Public Law Studies Quarterly

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

Author Index

Keyword Index

Journal About

Editorial Board

Journal Aim Scope

News

Journal FAQ

Journal Links

Guide for Authors

Author Guidelines for Manuscript Submission

Reviewers List

Sustainable Development as the Common Good of International Community in Cross-Sectoral Dispute Settlement

Document Type : Article

Author

Ph.D in International Law from Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. Iran. and faculty member of the Islamic Azad University at North Tehran.

Abstract

Cross-sectoral conflicts, such as environment-trade disputes, are generally multi-dimensional and interwoven. Thus, a single dispute, with the same facts and same disputing parties, can undergo parallel proceedings before competent courts and tribunals under diverse technical regimes and end up contrasting judgments. Given that under general international law there is no legal principle to determine which international body has the main or exclusive jurisdiction in parallel proceedings, cross-sectoral dispute settlement can be challenging for international law system. In the researcher’s viewpoint, regulating and modifying the jurisdiction of dispute resolution courts and tribunals against one another, via sustainable development as the Common Good of international community, can be a solution to this challenge. In this regard, the present article, in a descriptive-analytical research, intends to elaborate on the capability of sustainable development in the accomplishment of this issue. 

Keywords

References
  1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

  1. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله (1399). سیر عقل در منظومۀ حقوق بین‌الملل. چ دوم، تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو.
  2. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله (1390). صلح جاویدان و حکومت قانون. چ اول، تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو.
  3. لندن، کارولین (1389). تجارت بین‌الملل و محیط زیست. ترجمۀ محمدحسین رمضانی قوام‌آبادی، تهران: شهر دانش
  4. میرعباسی، سید باقر و سادات میدانی، سید حسین (1395). دادرسی‌های بین‌المللی دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری (مسائل روز، چکیدۀ آرا و اسناد). چ چهارم، تهران: جنگل، جاودانه.
  5. یوسف‌زاده، مرتضی (1394). آیین دادرسی مدنی. چ سوم، تهران: شرکت انتشار.

ب) مقالات

  1. بلک، ژانت الیزابت و رضائی‌پور، فاطمه (1398). تأثیر اصل احتیاط در حل تعارضات میان‌بخشی تجارت-محیط زیست بر یکپارچگی حقوق بین‌الملل. فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی، 49(4)، 1003-1023.
  2. رمضانی قوام‌آبادی، محمدحسین (1392). بررسی تطبیقی اجرای اصل احتیاط زیست‌محیطی در پرتو آرا و تصمیمات مراجع بین‌المللی. فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق عمومی، 40، 167-179.
  3. زمانی، سید قاسم (1380). توسعۀ مسئولیت بین‌المللی در پرتو حقوق بین‌الملل محیط زیست. پژوهش‌های حقوقی، 1، 27-58.
  4. شهبازی، آرامش (1389). تکثر سیستم قضایی بین‌المللی. پژوهش حقوق، 29، 115-160.
  5. کدخدایی، عباسعلی و عابدینی، عبدالله (1391). اوصاف خودبسندگی نظام سازمان جهانی تجارت در نظام حقوقی بین‌المللی. مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، 29(46)، 8-34.
  6. کدخدایی، عباسعلی (1376). نگرشی بر ساختار مرجع حل اختلاف در سازمان تجارت جهانی. مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، 15(21)، 125-184.
  7. گیوم، ژیلبر (2000). آیا امروزه یکپارچگی حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی در مخاطره است؟. ترجمۀ محمدحسین رمضانی قوام‌آبادی. پژوهش و حقوق، 6(13)، 157-169.
  8. موسوی، سید فضل‌الله (1394). اصول حقوق بین‌الملل محیط زیست در پرتو آرای مراجع حقوقی بین‌المللی. پژوهش حقوق عمومی، 48، 1-17.

