نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار گروه حقوق، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه میبد، میبد، ایران
چکیده
یکی از موضوعات چالش‌برانگیز در نظام‌های حقوقی و سیاسی کشورها، در نظر گرفتن سازوکاری است که بتواند موازنه‌ای منطقی بین حفظ منافع جامعه از یک سو و احترام به زندگی خصوصی شهروندان از سوی دیگر ایجاد کند. کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر در مادۀ 8 خود به این موضوع پرداخته است. در بند 1 این ماده دولت‌های متعاهد مکلف به احترام به زندگی خصوصی شهروندان شده‌اند و در بند 2 ضمن تجویز دخالت دولت‌ها در زندگی خصوصی شهروندان در شرایط خاص، اقتضائاتی برای این امر برشمرده است. پژوهش حاضر به این پرسش می‌پردازد که مفهوم زندگی خصوصی در مادۀ 8 کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر چیست و اقتضائات پیش‌بینی‌شده در بند 2 مادۀ 8 کنوانسیون که به دولت‌ها اجازۀ دخالت در زندگی خصوصی شهروندان را می‌دهد کدام‌اند؟ مطالعۀ انجام‌گرفته در این مقاله نشان داد که زندگی خصوصی از نظر کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر مفهومی گسترده و پویا است که ابعاد گوناگونی را در برگرفته و متناسب با تغییرات فرهنگی و اجتماعی به‌روز می‌شود. دخالت دولت‌های متعاهد در زندگی خصوصی شهروندان نیز فقط در صورتی مجاز خواهد بود که متناسب با قانون باشد، هدفی مشروع را دنبال کند و از نظر یک جامعۀ دموکراتیک، ضروری تلقی شود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Conditions for Government Intervention in the Private Life of Citizens from the Perspective of the European Convention on Human Rights
نویسنده [English]
- Mohammadmehdi Barghi
Assistant Prof, Department of Law, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Meybod University, Meybod, Iran
چکیده [English]
One of the most challenging issues in the legal and political systems of countries is to consider a mechanism that can create a reasonable balance between protecting the interests of society on the one hand and respecting the private life of citizens on the other. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights addresses this issue. In paragraph one of this article, the Contracting States are obliged to respect the private life of their citizens and in Paragraph two, while prescribing the interference of governments in the private life of citizens in certain circumstances, enumerates the requirements for this. The present study addresses the question of what is the meaning of private life in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and what are the requirements set forth in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention which allows governments to interfere in the private life of citizens? The study conducted in this article showed that private life is a broad and dynamic concept according to the European Convention on Human Rights, which encompasses various dimensions and is updated in accordance with cultural and social changes. The interference of the Contracting States in the private life of its citizens shall be permitted only if it is lawful, pursues a legitimate aim and is deemed necessary in the eyes of a democratic society.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Compliance with the law
- European Court of Human Rights
- private life
- European Convention on Human Rights
- Legitimate intervention
- فارسی
الف) مقالات
- احمدی‌نژاد، مریم و امین‌الرعایا، یاسر (1395). دکترین صلاحدید و منافع ملی دولت‌های عضو کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر. فصلنامۀ مطالعات کاربردی، 71، 93-118.
- شریف طرازکوهی، حسین و مبینی، جواد (1393). دکترین حاشیۀ مجاز تفسیر در رویۀ دادگاه اروپایی حقوق بشر. فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق عمومی، 44، 73-103.
- محسنی، فرید و میرعماد، محمدحسین (1398). مبانی و استثنائات حریم خصوصی در اسلام و حقوق ایران از دیدگاه حقوق عمومی. دو فصلنامۀ علمی آموزه‌های حقوقی گواه، 2، 251-276.
- همتی، مرضیه (1390). اتانازی از منظر اخلاق و حقوق بشر. مجلۀ کانون وکلا، 212، 159-180.
- انگلیسی
- A) Books
- Akrivopoulou, C., & Psygkas, A. (2010). Personal Data Privacy and Protection in a Surveillance Era: Technologies and Practices: Technologies and Practices. IGI Global.
- Ashworth, Andrew, Zender, Lucia (2014). Preventive Justice. Oxford University Press.
- Baudet, T. (2012). The Significance of Borders: Why Representative Government and the Rule of Law Require Nation States. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
4 .Birks, D., & Douglas, T. (2018). Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press.
- Brems, E. (2012). Diversity and European Human Rights: Rewriting Judgments of the ECHR. Cambridge University Press.
- Conte, A. (2010). Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism: Commonwealth Approaches: The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Springer Science & Business Media.
- Council of Europe (2018). The administration and you – A handbook: Principles of administrative law concerning relations between individuals and public authorities. Council of Europe.
- Davis, H. (2016). Human Rights Law Directions. Oxford University Press.
- De schutter, O. (2010). International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials, Commentary. Cambridge University Press.
- Dickson, B. (2010). The European Convention on Human Rights and the Conflict in Northern Ireland. OUP Oxford.
- Gerards, J. (2019). General Principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Cambridge University Press.
- Harris, S., & Miles, J. (2011). Family Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. OUP Oxford.
- Herring, J. (2020). Medical Law and Ethics. Oxford University Press
- Kilkelly, Ursula (2017). The Child and the European Convention on Human Rights: Second Edition. Taylor & Francis.
- Londras, F., & Dzehtsiarou, K. (2018). Great Debates on the European Convention on Human Rights. Macmillan International Higher Education.
- Marshall, Jill (2014). Human Rights Law and Personal Identity. Routledge.
- Merrills, J., & Fisher, J. (2013). Pharmacy Law and Practice. Academic Press.
- Moeckli, D. (2016). Exclusion from Public Space: A Comparative Constitutional Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
- Mole, N. (2007). Asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe.
- M.Scherpe, J. (2016). European Family Law Volume II: The Changing Concept of ‘Family’ and Challenges for Domestic Family Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Puppinck, G. (2017). Conscientious Objection and Human Rights: A Systematic Analysis. BRILL.
- Rainey, B., Wicks, E., & Ovey, C. (2017). Jacobs, White, and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford University Press.
- Reid, K.A. (2011). A Practitioner's Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights. Sweet & Maxwell.
- Scholtz, W. (2019). Animal Welfare and International Environmental Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Smartt, U. (2017). Media & Entertainment Law. Taylor & Francis
- Stockemer, D. (2017). The Front National in France: Continuity and Change Under Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen. Springer.
- Temperman, J., Gunn, T. J., & Evans, M. (2019). The European Court of Human Rights and the Freedom of Religion or Belief. BRILL.
- Van Caeneghem, Jozefien (2019). Legal Aspects of Ethnic Data Collection and Positive Action: The Roma Minority in Europe, Springer Nature.
- Vermeulen, G., & Lievens, E.(2017). Data Protection and Privacy Under Pressure: Transatlantic tensions, EU surveillance, and big data, Maklu.
- B) Cases
- Burghartz v. Switzerland, Appl. No 16213/90, 22 February 1994.
- Cosrello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 13134/87, 25 March 1993.
- Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 7525/76, 22 October 1981.
- Friend and Countryside Alliance and Others v. the United Kingdom, Appl. Nos 16072/06 and 27809/08, 24 November 2009.
- Georgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, Appl. No 37084/04, 13 January 2009.
- Gillow v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 9063/80, 24 November 1986.
- Guillot v. France, Appl. No 22500/93, 24 October 1996.
- Handyside v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 5493/72, 7 December 1976.
- Hatton and others v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 36022/97, 8 July 2003.
- Herczegfalvy v. Austria, Appl. No 10533/83, 24 September 1992.
- Khan v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 35394/97, 12 May 2000.
- Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom, Appl. Nos 21627/93, 21826/93 and 21974/93, 18 January 1995.
- Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France, Appl. Nos 21279/02 and 36448/02, 22 October 2007.
- Luordo v. Italy, Appl. No 32190/96, 17 July 2003.
- Malakhovsky and Pikul v. Belarus, Appl. No 1207/2003, 26 July 2005.
- Niemietz v. Germany, Appl. No 13710/88, 16 December 1992.
- Olsson v. Sweden, Appl. No 10465/83, 24 March 1988.
- Peters v. the Netherlands, Appl. No 21132/93, 6 April 1994.
- Pretty v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No 2346/02, 29 April 2002.
- S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, Appl. Nos 30562/04 and 30566/04, 4 December 2008.
- Salvetti v. Italy, Appl. No 42197/98, 9 July 2002.
- Van Kuck v. Germany, Appl. No 35968/97, 12 June 2003.
)