دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار حقوق بین‌الملل دانشکدۀ حقوق دانشگاه قم، قم، جمهوری اسلامی ایران

2 دانشیار حقوق بین‌الملل دانشکدۀ حقوق دانشگاه قم، قم، جمهوری اسلامی ایران

3 دانش‌آموختۀ دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل دانشگاه قم، قم، جمهوری اسلامی ایران

10.22059/jplsq.2022.342886.3084

چکیده

دیوان بین‌المللی حقوق دریاها، متعاقب درخواست کمیسیون منطقه‌ای شیلات برای صدور نظر مشورتی، این فرصت را جست تا به صلاحیت خود برای صدور چنین نظری بپردازد. جستار حاضر بر آن شده است تا از رهگذر استدلال‌های مطروحه در پروندۀ شمارۀ 21 دیوان بین‌المللی حقوق دریاها، به تحلیل صلاحیت دیوان بین‌المللی حقوق دریاها برای صدور نظر مشورتی در سنجۀ حقوق بین‌الملل بپردازد. روش پژوهش در نوشتار پیش رو، روش توصیفی - تحلیلی است و اطلاعات از طریق تدقیق در منابع کتابخانه‌ای و اسنادی گردآوری شده‌اند. مقالۀ پیش رو ایضاح کرده که دیوان بین‌المللی حقوق دریاها پس از چالش‌های فراوانی که فراروی خود یافته است، با رویکردی کارکردگرایانه و تفسیری تکاملی از مادۀ 21 اساسنامه و مادۀ 138 مجموعه قواعد دیوان، در سال 2015 میلادی حکم داد که دیوان به‌مثابۀ یک کل، می‌تواند نظر مشورتی صادر کند و این صلاحیت، منحصر به شعبۀ دعاوی بستر دریا نیست. این نظر مشورتی (پروندۀ شمارۀ 21)، راه را هموار ساخته است تا هر دولت یا سازمان بین‌المللی بتواند در حیطۀ موضوعات مربوط به دریاها از کل دیوان با تمام شعبی که دارد، درخواست نظر مشورتی کند. چنین درخواستی منوط به آن است که رضایت پیشینی یا پسینی خود را به‌نحوی از انحا اعلام کرده باشد؛ مهمی که به حق، می‌تواند راهکاری نو برای مرجعی از پیش موجود، دانسته شود و برود تا به توسعۀ تدریجی و وحدت مقرره‌ای در این زمینه از حقوق بین‌الملل بینجامد. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Advisory Jurisdiction of ITLOS: An Overview of the Request for An Advisory Opinion by the SRFC

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohamad Setayeshpur 1
  • Ziaee Seyed Yaser 2
  • Mahdy Keykhosravi 3

1 Assistant Prof., Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Islamic Republic of Iran

2 Associate Professor, International Law Department, University of Qom, Qom, Islamic Republic of Iran

3 Ph.D. in International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Islamic Republic of Iran

چکیده [English]

Following the request from the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) for an advisory opinion, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) addressed its advisory jurisdiction. This paper aims to examine this aspect of the ITLOS Advisory Opinion of 2 April 2015. The research method is  descriptive – analytical and the information has been collected through library sources. The paper will explain that with a functionalist approach and an evolutionary interpretation of Article 21 of the ITLOS Statute and Article 138 of the Rules of the Tribunal, ITLOS established that the full Tribunal has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the SRFC and this authority is not merely for the Seabed Disputes Chamber. This advisory opinion paves the way for other bodies to obtain an advisory opinion from the Tribunal as regards the international law of the sea. It can rightly be considered a new way for the Tribunal and lead to the development the law of the sea.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • dynamism of international law
  • the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
  • international jurisdiction
  • advisory opinion
  • the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC)
  1. فارسی

الف) کتاب

  1. پورنوری، منصور و حبیبی، محمد (1385). حقوق بین‌الملل دریاها: کنوانسیون حقوق دریاها (مصوب 1982)، تهران: مهد حقوق.

 

ب) مقالات

  1. صالحی، جواد (1395). نظریۀ مشورتی دیوان بین‌المللی حقوق دریاها؛ تجلی تعهدات دولت صاحب‌پرچم راجع به صید غیرمجاز کشتی حامل پرچم وی در منطقۀ انحصاری اقتصادی دولت ثالث. اقیانوس‌شناسی، 28، 1-12.
  2. گیوم، ژیلبر (1383). آیا امروزه یکپارچگی حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی در مخاطره است؟. ترجمۀ محمدحسین رمضانی قوام‌آبادی، پژوهش حقوق عمومی (پژوهش حقوق و سیاست سابق)، 13، 157-169.
  3. محبی، محسن و آذری، هادی (1395). دعوای متقابل در دیوان بین‌المللی حقوق دریاها، دستاورد قرار 2 نوامبر 2012 در قضیۀ کشتی ویرجینا جی (پاناما / گینه بیسائو). مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، 55، 31-52.

ب) انگلیسی

  1. A) Book
  2. Tanaka, Y. (2018). The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Anton, D., Makgill, R., & Payne, C. (2011). Advisory Opinion on Responsibility & Liability for International Seabed Mining (ITLOS Case No. 17): International Environmental Law in the Seabed Disputes Chamber. Australian National University, College of Law, Research Paper, 11-06, 1-13.
  3. Babu, R. (2015). “State Responsibility for Illegal, Unreported and Unrelated Fishing and Sustainable Fisheries in the EEZ: Some Reflections on the ITLOS Advisory Opinion of 2015”, Indian Journal of International Law, 55, 239-264.
  4. Gavouneli, M.(2015). Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) (ITLOS). International Legal Materials, 54(5), 890-926.
  5. Lando, M. (2016). The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Comments on the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission. Leiden Journal of International Law, 29, 441-461.
  6. Musto, C., & Papastavridis, E. (2021). Tackling Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing through Port State Measures. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 22, 259-307.
  7. Schatz, Valentin (2016) (a). “Combatting Illegal Fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone-Flag State Obligations in the Context of the Primary Responsibility of the Coastal State. Goettingen Journal of International Law, 7(2), 383-414.
  8. Schatz, V. (2016b). Fishing for Interpretation: The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Flag State Responsibility for Illegal Fishing in the EEZ. Ocean Development and International Law, 47(4), 327-345.
  9. Taghizadeh, Z. (2021). Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing under the Proceeding of the International Tribunal for Law of the Sea. International Journal of Maritime Policy, 1, 5-36.
  10. Tanaka, Y. (2015). Reflections on the Advisory Jurisdiction of ITLOS as a Full Court: The ITLOS Advisory Opinion of 2015. Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 14(2), 318-339.
  11. Treves, T. (2017). Introductory Note: The Jurisprudence of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in 2015. In Giuliana Ziccardi Capaldo (ed.), The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2016, Oxford Academic.

 

  1. C) Thesis
  2. Cuenot, S. (2013). Advisory Opinion: A Bridge Between the CLCS and the ITLOS, Thesis to get Master’s Degree, Supervised by Chie Kojima and Proshanto K. Mukherjee, Maritime law, Faculty of Law, Lund University. Open access at http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3811848/file/3811853.pdf
  3. D) Cases
  4. ICJ [International Court of Justice] (1996). Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion.
  5. ITLOS [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea] (1982). Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS Statute) (Annex VI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).
  6. ITLOS [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea] (1997). Rules of the Tribunal (ITLOS Rules) (ITLOS/8), as adopted on 28 October 1997 and amended on 15 March 2001, 21 September 2001 and 17 March 2009.
  7. ITLOS [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea] (2011). Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with respect to Activities in the Area (Request for Advisory Opinion Submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber), Case No. 17, Advisory Opinion.
  8. ITLOS [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea] (2013). Request for an Advisory Opinion to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Written Statement of the European Union.
  9. ITLOS [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea] (2013). Request for an Advisory Opinion to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Written Statement of the United Nations Organization.
  10. ITLOS [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea] (2013). Request for an Advisory Opinion to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Written Statement of the Permanent Secretariat of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission.
  11. ITLOS [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea] (2013). Request for an Advisory Opinion to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Written Statement of the Germany.
  12. ITLOS [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea] (2015). Press Release, Press 227, Tribunal Delivers Its Advisory Opinion Regarding Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Activities, 02.04.2015.
  13. ITLOS [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea] (2015). Adviory Opinion, Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) (Request for Advisory Opinion Submitted to the Tribunal), Case No. 21.

 

  1. E) Documents
  2. Agreement Establishing a Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC Convention) (1985).
  3. Amendment to the Convention of 29th March 1985 Establishing the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (1993).
  4. Convention on the Determination of the Minimal Conditions for Access and Exploitation of Marine Resources within the Maritime Areas under the Jurisdiction of the Member States of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (MAC Convention) (2012).
  5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2001). International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.
  6. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982). 1833. UNTS. 396.27.

 

  1. F) Analytical Blogposts
  2. Akende, Dapo (2011). The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Gets Busier, EJIL Analysis, August 2. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-international-tribunal-for-the-law-of-the-sea-gets-busier/
  3. Boon, Kristen (2013). New ITLOS Advisory Opinion Sought, Opinio Juris, April 10. http://opiniojuris.org/2013/04/10/new-itlos-advisory-opinion-sought/
  4. Freestone, David (2011). Advisory Opinion of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with respect to Activities in the Area, ASIL Insight, March 9. https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/15/issue/7/advisory-opinion-seabed-disputes-chamber-international-tribunal-law-sea-
  5. Romee van der Marel, Eva (2015). ITLOS Issues Its Advisory Opinion on IUU Fishing, JCLOS. http://site.uit.no/jclos/2015/04/21/itlos-issues-its-advisory-opinion-on-iuu-fishing/
  6. Stephens, Tim (2015). ITLOS Advisory Opinion: Coastal and Flag State Duties to Ensure Sustainable Fisheries Management, April 16. https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/19/issue/8/itlos-advisory-opinion-coastal-and-flag-state-duties-ensure#_ednref24

 

  1. G) Sites
  2. http://spcsrp.org/en/documents-and-institutional-resources (Last visted: 2022. 08. 26).
  3. https://www.itlos.org/en/main/cases/list-of-cases/case-no-17/ (Last visted: 2022. 08. 26).