 

ج) پایان‌نامه‌ها

  1. حاجی عرب، مریم (1388). وحدت حقوق بین‌الملل از منظر تقارن مسئولیت بین‌الملل دولت و فرد. پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
  2. رضائی‌پور، فاطمه (1398). تأثیر اختلافات زیست‌محیطی-تجاری بر یکپارچگی حقوق بین‌الملل، رسالۀ دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
  3. شهبازی، آرامش (1388). وحدت نظام حقوق بین‌الملل. رسالۀ دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
  4. محمدعلیان لاریجانی، محمد (1383). موانع زیست‌محیطی بر تجارت بین‌الملل. پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
  5. محمودی کردی، زهرا (1391). ضوابط زیست‌محیطی سازمان تجارت جهانی: خلأها و بایسته‌ها، رسالۀ دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.

 

  1. انگلیسی
  2. A) Books
  3. Birnie and Boyle (1992). International Law and the Environment. Oxford.
  4. Boyle, A., & Freestone, D. (1999). International Law and Sustainable Development: Past Achievements and Future Challenges.
  5. Mallaurie, Ph., & Aynès, L. (2005). Droit civil. les obligations.

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Barral, V. (2012). Sustainable Development in International Law: Nature and Operation of an Evolutive Legal Norm. 23:2 European Journal of International Law.
  3. Baxter (1980). International Law. In Her Infinite Variety, 29 ICLQ, 549.
  4. Blake, J.E. (2003). The Importance and Legal Significance of the Role of Cultural Diversity in the Preservation of Biological Diversity. Environmental Sciences 1,.15-26.
  5. Brolmann, C. (2018). Sustainable Development Goal 6 as a Game Changer for International Water Law”, ESIL Reflections 7.
  6. Brown, C. (2002). Review of Manual on International Courts and Tribunals. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 3, I.2.
  7. Dupuy, P.-M. (1994) ‘Théorie des sources et coutume en droit international contemporain’ in E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, and M. Rama-Montaldo, Le droit international dans un monde en mutation, 51,65.
  8. Elkington (1994). Towrds the Sustainable Corporation: win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review,36(2).90-100
  9. Georgopoulos, (2004). ‘Le droit intertemporel et les dispositions conventionnelles évolutives. Quelle thérapie contre la vieillesse des traités?’ 108 RGDIP 123. 130.
  10. Howse, R., & Eliason, A. (2008). Domestic and International Strategies to Address Climate Change: An Overview of the WTO Legal Issues, in INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION AND THE MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE, Bigdeli, Cottier, Nartova (eds.), Cambridge University Press.
  11. Lowe, V. (1999). Sustainable Development and Unsustainable Arguments. in A. Boyle and D. Freestone (eds), International Law and Sustainable Development: Past Achievements and Future Challenges, 24-5.
  12. McLachlan (2005). The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention, 54 ICLQ 279,314-5.
  13. Orellana, MA (2002). The Swordfish Dispute between the EU and Chile at the ITLOS and the WTO.Nordic Journal of International Law, 60-66.
  14. Sands, P. (1998). Sustainable Development: Treaty, Custom and the Cross-Fertilization of International Law. in Boyle and Freestone (eds.), United States – Import Prohibition of certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AV/R.59.
  15. Sands, P. (2008). Litigating Environmental Disputes: Courts, Tribunals and the Progressive Development of International Environmental Law. Global Forum on International Investment VII, 3-4.
  16. Schiffman (2001). UNCLOS and marine wildlife disputes: big splash or barely a ripple?. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 4, I.3.257.
  17. Shampsey, J. (2002). ITLOS vs. Goliath: The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Stands Tall with the Appellate Body in the Chilean-EU Swordfish Dispute. Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 12, 524-5.
  18. Virally (1968). Le rôle des “principes” dans le développement du droit international. in Faculté de droit de l’Université de Genève, Institut universitaire des hautes études internationales, Recueil d’études de droit international en hommage à Paul Guggenheim,531-5.
  19. Weil (1982). Vers une normativité relative en droit international?, 82 RGDIP 5.8.
  20. Z. Bigdeli, Sadeq (2014). Clash of Rationalities:Revisiting the Trade and Environment Debate in Light of WTO Disputes over Green Industrial Policy, 6(1) TRADE L. & DEV.177.

 

  1. C) Documents
  2. (2001a), United States- Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (US Shrimp) Appellate Body Report,WT/DSS8/AB/R(15June2001), http://www.wto.org/englishtratop_e/dispu_e/find_dispu_cases_e.htm.
  3. Award in the Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (‘Ijzeren Rijn’) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 27 RIAA (2005) 35, at para. 59.
  4. Award in the Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (‘Ijzeren Rijn’) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 27 RIAA (2005) 35, at para. 59.
  5. Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, ICJ, Judgment, 20 April 2010, available at: www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/135/15877.pdf.
  6. Case Concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stock in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile v. Eur. Cmty.), Case No. 7 (lnt'l Trib. L. of the Sea Dec. 20, 2000) [hereinafter the "Swordfish Case"], available at http://www.itlos.org/case_documents/2001/document_en_100.pdf.
  7. Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997 (separate opinion of vice president Weeramantry) [1997] ICJ Rep. 88.
  8. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, opened for signature 3 March 1973, 993 UNTS 243 (entered into force 1 July 1975) (the CITES).
  9. Declaration from the Summit on Sustainable Development, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) p.41 (1987) available at: www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf.
  10. Framework Agreement for the Conservation of Living Marine Resources on the High Seas of the Southeast Pacific, signed in Santiago de Chile on 14 August 2000.
  11. Gabcˇíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment ICJ Reports (1997) 7, at para. 112.
  12. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, opened for signature 30 October 1947, 53 UNTS 194 (entered into force 1 Jan. 1948) (GATT 1947). The provisions of GATT 1947 (with some amendments) are incorporated into the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1867 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 Jan. 1995) Annex 1A (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994) (GATT 1994).
  13. General Assembly resolution 70/1 of 21 October 2015, para. 35.
  14. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals /sep 5,2018.
  15. International Law Commission Report 2003, Para. 9.
  16. Report of the Secretary-General on measuring the effectiveness of the support provided by the United Nations system for the promotion of the rule of law in conflict and post-conflict situations, S/2013/341, 11 June 2013, para. 70.
  17. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (UN Doc. A/42/427, 4 August 1987), Annex (Our Common Future): The Future We Want, Paras. 10-12.
  18. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) p.41 (1987)
  19. Social and Economic Rights Action Center, Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication 155/96 (2001), at para. 52, available at: www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/155-96.html.
  20. the ILC’s ‘Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, with commentaries’(2001) ILC Yrbk, ii, pt 2, at 154-155.
  21. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNCED) 1992. Earth Summit:Agenda 21- The United Nations Program of Action from Rio. United Nations Department of Public Information, New York, 1992, available online at: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=52.
  22. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 397 (entered into force 16 November 1994).
  23. United Nations Millennium Declaration, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, A/RES/55/2, 2000.
  24. United States – Import Prohibition of certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AV/R, 1998, at paras. 127–131.
  25. World Trade Organization, Understanding the WTO: The environment: a specific concern http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/ tif_e/bey2_e.htm.
  26. WT/DS 193/1, “Chile – Measures Affecting the Transit and Importation of Swordfish,” Request for Consultations by the European Communities.
  27. WT/DS 193/2, “Chile – Measures Affecting the Transit and Importation of Swordfish,” Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities.
  28. www.ochr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cescr.pdf.
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 53, Issue 2
Summer 2023
June 2023
Pages 715-735
Files
History
  • Receive Date: 14 October 2020
  • Revise Date: 05 January 2021
  • Accept Date: 19 April 2021
Share
How to cite
Statistics