جایگاه مفهوم منافع جمعی بین‌المللی در رویه‌ دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری و سازوکارهای حمایت از آن

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه حقوق دانشگاه کردستان، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، سنندج، ایران

چکیده

بعد عمومی حقوق بین‌الملل پدیده‌ای نسبتاً جدید است. دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در آرای خود، گاه به مفاهیمی نو اشاره نموده که درصدد حمایت از این بعد عمومی می‌باشد. این بعد که درک سنتی از حقوق بین‌الملل را متحول ساخته، مستلزم تدوین قواعدی برای حفظ و حمایت از منافع جامعه بین‌المللی است. این مقاله در پی پاسخ به این پرسش است که سازوکارهای حمایت منافع جمعی بین‌المللی در رویه قضایی بین‌المللی چگونه شکل گرفته‌اند؟ با واکاوی آرای دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری با استفاده از روش توصیفی-تحلیلی، مشخص می‌شود مفهوم فوق در گذر زمان تحولات بنیادین داشته و دو رویکرد اصلی در آن قابل شناسایی است. رویکرد نخست که مبتنی بر اصل رضایت و منافع طرفین اختلاف است، دامنة قضاوت در مورد منافع جمعی را محدود می‌سازد. در چارچوب این رویکرد، دیوان ابتدا تفاسیر مضیقی ارائه داده، اما به تدریج مفهوم نسبتأ موسعی در قالب تعهدات عام‌الشمول و قواعد آمره ارائه می‌نماید. در مقابل، رویکرد دوم با ارائه ابزارهای قضایی مشخص‌تر، گام بلندتری در حمایت از منافع جمعی برداشته است. اوج این تحولات در قضیه تعهد به محاکمه یا استرداد رخ داد؛ جایی که دیوان حق طرح دعوی و استناد به مسئولیت توسط دولتی غیر از دولت زیان‌دیده را به‌عنوان سازوکاری برای حمایت از منافع جمعی به رسمیت شناخت. با این حال، نقطه کمال این فرآیند، ایجاد نهادی ویژه برای اجرا و نظارت بر منافع جمعی بین‌المللی خواهد بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Status of International Community Interests in the Practice of International Court of Justice and its Protecting Mechanisms

نویسنده [English]

  • Heidar Piri
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The general dimension of international law is a relatively new phenomenon. In its jurisprudence, the International Court of Justice has sometimes referred to new concepts aimed at safeguarding this public dimension. This dimension, which has transformed the traditional understanding of international law, necessitates the development of rules to preserve and protect interests of the international community. This article seeks to address the question: How international community interests have been protected in international adjudication’? Through a descriptive-analytical examination of the ICJ rulings, it becomes evident that this concept has undergone fundamental transformations over time, with two main approaches. The first approach, rooted in the principle of state consent and the interests of disputing parties, confines the scope of adjudication concerning collective interests. In this approach, the Court initially adopted restrictive interpretations but gradually advanced a broader conceptualization, articulated through erga omnes and jus cogens obligations. In contrast, the second approach has taken significant strides in protecting collective interests by introducing more precise judicial mechanisms. The apex of this evolution materialized in the case of ‘Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite’, where the ICJ recognized the right of standing before the Court and invoking state responsibility by a state other than the injured one as a legitimate mechanism for protecting collective interests. Nevertheless, the culmination of this process would entail establishing a specialized institution tasked with enforcing and monitoring international collective interests.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Community interests
  • ICJ
  • Locus Standi
  • Jus cogens
  • Erga omens

مراجع

  • فهرست منابع و مآخذ

    الف. منابع فارسی

     

    • احمدی­نژاد، مریم (1391). تعهدات در قابل جامعه بین­المللی و جایگاه آن در حقوق مسئولیت بین­المللی دولت. فصلنامه سیاست خارجی، شماره 26(4)، 984-961.

    http://fp.ipisjournals.ir/article_9415.html

    • علیزاده، مسعود و رحمانی، ابراهیم (1395). ضرورت درک تحول مفهوم جامعه بین‌المللی در حقوق و روابط بین‌الملل. جستارهای سیاسی معاصر، شماره 7(4)، 21-39.

    https://politicalstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_2395.html

    • کدخدایی، عباسعلی و مقامی، امیر (1395). ساختار آنالوگ حقوق بین­الملل. فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، شماره 46 (3)، 489-465. https://jplsq.ut.ac.ir/article_59468.html
    • گوهری‌مقدم، ابوذر؛ فیضی، رضا و باباهادی، محمدباقر (1397). بررسی مفهوم هویت و منافع ملی و رابطه بین آنها در اندیشه مقام معظم رهبری. فصلنامه امنیت ملی، سال هشتم، شماره 28، 105-128.

    https://ns.sndu.ac.ir/article_273.html

    • ولوی، ابوالفضل؛ محکی، علی‌اصغر و فرهنگی، علی‌اکبر (1401). ارائه الگوی راهبردی ارتقای برند ملی ایران در کشورهای عربی از طریق رسانه‌های مجازی با تأکید بر منافع ملی. فصلنامه امنیت ملی، سال دوازدهم، شماره 43، 195-226.

     https://journals.sndu.ac.ir/article_1926.html

     

    ب. منابع انگلیسی

     

    • Almeida, Paula (2019). International Procedural Regulation in the Common Interest: The Role of Third-Party Intervention and Amicus Curiae before the ICJ. The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol.18(2), 163-188. https://brill.com/view/journals/lape/18/2/article-p163_2.xml?language=en
    • Benvenisti, Eyal and Nolte, Georg (ed.) (2018). Community Interests Across International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Bonafe, Beatrice (2021). Adjudicative Bilateralism and Community Interests. American Journal of International Law, 115, 164-169. https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2021.16
    • Boyle, A.E. (1991). Saving the World? Implementation and Enforcement of International Environmental Law Through International Institutions. Journal of Environment Law, Vol.3, Vol.3 No.2, 229-245. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/3.2.229
    • Buggenhoudt, Claire (2017). Common Interests in International Litigation (A Case Study on Natural Resource Exploitation Disputes), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Dubois, D (2009). The Authority of Peremptory Norms in International Law: State Consent or Natural Law. Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol.78, No.2, 133.175. https://brill.com/view/journals/nord/78/2/article-p133_1.xml?language=en
    • Feichtner, Isabel (2007). Community Interest. Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law.https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law9780199231690e1677
    • Friedmann, W (1964). The Changing Structure of International Law, Columbia University Press.
    • Hernandez, G (2014). The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Hofbauer, Jane A (2022). ‘‘Community Interests,’’ in Christina Binder, Manfred Nowak, Jane A Hofbauer, Philipp Janig (eds), Elgar Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    • International Court of Justice (1949), Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v Albania), Merits.
    • International Court of Justice (1950), International Status of South West Africa, Advisory Opinion.
    • International Court of Justice (1951), Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion.
    • International Court of Justice (1954), Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America), Preliminary Question.
    • International Court of Justice (1962), Certain Expenses of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion.
    • International Court of Justice (1962), South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa), Preliminary Objections.
    • International Court of Justice (1966), South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Second Phase.
    • International Court of Justice (1970), Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company (Belgium v. Spain), Second Phase.
    • International Court of Justice (1971), Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa), Advisory Opinion.
    • International Court of Justice (1980), United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America Iran).
    • International Court of Justice (1986), Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America).
    • International Court of Justice (1992), Lockerbie Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures Order, Separate Opinion of Judge Lachs.
    • International Court of Justice (1995), Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia).
    • International Court of Justice (1996), Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections.
    • International Court of Justice (1996), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion.
    • International Court of Justice (1997), Gabçikovo-Nagymaros Project, (Hung. v. Slovakia).
    • International Court of Justice (1999), LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America), Provisional Measures.
    • International Court of Justice (2002), Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium).
    • International Court of Justice (2004), Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion.
    • International Court of Justice (2006), Armed Activities in the Congo, (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda).
    • International Court of Justice (2012), Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Merits.
    • International Court of Justice (2014), Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening).
    • International Court of Justice (2020), Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v Myanmar).
    • International Court of Justice (2022), Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures.
    • Jia, Bing Bing (2023). Public Interest in the Law of International Organizations. The Auditorium of the Hague Academy of International Law, 1-6. https://www.hagueacademy.nl/wp-content/uploads/First-Panel-2.pdf
    • Shelton, D (2009). Form, Function, and the Powers of International Courts. Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol.9, No.2, 537-571. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2053&context=faculty_publications
    • Simma, (1994). From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law, RDC (Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law).
    • Thin, Sarah (2021). Community Interest and the International Public Legal Order. Netherlands International Law Review, Vol.68 (1), 35-59. https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/community-interest-and-the-international-public-legal-order
    • Thin, Sarah (2023). Guardians of Legality? The International Judicial Function in an Era of Community Interest. Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol.92, 499-527. https://brill.com/view/journals/nord/92/4/article-p499_001.xml?language=en
    • Urs, Priya (2021). Obligations erga omnes and the question of standing before the International Court of Justice. Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol.34(2), 505-525. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156521000091
    • Villalpando, Santiago (2010). The Legal Dimension of the International Community: How Community Interests Are Protected in International Law. European Journal of International Law, 21, No.2, 387-419. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chq038
    • Wolfrum, Rüdiger (2018). ‘‘Identifying Community Interests in International Law: Common Spaces and Beyond’’, in Community Interests Across International Law, Eyal Benvenisti & Gerog Nolte (ed.), Oxford. https://academic.oup.com/book/36341/chapter-abstract/319488872?redirectedFrom=fulltext
    • Wolfrum, Rüdiger (2023). Ensuring Compliance with and Enforcement of International Commitments of Regimes Serving Community Interests. The Auditorium of the Hague Academy of International Law. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004508330/BP000009.xml
    • Zyberi, Gentian (2021). Prtecting Community Interests Through International Law, Oslo: Intersentia Ltd
امنیت ملی
دوره 15، شماره 56 - شماره پیاپی 56
تابستان 1404
شهریور 1404
صفحه 139-176

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 04 خرداد 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 07 شهریور 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 21 بهمن 1403

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار