حقوق نرم در پرتو تصمیمات نهادهای قضایی و شبه قضایی بین المللی

نوع مقاله: حقوق تطبیقی

10.22080/lps.1970.2064

چکیده

از زمان پدیدار شدنِ مفهوم حقوق نرم در عرصه ی حقوق بین الملل سال ها می-گذرد، امّا هنوز هیچ اجماعی در خصوص تعریفی واحد از آن حاصل نشده است. علل استفاده ی دولت ها از حقوق نرم نیز کماکان در هاله ای از ابهام قرار دارد. این مقاله در چارچوب نظریه ی آثار حقوقی، تفاسیر غیر الزام آوری که نهادهای قضایی و شبه قضایی بین المللی از قواعد الزام آور حقوق بین الملل ارائه می دهند را بررسی نموده است. منظور از مراجع قضایی و شبه قضایی، مهمترین نهادهایی است که به موجب حقوق بین الملل، صلاحیت سخن گفتن از قواعد بین المللی را دارا هستند. به لحاظ حقوقی، تصمیمات صادره توسّط نهادهای یادشده عموماً تنها نسبت به طرفین اختلاف و در همان دعوی الزام آور می باشند؛ با این وجود، تحت شرایطی آثار حقوقی ناشی از تصمیمات مزبور به سایر دولت ها بسط پیدا کرده و الزامات حقوقی برای آن ها به ارمغان می آورد. نکته این جاست که نقش اصلی را در فرآیند ذکرشده، حقوق نرم بر عهده دارد؛ نقشی که تا حد زیادی در حقوق بین الملل ناشناخته مانده است. مقاله ی حاضر به بررسی این نقش اختصاص یافته است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Soft Law in the Light of decisions of international Judicial and Semi Judicial Bodies

چکیده [English]

Although the concept of soft law has existed in international law arena for years, international community have not reached consensus on the identical definition of soft law. The subject why states use soft law is remains vague too. In this paper, firstly the various definitions of the soft law concept and the reasons of choosing selected definition are expressed. Then the greatest strength of soft law is investigated. However, the point of gravity in the paper is analyzing nonbinding interpretations that international judicial and semi judicial bodies put on the international binding legal rules. From the legal point, except occasionally the decisions of mentioned bodies are Binding with respect to the facts and parties to the dispute before it. However, under special circumstances can affect all states subject to the underlying rules regardless weather they have consented to it or not. It is worth noting that soft law plays a major role in the effecting Process which remains largely unknown.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • soft law
  • legal affects
  • international judicial bodies
  • international semi judicial bodies
1. کیس الکساندر و همکاران: حقوق محیط زیست، ترجمه ی محمّدحسن حبیبی، جلد سوم، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، 1386. 2. محمودی َکردی، زهرا: ضوابط زیست محیطی سازمان تجارت جهانی: خلأها و بایسته ها، رساله ی دکتری حقوق بین الملل، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، 1391. 3. (هداوند، مهدی، سیف الهی، آرمان): «جایگاه حقوق نرم در توسعه ی حقوق بین الملل»، فصلنامه ی راهبرد، شماره ی50، 1388. 4. Andrew, Guzman & Timothy, Meyer, ‘International Sales Law’, Journal of Legal Analysis, 2010, p.171. 5. Andron, Robert, The inevitable Role of Soft Law in the Development of Universal Bioethics, 2007. 6. Abbott, Kenneth W., & Duncan Snidal, Hard and Soft Law in International Governance, International Organization, Vol. 24, 1992. 7. Calliess and Moritz, from Soft Law to Hard Law: Justification of Global Governance Retrieved, 2009. 8. Derains Yeves, Schwartz Eric, A Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration , 2nd Edition, Kluwer International Law, The Hague, 2005. 9. Goldstein, Judith, & Richard Steinberg, Negotiate or Litigate? Effects of WTO Judicial Delegation on U.S. Trade Politics, Law& Contemporary Problems, Vol. 72, 2008. 10. Gregory C. Shaffer and Mark A. Pollack, Hard vs. Soft Law: Alternatives, Complements, and Antagonists in International Governance, Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 09-23, 2010. 11. Helfer, Laurence R., & Anne-Marie Slaughter, Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 107, 1997. 12. Helfer, Laurence R. Nonconsensual International Lawmaking, International Law Review, Vol. 71, 2008. 13. Higgins, Rosalyn, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994. 14. Hirsch, Moshe،The Impact of the Advisory Opinion on Israel’s Future Policy: International Relations Perspective. Journal of International law & International relative, Vol.1, 2005. 15. Liamzon, Aloysius P., Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the International Court of Justice, European. Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, 2007. 16. Martha Finnemoreand Stephen J. Toope, Alternatives to Legalization: Richer Views of Law and Politics, INT’L ORG, Vol.55, 2001. 17. Philippe Fouchard, Emmanuel Gaillard, Bernard Goldman, in E. Gaillard and J. Savage, International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, No. 8,The Hague, 1999. 18. Pierre A. Karrer, Internationalization of civil Procedure- Beyond the IBA Rules of Evidence, in Nedim Petervogt, Reflections on the International Practice of Law, Basle Geneva, 2004. 19. Reisman, W. Michael, The Concept and Functions of Soft Law in International Politics, In Essays in Honor of Judge Taslim Olawale Elias, Volume I Contemporary, 1992. 20. Veeder.V, Are the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence Perfectible? ; in Written Evidence and Discovery in International Arbitration: New Issues and Tendencies, ICC Publication, 2009. 21. Weil, Prosper. Towards Relative Normativity in International Law, Am. J. Int’l L. Vol. 77. 1983. ج) اسناد 22. Advisory Opinion on Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo, ICJ. (July 2010). 23. Advisory Opinion on Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, ICJ.226, 242-243( July 1996). 24. Advisory Opinion on Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, ICJ.136,171 (July 2004) 25. http://www.int-bar.org. 26. ICC Rules of Arbitration at: http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/arbitration/icc-rules-of-arbitration/. 27. International Development Research Center, How Can Communities Use Soft Law and Nonbinding International Agreements? 2008, at: www.idrc.ca/en/ev-30130-201-I-do. 28. Optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights, G.A. Res 2200 A (XXI) at 59, U.N. Doc, A/6316 (December. 16, 1966). 29. Toonen V. Australia, Communication No488/1992,U.N.Doc,ecpr/C/50/D/488/1992. 30. U.N. General Assembly Resolution Acknowledging the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on Israel's Apartheid Wall , July 2004, Available at: http://www.palestine pmc,cam/details.asp=11&id=84. 31. WTO AB Report, U.S. Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, 12 Oct 1998. 32. WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), 1995. 33. WTO Panel Report, U.S. Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products.