واکاوی تطبیقی مظاهِر «دوگانه انگاری و یگانه انگاری» حقوق داخلی و بین المللی در سیر تطوّر آموزه های حقوقی و رویه جامعه بین المللی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران.

چکیده

مناسبات بین حقوق داخلی و بین المللی، همواره معرکه آراء قائلین به دو گفتمان سنتی دوگانه انگاری (دوئالیسم) و یگانه انگاری (مونیسم) بوده است. به رغم قدمت نظریات مطروحه، گفتمان واحدی در این باره وجود ندارد ولی به هر روی، کشورها و سازمان‌های بین‌المللی، هرچند بعضاً حتی بدون آن که تصریح بدارند، به سمت یکی سوق یافته اند. جستار حاضر از رهگذر تبیین آموزه های حقوقی تطور یافته و کنکاش در رویه کشورها و سازمان های بین المللی، به عنوان تابعان فعال جامعه بین المللی دریافته که مقتضی است تا صرف نظر از هرگونه اطلاقی به مناسبات حقوق داخلی و بین الملللی پرداخته شود. کنش گران جامعه بین المللی، رویه ای یکتا در این باره ندارند و به ندرت می توان عملکردی یافت که یکی را به طور مطلق پذیرفته باشند بلکه به اقتضاء قضیه مطروحه، در هر وضعیت یکی از دو گفتمان یاد شده در عمل، اِعمال شده است. باری، این رویکردها در عمل خیلی به هم نزدیک می‌شوند به نحوی که «دوگانه انگاری» ارتباط وثیقی با «یگانه انگاری با برتری حقوق بین المللی» دارد. این دو رویکرد در عمل، متابعان بیشتری دارد و خود برآمد نگاه هژمونیک کشورها در مورد حاکمیت خویش و البته غلبه رویکرد مکتب تحققی (پوزیتیویستی) است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative Analysis of the Phenomena of “Dualism and Monism” of Domestic and International Law: Evolution of Legal Doctrines and Practice of International Community

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohamad Setayeshpur
Assistant Professor, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The relationship between domestic and international law has always been a struggle for the two traditional discourses of dualism and monism. Despite the age of the proposed theories, there is no single discourse on this matter. Some state and international organizations move towards one of them even without making any specification. The present article, after explaining the developed legal doctrines and exploring the practices of state and international organizations as active subjects of the international community, found that it is better to get the middle ground in the application of domestic and international law relations. According to the requirements of the proposed case, in different situations, one of the two mentioned theories can be applied in practice. Sometimes, these approaches are very close to each other in practice, in such a way that “dualism” has an overlapping relationship with “monism with the supremacy of the international law. In practice, it is suggested to take a hegemonic and positivist approach.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Dualism
  • Monism
  • Relations between domestic and international laws
  • International community

مراجع

  1. Arangio-Ruiz, Gaetano (1972). “The Normative Role of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Relations with an Appendix on the Concept of International Law and the Theory of International Organizations”, Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol. 137.
  2. Arangio-Ruiz, Gaetano (2003). “Dualism Revisited: International Law and Inter-Individual Law”, Rivista di diritto internazionale, vol. 86.
  3. Bagheri Abyaneh, Alireza and Ansarian, Mojtaba (2019). “A Postmodern Critique of Legal Positivism in International Law”, Journal of Legal Research, vol. 37. (In Persian)
  4. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (1949).
  5. Berman, Paul Schiff (2007). “Global Legal Pluralism”, Southern California Law Review, vol. 80.
  6. Bernstorff, Jochen von (2010). The Public International Law of Hans Kelsen: Believing in Universal Law, Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law.
  7. Bogdandy, Armin von (2008). “Pluralism, Direct Effect, and the Ultimate Say: On the Relationship between International and Domestic Constitutional Law”, International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 6.
  8. Bonafé, Beatrice (2014). ‘Adattamento del diritto interno al diritto internazionale’ in Sabino Cassesse (edn.), dizionario di diritto pubblico (giuffré 2006. (In French)
  9. Bonafé, Bétrice (2014). “International Law in Domestic and Supranational Settings”, in: Jean d’Aspremont and Jörg Kammerhofer, International Legal Positivism in a Post-Modern World (edn.), Cambridge University Press.
  10. British Court (1737). Court of King’s Bench, Buvot v. Barbuit.
  11. British court (2001). R. V. Bow Street Magistrates Ex. P. Pinochest, I.A.C. 61.
  12. Brownlie, Ian (2008). Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press.
  13. Cannizzaro, Enzo (2012). “The Neo-Monism of the European Legal Order” in: Ramses Alexander Wessel, Enzo Cannizzaro and Paolo Palchetti, International Law as the Law of the European Union (edn.), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
  14. Conforti, Benedetto (2010). Diritto internazionale, Editoriale scientifica, 8th (In French)
  15. Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea (2018).
  16. Daci, Jordan (2015). “The Relationship between International Law and Domestic Law under the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo”, Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Rome-Italy, Mediterranean Center of Social and Educational Research Publishing, vol. 4, no. 1.
  17. Dumbarton Oaks Conference on International Organization (1944). Doc. 2-G/14 “m” ad Ch. I.
  18. Falsafi, Hedaiatollah (2017). Seyre Aghl dar Manzoomeh-ye Hoghooghe Beynolmelal, Nashrenow. (In Persian)
  19. Ferreira, Gerrit & Ferreira-Snyman, Anél (2014). “The Incorporation of Public International Law into Municipal and Regional Law against the Background of the Dichotomy between Monism and Dualism”, Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad, vol. 17.
  20. Fitzmaurice, Gerald (1957). “The General Principles of International Law considered from the Standpoint of the Rule of Law”, Recueil des cours, vol. 92.
  21. French Constitutional Law (1979).
  22. García-Salmones Rovira, Moníca (2015). “Faith, Ritual and Rebellion in 21st Century (Positivist) International Law”, European Journal of International Law, vol. 26.
  23. Grzegorczyk, Christophe (1992). ‘Introduction’ in Christophe Grzegorczyk, Françoise Michat and Michel Troper (edn.), Le positivism juridique, Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence. (In French)
  24. ICJ (2012). Judgment, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening, February 3.
  25. Kammerhofer, Jörg (2009). “Kelsen – which Kelsen? A Re-Application of the Pure Theory to International Law”, Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 22.
  26. Kammerhofer, Jörg (2010). Uncertainty in International Law: a Kelsenian Perspective, Routledge.
  27. Kelsen, Hans (1952). Principles of International Law, Rinehart and Company.
  28. Kelsen, Hans (1967). Pure Theory of Law, University of California Press.
  29. Kleinlein, Thomas (2016). “Jus Cogens as the ‘Highest Law’? Peremptory Norms and Legal Hierarchies, vol. 1.
  30. Mafi, Homayon and Bazzar, Vahid (2017). “The Theory of Normative Hierarchy in the Light of Human Law Rules with Emphasis on International Case Law”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, vol. 46. (In Persian)
  31. Mahmoody, Hadi and Hamidzadeh, Reza (2019). “Feasibility Study for the Realization of New Natural Law on International Relations”, Legal Research Quarterly, vol. 22. (In Persian)
  32. Monte Video Convention (1933). Treaty on the Rights and Duties of States, December 26.
  33. Nollkaemper, André (2011). National Courts and the International Rule of Law, Oxford University Press.
  34. Perassi (1937). lezioni di dirotto internazionale, Roma. (In French)
  35. Shahbazi, Aramesh (2016). Philosophy of International Law: Positivism, Shahre Danesh. (In Persian)
  36. Special Tribunal for Lebanon (2011). Judgment, Appeals Chamber, Case no. STL-11-011ACR176BIS; Introductory Decision on the Applicable law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cumulative Charging, February 16.
  37. Talebi, Mohamad Hossein (2001). “Nazariyeh Hoghoogh Tabiee in Phalsapheye Hoghoogh”, Ma’refat, vol. 46. (In Persian)
  38. Teubner, Gunther (1997). “Global Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in the World Society” in: Gunther Teubner, Global Law without a State (edn.), Dartmouth Digital Publishing.
  39. UNGA (1949). Res. 375 (IV), Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, December 6.
  40. UNGA (1970). Res. 26/25 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, October 24.
  41. Walters, Melissa (2007). “Creeping Monism: The Judicial Trend Toward Interpretive Incorporation of Human Rights Treaties”, Columbia Law Review, vol. 107.
  42. Zol A’in, Parviz (2005). Basics of Public International Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (In Persian)
پژوهشنامه حقوق تطبیقی
دوره 6، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 9
فروردین 1401
صفحه 125-142

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 17 اسفند 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 11 اردیبهشت 1400
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 20 مرداد 1400

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار