نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، پژوهشکده تحقیق و توسعه علوم انسانی (سمت)، تهران، ایران.

2 دانش‌آموخته دکترای حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی زنجان، زنجان، ایران.

چکیده

آیا دولت غیرزیان‌دیده از نقض، امکان استناد به مسئولیت دولت متخلف را دارد؟ این پرسشی است که سال‌ها پیش از تصویب نهایی طرح مسئولیت دولت‌ها در سال 2001م مورد بحث و بررسی قرار گرفته بود و درنهایت در صورت‌بندی مادۀ «48» طرح مسئولیت متجلی شد. برهمین‌مبنا دولت گامبیا براساس نقض کنوانسیون پیش‌گیری و مجازات ژنوسید،[1] مصوب 1948م دعوایی را علیه دولت میانمار به همراه درخواست صدور دستور موقت در 11 نوامبر 2019م در دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری اقامه نمود. دیوان نیز در تاریخ 23 ژانویه 2021م قرار دستور موقت خود را صادر نمود. این تصمیم حاوی نکته‌های شایان توجهی است؛ ازجمله این‌که ماهیت حقوق مورد ادعا چه تأثیری در داشتن سِمَت در دعوا و آستانۀ احراز شروط لازم برای صدور دستور موقت دارد. در این نوشتار در پرتو رویه دیوان و آموزه‌های دکترین به بررسی این دو پی‌آمد مهم در پرتو تأثیر ماهیت حقوق مورد ادعا در دادرسی‌ها نزد دیوان به‌طورکلی و دستور موقت به‌طور خاص می‌پردازد.
 
[1]. Genocide.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of the Nature of the Rule Prohibiting Genocide in Issuing Provisional Measures: The Lessons of the Gambia against Myanmar Case

نویسندگان [English]

  • Abdollah Abedini 1
  • Bahman Bahri Khiyavi 2

1 Assistant Professor, Institution for Research and Development in the Humanities (SAMT), Tehran, Iran.

2 Ph. D of International Law, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan Branch, Zanjan, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Can a State that has not been Injured by the violation invoke the responsibility of the responsible state? This is a question that was discussed years before the final approval of the Draft of State Responsibility in 2001, and was eventually reflected in the wording of Article 48 of the Draft. Accordingly, the Gambian instituted proceedings against the Myanmar in violation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with a request for provisional measures on 11 November 2019 at the International Court of Justice. On 23 January 2021, the Court issued the provisional measures. This decision contains significant aspects, including the effect of the nature of the asserted rights on having a position in the litigation and the threshold for qualifying for provisional measures. In this paper, in the light of the Court's case-law and doctrine, we examine these two important consequences in the light of the impact of the nature of the rights claimed in the proceedings before the Court in general and the provisional measures in particular.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • International Court of Justice
  • State other than the injured State
  • Genocide Convention
  • Provisional Measures
  • Determination Threshold

کتاب­نامه

الف) کتب و مقالات

الف-1: فارسی

خسروشاهی، حسن. «نقش قرارهای موقت مراجع قضائی و شبه‌قضائی بین‌المللی در حمایت از حقوق بین‌الملل بشر»، رساله دکترای حقوق بین‌الملل، قم: پردیس فارابی دانشگاه تهران، 1398.
عزیزی، ستار. «عناصر جرم ژنوسید در رأی 26 فوریه 2007 دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری و رویه دادگاه‌های ویژه بین‌المللی کیفری»، مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی 24، شمارۀ 36 (بهار و تابستان 1386): 9-34.
ممتاز، جمشید، شهرام زرنشان، و مسعود علیزاده. «تعهد به عدم مساعدت به حفظ وضعیتی که در نتیجۀ نقض یک قاعدۀ آمرۀ حقوق بین‌الملل عام ایجاد شده است»، نشریه پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی 22، شمارۀ 1 (بهار 1397): 135-154.

الف:-2: لاتین

Cassese, Antonio. International Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Gaja, Giorgio. “Standing: International Court of Justice (ICJ)”, In Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law, edited by Rudiger Wolfrum, 2018.

Iwamoto, Yoshiyuki. “The Protection of Human Life through Provisional Measures Indicated by the International Court of Justice”, Leiden Journal of International Law 15, (June 2002): 345-366.

Kolb, Robert. “Digging Deeper into the “Plausibility of Rights”-Criterion in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the ICJ”, The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 19, (November 2020): 365-387.

Lando, Massimo. “Plausibility in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice”, Leiden Journal of International Law 31, (May 2018): 641-688.

Lendman, Steve. “Israel’s Slow-Motion Genocide in Occupied Palestine”, In The Plight of the Palestinians, edited by William A. Cook (Berlin: Springer, 2010).

Miles, Cameron A. Provisional Measures before International Courts and Tribunals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Oellers-Frahm, Karin, and Andreas Zimmermann. “Article 41”, in The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, eds. Tams Zimmermann, and Tomuschat Oellers-Frahm. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Pauwelyn, Joost. “A Typology of Multilateral Treaty Obligations: Are WTO Obligations Bilateral or Collective in Nature?” European Journal of International Law 14 (November 2003): 907-951.

Rosenne, Shabtai. Provisional Measures in International Law: The International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Schabas, William. Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Sicilianos, Linos-Alexander. “The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility”, European Journal of International Law 13, (February 2008): 1127-1145.

Zyberi, Gentian. “Provisional Measures of the International Court of Justice in Armed Conflict Situations”, Leiden Journal of International Law 23, (July 2010): 571-584.

ب) اسناد

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, The Gambia v. Myanmar, ICJ Reports (2020).
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, ICJ Reports (2007).
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Croatia v. Serbia, ICJ Reports (2015).
Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2017).
Arbitral Award of July 31, 1989, Guinea-Bissau v Senegal, Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports (1990).
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, New Application 2002, Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda, ICJ Reports (2006).
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4.
Declaration of Judge ad hoc Kress (2020).
Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations (2011).
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries (2001).
LaGrand, Germany v. United States of America, Provisional Measures ICJ Reports (1999).
Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament, Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (2016).
Oil Platforms, Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, ICJ Reports (2003).
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (2012). (Belgium v. Senegal).
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, Belgium v. Senegal, Provisional measures (2009).
Separate opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade (2020). 
Separate opinion of Vice-President Xue (2020).

Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation on the Beginning of Domestic Procedures for the Withdrawal of the Russian Federation from the Treaty on Open Skies, January 15, 2021, https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4522563.

Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II (1958).
CAPTCHA Image