کارکرد و منزلت تصمیمات قضایی در رویه دیوان بین المللی دادگستری

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی مستقل

نویسنده

استادیار گروه حقوق بین الملل، واحد بوشهر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی ، بوشهر، ایران.

چکیده

منابع اصلی قابلِ اعمال توسط دیوان بین المللی دادگستری مندرج در ماده 38 اساسنامه شامل معاهده ، عرف و اصول کلی حقوقی و منابع فرعی ؛ مشتمل بر تصمیمات قضایی ، دکترین و انصاف در صورت توافق طرفین ، می باشند. تصمیمات قضایی به عنوان یکی از منابع حقوق بین الملل، توسط دیوان در مسایل مطروحه قابلیت اعمال دارد. مسئله عملی ، تبیین دقیق وضعیت ویژگی قانونی تصمیمات قضایی در رویه دیوان است در خصوص نقش تصمیمات قضایی در میان منابع و علی الخصوص در رویه قضایی ابهاماتی وجود دارد. این تحقیق که به شیوه توصیفی- تحلیلی صورت پذیرفته در پی یافتن این نقش و جایگاه است. سئوال اصلی بر این محور است که آیا تصمیمات قضایی دیوان بین المللی دادگستری به عنوان منبع مستقل حقوق بین الملل به شمار می آیند یا خیر و هدف تحقیق حاضر تعیین کارکرد و منزلت تصمیمات قضایی در رویه دیوان است.براساس مطالعه رویه قضایی دیوان بین المللی دادگستری به این نتیجه دست یافتیم که تصمیمات قضایی با حفظ نقش فرعی در میان منابع قابل اعمال در تعیین حقوق ؛ در اسباب موجه حکم و ادله طرفین ، دارای کارکردی توجیهی هستند و به هیچ وجه به مشابه دیگر منابع ، مورد حکم واقع نمی شوند بلکه بیشتر در تقویت مدلول و منطوق احکام صادره مفید فایده هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Functioning and Status of Judicial Decisions in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice

نویسنده [English]

  • Abbas Barzegarzadeh
Assistant Prof., International Law Dep., Bushehr Branch , Islamic Azad University, Bushehr , Iran.
چکیده [English]

The main sources applicable to the International Court of Justice set forth in Article 38 of the Statute include treaties, custom and general legal principles and Subsidiary sources include judicial decisions and doctrine and fairness if agreed upon by the parties. Judicial decisions, as one of the sources of international law, can be applied by the Court in the issues raised. The practical issue is to explain precisely the status of the legal nature of judicial decisions in the jurisprudence of the Court. There are ambiguities about the role of judicial decisions among sources and especially in judicial procedure. This descriptive-analytical research seeks to find this role and position. The main question is whether the judicial decisions of the International Court of Justice are considered as an independent source of international law or not. The purpose of this study is to determine the function and status of judicial decisions in the jurisprudence of the Court. International Justice concluded that judicial decisions retain a minor role among the applicable sources in determining rights; In the justifiable causes of the verdict and the arguments of the parties, they have a justification function and in no way, like other sources, they are judged, but they are more useful in strengthening the meaning and logic of the issued verdicts.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Judicial Decisions
  • International Court of Justice
  • sources of international law
  • justifiable means of judgment
  • evidence

مراجع

  1. Advisory Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. Advisory Opinion (1950).
  2. Advisory Reservation to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment et the Crime of Genocid. Advisory Opinion (1951).
  3. Amini, E., Mansori, A. (2018). Justification of Rational Arbitral Award with a View to Jurisprudence, Private Law Research, 6(2), 9-35. (In Persian)
  4. Azadbakht, F. (2019). The languge of International Law, Monologue or Polyphonic Test, International Studies Journal (ISJ), 15(4), 19-30. (In Persian)
  5. Besson, S., D’Aspermont, J. (2007). The Oxford Handbook at the Sources of International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, London.
  6. Case Concerning Ahmadeo Sadio Diall, I.C.J Rep. (2010). Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo.
  7. Case Concerning Ambatielos. I.C.J Rep. (1953). Greece v. United Kingdom.
  8. Case Concerning Anglo Iranian Oil Co. I.C.J Rep. (1952). United Kingdom v. Iran.
  9. Case Concerning Application of the Convention the Prevention and Punishment of the crime at Genocide, I.C.J Rep. (2007). Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro.
  10. Case Concerning Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2002. I.C.J Rep. (2002). Republic of the Congo v. Belgium.
  11. Case Concerning Barcelona Traction. I.C.J Rep. (1964). Belgium v. Spain.
  12. Case Concerning certain phosphate Lands in Naura, I.C.J Rep. (1993). Naura v. Australia.
  13. Case Concerning Continental Shelf, I.C.J Rep. (1985). Libiy/ Malta.
  14. Case Concerning Continential Chle, I.C.J Rep. (1982). Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
  15. Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of maine Area, I.C.J Rep. (1984). Canada / United states of America.
  16. Case Concerning Factory Chorozow, P.C.I.J Rep. (1927). Series A, No. 9.
  17. Case Concerning fisher jurisdiction, I.C.J Rep. (1998). Spain v. Canada.
  18. Case Concerning Fisheries. I.C.J Rep. (1951). United Kingdom v. Norway.
  19. Case Concerning Frontier Dispute, 1986, I.C.J Rep. (1986). Chamber, Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali.
  20. Case Concerning Haya De La Torre. I.C.J. Rep. (1951). Colombia v. Peru.
  21. Case Concerning La Grand. I.C.J Rep. (2001). Germany v. united states of America.
  22. Case Concerning Land and maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria. I.C.J Rep. (2002). Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening.
  23. Case Concerning Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos, I.C.J Rep. (2018). Costa Rica v. Nicaragua.
  24. Case Concerning Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence South Africa in Namibia, Advisory Opinion (1971).
  25. Case Concerning Legality of Force, I.C.J Rep. (2004). Serbia and Montenegro v. Canada.
  26. Case Concerning Legality of use of force, I.C.J Rep. (1999). Yugoslavia v. Spain.
  27. Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force, I.C.J Rep. (2004). Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium.
  28. Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Area Between Greenland and Jan Mayen, I.C.J Rep. (1993). Denmark v. Norway.
  29. Case Concerning Northern Cameroon. I.C.J Rep. (1963). Cameroon v. United Kingdom.
  30. Case Concerning obligation to Negotiate Access to Pacific Ocean, I.C.J Rep. (2018). Bolivia v. Chile.
  31. Case Concerning Obligations Concerning Negotiation relating to cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament, I.C.J Rep. (2016). Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom.
  32. Case Concerning Oil Platforms, I.C.J Rep. (2003). Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America.
  33. Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, I.C.J Rep. (2010). Argentina v. Uruguay.
  34. Case Concerning Question Relating to the obligation to Prosecute or Extradate, I.C.J Rep. (2012). Belgium v. Senegal.
  35. Case Concerning Request for Interpretation I.C.J Rep. (1999). Nigeria v. Cameroon.
  36. Case Concerning Request for Interpretation of the judgment of 20 November 1950 in the asylum case, I.C.J Rep. (1950). Colombia v. Peru.
  37. Case Concerning the Gabcikovo – Nagymaros project I.C.J Rep. (1997). Hungary v. Slovakia.
  38. Case Concerning whaling in the Antartic, I.C.J Rep. (2014). Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening.
  39. Case Concerning, military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, I.C.J Rep. (1986). Nicaragua v. united states of America.
  40. Case Concerning, North Sea Continental Shelf. I.C.J Rep. (1969). Federal Republic of Germany/ Denmark.
  41. Case Conserving Territorial and maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the caribben sea, I.C.J Rep. (2007). Nicaragua v. Honduras.
  42. Case covering channel corfu, I.C.J Rep. (1949). United Kingdom v. Albania.
  43. Chan, L. (2004).  The Dominance of the International Court of Justice in the Creation of Customary International Law, Southampton Student Law Review, 6, 44-71.
  44. Charter of the United Nations (1945).
  45. Degan, V.D. (1997). Sources of International Law, Hagu/Boston/London, Martin Nijhof.
  46. Dixon, M. (2013). International Law. Seven Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  47. ECW/CCj/JUD/06/20 of 2010 (2010).
  48. Focarelli, C. (2019). International Law, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  49. Ghanbari, S. (2019). The Concept of the International Community and the Attempt to Bridge the Gap between International Law and International Relations. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 16(1), 7-30. (In Persian)
  50. Ginsburg Bader, H.R. (2010). The role of Dissenting Opinion. Minnesota Law Review, 95(1), 1-8.
  51. Habibi, H., Shamlo, S. (2013). The Role of the International Court of Justice in the Development of the Law, Public Law Research, 15(4), 71-114. (In Persian)
  52. Hernandez, G. (2014). The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function, London: Oxford University Press.
  53. Katozian, N. (2004). Adjudicated in a Civil Law, Tehran: Mizan Press.
  54. Kazazi, M. (1996). Burden Proof and Related Issues, London/ Boston: Hague.
  55. Kazemi, S., Heidary, S. (2019). Trial of Pirates in International Criminal Courts, International Studies Journal (ISJ), 16(2), 49-69. (In Persian)
  56. Kelsen, H. (1939). Legal Technique in International Law. A Textual Critique of the League Covenant. New York: Columbia University Press; Geneva: Geneva ResearchCenter.
  57. Marie, R.B.A. (2008). Law and Legal System, Second Edition, London/ New York: Routledge- Cavandish.
  58. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Greece v. Great Britain, Judgment of 30 August 1924. PCIJ. (1924). Series A., No. 2, at 11.
  59. Mendelson, M. H. (1998). The Formation of Customary International Law, at: https://files.pca-cpa.org/pcadocs/bi-c/2.%20Canada/4.%20Legal%20Authorities/RA-97%20-%20Formation%20of%20Customary%20International%20Law,%20M.%20Mendelson%20(1998).pdf
  60. Oppenheim, L. (2005). International Law a Treatise. Third Edition Edit by, Ronald f. Roxburgh, The Law Book exchange, L.T.D. New Jersy.
  61. Parker, R. (1955). Jurisprudence is Practical. Case Western Research Law Review, 7(1), 65-71.
  62. Pellet, A. (2012). The Status of the International Court of Justice, in: Zimmermann, R. Tomuschat, O., Farham, J.T. (2012). The Sources of International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press Second Edition.
  63. Pellet, A. (2014). Decisions of the I.C.J as sources of International Law?. Speech Text, 1-35, at: https://www.scienzegiuridiche.uniroma1.it/sites/default/files/varie/GML/2015/GML_2015-Pellet.pdf
  64. Penner, J. E., Melissaris, E. (2012). Jurisprudence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  65. Pound, R. (2000).  Jurisprudence, New Jersy: Meyer Boswell Books, Inc.
  66. Prosecutor v. Akayeso, ICTR Rep. (1998).
  67. Prosecutor v. Stakic, ICTR Rep. (2000).
  68. Routlege-Cavandish (2002). Jurisprudence. Cavandish Publishing, Third Edition.
  69. Rules of International Court of Justice (1978).
  70. Sadatmeidani, H. (2014). Criteria of standard for Proving, A Claim in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, Private Law Studies, 42(25),161-179. (In Persian)
  71. Shabati, R. (2006). The Law and practice of the International Court, Forth Edition, Leiden/Boston, Martin Nijhof.
  72. Shahabuddeen (2014). Precedent in The World Court, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  73. Tams. C., Sloan, J. (2013). The Development of International Law by International Court of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press
  74. Thirlway, H. (1994). Evidence befor International Court of Justice and Tribunals, in: Auguilar Mawdsley, A., Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya, Liden: Martinus Nijhof.
  75. Thirlway, H. (2016). The International Court of Justice, London, Oxford University Press.
  76. Twining, W. (2005).General Jurisprudence. Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez, 39, 645-688.
  77. Vakilian, H. (2018). Position of Jurisprudence and Law as Sources of Law in Legal Doctrine. Public Law Research, 19(58), 57-81. Doi: 10.22054/QJPL.2018.15803.1375 (In Persian)
  78. Wahlgren, P. (2010). The Purpose and Usefulness of Jurisprudence. Stockholm Institute for Scandinavia Law, 506-515, at: https://www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/48-30.pdf
  79. Wessel. R.A., Blockmans, S. (2014). The Legal Status and Influence of Decision of International Organization and other Bodies in European Union. European Legal Studies, 1-26, at: https://www.coleurope.eu/system/files_force/research-paper/researchpaper_1_2014_wessel_blockmans.pdf?download=1
  80. Wrightsman, L. (1999). Judicial Decision Making. New York: Springer.
  81. Wuerth, I. (2012). International Law in Domestic International Courts and the Jurisdictional Immunities of State Case, Melborn journal of International Law, 13, 1-22, at: https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1687387/Wuerth.pdf
  82. Zaheri, A. (2018). Analysis of the Content of Judgments and International Judgments of the International Court of Justice. 1, Tehran: Khorsandi Press. (In Persian)

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار