, (2015), “Investigating the Legal Theories and Rules of Water Distribution in the Laws and International Treaties of Territorial Waters”, Journal of Border Science and Thecnology, Vol. 4, Issue 13 (In Persian).
29. Salman M.A (2007), “The United Nations Watercourses Convention Ten Years Later”, International Water Resources Assosiation, Vol. 32. No. 1.
30. Sherk, George W (2006), “Determining Equitable Utilization of Transboundary Water Resources: Lessons from the United States Supreme Court1”, Chapter in NATO Security through Science Series C: Environmental Security, January 2007.
31. Special Rapporteur (2004), “Second Report on Shared Natural Resources: Transboundary Groundwater”, International Law Commission, U.N. Doc. A/C N.4/539.
31. Stanford law review (1959), “the Original Jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court”, Vol.11, No.4.
32. Tanzi, A (2020), “The Inter‑relationship between No harm, Equitable and Reasonable Utilisation and Cooperation under International Water Law”, Int Environ Agreements. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09502-7, Springer.
33. Utton, E Albert (1996), “Which Rule should prevail in International Water Disputes: That of Reasonableness or that of No Harm”, Natural Resources Journal, Vol.36.
34. Wegerich, Kai & Olsson oliver (2010), "Late Developers and the Inequity of Equitable Utilization and the Harm of Do No Harm", Water International, Vol. 35, No. 6.
35. Wouters, Patricia (1996), “An Assessment of Recent Developments in International Watercourse Law through the Prism of the Substantive Rules Governing Use Allocation”, International Watercourse Law, Vol. 36, Spring.
36. Zarei,Sahar, Poorhashemi, Abbas &Pournouri,Mansour, (1396),Development of international environmental law in the light ofInternational judicial judgements and precedents”, International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 19, No.3. (DOI:  10.22034/JEST.2017.11078) (In Persian).
 
C) PHD Thesis
37. Wedekar, Sudhir Bheusaheb (2017), India’s River Disputes with its Neighbours with Special Reference to Pakistan and Bangladesh, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada university.
 
D) Documents
38. Berlin Rules on Water Resources, 2004, UR, http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/ waterresources/mainDocuments. Aspx.
39. Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers, with commentaries, 2008, A/63/10. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2008, vol. II. part two.
40. International Court of Justice (1997), Reports 7.
41. Int'l Law Ass'n, Report of the Fifty-Second Conference: The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers, August 1966.
42. Report of the International Law Commission (ILC) on the work of its forty-sixth session. UN Doc. A/49/10 1994, available at WWW <hU'://-v-unor /la-Tilc/lndex htm>.
43. UNWC. (1997). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. United Nations General Assembly Document A/51/869, Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 May 1997. Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first Session, Supplement No. 49 (A/51/49).
44. Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, with commentaries, UN 2001.
45. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 16 June 1972.
46. Draft articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session (2001), Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), Chapter.IV.E.1.
47. The Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development, The United Nations Conference on the environment and Development at Rio de Janiero from 3 to 14 June 1992, A/CONF.151/26, (Vol.I).
 
E) Cases
48. Trail Smelter Arbitration, RIAA, vol. III, (‘Trail Smelter’)/ Trail Smelter Arbitration, RIAA, vol. III.
49. Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Albania), ICJ Reports 1949, (‘Corfu Channel’).
50. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 226 [29].
51. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) [2010] ICJ Rep 14 [101].
52. Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, ICJ Reports, 2015, as cited in: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/152.
53. Case concerning the Gabcikovo and Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia) judgement of 25 September 1997, No 135.in: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/135.
54. Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua).  Order of 17 April 2018, see in: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/150.
55. Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2015.
56. Kansas v. Colorado, 185 US 125 (1902).