• صفحه اصلی
  • مولفه ها و چالش های تدوین شاخص های جرم زیست محیطی تحت عنوان جرم بین‌المللی

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : 1937-JEST (R1) بازدید : 183 صفحه: 257 - 278

10.22034/jest.2018.10833.1937

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

مولفه ها و چالش های تدوین شاخص های جرم زیست محیطی تحت عنوان جرم بین‌المللی

محورهای موضوعی : حقوق محیط زیست

مریم جام بزرگ 1 * , منصور پورنوری 2 , سید عباس پورهاشمی 3 , داود هرمیداس باوند 4

1 - دانش آموخته دکتری حقوق محیط زیست، مدیریت محیط زیست، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران. *(مسوول مکاتبات)
2 - استادیار گروه حقوق، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکز
3 - استادیار گروه حقوق محیط زیست، مدیریت محیط زیست، دانشکده محیط زیست و انرژی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران.
4 - استاد مدعو گروه حقوق محیط زیست، مدیریت محیط زیست، دانشکده محیط زیست و انرژی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران.

تاریخ دریافت : 1394/03/08 تاریخ پذیرش : 1395/03/23 تاریخ انتشار : 1398/04/01

کلید واژه: مولفه‌های موثر در جرم‌انگاری بین‌المللی زیست‌محیطی, جرایم زیست‌محیطی بین‌المللی, چالش‌های جرم‌انگاری,

چکیده مقاله :

بی تردید حفاظت از محیط زیست به عنوان مبرم ترین نیاز بشری برای دستیابی به کیفیت زندگی بهتر و تحقق اهداف توسعه پایدار در قرن بیست ویکم انکارناپذیر تلقی می شود که در عین حال با چالش های عدیده ای نیز روبه رو می باشد، چراکه انسان کنونی علیرغم درک نسبتاً قابل قبول از مفهوم محیط زیست، هنوز بر مدار توسعه بی رویه و ترجیح منافع کوتاه مدت فردی بر منافع بلندمدت زندگی می کند. هرچند پس از تشکیل کنفرانس استکهلم در نیمه دوم قرن بیستم، اسناد بین المللی متعددی در حفاظت از محیط زیست به تصویب رسیده است. ولی واقعیت امر این است که اغلب قواعد و معاهدات حقوق بین الملل محیط زیست که ناظر بر جلوگیری از آلودگی و تخریب محیط زیست هستند در مسیر جبران خسارات زیست محیطی حرکت نموده اند. اما شدت و عمق فجایع زیست محیطی در جهان امروز به گونه ای است که ضرورت توسل به اقدامات قاطعانه تری در حوزه مورد بحث احساس می گردد؛ اقداماتی که عاملین آلودگی و تخریب محیط زیست را به عنوان مجرم تحت تعقیب قرار دهد. در این مقاله سعی گردیده چالش هایی که جرم انگاری در سطح بین المللی با آن روبه رو است مورد بررسی قرار گرفته و مولفه های موثر و عمدتاً مثبت در تدوین شاخص های جرم انگاری زیست محیطی مورد توجه قرار گیرد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

There is no doubt that protection of environment is considered as the most critical need of human being for achievement of better qualities of life and realization of sustainable development goals in the 21st century. This is involved with numerous challenges, since the contemporary human still lives on the basis of irregular development and preference of personal short-term interests rather than long-term ones. Although several international regulations have been ratified for the protection of environment in the second half of the 20th century and after the establishment of Stockholm Conference, most of the regulations in international environmental law which aimed to prevent environmental pollution and degradation could only address the compensation for the environmental damages. However, the intensity of environmental disasters in today's world is to the extent that the need for performing more decisive actions is seriously felt; actions which could prosecute those who produce environmental pollution and degradations as criminals. This study attempts to investigate the challenges which criminalization is internationally faced and to highlight the effective and mostly positive components in codification of environmental crime indices.     

منابع و مأخذ:


  1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, United Nations.
    2.
  2. Gibbs, C.; Gore, M.L.; Mcgarrell, E.F & Rivers, L., 2010, Introducing conservation criminology towards interdisciplinary scholarship on environmental crimes and risks, British Journal of Criminology Vol.50, No.1:p124-144.
    3.
  3. Wattad, M.S.A., 2009, Rome statue and captain planer: What lies between crime against humanity and natural environment, FORDHAM ENVTL L. REV., Vol. 19, p. 265-270.
    4.
  4. United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972.
    5.
  5. Rio Conference, 1992, The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro.
    6.
  6. Earth Summit: World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), 2002, Johannesburg.
    7.
  7. Rio+20 Conference, 2012, United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro.
    8.
  8. Mclaughlin, R., 2000, Improving compliance: Making non-state international actors responsible for environmental crimes, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, Vol. 11, p.377-378.
    9.
  9. Smith, S., 1995, Changing Corporate Environmental Behavior: Criminal Prosecution as a Tool of Environmental Policy, in Eckersley, Markets, Bureaucracy, and the Environment: New Directions in Governance, MacMillan Press.
    10.
  10. Clifford, M., 1998, Environmental Crime: Enforcement policy and social responsibility, Jones & Bartlett Learning, 532 pages.
    11.
  11. Situ, Y., & Emmons, D., 2000, Combating environmental crime: Prosecution. Environmental crime: The criminal justice system's role in protecting the environment. (pp. 147-177). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452232256.n8.
    12.
  12. Lynch, Michael J.,  1990, The Greening of Criminology: A Perspective on the 1990s,  The Critical Criminologist  Vol.2,3: 3-4, 11-12.
    13.
  13. Frank, N. & Lynch M.J., 1992, Corporate Crime, Corporate Violence. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.
    14.
  14. White, R., 2007, Environmental Harm, Ecological Justice and Crime Protection, the Challenge to Criminology, Conference: Improving Community Safety,Lessons from the country and the city, 18-19 October 2007, Queensland, Australia.
    15.
  15. Lynch, M. J. & Stretesky, P., 2001, Toxic Crimes: Examining Corporate Victimization of the General Public Employing Medical and Epidemiological Evidence, Critical Criminology, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp 153-172.
    16.
  16. Higgins, P., 2012, Earth in Our Business: Changing the Rules of the Game, Good News Digital Books.
    17.
  17. Palermo Convention, 2000, United Nations Convention against Translational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto, December 2000, Palermo, Italy.
    18.
  18. Megret, F., 2011, The problem of an international criminal law of the environment, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 36, No. 2, p.206.
    19.
  19. Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, 1995, Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, pp. 57–58, Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Oct. 2, 1995.
    20.
  20. Weeramantry, 1997, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case (Hungary vs. Slovakia) Separate opinion, www.icj-cij.org/dochet/index.php/p1.
    21.
  21. Andrews, E., 2011, Jean Bodin on Sovereignty, Republic of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics and the Art, Vol.2, Issue2, see information in: http://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/jean-bodin-sovereignty, Accessed 28 January 2015.
    22.
  22. Van der vyer, J. D., 2009, The Environment: State Sovereignty, Human Rights and Armed Conflict, Emory International Law Review, Vol.83, P. 85-112.
    23.
  23. UN General Assembly, 1984, Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly., 17 December 1984, A/RES/39/163.
    24.
  24. PCIJ, Series A, 1927, Lotus Case (France vs. Turkey), No.10, p.26.
    25.
  25. Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States vs. Canada), 1941, Encyclopedia of International Law, Vol. 2, pp.276-280.
    26.
  26. ICJ Reports, 1949, Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland vs. Albania), pp.242-265, Vols. I-VI.
    27.
  27. ICJ Reports, 1970, Barcelona Traction, light and power company, limited, second phase, judgment, p.32, paras33-4.
    28.
  28. ICJ Reports, 1997, Gabcikovo-Nagimaros Project (Hungary vs. Slovakia), p.3.
    29.
  29. Elwa Badar, M., 2013, The Concept of Mens Rea in International Criminal Law, Hart Publishing.
    30.
  30. Richardson, B.J., 1990, A Study of Australian Practice Pursuant to the World Heritage Convention, Environmental Policy and Law J., 20(4/5):143-154.
    31.
  31. Koester, V., 1990, From Stockhom to Brundtland, Environmental Policy and Law J., 20(1/2):14 – 19.
    32.
  32. Andrews, G. C., 2014, Canadian Professional Engineering and Geoscience- Practice and Ethics, Nelson Education LTD., Fifth Edition.
    33.
  33. Four Geneva Conventions, 1949, Geneva, Switzerland & Additional Protocols, 1977, Geneva, Switzerland.
    34.
  34. ENMOD Convention: Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Technologies (ENMOD), 1977, Geneva, Switzerland.
    35.
  35. Mazaheri, M., 2014, Ettelaat Newspaper, 16 March 2014 (In Persian).
    36.
  36. Convention on the Protection of Environment through Criminal Law, 1998, Strasburg.
    37.
  37. ICJ Reports, 1996, Advisory opinion of legality of threat or use of nuclear weapons, p.226.
    38.

 



 
_||_

  1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, United Nations.
    2.
  2. Gibbs, C.; Gore, M.L.; Mcgarrell, E.F & Rivers, L., 2010, Introducing conservation criminology towards interdisciplinary scholarship on environmental crimes and risks, British Journal of Criminology Vol.50, No.1:p124-144.
    3.
  3. Wattad, M.S.A., 2009, Rome statue and captain planer: What lies between crime against humanity and natural environment, FORDHAM ENVTL L. REV., Vol. 19, p. 265-270.
    4.
  4. United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972.
    5.
  5. Rio Conference, 1992, The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro.
    6.
  6. Earth Summit: World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), 2002, Johannesburg.
    7.
  7. Rio+20 Conference, 2012, United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro.
    8.
  8. Mclaughlin, R., 2000, Improving compliance: Making non-state international actors responsible for environmental crimes, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, Vol. 11, p.377-378.
    9.
  9. Smith, S., 1995, Changing Corporate Environmental Behavior: Criminal Prosecution as a Tool of Environmental Policy, in Eckersley, Markets, Bureaucracy, and the Environment: New Directions in Governance, MacMillan Press.
    10.
  10. Clifford, M., 1998, Environmental Crime: Enforcement policy and social responsibility, Jones & Bartlett Learning, 532 pages.
    11.
  11. Situ, Y., & Emmons, D., 2000, Combating environmental crime: Prosecution. Environmental crime: The criminal justice system's role in protecting the environment. (pp. 147-177). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452232256.n8.
    12.
  12. Lynch, Michael J.,  1990, The Greening of Criminology: A Perspective on the 1990s,  The Critical Criminologist  Vol.2,3: 3-4, 11-12.
    13.
  13. Frank, N. & Lynch M.J., 1992, Corporate Crime, Corporate Violence. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.
    14.
  14. White, R., 2007, Environmental Harm, Ecological Justice and Crime Protection, the Challenge to Criminology, Conference: Improving Community Safety,Lessons from the country and the city, 18-19 October 2007, Queensland, Australia.
    15.
  15. Lynch, M. J. & Stretesky, P., 2001, Toxic Crimes: Examining Corporate Victimization of the General Public Employing Medical and Epidemiological Evidence, Critical Criminology, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp 153-172.
    16.
  16. Higgins, P., 2012, Earth in Our Business: Changing the Rules of the Game, Good News Digital Books.
    17.
  17. Palermo Convention, 2000, United Nations Convention against Translational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto, December 2000, Palermo, Italy.
    18.
  18. Megret, F., 2011, The problem of an international criminal law of the environment, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 36, No. 2, p.206.
    19.
  19. Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, 1995, Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, pp. 57–58, Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Oct. 2, 1995.
    20.
  20. Weeramantry, 1997, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case (Hungary vs. Slovakia) Separate opinion, www.icj-cij.org/dochet/index.php/p1.
    21.
  21. Andrews, E., 2011, Jean Bodin on Sovereignty, Republic of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics and the Art, Vol.2, Issue2, see information in: http://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/jean-bodin-sovereignty, Accessed 28 January 2015.
    22.
  22. Van der vyer, J. D., 2009, The Environment: State Sovereignty, Human Rights and Armed Conflict, Emory International Law Review, Vol.83, P. 85-112.
    23.
  23. UN General Assembly, 1984, Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly., 17 December 1984, A/RES/39/163.
    24.
  24. PCIJ, Series A, 1927, Lotus Case (France vs. Turkey), No.10, p.26.
    25.
  25. Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States vs. Canada), 1941, Encyclopedia of International Law, Vol. 2, pp.276-280.
    26.
  26. ICJ Reports, 1949, Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland vs. Albania), pp.242-265, Vols. I-VI.
    27.
  27. ICJ Reports, 1970, Barcelona Traction, light and power company, limited, second phase, judgment, p.32, paras33-4.
    28.
  28. ICJ Reports, 1997, Gabcikovo-Nagimaros Project (Hungary vs. Slovakia), p.3.
    29.
  29. Elwa Badar, M., 2013, The Concept of Mens Rea in International Criminal Law, Hart Publishing.
    30.
  30. Richardson, B.J., 1990, A Study of Australian Practice Pursuant to the World Heritage Convention, Environmental Policy and Law J., 20(4/5):143-154.
    31.
  31. Koester, V., 1990, From Stockhom to Brundtland, Environmental Policy and Law J., 20(1/2):14 – 19.
    32.
  32. Andrews, G. C., 2014, Canadian Professional Engineering and Geoscience- Practice and Ethics, Nelson Education LTD., Fifth Edition.
    33.
  33. Four Geneva Conventions, 1949, Geneva, Switzerland & Additional Protocols, 1977, Geneva, Switzerland.
    34.
  34. ENMOD Convention: Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Technologies (ENMOD), 1977, Geneva, Switzerland.
    35.
  35. Mazaheri, M., 2014, Ettelaat Newspaper, 16 March 2014 (In Persian).
    36.
  36. Convention on the Protection of Environment through Criminal Law, 1998, Strasburg.
    37.
  37. ICJ Reports, 1996, Advisory opinion of legality of threat or use of nuclear weapons, p.226.
    38.

 



 

مقالات مرتبط

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]