نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانش‌آموختۀ دورۀ دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل از دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
2 دانش‌آموختۀ دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل و قاضی دادگستری
3 دانش‌آموختۀ دورۀ دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل از دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
مصونیت دولت در حقوق بین‌الملل با اینکه از پایه‌های عرفی دیرین و مستحکمی برخوردار است، اما ماهیت و طبیعت این قواعد دقیقاً مشخص نیست. میان حقوقدانان از این حیث که آیا قواعد در خصوص مصونیت دارای خصیصۀ شکلی است یا ماهوی، اختلافات فراوانی به چشم می‌خورد. دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در دو مورد این فرصت را پیدا کرده است که در خصوص طبیعت قواعد راجع به مصونیت و تعارض احتمالی آنها با قواعد ماهوی اظهارنظر کند. اولین بار، در قضیۀ قرار بازداشت یرودیا در دعوای میان کنگو علیه بلژیک در سال 2002 و بار دیگر، در قضیۀ مصونیت‌های صلاحیتی دعوای میان آلمان علیه ایتالیا در سال 2012. پرسش اصلی پژوهش حاضر این است که آیا تفکیک میان قواعد شکلی مصونیت و قواعد ماهوی آمره به‌ترتیبی که دیوان در آرای مزبور اعلام کرده است، مبنای حقوقی دارد یا اقدام دیوان را می‌توان به لحاظ حقوقی به چالش کشید. به‌طور کلی رویکرد دیوان در استفاده از این تفکیک، می‌تواند نتایج ناگواری چون نزول شأن قاعدۀ آمره و بی‌کیفرمانی مرتکبان و شدیدترین جنایات بین‌المللی را در پی داشته باشد. ازاین‌رو دیوان باید در به‌کارگیری چنین استدلالی محتاط‌تر عمل می‌کرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Balancing Procedural and Substantive Rules in light of the Relationship between Immunity and Responsibility in the Case Law of the ICJ
نویسندگان [English]
- Mahshid Ajeli lahiji 1
- Majid Zahmatkesh 2
- S. Ali Hosseiniazad 3
1 Ph.D. in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D. in International Law
3 Ph.D. in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
The immunity of the state has a strong basis in customary international law. But the nature of these rules is not exactly obvious. Lawyers have different points of view on determining immunity as procedural or substantive rule. Twice the International Court of Justice had the chance to evaluate the nature of state immunity and its probable conflict with substantive rules. The first time, in the case concerning Yerodia arrest warrant (Congo v. Belgium) in 2002 and the second time, in the case concerning the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening) in 2012. The question of this paper is whether the distinction between the procedural rule of immunity and a substantive jus cogens rule as is used by ICJ has a legal basis or can it be legally challenged? It will be argued that the ICJ approach in using the distinction can cause problems like descending the position of jus cogens and impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes. Thus, the ICJ should be more cautious in using such a reasoning.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- international court of justice
- International law
- procedural and substantive rules
- international responsibility
- immunity
- فارسی
- کتاب
- ضیایی بیگدلی، محمدرضا (1391). حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی. تهران: گنج دانش.
- انگلیسی
- A) Books
- Malanczuk, P. (2002). Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
- Merrills, J. G. (2011). International Dispute Settlement. Cambridge University Press.
- Shany, Y. (2014). Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts. Oxford University Press.
- B) Articles
- Colangelo, A. J. (2013). Jurisdiction, Immunity, Legality, and Jus Cogens.Chicago Journal of International Law, 14(1), 53-91.
- Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (2002). Immunity for Heads of State, Heads of Government, Foreign Ministers and Other State Officials. 23rd meeting, Strasbourg, 1-18.
- Crawford J. R. & T. D. Grant (2012). Local Remedies, Exhaustion of. in: R. Wolfrum (ed.). The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford, 6, 895-904.
- Galand, A. S. (2019). Article 13 (b) vs Immunity of State Officials. In: UN Security Council Referrals to the International Criminal Court, Brill: Nijhoff, 153-201.
- Orakhelashvili, A. (2007). State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms: Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong. EJIL, 18, 955-970
- Pellet, A. (2010). The Definition of Responsibility in International Law. in: James Crawford, Alain Pellet, Simon Olleson, Kate Parlett (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility Oxford University Press, 3-16.
- Risinger, D. M. (1982). Substance and Procedure Revisited with Some Afterthoughts on the Constitutional Problems of Irrebuttable Presumptions. UCLA Law Review, 30, 189 – 216.
- Souresh, A. (2017). Jurisdictional Immunities of the State: Why the ICJ Got It Wrong”, European Journal of Legal Studies, 9(2), 15-35.
- Talmon, S. (2012). Jus Cogens after Germany v. Italy: Substantive and Procedural Rules Distinguished. Leiden Journal of International Law, 25, (04), 979-1002.
- Thirlway, H. (2001). The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989. BYBIL, 72, 37–181.
- Weatherall, T. (2015). .Jus Cogens and Sovereign Immunity: Reconciling Divergence in Contemporary Jurisprudence. Geo. J. Int'l L., 46, 1151-1212.
- C) International Documents
- Charter of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg, 1945
- Charter of the International Military Tribunal of Tokyo, 1946
- Court of Appeal of Dakar, Habre´, 125 ILR 569, 20 July 2000
- ECJ, Case C-17/10, Toshiba Corporation and Others, Opinion of Advocate-General Kokott, delivered on 8 September 2011
- ICJ, Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment of 14 February 2002.
- ICJ, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), 2012
- ICJ, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), 20 April 2011
- International Law Commission, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001
- International Law Commission, Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, 1996.
- International Law Commission, Second Report on Diplomatic Protection by Mr. J. Dugard, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/514, 28 February 2001
- International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals, Judgment, Vol. 22, 1949
- Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment I
- Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998
- Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 1994
- Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 1993
- Supreme Court of Poland, Natoniewski v. Federal Republic of Germany, Decision of 29 October 2010
- Supreme Court of the United States, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 at 91 (1938).
- The International Law Institute (ILI), The resolution on ‘The Immunity from Jurisdiction of the State and of Persons Who Act on Behalf of the State in case of International Crimes’, September 2009
- United Nations, Convention on the Prevention and Suppression of the Crime of Genocide, December 1948
)