دوفصلنامۀ بین‌المللی حقوق‌بشر

دوفصلنامۀ بین‌المللی حقوق‌بشر

تعارض مصونیت دولت و حقوق بشر: به سوی یک سازکار بین‌المللی جبران خسارت

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 استادیار، گروه حقوق، واحد تریت حیدریه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تریت حیدریه، ایران.
2 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد رشته حقوق بین الملل، گروه حقوق بین الملل، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
این پژوهش به بررسی تعارض میان اصل مصونیت دولت و ضرورت پاسخگویی در موارد نقض فاحش حقوق بشر می‌پردازد. سؤال اصلی تحقیق این است که چگونه می‌توان بین حفظ اصل مصونیت دولت‌ها و ضرورت پاسخگویی در موارد نقض فاحش حقوق بشر توازن برقرار کرد، به گونه‌ای که هم حاکمیت دولت‌ها حفظ شود و هم حقوق قربانیان تأمین گردد. فرضیه اصلی پژوهش بر این اساس است که ایجاد یک سازکار بین‌المللی جبران خسارت برای قربانیان نقض فاحش حقوق بشر، که مستقل از دادگاه‌های ملی عمل کند، می‌تواند راه حلی برای این چالش باشد. با استفاده از روش تحلیلی-توصیفی، رویه قضایی کشورهای ایتالیا، یونان، آلمان، انگلستان، لهستان، نیوزلند، هلند، روسیه، کانادا و ایالات متحده آمریکا مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. یافته‌های تحقیق نشان می‌دهد که رویکردهای متفاوتی در مواجهه با این مسئله در کشورهای مختلف وجود دارد، از رویکرد پیشرو ایتالیا تا رویکرد محافظه‌کارانه انگلستان. این تحقیق نتیجه می‌گیرد که ایجاد یک سازکار بین‌المللی جبران خسارت می‌تواند ضمن حفظ اصل مصونیت دولت‌ها، امکان دسترسی به عدالت را برای قربانیان فراهم آورد و به حل این چالش حقوقی کمک کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

The Conflict between State Immunity and Human Rights: Towards an International Compensation Mechanism

نویسندگان English

Mahdi Firoozabadian 1
Faramarz Yadegarian 2
1 Assistant Professor Departement of Law, ToH. C., Islamic Azad University, Torbate Heydarieh, Iran.
2 M.A. In International Law, Department of International Law, SR. C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

This paper discusses tension between the principle of state immunity and accountability in cases of severe violations of human rights. Therefore, the central research question would be: within what framework, if at all, does a balance between upholding the principle of state immunity and accounting for gross human rights violations strike a middle ground between state sovereignty and protection of victim's rights?. The main hypothesis here is that an independent international compensation mechanism for victims of gross violations of human rights, rather than what exists under national courts, should be a solution to this problem. An analysis of the judicial practices of Italy, Greece, Germany, England, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Russia, Canada, and the United States is hereby made by using the analytic-descriptive method. The results reflect a wide range of policies, from the quite liberal Italian position to the very conservative English attitude. This paper concludes that an international compensation scheme would save the legal doctrine of state immunity while allowing justice to be accessible to victims and, further, helpful in providing a solution to this legal problem.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Gross Human Rights Violations
International Compensation Mechanism
National Courts
State Immunity
Human Rights
سیاهۀ منابع
الف- منابع فارسی:
یادگاریان، فرامرز، محسن محبی، و امیرحسین ملکی‌زاده. «اثبات صلاحیت ماهوی دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در پرونده نقض معاهده مودت ۱۹۵۵»، فصلنامه مطالعات بین‌المللی 21، شمارهٔ 1 (بهار 1403): 31-54. https://dx.doi.org/10.22034/isj.2024.398132.2012
ب- منابع لاتین:
Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia. European Court of Human Rights, Case Nos. 1157/04 and 15162/04. Judgment of 4 July 2013.
Bankas, Ernest K. The State Immunity Controversy in International Law: Private Suits Against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag GmbH, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64043-2
 Bawah, Alhassan Salifu. “Restrictive Foreign Sovereign Immunity in the United Kingdom (UK): A Welcome Development in International Commercial Transactions.” Beijing Law Review 10 (2019): 168-177. https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2019.101010.
Berrino, Giorgia. “Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est la Même Chose: State Immunity and International Crimes in Judgment No. 20442/2020 of the Corte di Cassazione: Note to: Corte di Cassazione (Sezioni Unite Civili), P.T. v. Federal Republic of Germany and Republic of Italy, 28 September 2020, No. 20442.” The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law 1, no. 2 (2022): 374-391. https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01020008.
Bismuth, Régis, Vera Rusinova, Vladislav Starzhenetskiy, and Geir Ulfstein. Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure. Springer, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4.
Blankenagel, Alexander. “The Relationship between the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: A Reply to Jeffrey Kahn.” European Journal of International Law 30, No.3 (August 2019): 961–969. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chz059.
Blom, Joost. “Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2017.” Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 55 (2018): 598–645. https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2018.15.
Bornkamm, Paul Christoph. “State Immunity Against Claims Arising from War Crimes: The Judgment of the International Court of Justice in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State.” German Law Journal 13, No.6 (2012): 773–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200020733.
Bridge of Varvarin Case. Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht). Decision Nos. 2 BvR 2660/06, 2 BvR 487/07 (Aug. 13, 2013).
Damilare, Disu. “Sovereign Immunity from Legal & Arbitral Proceedings and Execution Against Assets of a Sovereign State: The Evolving Paradigm Shift.” Nigerian Journal of Arbitration 16 (2021): 1-33. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4311651.
Dautaj, Ylli. “Immunity from Suit for International Organizations: The Judiciary's New Que of Separating Lawsuit Sheep from Lawsuit Goats.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 27, No.2 (2020): 68-207. https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.2.0207.
Fang and Others v. Jiang Zemin and Others. New Zealand High Court, Judgment of 21 December 2006 [2007] NZAR 420 (Randerson J).
Ferrini v. Repubblica Federale di Germania (Cass. Mar. 11, 2004) (Sez. Un.)
Franchini, Daniel. “State Immunity And Third-Party Limits On The Jurisdiction Of Domestic Courts.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 72, No.3 (2023): 819–835. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589323000167.
Gärditz, Klaus Ferdinand. “Bridge of Varvarin.” The American Journal of International Law 108, No.1 (2014): 86–93. https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.1.0086.
Gattini, Andrea. “The Dispute on Jurisdictional Immunities of the State before the ICJ: Is the Time Ripe for a Change of the Law?.” Leiden Journal of International Law 24, No.1 (2011): 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156510000683.
Henquet, Thomas. “The Supreme Court of the Netherlands: Mothers of Srebrenica Association et al. v. the Netherlands.” International Legal Materials 51, No.6 (2012): 63-1322. https://doi.org/10.5305/intelegamate.51.6.1322.
Jayme, Erik. “Human Rights and Restitution of Nazi-Confiscated Artworks from Public Museums: The Altmann Case as a Model for Uniform Rules?.” Uniform Law Review 11, No.2 (April 2006): 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/11.2.393.
Jones v. Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya AS (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). House of Lords [2006] UKHL 26 [2006] 2 W.L.R. 1424 (June 14, 2006).
Juneau, Thomas. “A Story of Failed Re-Engagement: Canada and Iran, 2015–2018.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 25, No.1 (2019): 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/11926422.2018.1564683.
Kadelbach, Stefan. “State Immunity, Individual Compensation for Victims of Human Rights Crimes, and Future Prospects.” In Remedies against Immunity?, edited by Valentina Volpe, Anne Peters, and Stefano Battini, 297. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62304-6_7.
Mälksoo, Lauri. “Russia's Constitutional Court Defies the European Court of Human Rights: Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Judgment of 14 July 2015, No 21-П/2015.” European Constitutional Law Review 12, No.2 (2016): 95-377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019616000237.
McGregor, Lorna. “Torture and State Immunity: Deflecting Impunity, Distorting Sovereignty.” European Journal of International Law 18, No.5 (November 2007): 903–919. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm048.
Mothers of Srebrenica Association et al. v. The Netherlands. Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad). Judgment No. 10/04437 (April 13, 2012).
Natoniewski v. Federal Republic of Germany. Supreme Court of Poland, Decision No. IV CSK 465/09 (Oct. 29, 2010).
Pavoni, Riccardo. “Simoncioni v. Germany.” American Journal of International Law 109, No.2 (2015): 400–406. https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.109.2.0400.
Pittrof, Sabine. “Compensation Claims for Human Rights Breaches Committed by German Armed Forces Abroad During the Second World War: Federal Court of Justice Hands Down Decision in the Distomo Case.” German Law Journal 5, No.1 (2004): 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200012220.Bottom of Form
Prefecture of Boeotien v. Federal Republic of Germany. Greek Supreme Court (Areios Pagos). Decision No. 11/2000 (May 4, 2000).
Ren, Hu, and Jin Zhaoxin. “The Limitations and Exceptions to Immunity of States Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction: On ILC Draft Article 7.” Beijing Law Review 12 (2021): 287-304. https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2021.122017.
Republic of Austria v. Altmann. Supreme Court of the United States, 124 S.Ct. 2240 (June 7, 2004).
Schilling, Theodor. “One Mode of Judicial Law-Making: Disapplying Extant International Law.” Archiv Des Völkerrechts 55, No.1 (2017): 65–97. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44857987.
Shah, Sangeeta. “Jurisdictional Immunities of the State: Germany v Italy.” Human Rights Law Review 12, No.3 (2012): 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngs023.
Terzieva, Vessela. “State Immunity and Victims' Rights to Access to Court, Reparation, and the Truth.” International Criminal Law Review 22, No.4 (2022): 780-804. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10139.
Tracy v. The Iranian Ministry of Information and Security. Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2016 ONSC 37759. Judgment of 2016.
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
نام را وارد کنید.
نشانی پست الکترونیکی را به درستی وارد کنید.
وابستگی سازمانی را به درستی وارد کنید.
توضیحات را وارد کنید (حداقل 50 حرف)
CAPTCHA Image
شناسه امنیتی را به درستی وارد کنید.