واکاوی سلسله مراتب هنجاری در حقوق بین‌الملل محیط‌زیست
محورهای موضوعی :
حقوق محیط زیست
مجتبی سبحانی نیا
1
,
محسن عبدالهی
2
,
سیدعباس پورهاشمی
3
1 - دانشجوی دکتری حقوق محیط‌زیست، دانشکده منابع طبیعی و محیط‌زیست، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران
2 - عضوهیات علمی دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
3 - استادیار دانشکده محیط زیست و انرژی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران
تاریخ دریافت : 1400/11/27
تاریخ پذیرش : 1401/03/09
تاریخ انتشار : 1400/10/01
کلید واژه:
حقوق بین‌الملل محیط‌زیست,
قاعده عرفی,
قاعده آمره,
سلسله مراتب هنجاری,
چکیده مقاله :
زمینه و هدف: حقوق بین‌الملل، اگرچه عمدتاً از هنجارهای همسان تشکیل شده است، اما حاوی برخی عناصر سلسله مراتبی نیز می‌باشد. در رأس این سلسله مراتب، قواعد آمره قرار دارند که از جایگاه برتری نسبت به سایر قواعد حقوق بین‌الملل برخوردار می‌باشند. از سوی دیگر، قواعد عرفی حقوق بین‌الملل نیز دارای جایگاه خاصی در میان هنجارهای حقوقی می‌باشند، چراکه که قواعد عرفی حقوق بین‌الملل عموماً برای تمامی دولت‌ها الزام‌آور بوده و دارای اثر erga omnes می‌باشند و به تبع حاکمیت دولت‌ها را محدود می‌سازند. بر این اساس جامعه بین‌المللی در حال گذار از جامعه‌ای دولت‌محور به سوی جامعه‌ای انسان‌محور است که در آن عنصر اراده دولت‌ها به عنوان عامل شکل‌گیری قواعد حقوق بین‌الملل تعدیل شده و اصول اخلاقی و ارزش‌های بین‌المللی از جمله حفاظت از محیط‌زیست جهانی، نقش پررنگ‌تری در توسعه تدریجی حقوق بین‌الملل ایفا می‌کنند.روش بررسی: این پژوهش مبتنی بر روش استقرایی حقوقی به نحو تحلیلی-توصیفی می‌باشد و شیوه گردآوری اطلاعات، کتابخانه‌ای است.یافته‌ها: تحقیق پیش رو، به دنبال توسعه دادن نظریه سلسله مراتبی هنجاری به قلمرو حقوق بین‌الملل محیط‌زیست است تا بتواند راهکاری برای رفع کاستی‌های نظام حقوق بین‌الملل محیط‌زیست ارائه نماید. یافته‌های این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد سلسله مراتب هنجاری در حقوق بین‌الملل محیط‌زیست، از طریق ارزش‌های اساسی جامعه بین‌المللی که در قالب قواعد عرفی و قواعد آمره حقوق بین‌الملل ظاهر می‌شود چارچوبی برای حفاظت از محیط‌زیست ارائه داده و در رفع تعارضات هنجاری در رسیدگی‌های قضایی بین‌المللی نقش مهمی ایفا می‌کند.نتیجه‌گیری: برآیند مقاله حاضر آن است که برخی اصول حقوق بین‌الملل محیط زیست همچون اصل عدم ورود خسارت که متضمن مراقبت بایسته است، به عنوان یک قاعده عرفی در عرصه حقوق بین‌الملل محیط‌زیست مورد شناسایی قرار گرفته‌اند. لیکن از سوی دیگر، به نظر می‌رسد علیرغم اینکه برخی از هنجارهای زیست‌محیطی از ظرفیت تبدیل شدن به قاعده آمره برخوردار می‌باشند، تاکنون نتوانسته‌اند به جایگاه آمره دست یابند.
چکیده انگلیسی:
Background and Aim: Although international law mostly composed of identical norms, it contains some hierarchical elements. At the top of this hierarchy are the Jus Cogens norms, which have a higher legal quality than other norms. On the other hand, customary rules of international law also have a special place among legal norms, because customary rules of international law are generally binding on all states and have erga omnes effect and consequently limit the sovereignty of states. Accordingly, the international community is transitioning from state-centered community to human-centered community in which the element of the will of states as the factor in shaping the rules of international law is modified and international principles and values, including the protection of the global environment, play a greater role in gradual development of international law.Methods: This research is based on analytical-descriptive legal inductive method.Findings: The present study seeks to develop a normative hierarchical theory in the realm of international environmental law in order to provide a solution to address the shortcomings of the international environmental law system. The findings of this study show that the normative hierarchy in international environmental law, through the fundamental values of the international community, which appear in the form of customary rules and Jus Cogens norms of international law, provide a framework for environmental protection and resolving normative conflicts in international litigation. Results: The conclusion of the present article is that some principles of international environmental law, such as the principle of no-harm, which requires due diligence, have been recognized as a customary rule in the realm of international environmental law. On the other hand, it seems that despite the fact that some environmental norms have the capacity to become Jus Cogens norms, they have not yet been able to achieve that status.
منابع و مأخذ:
1- Obligations Concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), ICJ Reports 2016.
2- Obligations Concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), ICJ Reports 2016, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cancadi Trindade, para. 319.
3- Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), ICJ Reports 2014, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cancado Trindade, para. 87-90.
4- International Law Commission (ILC), 2006, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission on its 58th Session’ UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682.
5- Kelsen, Hans, 1945, General Theory of Law and State, The Law book Exchange, 115.
6- Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited, 1970, Belgium v Spain, Judgment, ICJ Rep 3 (Barcelona Traction).
7- Koji, Teraya, 2010, ‘Emerging Hierarchy in International Human Rights and Beyond: From the Perspective of Non derogable Rights’, 12 European Journal of International Law 917, 937.
8- Seiderman, Ian. (2019). Hierarchy in International Law: The Human Rights Dimension. Intersentia Publisher
9- Vidmar, Jure, 2012, ‘Norm Conflicts and Hierarchy in International Law’ in E De Wet and J Vidmar (eds), Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 14.
Beyerlin, Ulrich, 2008, ‘Different Types of Norms in International Environmental Law, Policies, Principles and Rules’ in D Bodansky, J Brunn_ee and E Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, 426, 426.
Shelton, Dina, 2016, ‘Normative Hierarchy in International Law’, 100 American Journal of International Law, 291.
Guzman, Andrew, 2014, ‘International Soft Law’, 2 Journal of Legal Analysis 171.
International Law Commission (ILC), 2006, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission on its 58th Session’ UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682, para 365.
Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, 2012, Belgium v Senegal, Judgment, ICJ Rep 422 para 99; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, 2006, DRC v Uganda, Judgment, ICJ Rep 126.
Prosecutor v Furundzija, 1998, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), IT-95-17/1-T para 153.
Kelsen, Hans, 1962, ‘Derogation’ in RA Newman (ed), Essays in Jurisprudence in Honor of Roscoe Pound (Bobbs-Merrill 1962) 339.
Martin, Forrest, 2012, ‘Delineating a Hierarchical Outline of International Law Sources and Norms’,65 Saskatchewan Law Review, 333, 335.
Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, 2018, ‘Formation of Customary International Law and General Principle’ in D Bodansky, J Brunnee and E Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, 450, 452 and 454.
Case Concerning North Sea Continental Shelf, 1969, Germany v Denmark; Germany v Netherlands, Judgment, ICJ Rep 3.
Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, 2008, ‘Formation of Customary International Law and General Principle’ in D Bodansky, J Brunnee and E Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, 450.
Crawford, James, 2012, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed, Oxford University Press, 11.
Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, 2018, ‘Formation of Customary International Law and General Principle’ in D Bodansky, J Brunnee and E Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, 455.
Brunnée, Jutta, 2015, In Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack, eds., Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art, Cambridge University Press, 189.
Island of Palmas case, 1928, Netherlands, USA, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. II, p. 839.
Sands, Philippe and Peel, J. 2018. Principles of International Environmental Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trail Smelter case, 1941, United States, Canada, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. III, p. 1965.
Corfu Channel Case, 1949, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 22.
Nuclear Tests, 1973, Australia v. France, Interim Protection, ICJ Reports 1973, p. 106; Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973 ICJ Reports 1973, p. 142.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, 2010, Argentina v. Uruguay, Judgment, ICJ Reports, p. 55, para. 101.
Award between the United States and the United Kingdom related to the rights of jurisdiction of United States in Berings’s sea and the preservation of fur seals, 1893.
Rio Declaration, para. 14
Agenda 21, report of the UNCED, 1992, A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (vol. I), 9.
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, 1997, Hungary/Slovakia, Judgment, ICJ Reports, para. 140.
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, 1997, Hungary/Slovakia, Judgment, ICJ Reports, Separate Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, 104.
Tladi, Dire, 2017, Sustainable development in international law: An analysis of key enviro-economic instruments 94-109
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay,2006, Indication of Provisional Order, ICJ Reports, p. 133, para. 80
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay,2006, Indication of Provisional Order, ICJ Reports, p. 133, para. 76
Award in the Arbitration regardingthe Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2005, Report of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XXVII, paras. 58-60.
Christófolo, João Ernesto. (2017). Solving Antinomies between Peremptory Norms in Public International Law. Zurich: Schulthess
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, 1986, (Nicaragua v United States of America) Merits Judgment, ICJ Reports, 14 para 190; Barcelona Traction (Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) ICJ Reports 1970, 3.
Barcelona Traction, 1970, Belgium v Spain, Second Phase, ICJ Reports 3.
Prosecutor v Furundzija, 2001, Trial Chamber, Judgment, IT-95-17/1-T 1998 PT Judicial Reports; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom 35763/97, ECHR.
Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996, ICJ Reports 266 para 79.
de Wet and Vidmar, 2012, Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights, Oxford Publication, 33
S Lotus, France v Turkey, 1927, PCIJ.
Shelton, Dina, 2006, ‘Normative Hierarchy in International Law’, 100 American Journal of International Law, 299
Kelsen, Hans, 1962, ‘Derogation’ in RA Newman (ed), Essays in Jurisprudence in Honor of Roscoe, Pound, Bobbs-Merrill 1962, 214
Vidmar, Jure, 2012, ‘Norm Conflicts and Hierarchy in International Law’ in E De Wet and J Vidmar (eds), Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 13.
Kadelbach, Stefan. (2018). Genesis, function and identification of jus cogens norms. in Netherlands Yearbook of International Law: Jus Cogens-Quo Vadis? T.M.C. Asser Press. vol. 46.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1993, Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports 3.
The Legality of Theat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case, 1996, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports, 266 paras 142-143.
Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, 1997, Hungary/Slovakia, ICJ Reports 1997, 1, para 112.
Kotze, L J. (2016). Global Environmental Constitutionalism in the Anthropocene. Portland: Hart Publishing.
Ulrich Beyerlin, Thilo Marauhn, 2012, International Environmental Law, Hart Publishing Ltd , 362.
The Government of the State of Kuwait v The American Independent Oil Company, 1982, Ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal 66 ILR 518.
Atabong Denis Atemnkeng v African Union, 2015, App 014/2011.
Singleton-Cambage 1995, International Legal Sources and Global Environmental Crises, 185.
Orakhelashvili, Alexander, 2006, Peremptory Norms of International Law, Oxford University Press, 38-39.
_||_
1- Obligations Concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), ICJ Reports 2016.
2- Obligations Concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), ICJ Reports 2016, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cancadi Trindade, para. 319.
3- Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), ICJ Reports 2014, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cancado Trindade, para. 87-90.
4- International Law Commission (ILC), 2006, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission on its 58th Session’ UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682.
5- Kelsen, Hans, 1945, General Theory of Law and State, The Law book Exchange, 115.
6- Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited, 1970, Belgium v Spain, Judgment, ICJ Rep 3 (Barcelona Traction).
7- Koji, Teraya, 2010, ‘Emerging Hierarchy in International Human Rights and Beyond: From the Perspective of Non derogable Rights’, 12 European Journal of International Law 917, 937.
8- Seiderman, Ian. (2019). Hierarchy in International Law: The Human Rights Dimension. Intersentia Publisher
9- Vidmar, Jure, 2012, ‘Norm Conflicts and Hierarchy in International Law’ in E De Wet and J Vidmar (eds), Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 14.
Beyerlin, Ulrich, 2008, ‘Different Types of Norms in International Environmental Law, Policies, Principles and Rules’ in D Bodansky, J Brunn_ee and E Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, 426, 426.
Shelton, Dina, 2016, ‘Normative Hierarchy in International Law’, 100 American Journal of International Law, 291.
Guzman, Andrew, 2014, ‘International Soft Law’, 2 Journal of Legal Analysis 171.
International Law Commission (ILC), 2006, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission on its 58th Session’ UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682, para 365.
Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, 2012, Belgium v Senegal, Judgment, ICJ Rep 422 para 99; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, 2006, DRC v Uganda, Judgment, ICJ Rep 126.
Prosecutor v Furundzija, 1998, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), IT-95-17/1-T para 153.
Kelsen, Hans, 1962, ‘Derogation’ in RA Newman (ed), Essays in Jurisprudence in Honor of Roscoe Pound (Bobbs-Merrill 1962) 339.
Martin, Forrest, 2012, ‘Delineating a Hierarchical Outline of International Law Sources and Norms’,65 Saskatchewan Law Review, 333, 335.
Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, 2018, ‘Formation of Customary International Law and General Principle’ in D Bodansky, J Brunnee and E Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, 450, 452 and 454.
Case Concerning North Sea Continental Shelf, 1969, Germany v Denmark; Germany v Netherlands, Judgment, ICJ Rep 3.
Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, 2008, ‘Formation of Customary International Law and General Principle’ in D Bodansky, J Brunnee and E Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, 450.
Crawford, James, 2012, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed, Oxford University Press, 11.
Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, 2018, ‘Formation of Customary International Law and General Principle’ in D Bodansky, J Brunnee and E Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, 455.
Brunnée, Jutta, 2015, In Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack, eds., Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art, Cambridge University Press, 189.
Island of Palmas case, 1928, Netherlands, USA, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. II, p. 839.
Sands, Philippe and Peel, J. 2018. Principles of International Environmental Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trail Smelter case, 1941, United States, Canada, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. III, p. 1965.
Corfu Channel Case, 1949, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 22.
Nuclear Tests, 1973, Australia v. France, Interim Protection, ICJ Reports 1973, p. 106; Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973 ICJ Reports 1973, p. 142.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, 2010, Argentina v. Uruguay, Judgment, ICJ Reports, p. 55, para. 101.
Award between the United States and the United Kingdom related to the rights of jurisdiction of United States in Berings’s sea and the preservation of fur seals, 1893.
Rio Declaration, para. 14
Agenda 21, report of the UNCED, 1992, A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (vol. I), 9.
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, 1997, Hungary/Slovakia, Judgment, ICJ Reports, para. 140.
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, 1997, Hungary/Slovakia, Judgment, ICJ Reports, Separate Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, 104.
Tladi, Dire, 2017, Sustainable development in international law: An analysis of key enviro-economic instruments 94-109
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay,2006, Indication of Provisional Order, ICJ Reports, p. 133, para. 80
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay,2006, Indication of Provisional Order, ICJ Reports, p. 133, para. 76
Award in the Arbitration regardingthe Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2005, Report of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XXVII, paras. 58-60.
Christófolo, João Ernesto. (2017). Solving Antinomies between Peremptory Norms in Public International Law. Zurich: Schulthess
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, 1986, (Nicaragua v United States of America) Merits Judgment, ICJ Reports, 14 para 190; Barcelona Traction (Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) ICJ Reports 1970, 3.
Barcelona Traction, 1970, Belgium v Spain, Second Phase, ICJ Reports 3.
Prosecutor v Furundzija, 2001, Trial Chamber, Judgment, IT-95-17/1-T 1998 PT Judicial Reports; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom 35763/97, ECHR.
Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996, ICJ Reports 266 para 79.
de Wet and Vidmar, 2012, Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights, Oxford Publication, 33
S Lotus, France v Turkey, 1927, PCIJ.
Shelton, Dina, 2006, ‘Normative Hierarchy in International Law’, 100 American Journal of International Law, 299
Kelsen, Hans, 1962, ‘Derogation’ in RA Newman (ed), Essays in Jurisprudence in Honor of Roscoe, Pound, Bobbs-Merrill 1962, 214
Vidmar, Jure, 2012, ‘Norm Conflicts and Hierarchy in International Law’ in E De Wet and J Vidmar (eds), Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 13.
Kadelbach, Stefan. (2018). Genesis, function and identification of jus cogens norms. in Netherlands Yearbook of International Law: Jus Cogens-Quo Vadis? T.M.C. Asser Press. vol. 46.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1993, Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports 3.
The Legality of Theat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case, 1996, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports, 266 paras 142-143.
Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, 1997, Hungary/Slovakia, ICJ Reports 1997, 1, para 112.
Kotze, L J. (2016). Global Environmental Constitutionalism in the Anthropocene. Portland: Hart Publishing.
Ulrich Beyerlin, Thilo Marauhn, 2012, International Environmental Law, Hart Publishing Ltd , 362.
The Government of the State of Kuwait v The American Independent Oil Company, 1982, Ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal 66 ILR 518.
Atabong Denis Atemnkeng v African Union, 2015, App 014/2011.
Singleton-Cambage 1995, International Legal Sources and Global Environmental Crises, 185.
Orakhelashvili, Alexander, 2006, Peremptory Norms of International Law, Oxford University Press, 38-39.
