اصل تناسب؛ سنتز اصول تفکیک و ضرورت نظامی در حمایت از محیط زیست در مخاصمات مسلحانه بین‌المللی

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی مستقل

نویسندگان

1 استادیار هیات علمی گروه حقوق بین‌الملل، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران.

2 مدرس گروه حقوق بین‌الملل، واحد شهرکرد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شهرکرد، ایران.

3 مدرس گروه حقوق بین‌الملل، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران.

چکیده

به واسطه اهمیتی که محیط زیست طی سالیان گذشته یافته و در نسل سوم حقوق بشر قرار گرفته است، می توان دریافت که چرا حفاظت از آن در مخاصمات مسلحانه اهمیتی مضاعف و شایان دارد. مسلم است که مخاصمات مسلحانه می توانند خسارات جبران ناشدنی را به محیط زیست وارد نمایند خواه این خسارات به صورت تخریب ارادی و با استناد به ضرورت نظامی و عدم تفکیک باشد و خواه به صورت غیر ارادی و ناشی از خسارت جنبی و تبعی حملات نظامی. بنابراین پرسش اصلی این است که جایگاه اصل تناسب در حفاظت از محیط زیست و در پیوند با اصول تفکیک و ضرورت کجا است؟ این نوشتار با رویکردی توصیفی- تحلیلی به دنبال این هدف است که رابطه اصول سه گانه تفکیک، ضرورت و تناسب را که از اصول اساسی حقوق بشر دوستانه بین‌المللی هستند در رابطه با تخریب محیط زیست در هنگامه مخاصمات مسلحانه بسنجد، بر این اساس نتیجه کلی و نهایی مقاله این است که به هنگام تلاقی اصول تفکیک و ضرورت، اصل ثالثی به عنوان ستنز وارد می‌شود که به دنبال کمتر کردن خسارات ناشی از اقدامات نظامی است، نقض این اصل، یکی از شروط ارتکاب جنایت جنگی تخریب محیط زیست است و آن اصل، اصل تناسب است. از آنجا که اصول تفکیک و ضرورت به هنگام حمله به محیط زیست می توانند در تقابل با یکدیگر قرار گیرند و این اصل ضرورت است که در نهایت بر اصل تفکیک چیره می‌شود، بنابراین حضور اصل تناسب می‌تواند این تقابل را متعادل نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Principle of Proportionality; Synthesis of Segregation Principles and Military Necessity in Protecting the Environment in International Armed Conflicts

نویسندگان [English]

  • Amir Mahmoodi 1
  • Valiollah Noori 2
  • Mahdi Abdulmaleki 3
1 Assistant Professor, Department of International Law, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
2 Lecturer, Department of International Law, Shahr-e-Kord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahr-e-Kord, Iran.
3 Lecturer, Department of International Law, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The increased importance of the environment over the past years and its incorporation among the third-generation human rights justify the considerable need to protect it during armed conflicts. Obviously, such conflicts can cause irreparable damage to the environment, occurring either as intentional destruction based on Military Necessity and non-distinction, or as non-intentional destruction resulting from the collateral damage of military attacks. The main research question is: “What is the position of the Principle of Proportionality in environmental protection in connection with the Distinction and Military Necessity principles?” Using a descriptive-analytical approach, this paper sought to assess the relationship of IHL’s three principles of Distinction, Military Necessity and Proportionality with environmental destruction during armed conflicts. It concluded that when the Distinction and Military Necessity principles intersect, a third principle called “synthesis” comes in, seeking to reduce the damage of military operation. Violation of this principle is one of the conditions for committing the war crime of environmental destruction, i.e. the Principle of Proportionality. Since the Distinction and Military Necessity principles can be in conflict with each other during environmental attacks, resulting in the conquest of the Principle of Military Necessity, the presence of the Principle of Proportionality can balance this conflict.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • International Armed Conflicts
  • Environment
  • Principle of Distinction
  • Principle of Necessity
  • Principle of Proportionality
  • War Crime

