دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کاندیدای دکتری حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

قواعد آمره می‌توانند حافظ نظم، ارزش‌ها و اهداف یک نظام حقوقی باشند. وجود قواعد آمره در یک نظام حقوقی بیانگر پیشرفتگی نظام حقوقی است. از زمان انعقاد معاهدۀ 1969 وین، انتقادهای زیادی از این معاهده به‌دلیل ابهام و تعارض آن با مفهوم قاعدة آمره صورت گرفته است. این در حالی است که مکاتب مختلف حقوق بین‎الملل و حقوقدانانِ این عرصه، هریک نظریه‌های متفاوتی از این مفهوم ارائه کرده‌اند که ویژگیِ آمره بودن و گسترۀ کارکرد آن را به مبانی متفاوتی گره می‎زنند. در این مقاله، نویسنده، با متدولوژی فلسفی و جامعه‌شناختی حقوقی، بررسی می‎کند که آیا قاعدة آمره بازتاب‌دهندة ارزش‌های یک نظام حقوقی است یا اهدافی که یک سیستم براساس آن شکل گرفته است نیز می‎تواند در ویژگی یک قاعده نقش داشته باشد؟ سپس با ارائۀ معیارهای شناسایی قاعدة آمره، به تطبیق آن معیارها با برخی قواعد در سازمان تجارت جهانی می‎پردازد و امکان آمره بودن یا نبودن این قواعد را محک می‎زند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Possibility of Peremptory Norm Formation in WTO

نویسندگان [English]

  • Farhad Bagheri 1
  • Mirshahbiz Shafee 2

1 PhD Candidate in International Law, Shahid Beheshti University

2 Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Peremptory Norms protect the order, values, and objectives of a legal system. If a legal system contains peremptory norms, they indicate its advancement. Since the conclusion of the 1969 Vienna Convention, there has been a great deal of criticism regarding the ambiguity and contradiction of peremptory norms definition in the Convention, with the philosophy of peremptory norms; While many scholars and schools of international law present various theories on the concept and knit its non-derogable characteristic to different bases. In this contribution, the writer, applying the philosophical and socio-legal methodology, studies if peremptory norms reflect the system’s values or are dependent on the system’s objectives. By presenting a comprehensive criterion for peremptory norms recognition, the writer will adapt several WTO rules with that criterion.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Jus cogens
  • Legal Technic
  • Non- Derogable
  • Public Order
  • System
انگلیسی
A) Books
1. Barak, A, Bashi, S (2005), Purposive Interpretation in Law: Purposive International Law, Princeton University Press.
2. Blanco, S, (2019), National Security Exception in International Trade and Investment Agreements, Springer.
3. Cavaglieri A, (1927), Regles Generales du droit de la paix, Recueil des cours de l’Academie de droit international de La Haye.
4. Costelloe, D, (2017), Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms in International Law, Cambridge
5. Dickson, J, (2012), Legal Positivism: Contemporary Debates, Routledge.
6. Douglas, C (1990) North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press.
7. Eskridge, W (1994), Dynamic Statutory Interpretation, Harvard University Press.
8. Finch, E (2019) Legal Skills, Oxford University Press.
9. Freund, C, (2003), Reciprocity in World Trade Agreements, World Bank policy research work. Washington DC.
10. Fuller, L (1969), The Morality of Law, Yale University Press.
11. Garcia M, (2001), Unilateral Measures as a Means of Enforcement of WTORecommendations and Decisions, the Hague: Academy of International Law.
12. Gottlieb, G (1968), the Logic of Choice, McMillan Press.
13. Gould, H (2010), The Legacy of Punishment in International Law, Springer.
14. Grynberg, R, (2006), WTO at the Margins, Cambridge University Press.
15. Guggenheim, P, (1967), Traite de Droit International Public, Geneva.
16. Hannikainen, L (1988(, Peremptory Norms in International Law, Historical Development, Criteria, Present Status, Helsinki University Press.
17. Hannikainen, L, (1988), Peremptory Norms in International Law, Historical Development, Criteria, Presents, Helsinki University Press.
18. Hart, H (1994), the Legal Process: BasicProblems in the Making and Application of Law, Foundation Press.
19. Holland, J (1993), Learning Legal Rules: A student Guide to Method and Reasoning, Blackstone Press.
20. Jackson, J (2006), Sovereignty, the WTO and Changing the Fundamentals of International Law, Cambridge University Press.
21. Jackson, J, (1997), the World Trade System, Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, MIT.
22. Kim, W (2006), Non-violation Claims in WTO: Theory and Jurisprudence, Peter Lang Publisher.
23. Kolb R (2001), Théorie du ius cogens international. Presses Universitaires de France.
24. Kolb, R, (2017) Peremptory International Law: A General Inventory, Hart Publication Company.
25. Koskenniemi M, (2006), From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, Cambridge University Press.
26. Marek, K (1968), Contribution à l’ étude du jus cogens en droit international’ in Essays in Honor of P Guggenheim.
27. Martensen, J, (1971), Jus Cogens in International Law, Hamburg University Press.
28. Mill, JS, (1848), Principles of Political Economy, Longmans.
29. Narlikar, A (2013,) The Oxford Handbook of World Trade Organization, Oxford University Press.
30. Nayyar, D (2007), Globalization and Free Trade: Theory, History and Reality, Routledge.
31. Orakhelashvili, A, (2006), Peremptory Norms in International Law, Oxford University Press.
32. Orakhelashvili, A, (2008), the Effect of Jus Cogens in the Law of Treaties, Oxford Scholarship Online.
33. Orakhelashvili, A, (2010), Peremptory Norms as an Aspect of Constitutionalisation in the International Legal System’ in Morly Frishman and Sam Muller (Eds), the Dynamics of Constitutionalism in the Age of Globalization, Hague Academic Press.
34. Paik, J, (2013), Asian approach to international law and the legacy of colonialism: from colonialization to globalization: WTO and GATT, Routledge.
35. Posner, R (1983), the Economics of Justice, Harvard University Press.
36. Reisman, M, (1972), Nullity and Revision, Yale University Press.
34. Rozakis, C, (1976), The Concept of jus cogens in the Law of Treaties. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
33. Schwarzenberger, G (1967), International Jus Cogens? in Lagonissi Conference , Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (ed), The Concept of Jus Cogens in Public International Law: Papers and Proceedings, Geneva.
34. Shannon, B (2020), American Legal Process, Kluwer.
35. Suy, E, (1962), the Concept of Jus Cogens in Public International Law, Geneva.
36. Suy, E, (1967), International Jus Cogens, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Concept of Jus Cogens in International Law: Papers and Proceedings, Geneva,
37. Sztucki, J, (1974), Jus Cogens and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Critical Appraisal, Cambridge University Press.
38. Tomuschat, C, (2006), the Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes, Oxford University Press.
39. Vierheilig, M, (1984), die rechtilche einordnung der von der weltgesundheitsorganization beschlossenen regulations, Heildelberg.
40. Weatherall, T (2015), Jus cogens: International Law and Social Contract, Cambridge University Press.
41. Weib, N, (2015), the Influence of Human Rights on International Law, Springer.
42. Wroblewski, J (1992), the Judicial Application of Law, Springer
43. Yarwood, L, (2011), State Accountability under International Law: Holding State accountable for a Breach of Jus Cogens Norms, Routledge.
 
B) Articles
44. Andersen, H (2015),” Protection of Non-trade Values in WTO Appellate Body Jurisprudence: Exceptions, Economic Arguments and Eluding Questions”, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 18, Issue 2. pp. 383-405.
45. Ashcroft, U, (2002), “Affordable Access to Essential Medication in Developing Countries, Conflict Between Ethical and Economic Imperatives”, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Vol. 27, Issue 2. pp. 179- 195.
46. Baradaran, S (2011), “Fair Trade and Child Labour”, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Vol 43, Issue 1. pp. 1- 63.
47. Charny, D (1991), “Hypothetical Bargains: The Normative Structure of Contract Interpretation”, Mich. Law Review, Vol. 89. pp. 1815- 1880.
48. Cho, S (2005), “Linkage of Free Trade and Social Regulation: Moving beyond the Entropic Dilemma”, Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol 5, Issue 2. pp. 625- 674.
49. Christenson, G, (1988), “Jus Cogens: Guarding Interests Fundamental to International Society”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, pp. 584- 648.
50. Coase, R (1960), “the Problem of Social Costs”, the Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 3. Pp. 1- 44.
51. Criddle, EJ, Fox-Decent, E (2009), “A Fiduciary Theory of jus cogens”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol.34 Issue 2. pp. 331-387.
52. Fischer, A, Tuber, G, (2004), “Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law”, Michigan journal of International law, vol. 25, pp. 999- 1044.
53. Grundfest, J, Pritchard A, (2002), “With Multiple Personality Disorders: The Value of Ambiguity in Statutory Design and Interpretation,” Stan. L. Rev, Vol. 55, pp. 627- 736
54. Higgins, R, (1976), “Derogation under Human Rights Treaties”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 48, pp. 281- 319.
55. Horn, H, (2001), “Economic and Legal Aspects of the MFN”, European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 17. pp. 233- 297
56. Lester, S (2011), “the Problems of Subsidies as a Means of Protectionism: Lessons from the WTO EC – Aircraft Case”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, Issue 2. pp. 1- 28
57. Nageswar, V (1974), “Jus Cogens, and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”, Indian Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, pp. 362- 391.
58. Parker, K. (1988), “Jus Cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights”, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, Vol 12, Issue 2. pp. 411- 463
59. Paulus, A (2005). “Jus Cogens in a Time of Hegemony and Fragmentation”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol 74, pp. 297- 333.
60. Pauwelyn, J (2001), “The Role of Public International Law in WTO, How far can we go?” , The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 95. pp. 535- 578.
61. Pauwelyn, J, (2000), “Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO: Rules are Rules: Toward a More Collective Approach”, American journal of international law, Vol. 94, pp. 335- 347.
62. Ramcharan, B, (1983), “the Right to Life”, the Netherlands international law review, Vol. 30, pp. 63- 88.
63. Reisman, M (1985), “Criteria for the Lawful Use of Force in International Law”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 10. pp. 279- 285,
64. Robledo, A (1981), “Le ius cogens international: sa genèse, sa nature, ses fonctions”, RdC, Vol. 2, Issue 9, pp. 12- 217.
65. Sykes, O (1998), “Comparative Advantage and the Normative Economics of International Trade Policy”, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 1, Issue 1. pp. 49- 82.
66. Verdross, A. (1937), “Forbidden Treaties in International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 29. pp. 571- 577.
 
C) Reports & Documents
67. Crawford, J, (2001), Fourth Report on State Responsibility Yearbook of ILC.
68. General commentary on international covenant on economic, (2000) social and cultural rights, No. 14,
69. Human Rights Committee, (1982), General Comment on the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights.
70. Report of International Law Commission on the Work of its Twenty Eighth Session, 1976, Vol II, Yearbook of ILC, P. 99, Para 10 , Commentary to Draft Article 19
71. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Seventieth Session (A/73/10) Commentary the identification of customary international law, footnote 667 to paragraph (2) of Draft Conclusion 1.
72. World Health Organization, globalization and access to drugs, perspective on the WTO TRIPS AGREEMENT, Series No. 7. 1997.
73. World Trade Organization, the Doha declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health.
74. WTO, (1996), Singapore Ministerial Conference, Declaration, WT/MIN96/ DEC
75. WTO, (2005), a Handbook on GATS Agreement: A WTO Secretariat Publication, WTO.
76. Yearbook of ILC, 1966.
 
D) Websites
77. Joint statement by WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo and WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, 2020:https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news20_e/igo_14apr20_e.htm
78. Statement made by International Forum on Globalization, (2001): http://www.ifg.org/analysis/wto/aboutwto.htm
 
E) Cases
79. International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory opinion, 2004, Obiter Dictum
80. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep. 1950.
81. Royal College of Nursing v DHSS, 1981, Report. 1, ER 545
82. WTO Appellate Body Report, China — Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (China – Raw Materials), joined cases WT/DS394, 395, and 398/AB/R, adopted 22 February 2012.
83. WTO appellate body, Canada/ US- continued suspension of obligations in the EC, Hormones dispute, WT/DS321/AB/R, 2008. Para 393
84. WTO appellate body, Decision by the Arbitrator, Canada – export credits and loan guarantees for regional aircraft, WT/DS222, 2003, Para 398
85. WTO appellate body, European Communities – regime for the importation sale and distribution of bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, 1997, Para. 135
86. WTO appellate body, Mexico- tax measures on soft drinks and other beverages, WT/DS308/AB/R, 2006, Para. 53
87. WTO appellate body, The US – measures affecting imports of woven shirts and blouse from India, WT/DS33/AB/R 1997.
87. WTO appellate body, The US – measures affecting imports of woven shirts and blouse from India, WT/DS33/AB/R 1997, P. 13
88. WTO appellate body, United States – import measures on certain products from European Communities, WT/DS165/AB/R, 2001, Para. 111.
89. WTO dispute settlement body, Canada- certain measures affecting the automotive industry, WT/DS139/DS/R, 2000.
90. WTO dispute settlement body, European Communities- measures affecting trade in commercial vessels, WT/DS301, 2005, Para. 7
91. WTO dispute settlement body, European Communities- measures affecting trade in commercial vessels, WT/DS301, 2005, Para. 7.205
92. WTO dispute settlement body, Korea- measures affecting government procurement, WT/DS163/R, 2000
93. WTO dispute settlement body, Korea- measures affecting government procurement, WT/DS163/R, Para 7.85, 2000
94. WTO dispute settlement body, United States- section 301 – 310 of the 1974 trade act, WT/DS152/R, 2000, paras, 7.71- 7.94
95. WTO dispute settlement body, US- denial of most favored nation treatment as to non- rubber footwear from Brazil, WT/DS/18/R, 1992, Para. 6.15
96. WTO Appellate Body Report, China — Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials (China – Raw Materials), joined cases WT/DS394, 395, and 398/AB/R, adopted 22 February 2012, para. 306.