حقوق بشر در پرتو یکجانبه‌گرایی و اقدامات زورمدارانه

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی مستقل

نویسنده

دکتری روابط بین‌الملل، وزارت امورخارجه.

چکیده

چکیده
این مقاله به تاثیر اقدامات زورمدارانه یکجانبه بر حقوق بشر می پردازد. بحث اصلی اینست که اعمال یکجانبه گرائی توسط دولت ها با هدف اجبار به تغییر سیاست دولتها منجر به نقض نظام‌مند حقوق بشر شده است. یکجانبه گرائی با گذر از اعمال تحریم های ساده به حصرکامل اقتصادی منجر به تحول پارادایمی در استفاده سوءاز ابزارهای اقتصادی برای اهداف سیاسی شده است.این اقدامات صرف نظراز دامن زدن به رکوداقتصادی، تاثیرات جبران ناپذیری بر حقوق اساسی شهروندان گذاشته که در تعارض بنیادین با قواعدآمره بین المللی است.این مقاله ضمن تبیین این مفاهیم، این پرسش کلیدی را مطرح می کند که علت عدم اهتمام بازیگران دولتی به هنجارهای حقوق بشری در اعمال اقدامات زورمدارانه چیست؟ روش پژوهش در این مقاله توصیفی، تحلیلی و گرد آوری اطلاعات آن منابع کتابخانه ای و گزارشات گزارشگران ویژه است. هدف مقاله فهم و کشف ریشه های بنیادین و پنهان نقض نظامند حقوق بشر توسط بازیگران دولتی است. یافته های پژوهش نشان می‌دهداقدامات زورمدارانه در پرتو تشدیدو انباشته سازی تحریم های اقتصادی خارج از مجوز های قانونی‌ و بدون معافیت‌های حقوق بشری آثار و عواقب زیانباری بر حقوق بشر و آزادی های اساسی‌انسان‌ها بر جای گذاشته است.

واژگان کلیدی: یکجانبه گرائی، حقوق بشر، اقدامات زورمدارانه ، تحریم های اقتصادی، مسئولیت حمایت.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Human Rights in the Light of Unilateralism and Coercive Measures

نویسنده [English]

  • Behrooz Mokhtari
International Relations PhD., Ministry of Foreign Affairs
چکیده [English]

This article deals with the impact of unilateral coercive measures (UCM) on human rights. The main argument is that the implementation of unilateralism by states with the aim of forcing them to change the policy of the target state can lead to systematic violations of international human rights. The deterioration and complexity of coercive measures in the transition from simple sanctions to comprehensive economic embargo have led to a paradigm shift in the misuse of economic tools for political gain. Unilateral coercive measures, regardless of fueling the economic downturn, have had irreparable effects on the fundamental rights of citizens, which are in fundamental conflict with internationally jus cogens. The main question is: Why some states do not consider human rights norms in the implementation of unilateral coercive measures? The research method in this essay is descriptive, analytical and data collection is from library resources and reports of special rapporteurs. The purpose of this article is to understand and ascertain the fundamental and hidden roots of systematic human rights violations by state actors. Findings show that coercive measures in light of intensifying and accumulating economic sanctions outside the legal permission and without the massive derogation of human rights have had detrimental effects on human rights and fundamental human freedoms.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Keywords: unilateralism
  • Human rights
  • Coercive Measures
  • Economic Embargoes
  • Responsible to Protect
  1. Biersteker, T. (2016). Targeted Sanctions and Individual Human Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Crawford, P. (2010). The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Cronin, B. (2001). The Paradox of Hegemony: America’s Ambiguous Relationship with the United Nations. European Journal of International Relations, 7(4), 25-32.
  4. Dashti, F. (2020). The United States Sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran; from Unilateralism to Violations of International Human Rights. Journal of Contemporary Research on Islamic Revolution, 2(5), 117-142. (In Persian)
  5. Davis, L., Stanley, E. (2006). Naval Blockades in Peace and War: An Economic History since 1750, Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (2nd edn), New York: Cornell University Press.
  7. Douhan, A. (2017). Fundemental human rights and coercive mearsures: Impact and Interdependence, Journal of Belarus. State University. Int. Relat, 1(4), 67-77.
  8. Goldsmith, J. (2000). Should International Human Rights Law Trump US Domestic Law?. Chicago Journal of International Law, 1(2), 327-339.
  9. Golove, D. (2002). Human Rights Treaties and the U.S. Constitution. Journal of DePaul Law Review, 52(2), 579-625.
  10. Greenhill, K., K. (2018). Coercion: The Power to Hurt in International Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Gutmann, J. (2016). Precision-guided or blunt? The Effects of US Economic Sanctions on Human Rights. Journal of Universities of Aachen. MAGKS Joint Discussion Paper Series in Economics, Philipps-University Marburg, School of Business and Economics, Marburg 27(1), 1-48.
  12. Hongju Koh, H. (2003). Foreword: On American Exceptionalism. Stanford Law Review, 1(8), 1480-1526.
  13. https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/157/27070.html
  14. https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/170-sanctions/41947-iraq-sanctions.html (date of access: 01.03.2016).
  15. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/AHRC-19-33_en.pdf (date of access: 05.10.2016).
  16. https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/factsheet31.pdf
  17. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/UCM/Pages/Reports.aspx
  18. Jazairy, I. (2019).  Unilateral Economic Sanctions, International Law, and Human Rights. Ethics and International Affairs, 33(3), 291-302.
  19. Johnston, I. (2001). Treating International Institutions as Social Environments. International Studies Quarterly, 45(4). 487-515.
  20. Jones, L. (2015). Societies under Siege: Exploring How International Economic Sanctions (Do Not) Work, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  21. Kinley, D., Jacqueline. M. (2014). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Oxfoed: Oxford Commentaries on International Law press.
  22. Lebow, N. (2017). The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests, and Orders, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
  23. Moravcsik, A. (2015). The Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy; American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, New Jersey Princeton University Press.
  24. Rahimi, R. (2017) Government and Private-Sector Responsibility for Human Rights.International Studies Journal (ISJ), 15(3), 65-88. (In Persian)
  25. Report of Council of the European Union, Syria: EU Extends Sanctions against the Regime by One Year (2018). at: www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press releases/2018/0528syria-eu-extends-sanctionsagainst- the-regime-by-one-year/
  26. Report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee Containing Recommendations on Mechanisms to Assess the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights and to Promote Accountability. (2015). A/HRC/28/74. United Nations General Assembly, Research-Based Progress, at: http://undocs.org/A/HRC/28/74
  27. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures: UN Special Rapporteur on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, Ms. Alena (2020). (A/HRC/75/209), 21, paras. 38-41.
  28. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2020). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, A/75/209.
  29. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2007). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, Martin Scheinin. (2007). (A/HRC/4/26), paras. 38-41, at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/terrorism/pages/annual.aspx
  30. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2005). Report of the United Nations General Assembly: Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures. (2005). A/70/345, paras. 18–23, at: https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/70/345
  31. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2017). Resolution 34/13, United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures, at: https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/HRC/RES/34/1
  32. Resolution 73/8 United Nations General Assembly, Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial and Financial Embargo Imposed by the United States of America against Cuba. (2018). at: http://undocs.org/en/A/RES73/8
  33. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. (2020). International Cooperation to Ensure Global Access to Medicines, Vaccines and Medical Equipment to face COVID-19. United Nations A/74/L.56/Add.1
  34. Resolution adopted by the World Health Organization. (2020). COVID-19 response. Seventy-Thrid World Health Assembly A73/CONF./1 Rev.1
  35. Resolution submitted by General Assembly. (2018). Human Rights Council, at:  https://undocs.org/en/A/HRC/RES/27/21
  36. Resolution submitted by the President of the General Assembly. Comprehensive and Coordinated Response to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Pandemic (2020). United Nations A/74/L.92, at: https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/74/L.92
  37. Thematic study of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, Including Recommendations on Actions Aimed at Ending Such Measures (2012). A/HRC/19/33, at: https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/HRC/19/33
  38. UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment (1983). Right to Self-Determination. the Right to Self-Determination of Peoples. 12, at: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-186956/
  39. Wohlforthm W., Stephen, B. (2005). International Relations Theory and the Case against Unilateralism. Perspectives on Politics, 3(3), 509-524.
  40. Yearbook of the International Law Commission. (2001). Text reproduced as it appears in the annex to General Assembly Resolution 56/83 of 12 December 2001, and Corrected by Document A/56/49(Vol. I)/Corr.4. 2(2).
  41. Zakeriyan, M. (2015). Reflection and a Critique on Human Rights Studies. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 12(4), 1-11. (In Persian).
  42. Zakeriyan, M. (2018). Islamic Teachings and Human Rights. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 15(2), 1-20. (In Persian).