دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

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

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، 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 نشان از پیشرفتگی یک نظام حقوقی دارد. از زمان انعقاد معاهدة 1969 وین در خصوص حقوق معاهدات، 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 حقوقدانان این عرصه، هریک نظریه‌های متفاوتی از این مفهوم ارائه کرده‎اند که ویژگی آمره بودن و گسترة کارکرد آن را به مبانی متفاوتی گره می‎زنند. در این مقاله، نویسنده، با روش فلسفی و تکنیک محض حقوقی، ضمن بررسی عناصر شناسایی قواعد آمره در نظریه‎ها و مکاتب مختلف حقوقی، اثبات می‎کند که نظریات و تئوری موجود، به‌هیچ‌وجه برای شناسایی قواعد آمره کافی نیست و هریک از آنها از فقدان یک عنصر اساسی رنج می‎برد. نویسنده سپس با روش دیالکتیک میان نظرهای مشتت مصالحه ایجاد می‎کند، سپس در بخش نتیجه معیاری فراگیر و جامع به‌منظور شناسایی قاعدة آمره، ارائه می‌دهد که نشان می‎دهد براساس آن، آنچه در مورد قاعدة آمره و شناسایی آن اهمیت دارد، نه ارزش‌ها، اخلاق و نظم عمومی نظام و سلسله‌مراتب قواعد، بلکه کارکرد و اهداف یک نظام حقوقی است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Dialectic of Theories and Elements of Peremptory Norm in International Law

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyyed Hadi Mahmoudi 1
  • Farhad Bagheri 2

1 . Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Student in International Law, School 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 legal technique methodology, not only will study the peremptory norms’ recognition elements, but also tries to compromise between different legal theories regarding the fundamentals of Jus Cogens, by means of dialectic. At the end, he presents a comprehensive criterion for peremptory norms recognition.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Erga Omnes
  • Jus cogens
  • Legal Technic
  • Non- Derogable
  • Public Order
  • System
  1. انگلیسی

    1. A) Books
    2. Austin , J, (1869), Lectures on Philosophy or Jurisprudence of Positive Law, London.
    3. Barak, A, Bashi, S (2005), Purposive Interpretation in Law: Purposive International Law, Princeton University Press.
    4. Brint, M, )1991(, Pragmatism in Law and Society, Westview Press.
    5. Carrilli, J )1988(, droit international et souverainete des etats, the Hague Academy.
    6. Cavaglieri A, (1927), Regles Generales du droit de la paix, Recueil des cours de l’Academie de droit international de La Haye.
    7. Costelloe, D, (2017), Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms in International Law, Cambridge.
    8. Crawford, J, (2002), The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. Introduction, Text and Commentaries, Cambridge.
    9. Detter, I, (1994), the international legal order, Aldershot.
    10. Dickson, J, (2012), Legal Positivism: Contemporary Debates, Routledge.
    11. Dickstein, M (1999), The Revival of Pragmatism: New Essays on Social Thought, Law, and Culture, Duke University Prfess.
    12. Eskridge, W (1994) Dynamic Statutory Interpretation, Harvard University Press.
    13. Finnis, J, (1980), Natural Law and Natural Rights, Clarendon Pres.
    14. Frieamann, W, (1967), Legal Theory, Columbia University Press
    15. Fuller, L (1969) The Morality of Law, Yale University Press.
    16. Gomez, M, (2001) Towards a Sociological Understanding of Human Rights Abuse: The Intersection of International Pressure and Internal Politics ; Human Rights Abuse Patterns in Cuba, El Salvador and Nicaragua, University of Minesota Publication.
    17. Gottlieb, G (1968) the Logic of Choice, McMillan Press.
    18. Guggenheim, P, (1967), Traite de Droit International Public, Geneva.
    19. Hannikainen, L, (1988), Peremptory Norms in International Law, Historical Development, Criteria, Presents, Helsinki University Press.
    20. Hart, H (1994), the Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law, Foundation Press.
    21. Hart, H, (1961), The Concept of Law, Oxford University Press
    22. Holland, J (1993), Learning Legal Rules: A student Guide to Method and Reasoning, Blackstone Press.
    23. Kelsen, H, (1999), General Theory of Law and State, The Law book Exchange.
    24. Kolb, R, (2001), theorie du jus cogens international, Paris
    25. Kolb, R, (2017), Peremptory International Law: A General Inventory, Hart Publication Company.
    26. Koskenniemi M, (2006), From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, Cambridge University Press.
    27. Marek, K (1968), Contribution à l’ étude du jus cogens en droit international’ in Essays in Honor of P Guggenheim.
    28. Martensen, J, (1971), Jus Cogens in International Law, Hamburg University Press.
    29. Moehler, M, (2018), Minimal morality, a multilevel of social contract theory, Oxford.
    30. Orakhelashvili, A (2006) Peremptory Norms in International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    31. Orakhelashvili, A, (2008), the Effect of Jus Cogens in the Law of Treaties, Oxford Scholarship Online.
    32. 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.
    33. Rawls, J, (1999). A Theory of Justice. Harvard Press.
    34. Raz, J (1983), the Authority of Law, Clarendon Press.
    35. Reinman, H, )1971(, jus cogens im volkerrecht, Zurich,
    36. Reisman, M, (1972), Nullity and Revision, Yale University Press.
    37. Rozakis, C, (1976), The Concept of jus cogens in the Law of Treaties. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
    38. Ruda, J, )1967(, the concept of jus cogens in public international law,Geneva.
    39. Schiffer, W, (1954), The Legal Community of Mankind, Columbia University Press.
    40. 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.
    41. Shannon, B (2020), American Legal Process, Kluwer.
    42. Simon, D, Klein P, )2011(, the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, a commentary, Oxford
    43. Sinclair, I, (1984), The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Manchester University Press
    44. Suy, E, (1962), the Concept of Jus Cogens in Public International Law, Geneva.
    45. Suy, E, (1967), International Jus Cogens, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Concept of Jus Cogens in International Law: Papers and Proceedings, Geneva,
    46. Sztucki, J, (1974), Jus Cogens and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Critical Appraisal, Cambridge University Press.
    47. Tammes, C, (2005), Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law, Cambridge University Press
    48. Teson, A (1998), Philosophy of International Law, Westview Press
    49. Tomuschat, C, (2006), the Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes, Oxford University Press.
    50. Verhoeven, S, (2011), Norms of Jus Cogens in International Law: A Positive and Constitutionalist Approach, Leuven Press.
    51. Vierheilig, M, (1984), die rechtilche einordnung der von der weltgesundheitsorganization beschlossenen regulations, Heildelberg.
    52. Weatherall, T (2015), Jus cogens: International Law and Social Contract, Cambridge University Press.
    53. Weib, N, (2015), the Influence of Human Rights on International Law, Springer.
    54. Wroblewski, J (1992), the Judicial Application of Law, Springer
    55. Yarwood, L, (2011), State Accountability under International Law: Holding State accountable for a Breach of Jus Cogens Norms, Routledge.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Affeldt, S, (1999), “The force of freedom, Rousseau on forcing to be free”, Political Theory Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 299- 333.
    3. Ago, R (1957), “Positivism and International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol.51, pp. 691- 733.
    4. Allain, J. (2002), “the Jus Cogens Nature of Non-Refoulement”, Int’l Journal of Refugee Law, Vol.13, pp. 533- 558.
    5. Allen, H (2004), “Globalization and Peremptory Norms in International Law: From Westphalian to Global Constitutionalism”, International Politics, Vol. 14, pp. 341- 353.
    6. Brudner, A, (1985), “The Domestic Enforcement of the International Covenant on Human Rights”, University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 219- 254.
    7. Byers, M (1997). “Conceptualizing the Relationship between Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Rules”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 66, pp. 211- 239.
    8. Charney, J, (1993), “Universal International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 87, pp. 529- 551.
    9. Charny, D (1991), “Hypothetical Bargains: The Normative Structure of Contract Interpretation, Mich. Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1815- 1880.
    10. Christenson, G (1988), “Jus Cogens: Guarding Interests Fundamental to International Society”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, pp. 585- 648.
    11. Christenson, G, (1986), “jus cogens guarding fundamental interest to international society?” Virginia journal of international law, pp. 584- 648.
    12. Christopher, D (1999), “Jus Cogens, Reparation Agreements, and Holocaust Slave Labour Litigation”, Law & Policy in International Business, Vol. 31, pp. 169- 201
    13. Coyle, S (2006), “Positivism, Idealism and the Rule of Law”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 257- 288
    14. Criddle, EJ, Fox-Decent, E (2009), “A Fiduciary Theory of jus cogens”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol.34, Issue 2, pp. 331-387.
    15. Delbrück, J (1998), “Laws in the Public Interest: Some Observations on the Foundations and Identification of erga omnes Norms in International Law”, Liber Amoricum Günther Jaenicke, Vol.17, pp.197- 233.
    16. Dubois, D, (2009), “the Authority of Peremptory Norms in International Law: State Consent or Natural Law?” Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 78, pp. 133- 175
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Hall, S (2001), “the Persistent Specter: Natural Law, International Order and the Limits of Legal Positivism”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, Pp. 269- 307.
    20. Linderfalk, U (2015), “Understanding Jus Cogens Debate: the pervasive influence of legal positivism and legal idealism”, The Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 46, pp. 51- 84
    21. Longobardo, M (2015), “Genocide, Obligation erga omnes and the responsblity to Protect”, The Internarional Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp. 1199- 1212.
    22. Morelli, G, (1932), “Norm dispositive e diritto internazionale”, international law review, Vol. 11, pp. 102- 144.
    23. Nageswar, V (1974), “Jus Cogens, and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”, Indian Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, pp. 362- 391.
    24. Parker, K. (1988), “Jus Cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights”, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 12, Issue 2, pp. 411- 463.
    25. Paulus, A (2005), “Jus Cogens in a Time of Hegemony and Fragmentation”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 74, pp. 297- 333.
    26. Pellet, A, (1992), “the normative dilemma: will and consent in international law making”, Australian yearbook of international law, Vol. 12, Pp.
    27. Ramcharan, B, (1983), “the Right to Life”, the Netherlands international law review, Vol. 30. pp. 63- 88.
    28. Reisman, M (1985), “Criteria for the Lawful Use of Force in International Law”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 10. pp. 279- 285,
    29. Robledo, A (1981), “Le ius cogens international: sa genèse, sa nature, ses fonctions”, RdC, Vol 2. Issue 9, pp. 183- 217.
    30. Salcedo C, (1997), “Relections on the Existence of a Hierarchy of Norms in International Law”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 8, pp.
    31. Stephan, P (2011(, “the political economy of jus cogens”, Vanderbilt journal of transnational law, Vol. 44, pp.. 1078
    32. Verdross, A. (1937), “Forbidden Treaties in International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 29. pp. 571- 577.
    33. Verdross, A. (1937), Forbidden Treaties in International Law, American Journal of International Law 1937, P. 572.
    34. Verdross, A. (1966), “Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Pp.
    35. Wittich, S, (2007), “permissible derogation from mandatory rules? The problem of party status in the genocide case”, European journal of international law, Vol. 18.

     

    1. C) Reports
    2. Crawford, J, (2001) Fourth Report on State Responsibility Yearbook of ILC.
    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. Yearbook of ILC, 1966.

     

    1. D) Legal cases
    2. Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), ICJ, Judgment of 15 December 1949, p. 45 (Judge Álvarez)
    3. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Blake v. Guatemala, Merits, Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, para 24
    4. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment of 3 February 2012
    5. North Sea Continental Shelf, Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark/Federal Republic of Germany v. the Netherlands, Judgment, ICJ Rep. 1969, P. 37.
    6. Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) ICJ Report, 2009
    7. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep. 1950.