ارائۀ قاعدۀ صلاحیت بین المللی مطلوب برای جلوگیری از پدیدۀ «توریسم هتک حیثیت» با مطالعه تطبیقی حقوق ایران و انگلستان

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه حقوق، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران

3 استادیار گروه حقوق، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران.

چکیده

توریسم هتک‌حیثیت اشاره به موقعیتی دارد که در آن، خواهان می‌تواند با وجود چندین دادگاه صالح، دعوای هتک حیثیت خود را در کشوری مطرح کند که قوانین ماهوی و شکلی آن را به سود خود می‌بیند، در حالی که ارتباط میان کشور محل دادگاه و دعوا کم است. این پدیده، نگرانی‌های بسیاری را نسبت به تضییع حقوق اشخاص، رسانه‌ها و آزادی بیان ایجاد کرده است. بنابراین، نظام‌های حقوقی می‌بایست با ایجاد قواعد صلاحیت مناسب که وجود ارتباط کافی میان دعوا و دادگاه را تضمین می‌کند، مانع گسترش این پدیده گردند. اما چه قاعدۀ صلاحیتی می‌تواند برای دعاوی هتک حیثیت مناسب تلقی گردد؟ در این پژوهش از روش توصیفی-تحلیلی به شیوۀ تطبیقی و از منابع کتابخانه‌ای بهره‌برداری شده است. هدف اصلی پژوهش حاضر این است تا ضمن مطالعۀ قواعد صلاحیت بین‌المللی نظام حقوقی ایران و انگلستان، قاعدۀ صلاحیت مطلوبی را ارائه دهد تا از گسترش چالش‌های موجود پیرامون دعاوی هتک حیثیت جلوگیری کند. یافته‌های این مقاله نشان می‌دهد که قواعد صلاحیت بین‌المللی ایرانی امکان سوء استفاده را برای مدعیان هتک حیثیت فراهم می-آورد که می‌تواند باعث گسترش پدیدۀ توریسم هتک‌حیثیت در این کشور شود و ضروری است که مقررات صلاحیت آن، در این خصوص، اصلاح گردد. اما نظام حقوقی انگلستان با اعطای اختیار اعمال صلاحیت، در دعاوی هتک حیثیت به دادگاه رسیدگی‌کننده توانسته تا حدودی مانع شکل‌گیری پدیدۀ توریسم افترا شود. نتایج این پژوهش، قاعدۀ صلاحیتی را که به دادگاه این اختیار را می‌دهد تا براساس امور موضوعی پیرامون هر پرونده نسبت به اعمال صلاحیت خود تصمیم‌گیری کرده و مناسب‌ترین مکان را برای رسیدگی به موضوع دعوا مشخص کند، برای جلوگیری از توریسم هتک‌حیثیت پیشنهاد می‌دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Proposing an appropriate international jurisdictional rule for preventing the libel tourism With a comparative study of Iranian and English law

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sayyed Hossein Safaei Moafi 1
  • Reza Maghsoudi 2
  • Reza Daryaee 3
1 Ph.D. Student in in Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities. university of Guilan. Rasht. iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities. university of Guilan. Rasht. iran.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities. university of Guilan. Rasht. iran.
چکیده [English]

Libel tourism refers to a situation in which, despite the existence of several competent courts, the claimant can file a defamation lawsuit in country whose laws are beneficial, while there is a little connection between the jurisdiction and the claim. This phenomenon has created many concerns regarding the violation of the rights of individuals, media and freedom of expression. Therefore, legal systems should prevent the spread of this phenomenon by creating appropriate jurisdiction rules that guarantee the existence of sufficient connection between the claim and the court. But what kind of jurisdictional rule can be considered appropriate for defamation lawsuits? This research has been used descriptive-analytical method in a comparative way and library sources. The main objective of the current research is to provide a favorable rule of jurisdiction while studying the rules of international jurisdiction of the Iranian and English legal systems to prevent the spread of the libel tourism. The findings of this article show that the rules of Iranian international jurisdiction provide the possibility of abuse for defamation claimants, which can cause the spread of the phenomenon of libel tourism in this country, and it is necessary for its jurisdiction rules to be modified. But the English legal system has been able to prevent the formation of the phenomenon of libel tourism to some extent by granting the authority to exercise jurisdiction in defamation lawsuits. The results of this research shows that the jurisdictional rule that gives the court the power to decide on the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the issues surrounding each case and determine the most appropriate place to hear the case, is the most appropriate rule.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • freedom of expression
  • defamation
  • jurisdiction
  • libel tourism
  • tort
Akdeniz, Yaman (1999). “Case Analysis: Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited,” Journal of Civil Liberties, 4(2), 260-267.
Bogdańska, Olga (2015). “Libel tourism in the context of press freedom”, Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, sectio K – Politologia, 22(1), 195-212. doi: 10.17951/k.2015.22.1.195.
Briggs, Adrian (2013). The conflict of Laws, Third Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carrascosa González, Javier, “The Internet – Privacy and Rights Relating to Personality (Volume 378)”, in: Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. Consulted online on 30 January 2024. doi: 10.1163/1875-8096_pplrdc_A9789004321250_02
Castel, Matthew (2013). “Jurisdiction and Choice of Law Issues in Multistate Defamation on the Internet,” Alberta Law Review, 51(1), 153-163. doi: 10.29173/alr61.
Connolly, Ursula (2012). “Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology,” Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 6(1), 35-47.
Council of Europe Study (2019). Study on forms of liability and jurisdictional issues in the application of civil and administrative defamation laws in Council of Europe member states, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Elliot, Catherine and Quinn, Frances (2017). Tort Law, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Ewert, Jan-Peter, Weslow, David (2011). “forum shopping in europe and the united states”, International Trademark Association, 66(9), 9-10.
“Ehrenfeld v Mahfouz”, n.d, at: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2007/2007-09961.html, last visited: 31/01/2024.
Fitzsimmons, A. (2006). “Forum Shopping: A Practitioner’s Perspective.”The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance. Issues and Practice, 31(2), 314–322. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.gpp.2510076.
Garner, Bryan A. (2009). Black`s Law Dictionary, Saint Paul: Thomson Reuters.
George, Patrick (2017). Defamation law in Australia, New South Wales: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Gillies, Lorna (2012). “JURISDICTION FOR CROSS-BORDER BREACH OF PERSONALITY AND DEFAMATION: EDATE ADVERTISING AND MARTINEZ”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 61(4), 1007-1016. doi: 10.1017/S0020589312000413
Hare, Christopher (2000). “Forum-Shopping: From Russia with Love,” The Cambridge Law Journal,59 (3), 461-464.
Hartley, Trevor C (2012). “Libel tourism – a solution in sight?”, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 63(1), 85-96. doi: 10.53386/nilq.v63i1.375
Hartley, Trevor C (2010). “‘LIBEL TOURISM’ AND CONFLICT OF LAWS,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 59(1), 25-38.
Hayati, Ali Abbas (2017). Civil procedure in the current law system. Tehran: Mizan Publishing. [in Persian]
Jasper, Margaret C. (2006). The Law of Libel & Slander, New York: Oceana Publications.
Kmietowicz, Zosia (2010). “Free Speech Is at Risk from UK Libel Law, Says Danish Radiologist Accused of Defamation,”BMJ: British Medical Journal, 340(7736), 12-13. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b5615
Martin, Elizabeth (2011). Oxford Dictionary of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McBride, NicholasJ., Bagshaw, Roderick (2018). Tort Law, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
McFarland, Robert L. (2009).“Please Do Not Publish this Article in England: A Jurisdictional Response to Libel Tourism”,Mississippi Law JournalForthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1514988.
Ministry of Justice (2009). Defamation and the internet: the multiple publication rule, London: Ministry of Justice.
Petsche, Markus (2011). “What's Wrong with Forum Shopping? An Attempt to Identify and Assess the Real Issues of a Controversial Practice”, The International Lawyer, 45(4), 1005-1028.
Phillipson, Gavin P (2016). Press Freedom, the Public Interest and Privacy. In Andrew T. Kenyon (Ed.), Comparative Defamation and Privacy Law (pp. 136-63). Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, Daniel (2016). “Libel tourism in Australia: evaluating the jurisdiction of Australian courts,” International Journal of Technology Policy and Law, 2(2), 203-227. doi: 10.1504/IJTPL.2016.077157
Rolph, David (2016). Defamation Law, Sydney: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited.
Safai, Seyed Hossein (2014). Studies of Private International Law, Mizan publishing. [in Persian]
Safaei Moafi, Sayyed Hussein; Maghsoudi Pashaki, reza & Daryaee, Reza (2024). “Jurisdiction in tort claims for cross-border defamation in the laws of Iran, England and the European Union,” Comparative Law Review 14(2), 859-882. DOI: https://doi.com/10.22059/JCL.2023.356095.634475
Sanchez, Thomas (2011). “London, Libel Capital No Longer? The Draft Defamation Act 2011 and the Future of Libel Tourism”, The University of New Hampshire Law Review, 9(3), 469-521.
Shams, Abdollah (2015). Civil Procedure, Tehran: Derak publishing. [in Persian]
Smet, Stijn (2010). “Freedom of Expression and the Right to Reputation: Human Rights in Conflict”, Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews, 26(1), 183-236.
Staveley-O’Carroll, Sarah (2009). “Libel tourism laws: spoiling the holiday and saving the first amendment?”, New York University Journal of Law & Liberty, 4(3), 252-292.
Stillwell, Cinnamon (2009). “Libel Tourism: Where Terrorism and Censorship Meet”, https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Libel-Tourism-Where-Terrorism-and-Censorship-Meet-2544274.php, last visited: 25/01/2024.
Walker, Clive (2012). “Global speech and global terrorism: a tall tale of two cities”, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 63(1), 119-136. doi: 10.53386/nilq.v63i1.377.
Watson, Roxanne; Roldan, Roberto; Faza, Andres (2017). “Toward Normalization of Defamation Law: The U.K. Defamation Act of 2013 and the U.S. SPEECH Act of 2010 as Responses to the Issue of Libel Tourism,” Communication Law and Policy, 22(1), 1-63. doi: 10.1080/10811680.2017.1250569
The Law Commission (2002). DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, London: The Law Commission.
دوره 8، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 16
در حال صفحه آرایی و بارگزاری فایل های PDF
دی 1403
  • تاریخ دریافت: 18 بهمن 1402
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 14 اردیبهشت 1403
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 22 مرداد 1403