جایگاه دفاع پیش‌دستانه از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل با تأکید بر تبیین موانع حقوقی بین‌المللی اعمال آن جهت حفاظت از غیرنظامیان

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی مستقل

نویسندگان

گروه حقوق، واحد مشهد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مشهد، ایران.

چکیده

با مرور حوادث به وقوع پیوسته در نبردهای بین‌المللی همچون جنگ جهانی دوم متوجه می‌شویم که رهبران کشورهای دارای ناوگان نظامی پیشرفته هیچ ابایی از کشتار غیرنظامیان و نقض اصل تفکیک ندارند. در این میان ایالات متحده آمریکا پای را فراتر گذاشته و با ابداع مؤلفاتی همچون دفاع پیش‌دستانه بدعت جدیدی در مقابل ماده 51 منشور ملل متحد پدید آورده است. ذیل مؤلفه اخیر، آمریکا و پیروان دکترین نظامی این کشور همچون اسرائیل به جای انتظار برای دریافت ضربه نخست از جانب دشمن، صرف کشف تهدید قریب‌الوقوع از سوی دشمن را جواز توسل به زور علیه او دانستند. پرسش کلی تحقیق حاضر آن است که توسل به دفاع پیش‌دستانه در نزد حقوق بین‌الملل تا چه اندازه مقبول است و به لحاظ حقوقی و نظامی رهبران در توسل به این راهبرد جهت حفاظت از غیرنظامیان در برابر تهدیدات قریب‌الوقوع دشمن آنگاه که تهدیدگر هیچ ابایی از عملی کردن تهدیداتش ندارد چه مواردی را می‌بایست مد نظر قرار دهند؟ فرضیه تحقیق آن است که توسل دفاع پیش‌دستانه مقبول حقوق بین‌الملل نیست لیکن توسل بدان جهت حفاظت از غیرنظامیان معقول به نظر می‌رسد. نویسندگان با استفاده از روش تحلیلی-توصیفی به این نتیجه رسیدند که علیرغم عقلانی بودن استفاده از دفاع پیش‌دستانه در برابر تهدیدات قریب‌الوقوع معطوف به غیرنظامیان، توسل به راهبرد اخیر به طور خودسرانه نزد حقوق بین‌الملل معاصر مقبول واقع نمی‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Position of Pre-emptive Defense from the Perspective of International Law with Emphasis on Explaining International Legal Barriers to Its Application to Protect Civilians

نویسندگان [English]

  • Pouria Ebrahimzadeh
  • Amir Hossein Molkizadeh
Department of Law, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
چکیده [English]

Reviewing the events that took place in international wars such as World War II, we find that the leaders of countries with advanced military fleets do not hesitate to kill civilians and violate the principle of segregation. The United States has gone further and has made new alterations to article 51 of the Charter by creating new norms, such as the preemptive defense. Based on these norms, the US and the other countries that follow its military doctrine have allowed themselves to resort to force against their enemies, simply on the premise of detecting imminent threats from them, without being attacked first. The main question of the current study is to what extent is the preemptive defense acceptable in international law, and what legal and military measures should countries take when protecting civilians against imminent threats of enemies when the threatening party does not hesitate to realize their threats. The research hypothesis is that resorting to preemptive defense is not acceptable in international law; however, doing it when protecting civilians seems rational. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the authors have concluded that despite being rational, resorting arbitrarily to preemptive defense against imminent threats to protect civilians is not acceptable in current international law.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • preemptive defense
  • preventive defense
  • Security Council
  • Immediate threat
  • Civilians
  1. Abbasi, M. (2015). Humanitarian intervention and international law. Imam Sadegh University, Tehran, Firs Edition. (In Persian)
  2. Adjei, W. E. (2020). The Development of Individual Criminal Responsibility Under International Law: Lessons from Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Journal of Legal Studies (JLS), 25(39), 69 – 97.
  3. Afshardi, M. H; Norouzani S. (2016). The Doctrine of the American Preventive War in the Peripheral Areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Higher National Defense University (DAA), Tehran, First Edition. (In Pesrian)
  4. Akefi Ghaziani, M; Atefi Ghaziani, M. (2020). Performance of the United Nations Collective Security System: The Use of Force with the Prescription of the Security Council. Journal of International Studies (ISJ), 1(17), 115-139. (In Persian)
  5. Alikhani, Mehdi. (2015). Rule prohibiting the use of force and legitimate defense in predictable circumstances. Journal of International Studies (ISJ), 4(11), 21-5. (In Persian)
  6. Angdal, C, translated by Shahrbanoo Saremi. (2020). Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Phoenix Publications, Tehran, First Edition. (In Persian)
  7. Bandow, D. (2021). North Korea Needs the Bomb to Protect Itself from America. Foreign Policy, July 7, at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/07/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-united-states-deterrence/
  8. Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. (2010). US Department of Defense, Washington D.C, at: https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp1_02.pdf
  9. Ghasemi, A; Chaharbakhsh, (2011). Judicial Procedure of the International Court of Justice on Legitimate Defense after the Event of September 11, 2001. International Law Journal, 28(45), 175-194. (In Persian)
  10. Holland, S; Mason, J. (2017). If threatened, U.S. will 'totally destroy' North Korea, Trump vows. September 19, at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-assembly-trump-idUSKCN1BU0B3
  11. I.C.J. Reports. (1996). Advisory Opinion: Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. at: http://www.worldlii.org/int/cases/ICJ/1996/2.html
  12. Jafarzadeh, M; Beigi, J. (2015). Comparative study of preemptive and preventive defense from the perspective of international law with emphasis on 9/11 attacks. First International Comprehensive Law Congress, 1-21, at: https://civilica.com/doc/503100/. (In Persian)
  13. Jokela, M; Obschonka, M; Stuetzer, M; Rentfrow, P. J; Potter, J;  Gosling, D.C. (2017). Did Strategic Bombing in the Second World War Lead to ‘German Angst’? A Large–Scale Empirical Test across 89 German Cities European Journal of Personality. Euroupan Journal of Personality, 3(31), 234-257.
  14. Kristensen, H. M; Norris, R. S. (2014). Slowing Nuclear Weapon Reductions and Endless Nuclear Weapon. Modernizations: A Challenge to the NPT. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 4(70), 94- 107.
  15. Corbyn, J. (2016). Theresa May would authorise nuclear strike causing mass loss of life. Support the Guardian, July 18, at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/18/theresa-may-takes-aim-at-jeremy-corbyn-over-trident-renewal
  16. Mojarad, M. (2011). Pre-war strategy from theory to reality. Imam Sadegh University, Tehran, Firs Edition. (In Persian)
  17. Molekizadeh, A. H. (2016). Legitimate Defense in the Procedure of the International Court of Justice with Emphasis on the Case of Oil Rigs. Majd Publications, Tehran, First Edition. (In Pesrian)
  18. Mueller, K. P; Castillo, J. J; Morgan, E. F; Pegahi, N; Rose, B. (2017). STRIKING FIRST: Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National Security Police. the RAND corporation, Santa Monica, Third Edition, at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG403.pdf
  19. National Security Strategy of the United State. (2002). White House, at: https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf
  20. Niazmand, A. (2019). Unfulfilled NPT Promises and Upcoming Challenges: Striving for Survival or Gradual Disintegration. Journal of International Studies (ISJ), 1(16), 83-102. (In Persian)
  21. O' Connell, M. E. (2009). International Law and the Use of Force: Cases and Materials. Foundation Press, New York, Second Edition.
  22. Payne, K. B; Schlesinger, J. (2020). Minimum Deterrence: Examining the Evidence. National Institute for Public Policy, Washington D.C, First Edition.
  23. Rafiei, R; Savari, H. (2019). A Study of Strategic Bombing of Civilian Areas and Nuclear Deterrence Policy in the Light of the 1996 Advisory Ruling of the International Court of Justice and Military Facts. Comparative Law Research, 3(23), 155-184. (In Persian)
  24. Rezaei Pishrabat, S. (2013). International law and illegitimacy of attack or threat of attack Armed Against Nuclear Facilities. Quarterly Journal of Strategic Studies, 4(62), 187 – 204. (In Persian)
  25. Rich, M. (2020). The Man Who Won’t Let the World Forget the Firebombing of Tokyo. The New York Times Magnesian, March9 , at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/magazine/the-man-who-wont-let-the-world-forget-the-firebombing-of-tokyo.html
  26. Rumsfeld, Donald. (2002). Speech at National Defense Univercity. Fort Mc Nair, WASHINGTON D.C, First Edition.
  27. 27. Salt, A. (2018). Transformation and the War in Afghanistan. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 1(12), 98-126.
  28. Sutter, B. (2016). Operation Opera. Stanford University, March 13, at: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/sutter2/
  29. Yazdanpham, M. (2007). The First Impact: A Preemptive and Preventive Attack on American National Security Policy. Journal of Strategic Studies, 2(36), 385-398. (In Persian)
  30. Zakerian, M. (2020). All human rights for all. Mizan Publications, Tehran, Second Edition. (In Persian)
  31. Zakerian, M. (2020). Legal response to possible coercion. Police InternationalStudies,11(44), doi: 10.22034/interpol.2020.94984. (In Persian)
  32. Zarif, M. J; Ahani Amineh, M. (2012). Preliminary legitimate defense of the legitimacy of the use of force in international relations or repeated violations of the UN Charter. Quarterly Journal of International Political Research, 12(36), 41-82. (In Persian)
  33. Ziaei Bigdeli, M. R. (2018). Law of War. Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehtan, sixth edition. (In Persian)
  34. Ziaei Bigdeli, M. R. (2017). International Humanitarian Law. International Committee of the Red Cross, Tehran, Fourth Edition. (In Persian)