دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، گروه حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 کارشناس ارشد حقوق بین‌الملل، گروه حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

درحالی‌که امروزه به‌صورت گسترده پذیرفته شده است که گروه‌های مسلح سازمان‌یافته ملزم به رعایت و اجرای حقوق بشردوستانه‌اند، با این حال با توجه به ماهیت دولت‌محور حقوق بین‌الملل و همچنین عدم صلاحیت گروه‌های مسلح سازمان‌یافته به تصویب و الحاق به اسناد بین‌المللی، چگونگی و به‌عبارت دیگر مبنای حقوقی الزام گروه‌های مسلح سازمان‌یافته به رعایت و اجرای حقوق بشردوستانه مبهم است. نویسندگان حقوقی و محاکم بین‌المللی به‌منظور تعیین مبنای الزام گروه‌های مسلح سازمان‌یافته به رعایت و اجرای حقوق بشردوستانه استدلال‌ها و نظرهای مختلفی را ارائه داده‌اند. این استدلال‌ها عبارت‌اند از: عرف بین‌المللی، اصول کلی حقوقی، رضایت گروه‌های مسلح سازمان‌یافته، نظریۀ جانشینی و نظریۀ صلاحیت قانونگذاری. باید توجه داشت که این موضوع صرفاً بحث آکادمیک نیست، بلکه زمانی‌که محاکم بین‌المللی کیفری درصدد اجرای اصل قانونی بودن جرم و مجازات هستند، این بحث اهمیت زیادی پیدا می‌کند. در این مقاله ضمن بررسی این استدلال‌ها، با توجه به نقص‌ها و ایرادات دیگر استدلال‌ها، به این نتیجه می‌رسیم که نظریۀ صلاحیت قانونگذاری، استدلال مناسبی به‌منظور ملزم ساختن گروه‌های مسلح سازمان‌یافته به رعایت و اجرای حقوق بشردوستانه است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Legal Basis for Obliging Organized Armed Groups to Respect and Implement Humanitarian Law in Internal Armed Conflict

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyed Hadi Mahmoudi 1
  • Iman Montazeri Ghahjavarestani 2

1 Assistant Prof., Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran

2 MA. in International Law, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

While today it is widely accepted that organized armed groups are obliged to respect and implement international humanitarian law, however, given the nature of the State-centric of international law as well as the incapacity of organized armed groups to ratify and accede to international instruments, the legal basis for Obliging organized armed groups to respect and implement international humanitarian law and how to do so is vague. Legal writers and international tribunals have presented various arguments and opinions to determine the legal basis of obligation of organized armed groups to respect and implement international humanitarian law. These arguments are: customary international law, general principles of law, the consent of organized armed groups, the theory of succession, and theory of legislative jurisdiction. It should be noted that this is not just an academic debate, but this issue is of great importance when international criminal courts and tribunals try to enforce the principle of the legality of crime and punishment. In this paper, while analyzing these arguments, given the shortcomings and deficiencies that the other arguments have, we conclude that the theory of legislative jurisdiction is a good argument for obliging organized armed groups to respect and implement international humanitarian law.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Additional Protocol 2
  • International Humanitarian law
  • Legislative Jurisdiction
  • Organized Armed Groups
  • Common Article 3
  • Basis of Obligation
  • Internal Armed Conflicts
1. فارسی
الف) کتاب‌ها
1. ابراهیم‌گل، علیرضا؛ سیفی، سید جمال (1393)، مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت متن و شرح مواد کمیسیون حقوق بین‌الملل، تهران: شهر دانش.
2. فلسفی،‌ هدایت‌الله (1393)، حقوق بین‌الملل معاهدات، تهران: فرهنگ نو.
3. ممتاز، جمشید؛ رنجبریان، امیرحسین (1393)، حقوق بین‌الملل بشردوستانة مخاصمات مسلحانة داخلی، تهران: میزان.
 
ب) مقالات
4. فردروس، آلفرد؛ امیرارجمند، اردشیر (1374)، «اصول کلی حقوق بین‌الملل در نظام منابع حقوق بین‌الملل عام»، مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی، ش 16.
5. ضیایی، سید یاسر (1391)، «تأملی بر وضعیت شورشیان در حقوق بشردوستانة بین‌المللی»، فصلنامة آفاق امنیت، سال پنجم، ش 17.
 
ج) پایان‌نامه
6. محمودی، سید هادی؛ منتظری قهجاورستانی، ایمان (1397)، تعهد شورشیان به حمایت از غیرنظامیان در مخاصمات مسلحانة غیر بین‌المللی، تهران، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
 
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
1. Bellal, Annyssa (2018), The War Report Armed Conflicts, Geneva, Geneva Academy.
2. Ebrahimgol, Alireza; Seifi, Seyed Jalal  (2014), The Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries, Tehran: The SD Institute of Law and Research Study (in Persian).
3. Falsafi, Hedayatollah (2014), The Law of International treaties, Tehran” Nashr-E Now Publication (in Persian).
4. Fortin, Katharine (2017), The Accountability of Armed Groups under Human Rights Law, London: Oxford University Press.
5. Henckaerts, Jean-Marie; Doswald-Beck. Louise (2005), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press.
6. Mack,Michelle (2008), Increasing Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts, Geneva, International Committee of the Red Cross, February.
7. Moir, Lindsay (2002), The Law of Internal Armed Conflict, London, Cambridge University Press.
8. Momtaz, Djamshid; Amirhossein, Rangrbarian (2014), Humanitarian International Law Internal Armed conflicts, Tehran: Mizan Legal foundation (in Persian).
9. Murray, Daragh (2016), Human Rights Obligation of Non-State Armed Groups, Oxford, Hart Publishing.
10. Sandoz .Yves; Swinarski. Christophe; Zimmerman, Bruno (eds.), (1987), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Geneva, International Committee of the Red Cross and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
11. Sivakumaran, Sandesh (2012), The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict, London, Oxford University Press.
 
B) Articles
12. Verdross, Alfred (1968), les principle Generaux De Droit dans Le systeme Des Source Du Driot International Public, in Melanges Guggenheim, Translate in Persian by Ardeshir Amir Arjomand, (1995), Law Research Magazin, Vol. 16 (in Persian).
13. Ziaee, Seyed Yasser (2011), “The Status of Rebeles in International Humanitarian Law”, Scintific Journal of Security horizons, Vol. 5, Issue 17 (in Persian).
14. A. Elder, David (1979), “The Historical Background of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 11, Issue. 1.
15. Bangerter, Olivier (2011), “Reasons why armed groups choose to respect international humanitarian law or not”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 93, No. 882.
16. Bassiouni. M. Cherif (1990), “A Functional Approach to General Principles of International Law”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol.11, Issue. 3.
17. Bellal, Annyssa, Heffes. Ezequiel (2018), "Yes, I do’: Binding Armed Non-State Actors to IHL and Human Rights Norms through Their Consent", Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1. 
18. Bell, Christine (2006), “Peace Agreements: Their Nature and Legal Status”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, Issue. 2.
19. Cassese, Antonio (1981), “The Status of Rebels under the 1977 Geneva Protocol on Non-International Armed Conflicts”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 30.
20. K. Kleffnr, Jann  (2011), “The Applicability of International Humanitarian Law to Organized Armed Groups”, International Review of the Red Cross,Vol.93, No. 882.
21. Lysaght, Charles (1983), “The Scope of Protocol II and its Relation to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other Human Rights Instruments”, American University Law Review, Vol. 33.
22. Murray, Daragh (2015), “How International Humanitarian Law Treaties Bind Non-State Armed Groups”, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol. 20, Issue 1.
23. Rondeau, Sophie (2011), “Participation of Armed Groups in the Development of the Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 93, No. 883.
24. Marco,Sassòli (2010), “Taking Armed Groups Seriously: Ways to Improve their Compliance with International Humanitarian Law”, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1.
25. Somer, Jonathan (2007), “Jungle Justice: Passing Sentence on the Equality of Belligerents in Non-International Armed Conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 89, No. 867, September 2007.
26. Sivakumaran, Sandesh (2006), “Binding Armed Opposition Groups”, International and Comparative Law and Quarterly, Vol. 55, issue. 02.
27. “On the Establishment of Courts in Non international Armed Conflict by Non-state Actors”, (2018), Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 16, Issue 2, 1 May.
 
C) Cases
28. International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986.
29. International Court of Justice, Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1951.
30. International Court of Justice, North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Judgment, 20 February 1969.
31. ICC, Trial Chamber III, Situation in the Central African Republic in the case of Prosecutor v. Jean-pierre Bemba Gombo, No. ICC-01/05-01/08, 21 March 2016.
32. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 2 September 1998.
33. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v Tadić, IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995.  
34. Permanent Court of International Justice, Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig (Pecuniary Claims of Danzig Railway Officials Who Have Passed into the Polish Service against the Polish Railways Administration) (Advisory Opinion) PCIJ Rep Series B No 15.
35. Prosecutor v. Omar Haisam Sakhanh, Stockholms tingsratt (Stockholm District Court), B 3787-16, Judgment of 16 February 2017.
36. Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 of 18 September 2004, 25 January 2005.
37. Special Court for Sierra Leone, Decision on Challenge to Jurisdiction: Lome´ Accord Amnesty, Appeals Chamber, SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E), SCSL-2004-16-AR72(E) (13 March 2004).
38. Special Court for Sierra Leone, Prosecutor v. Morris Kallon and Brima Bazzy Kamara, Case No. SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E), 13 March 2004.
39. Trial of Alois and Anna Bommer and their Daughters (Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz, 1949) Law Reports Of Trials Of War Criminals, Selected and prepared by The United Nations War Crimes Commission (19 February 1947) Vol IX, 62.
40. Trial of Frederick Flick and Five Others (United States Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 1949) Law Reports Of Trials Of War Criminals, Selected and prepared by The United Nations War Crimes Commission (20 April– 22 December 1947) Vol IX, 18.
41. Trial of Otto Ohlendorf and Twenty Four Others (United States Military Tribunal II) Trials Of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council 10 (8– 9 April 1948) Vol IV/ 1, cited in Krupp (n 69) 173.
42. Mahmoudi, Seyed Hadi; Montazeri, Iman, (2018), The Obligation of Rebels to Protect Civilians in Non-International Armed Conflicts, A Thesis presented for the degree of Master of Law International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Shahid Beheshti (in Persian).
 
D) Documents
43. Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement to Protect Non-Combatant Civilians and Civilian Facilities from Military Attack, 10 March 2002.
44. Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development on International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (1974_1977) CDDH/III/SR.32, Vol. XIV.
45. Danish Military Manual on international law relevant to Danish armed forces in international operation (2016). 
46. Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. IIB.
47. Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field 1949.
48. International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Effect of Armed Conflict on Treaties, (2011).
49. International Law Commission, Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind with commentaries (1996).
50. International Law Commission, Principles of International law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, with commentaries’ (1950) Ybk ILC, Vol. II.
51. NDFP Declaration of Adherence to International Humanitarian Law, 15 August 1991, reproduced in NDFP, Declaration of Undertaking to Apply the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I of 1977 (NDFP Human Rights Monitoring Committee Booklet No 6).
52. Note de Dossier, 16 February 1956, ICRC Archives 225 008-002.
53. Official Record of Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development on International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (1974_1977) CDDH/III/SR.32, Vol. XIV.
54. Principles of International law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal.
55. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II).
56. Statute of the International Court of Justice.
57. Statute of the International Criminal Court.
58. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 
59. Statute of the Special Court for Sierra leone.
60. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
61. Yearbook of the Law Commission International Law Commission, 2011, A/CN.4/SER.A/2010/Add.l (Part 2), Vol. II, Part.