مراجع

  1. Birnie, P., Boyle. A. (2002). International law and the environment. Oxford university press.
  2. Bothe, M. (2002). War Crimes. In: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Edited by: Antonio Cassese. Paola Gaeta & John R.W.D. Jones. Oxford university press.
  3. Brandt, R. (1972). Utilitarianism and the Rules of War. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(2).
  4. Craig, F. (2007). The Doctrine of Military Necessity and the Protection of Cultural Property during Armed Conflicts. California Western International Law Journal, 37( 2).
  5. Deihim, A. (2005). Introduction to International Criminal Law: in Light of International Criminal Court Statute. Tehran. Institute for Political and International Studies. (In Persian)
  6. Dinstein, Y. (2004). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. Cambridge university press.
  7. Doswald-Beck, L., Henckaerts, J.M. (2009). Customary International Humanitarian Law. Translation (ed.) by: Katayoon Hossennejad and Pourya Askari. Tehran. Shahre Danesh Institute of Law Research and Study. vol.1: Rules. (In Persian)
  8. Finalized Draft Text of the Elements of Crimes. U.N. Preparatory Commission for The International Criminal Court. U.N. Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 (2000).
  9. Gardam, G.J. (1993). Proportionality and Force in International Law. The American Journal of International Law. 87(3).
  10. Greenwood, C. (2008). Historical Development and Legal Basis. In; Fleck Dieter (Ed.). The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. Oxford University Press.
  11. Grotius, H. (2005). The Rights of War and Peace. Liberty Fund Inc. Indiana.
  12. Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. of 18 October 1907.
  13. Hayashi, N. (2010). Requirements of Military Necessity in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law. Boston University International Law Journal. 28(1).
  14. Hayashi, N. (2013). Contextualizing Military Necessity. Emory International Law Review. 27 .
  15. Hayashi, N. (2016). Basic Principles. In: Routledge Handbook of the Law of Armed Conflict. Rain Liivoja and Tim McCormack (Eds). New York. Routledge.
  16. Henckaerts, J.M. (2005). Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law: A Contribution to the Understanding and Respect for the Rule of Law in Armed Conflict. International Review of the Red Cross. 87(857).
  17. Hiskes, P. R. (2009). The Human Right to a Green Future Environmental Rights and Intergenerational Justice. Cambridge university press.
  18. Hostage Case (United States V. List). US Military Tribunal. Nuremberg. Judgement of 19 February 1948. At: 1253. Reprinted in: Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council law no. 10: Nuremberg. October 1946- April. 1949. vol. XI. United States Government Printing Office. Washington. 1950.
  19. International Court of Justice. Reports of Judgements. Advisory Opinions and Orders Legality of the Threat Or Use Of Nuclear Weapons. 8 July 1996.
  20. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic and et.al. Case No.: IT-95-16-T. Trial Chamber Judgment. 14 January 2000.
  21. Kasher, A. (2007). The Principle of Distinction. Journal of Military Ethics. 6(2).
  22. Kittichaisaree, K. (2012). International criminal law. Translated by: Behnam Yousefian and Mohammad Esmaily. Tehran. SSMT Pub. (In Persian)
  23. MacLeod, I.J., Rogers, A.P.V. (2007). The Use of White Phosphorus and the Law of War. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law. vol.10.
  24. Momtaz, J., Shaygan, F. (2014). International Humanitarian Law Facing Challenges of Contemporart Armed Conflicts. Shahre Danesh Institute of Law Research and Study. (In Persian)
  25. Noori, V., Zamani, S.G., Raei, M., Abdolalhi, M. (2017). Principle of Proportionality in Armed Conflicts: in the Light of Documents and Procedure of International Criminal Courts. Criminal Law Doctrines Journal. 6(12). (In Persian)
  26. Noori, V., Zamani, S.G. (2018). Principle of proportionality and non-international armed conflicts. Public Law Research. 19(58). (In Persian)
  27. Noori, V., Zamani, S.G., Raei, M. (2019). Military Necessity as an Exception in Law of Armed Conflicts. Public Law Studies Quarterly. 49(3). (In Persian)
  28. Oeter, S. (2012). Methods and Means of Combat. Translated by Nader Saed. In: Dieter Fleck (Ed). Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts. Tehran. Shahre Danesh Institute of Law Research and Study. (In Persian)
  29. Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons). Geneva. 10 October 1980.
  30. Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines. Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons as amended on 3 May 1996).
  31. Reinhold, H. (2002). Target Lists: A 1923 Idea with Applications for the Future. Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law. 10(1).
  32. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). 17 July 1998.
  33. Russell, F.H. (1975). The Just War in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press.
  34. Shaw, M.N. (2003). International law. Cambridge university press.
  35. Saed, N. (2008). International Humanitarian Law: The Recent Developments (Post-Modern Wars). Khorsandy pub. (In Persian)
  36. Swiney, G. (2005). Saving Lives: The Principle of Distinction and the Realities of Modern War. The International Lawyer. 39(3).
  37. United Nations General Assembly. A/RES/47/37. 73rd plenary meeting. 25 November 1992. Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict.
  38. Verri, P. (1992). Dictionary of the International Law of Armed Conflict. International Committee of the Red Cross.
  39. Voneky, S. (2000). A New Shield for the Environment: Peace Time Treaties as Legal Restraints of Wartime Damage. Review of European Community and International Law. 9.
  40. Walzer, M. (2006). Just and Unjust Wars. New York. Basic Books.
  41. Ziaee Bigdeli, M.R. (1995). Law of War. Tehran. Allameh Tabataba'i University Publication. (In Persian)

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار