قابلیت اجرای فراسرزمینی تعهدات بین المللی دولتها در زمینه حقوق اقتصادی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی بشر

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد مراغه - مدیر گروه حقوق بین الملل

2 دانشگاه آزاد

چکیده

میثاق حقوق اقتصادی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی با ترسیم تعهدات بین المللی دولتهای عضو در ماده دو از دولتهای عضو می خواهد تا با همکاری و مساعدت بین المللی به دولتهای فاقد امکانات لازم برای تحقق عالیترین سطوح قابل حصول حقوق مندرج در میثاق کمک دهند. تعهد به ارائه مساعدت بین المللی گویای ابعاد فراسرزمینی تعهدات منبعث از میثاق می باشد. کمیته با تأیید قابلیت اجرائی فراسرزمینی تعهدات ناشی از میثاق اعلام می دارد که دولتهای عضو نه تنها متعهد به اجرای مفاد میثاق در قلمرو سرزمینی خود هستند، بلکه بایدمقررات میثاق را نسبت به سرزمینهایی که بر آنها دارای کنترل مؤثر هستند و یا تحت صلاحیت خود دارند نیز به اجرا بگذارند. دولتهای عضو باید با بکارگیری امکانات موجود خود حداکثر تلاششان را به عمل آورند تا به تحقق حقوق مزبور در سایر کشورها مساعدت نمایند، اما اگر دولتی به دلیل کمبود امکانات قادر به انجام این تعهدات فراسرزمینی در حوزه حقوق مزبور نباشد، مسئولیتی از باب عدم انجام تعهدات متوجه او نخواهد بود. لیکن اگر در صورت فراهم بودن شرایط و برخورداری از امکانات مالی کافی، از ایفای این تعهدات قصور نماید، مرتکب نقض میثاق شده و مسئولیت بین المللی او قابل تصور خواهد بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Extraterritorial Applicability of International Obligations of States in the Field of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

نویسندگان [English]

  • ehsan javid 1
  • Saber Niavarani 2
چکیده [English]

International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights draws the content of international obligations of states parties to the Covenant in article 2. The Covenant obliges states parties to enter into international cooperation and assistance for the full realization of the highest attainable standards of the rights enshrined in the Covenant. Obligation to provide international assistance indicates the extraterritorial aspects of the Covenant. International Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights confirms the extraterritorial applicability of obligations resulted from the Covenant. Committee considers that states parties to the Covenant are under an obligation to enforce their obligations not only within their territory, but also within territories which they have effective control over them. Committee recognizes that some states may be faced with lack of resources and, therefore, unable to meet their international obligations under ICESCR. If a state party has enough resources but is unwilling to provide international economic and technical assistance to poorer states, its international responsibility can be alleged because of breach of its legal obligations.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • “extraterritorial jurisdiction”
  • “human rights”
  • “Covenant”
  • “international obligations”
  • “international responsibility”

الف) فارسی

کتاب

- شایگان، فریده،(1380)،شورای امنیت سازمان ملل متحد و مفهوم صلح و امنیت بین‌المللی، چاپ اول، بهار، تهران: انتشارات دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران.

 

مقاله‌ها

- جاوید، احسان، (1393)، «مشروعیت اعمال تحریم‌های اقتصادی یکجانبه در حقوق بین‌الملل با تأکید بر تحریم‌های یکجانبه آمریکا علیه ایران»، همایش ایران و چالش‌های حقوقی بین‌المللی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد مراغه، زمستان.

- زمانی، سید قاسم و مظاهری، جمشید، (1390)، «تحریم‌های هوشمند شورای امنیت در پرتو قطعنامه 1929: حفظ یا تهدید صلح؟»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، سال 28، شماره 44.

- ضیایی، سیدیاسر، (1390)، «مبانی نظری صلاحیت فراسرزمینی دولت از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی»، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، سال 75، زمستان، شماره 76.

 

ب) انگلیسی

Books

-Bedi, Shiv R. S, (2007), The Development of Human Rights Law by the Judges of the International Court of Justice, Oxford – Portland Oregon, Hart Publishing.

 

-De Schutter, Olivier, (2010), International Human Rights Law; Cases, Materials, Commentary, Cambridge University Press.

 

-Joseph, Sara & McBeth, Adam, (ed.), (2010), Research Handbook on International Human Rights Law, Edward Elgar, Northampton, USA.

 

-Messen, Karl M, (1992), International Law of Export Control, London, Martinus Nijhoff.

 

-Shaw, Malcolm N, (2008), International Law, 6th ed. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

 

-Simma, Bruno (ed.), (1994), The Charter of the United Nations-A Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

 

Articles

-Coomans, Fons, (2011), “The Extraterritorial Scope of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Work of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 11, No.1.

 

-Dennis, Michael J, (2005), “Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially in Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation”,American Journal of International Law (AJIL), Vol. 99, No.1.

 

-De Wet, (2001), ”Human Rights Limitations to Economic Enforcement Measures under Article 41 of the UN Charter and Iraqi Sanctions Regime”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 14,  No. 277.

 

Documents

-Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (1989), General Comment 1: Reporting by States Parties, UN Doc E/1989/22, Annex III.

 

-Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (1990), General Comment No 3: The nature of States parties obligations (Art 2(1)), UN Doc E/1991/23.

 

-Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (1997), Initial Report submitted by Israel under Articles 16 and 17 ICESCR, E/1990/5/Add.39.

 

-Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (1997), General Comment No 8: the Relationship between Economic Sanctions and Respect for Economic and Social Rights, E/C.12/1997/8.

 

-Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (1998), Concluding Observations Regarding Israel’s Initial Report, UN Doc E/C.12/1/Add.27.

 

-Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (2000), Concluding Observations: Belgium, UN Doc E/C.12/1/Add.54.

 

-Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (2000), Concluding Observations: Finland, UN Doc E/C.12/1/Add.52.

 

- Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (2001), Concluding Observations on the Additional Information Submitted by Israel, E/C.12/1/Add.69.

 

-Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (2001), Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/2001/10.

 

-Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (2001), Concluding Observations on the Additional Information Submitted by Israel, E/C.12/1/Add.69.

 

-Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (2002), General Comment Number 15: Right to Water.

 

-Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (2009), Concluding Observations: Australia, UN Doc. E/C.12/AU/CO/4.

 

-Hunt, Paul, (2004), Report of the Special Rapporteur: The Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, Addendum: Mission to the WTO, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/49/Add.1.

 

-Hunt, Paul, (2008), Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, Addendum: Missions to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Washington DC and Uganda, UN Doc A/HRC/7/11/Add.2.

 

-Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2011.

 

-Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Press Release, 20 April 2001.

 

 

-UN Wire, (2004), ‘World Bank Head Blasts Rich Nations for Record on Aid’, 5 May.

 

-Working Paper for the Commission on Human Rights Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, (2000), ‘The Adverse Consequences of Economic Sanctions on the Enjoyment of Human Rights’, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/3.

 

Judgments and Judicial Reports

-European Court of Human Rights, (1992), Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain.

 

-European Court of Human Rights, (1995), Loizidou v Turkey, (Preliminary Objections).

 

-International Court of Justice, (1970), Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South -West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, ICJ Reports, (‘Namibia Opinion’).

 

-International Court of Justice, (1996), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflicts, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Report.

 

-International Court of Justice, (2004), Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders, advisory opinion.

 

-International Court of Justice, (2006), Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda, Merits.

 

 

-UN Human Rights Committee, (1981), Lopez Burgos v Uruguay, Communication No 052/1979, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, 29 July.