فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران
دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

امکان‏سنجی طرح دعاوی آثار تغییرات اقلیمی بر محیط زیست دریایی در چارچوب کنوانسیون حقوق دریاها

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسنده

هاجر راعی دهقی

دانش ‏آموختۀ دکتری حقوق بین‏ الملل عمومی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران.

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2022.328705.2858
چکیده
دولت‏ ها با وجود آگاهی از فوریت ‏های مطرح‏شده در خصوص آثار تغییر اقلیم توسط نهادهایی همچون هیأت بین‏ الدولی تغییر اقلیم، هنوز از پذیرش تعهدات مربوط به کاهش انتشار گازهای گلخانه ‏ای اجتناب می‏ورزند. اگرچه آثار تغییر اقلیم توجه و نگرانی جامعۀ بین ‏المللی را به خود جلب کرده است، تقریباً هیچ دعوایی مربوط به آثار تغییر اقلیم در نهادهای قضایی و شبه‏ قضایی بین ‏المللی وجود ندارد. با توجه به تعریف وسیع کنوانسیون سازمان ملل متحد در خصوص حقوق دریاها از آلودگی محیط‏ زیست دریا، این کنوانسیون پتانسیل بالایی برای ارائۀ ابزارهایی برای جبران خسارات کشورهای تحت تأثیر تغییر اقلیم از جمله کشورهای در حال ‏توسعۀ کوچک جزیره‏ای دارد. به ‏موجب کنوانسیون فرصت انتخاب مرجع رسیدگی به‏ همراه روش داوری که گزینۀ پیش ‏فرض است، وجود دارد. اگرچه دیوان بین ‏المللی دادگستری و دادگاه بین‏ المللی حقوق دریاها گزینۀ بهتری برای پرونده‏های مربوط به آثار تغییر اقلیم همراه با خواندگان متعدد است، احتمال اینکه دیوان داوری موردی، به ‏دلیل پیش ‏فرض بودن، تنها گزینۀ واقع‏ بینانه باشد بیشتر است، مگر اینکه طرفین به انتقال دعوا به مرجع دیگری توافق کنند. در هر حال، طرح این‏گونه دعاوی به‏ موجب روش ‏های حل ‏و‏فصل اختلافات مندرج در کنوانسیون حقوق دریاها می‏تواند آثار تغییر اقلیم بر اقیانوس ‏ها از جمله انقراض گونه ‏ها، آلودگی دریا و بالا آمدن آب دریاها را اثبات و در آینده از بروز آنها جلوگیری کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

تغییر اقلیم
روش‏های حل‏وفصل اختلافات
کنوانسیون حقوق دریاها
محیط زیست دریایی
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Feasibility of Litigation for the Effects of Climate Change on the Marine Environment Under the Law of the Sea Convention

نویسنده English

Hajar Raee Dehaghi
Ph.D. in Public International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

Governments are still reluctant to accept commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite being aware of the emergencies raised by the impact of climate change by institutions such as the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change. Although the effects of climate change have attracted the attention of the international community, there are almost no disputes in international judicial and quasi-judicial institutions. The convention on the law of the sea defines marine environmental pollution, thereupon  has great potential to provide tools for compensating countries affected by climate change. According to the convention, there is an opportunity to choose the tribunal along with the arbitration method which is the default option. Although the International Court of Justice and the international tribunal for the law of the sea are better options for cases involving multiple defendants, a case arbitral tribunal is more likely to be the only realistic option by default, unless the parties agree to transfer the case to another authority. Such litigation through dispute resolution procedures set out in the Convention on the Law of the Sea can prove the effects of climate change, including species extinction, marine pollution and rising sea levels and prevent from occurring in the future. 

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Climate change
dispute resolution
convention on the law of the sea
marine environment
  1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‏

  1. تاناکا، یوشیفومی (1395). حقوق بین‏الملل دریاها. ترجمۀ آرمین طلعت، تهران: شهر دانش.

 

ب) مقالات

  1. پیری، مهدی (1397). تأملی بر آثار حقوقی الحاق جمهوری اسلامی ایران به توافقنامۀ پاریس در خصوص تغییرات اقلیمی. فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی، 48(4 )، 887-908.
  2. رمضانی قوام‏آبادی، محمدحسین (1392). بررسی تطبیقی اجرای اصل احتیاط زیست‏محیطی در پرتو آرا و تصمیمات مراجع بین‏المللی. فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق عمومی، 15(40)، 141-164.
  3. سلیمی ترکمانی، حجت (1397). از مسئولیت حقوقی تا مسئولیت اخلاقی آنها در زمینۀ مقابله با تغییرات آب‏و‏هوایی. مجلۀ مطالعات حقوقی دانشگاه شیراز، 2(10)، 105-133.

 

ج) پایان‏نامه

  1. فتحی، بهرام (1394). نقش دیوان بین‏المللی حقوق دریاها در حفظ محیط‏زیست دریا. پایان‏نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکزی.

 

  1. انگلیسی
  2. A) Books
  3. Cámara Stougaard-Andresen, R. A. (2011(. Climate change and the Law of the Sea Convention. Master thesis, Faculty of Law Lund University.
  4. (Julia) Xue, G. (2013(. Climate Change Challenges and the Law of the Sea Responses, In Oliver C. 6. Ruppel, Christian Roschmann and Katharina Ruppel-Schlichting, Climate Change: International Law and Global Governance. Volume I: Legal Responses and Global Responsibility, Baden, Nomos.
  5. Okubo, N. (2007). Climate Change Litigation: A Global Tendency: International Law and Global Governance Volume I: Legal Responses and Global Responsibility. Baden, Nomos.
  6. Takamura, Y. (2013). Climate Change and Small Island Claims in the Pacific, In Oliver C. Ruppel, Christian Roschmann and Katharina Ruppel-Schlichting, Climate Change: International Law and Global Governance, Vol. 1: Legal Responses and Global Responsibility, Baden, Nomos.
  7. Verheyen, R., & Cathrin, Z. (2007). International Climate Change Cases, International Law and Global Governance, 1: Legal Responses and Global Responsibility, Baden, Nomos.

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Boyle, A. (2012). Law of the Sea Perspectives on Climate Change. Marine and Coastal Law, 27 (4), 831–838.
  3. Boyle, A.) 2018(.Addressing Climate Change Impacts through UNCLOS Particle XV Dispute Settlement Mechanisms. in Climate Change and the Law of the Sea: Adapting the Law of the Sea to Address the Challenges of Climate Change. Singapore. Conference Report, 21-22.
  4. Burns, W. C.G. (2007). Potential Causes of Action for Climate Change Impacts under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. Unstainable Development Law & Policy, 79(2), 34-41.
  5. Doelle, (2006). Climate Change and the Use of the Dispute Settlement Regime of the Law of the Sea Convention. Ocean Development and International Law, 37(3-4), 1-40.
  6. Evans, M.D. (1994). Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), International and Comparative Law Quarticleerly, 43(3), 697-704.
  7. Kalas, P. R. & Alexia, H. (2000). Dispute Resolution under the Kyoto Protocol. Ecology Law Quarterly, 27(1), 53-134.
  8. Lyons, Y. (2018). Protecting Coral Reefs and other Sensitive Marine Areas from the Impacts of Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. in Climate Change and the Law of the Sea: Adapting the Law of the Sea to Address the Challenges of Climate Change. Singapore: Conference Report, 18-20.
  9. Osofsky, H. M. (2005). The Geography of Climate Change Litigation: Implications for Transnational Regulatory Governance. Washington University Law Quarterly, 83(6), 1789–1855.
  10. Oral, N. (2021). "LCIL Friday Lecture: 'Climate change and the law of the sea: A test for international law'", Centre for International Law-National University of Singapore, 1-34.
  11. Peel, J. (2007). The Role of Climate Change Litigation in Australia’s Response to Global Warming. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 24, 90–105.
  12. Preston, B. J. (2010). Climate Change Litigation. paper delivered to “Climate Change Governance after Copenhagen” Conference organized by Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong and Faculty of Laws, Hong Kong, University College London, Available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk, Last accessed 30 May 2020.
  13. Redgwell, C. (2018). Treaty Evolution, Adaptation and Change: Is UNCLOS ‘enough’ to address Climate Change Impacts on the Oceans?. in Climate Change and the Law of the Sea: Adapting the Law of the Sea to Address the Challenges of Climate Change, Singapore, Conference Report, 22-24.
  14. Tol, Richard S.J. & Roda, V. (2004). State Responsibility and Compensation for Climate Change Damages – a Legal and Economic Assessment. Energy Policy, 32, 1109–1130.
  15. Vicuña, F. O. (1998). Responsibility and Liability for Environmental Damage under International Law: Issues and Trends. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 10(2), 279 – 308.
  16. Weinbaum, A.) 2011(.Unjust Enrichment: An Alternative to Tort Law and Human Rights in the Climate, Change Context?. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 20(2), 412–429.

 

  1. C) Cases
  2. Arbitral Tribunal, 2000, Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan). Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility
  3. International Court of Justice, 1966, South West Africa (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa), Judgment.
  4. International Court of Justice, 1973, Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v France), Order Interim Measures.
  5. International Court of Justice, 2001, the ‘MOX Plant’ Case (Ireland v United Kingdom). Written Response of the United Kingdom.
  6. International Court of Justice, 1949, Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Albania). Judgment.
  7. International Court of Justice, 1970, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain). Judgment.
  8. International Court of Justice, 1977, Gabacikovo – Nagymaros Project (Hungary / Slovak), Judgment.
  9. International Court of Justice, 2007, Case Concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment.
  10. International Court of Justice, 1969, Case concerning North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany v Denmark and the Netherlands). Judgment.
  11. International Court of Justice, 2010, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment.
  12. 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), Advisory opinion.
  13. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, 1999, Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan). Provisional Measures, 1999.
  14. Pree International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, 1927, Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzow (Germany v Poland), Jurisdiction.
  15. Pree International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, 1929, Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder (Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany; Great Britain, Sweden/Poland.

 

  1. D) Documents
  2. Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement Second session Madrid. 2–13 December 2019. Agenda item 6. Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts.
  3. Conference of the Parties Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-fifth session. Held in Madrid from 2 to 15 December 2019. 16 March 2020. Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twentyfifth session.
  4. IPCC 2019. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.).
  5. United Nations Depart clement of Public Information, 3 February 2012, Press Conference on Request for International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. Available at http://www.un.org/ News/ briefings/docs/ 2012/120203_ICJ.doc.htm. Last accessed 17 March 2018.
  6. http://www.un.org/depts/los/settlement of disputes/choice htm, last visited 6 July 2021.
فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران
دوره 54، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 38
تابستان 1403
تابستان 1403
صفحه 1025-1049

  • تاریخ دریافت 20 مرداد 1400
  • تاریخ بازنگری 24 آبان 1400
  • تاریخ پذیرش 08 اسفند 1400

صفحه اصلی

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

فرایند ارزیابی و پذیرش مقالات

ارسال مقاله

بانک‌ها و نمایه‌نامه‌ها

تماس با ما