نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

2 دانش آموخته دکتری حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

سال‌ها طول کشید تا جامعة بشری درک کند که علم توان شناخت کامل تهدیدات زیست محیطی را ندارد و واکنش پسینی به چنین تهدیدهایی، ضررهای جبران ناپذیر به بار خواهد آورد. حصول درک اجمالی به آسیب پذیری محیط‌زیست و محدودیت های دانش در تعیین ریسک های نامعلوم، زمینه ساز ظهور و بروز اصل احتیاط شد که از حقوق داخلی ریشه گرفت و در حال رشد و بالندگی در عرصة بین الملل است. گستردگی استناد به اصل در قلمروهای مختلف حقوق بین الملل و با عبارت پردازی های متفاوت، مباحثات مفصلی میان اندیشمندان حقوقی را موجب شده است؛ به نحوی که موضعی واحد در خصوص وضعیت حقوقی اصل ندارند و برخی آن را اصلی عرفی دانسته و گروهی اصل کلی حقوق برمی شمارند. در این پژوهش با رویکرد توصیفی- تحلیلی، ابعاد مختلف جایگاه حقوقی اصل، در خلال طرح نظرات متفاوت و بیان وضعیت اصل در قوانین داخلی، اسناد و آراء بین المللی، موردبحث قرار می گیرد و پاسخ مقتضی به سؤال مطرح در عنوان مقاله ارائه می شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Precautionary in International Law: A Customary Principle or a General Principle of Law?

نویسندگان [English]

  • Abbasali KadKhodaei 1
  • Asma Salari 2

1 Department of public law, faculty of law and political sciences, university of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of public law, faculty of law and political science, university of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

It took humankind a long time to realize its inability to understand different aspects of environmental risks and find that it would bear irreversible damage if such a risk occurs.
Knowing the vulnerability of the environment and the limitations of science to accurately predict threats to it, led to emerging the precautionary principle. This concept has stemmed from domestic legal systems and is being developed in international law. Various Formulations of the principle and its including in binding and nonbinding international instruments in varied fields have resulted in controversial discussions between states, Tribunals and Commentators on Its legal status in International law. They are at least divided into two groups: some who are on customary status of the principle and some who entitle it as a general principle of law.
This paper examines different views towards the legal status of the precautionary principle in International law and try to give a reasonable opinion at the end.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • The precautionary principle
  • International Law
  • customary principle
  • general principle of law
  • International Tribunals
الف-1) فارسی
 
الف)کتاب
- مرادی، حسن، (1392)، حقوق بین­الملل محیط­زیست، تهران: نشرمیزان.
ب)مقاله‌ها
- رمضانی قوام­آبادی، محمدحسین، (1392)، «بررسی تطبیقی اجرای اصل احتیاط زیست­محیطی در پرتو آراء و تصمیمات مراجع بین­المللی»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، دورة پانزدهم، شماره 40.
- فلسفی، هدایت اله، (1389)، «ماجرای تفسیر در دیوان بین­المللی دادگستری» در: نقش دیوان بین­المللی دادگستری در تداوم و توسعة حقوق بین­الملل، انجمن ایرانی مطالعات سازمان ملل متحد، تهران، چاپ اول
- موسوی، سید فضل الله، آرش­پور، علیرضا، (1394)، «جایگاه اصل احتیاطی در حقوق بین­الملل محیط­زیست»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دورة چهل و پنجم، شمارة 2.
- موسوی، سید فضل­الله، حسینی، سید حسین، موسوی­فر، سید حسین، (1394) «اصول حقوق بین­الملل محیط­زیست در پرتو آراء مراجع حقوقی بین­المللی»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، دورة هفدهم، شمارة 48.
 
ج- پایان نامه
-- زرنشان، شهرام، (1390)،1390)   نقش، نقش رویة قضایی بین‌المللی در شناسایی قواعد عرفی، پایان‌نامه دکتری، دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران.
 
 
ب- انگلیسی
2) English
A) Books
- Brownlie, Ian, (2003), Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, 6th ed., New York,
-De Sadeleer, Nicolas, (2002), Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules, Oxford University Press, NewYork.
 
- Dworkin, Ronald, (1978), Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press.
 
- Klabbers, Jan, (2013), International Law, Cambridg University Press, Cambridge.
 
- Sands, Philippe, Peel, Jacqueline, (2012), Principles of International Environmental Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
 
- Zander, Joakim, (2010), The Application of the Precautionary Principle in Practice,
Cambridge, University Press Cambridge.
 
B) Articles
- Akelaitis, Letcher, (2014), “The Supreme Court of Canada Applies The Precautionary Principle”, Retrieved from: http:// www. laal.ca/ wpcontent/ uploads/ 2014/02/ ScanPage_ 20140206095840_ 00000001_20140206_ 09585569 47_20140206_0958579094.pdf, Accessed: 6/10/2017.
- Bassiouni, Cherif, (1990), “A Functional Approach to General Principles of International Law”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 11.
- Bodansky, Daniel, (2004), “Deconstructing the Precautionary Principle” in Caron, David D., Scheiber, Harry N. (eds.), Bringing New Law to Ocean Waters, Leiden,Martinus Nijhoff Publications.
 
- De Sadeleer, Nicolas, (2000), “The Enforcement of the Precautionary Principle by German, French and Belgian Courts”, Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, Vol. 9, No.2.
 
- Feintuck, Mike, (2005), “Precautionary Maybe, but What's the Principle? The Precautionary Principle, The Regulation of Risk, and the Public Domain”, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 32, No. 3.
 
- Hollo, Erkki, (2007), “Finland” in De Sadeleer, Nicolas (ed.), Implementing the Precautionary Principle Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, London, Earth Scan.
 
- Kavi Kumar, K.s., (2007), “Precautionary Principle, Center of Excellence in Environmental Economics, Dissemination Paper”, Retrieved from: http:// coe.mse.ac.in/dp/Precaution-Kavi.pdf,Accessed: 8/10/ 2015.
 
- McIntyre, Owen, Mosedale, Thomas, (1997), “The Precautionary Principle as a Norm of Customary International Law”, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 9, No.2.
 
- Michanek, Gabriel, (2007), “Sweden” inDe Sadeleer, Nicolas (ed.) Implementing the Precautionary Principle Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, London, Earth Scan.
 
- Pellet, Alain, (2006), “Art. 38” in Zimmermann, Andreas, et al. (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, New York.
- Peterson, Deborah C., (2006), “Precaution: Principles and Practice in Australian Environmental and Natural Resource Management”, 50th Annual Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Conference, Manly.
 
- Ruessmann, Laurent A, (2002), “Putting the Precautionary Principle in its place: Parameter for the Proper Application of a Precautionary Approach and the Implications for Developing Countries in Light of the Doha WTO Ministerial”, American University International Law Review, Vol. 17.
 
- Sache, Noah M., (2011), “Rescuing the Strong Precautionary Principle from Its Critics”, University of Illinois Law Review, Vol.4.
 
- Sandin, Per, et al., (2002), “Five Charges against the Precautionary Principle, Journal of Risk Research”, Vol. 5, No. 4.
 
- Sirinskiene, Agne, (2009), “The Status of Precautionary Principle: Moving Towards a Rule of Customary Law”, Jurisprudence, Vol. 4.
 
- Trouwborst, Arie, (2009), “Prevention, Precaution, Logic and Law: The Relationship between the Precautionary Principle and the Preventative Principle in International Law and Associated Questions.” Erasmus Law Review, Vol. 2, No.2.
 
- Voight, Christina, (2008), “The Role of General Principles in International Law and their Relationship to Treaty Law”, Retfaerd Nordic Journal of Law and Justice, Vol. 31.
 
- VanderZwaag, David, (2013), “The ICJ, ITLOS and the Precautionary Approach: Paltry Progressions, Jurisprudential Jousting”, University of Hawai'i Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 2.
 
C) Cases
 
ICJ Cases:
-Case concerning North Sea Continental Shelf, Germany v. Denmark& Netherlands, 1969.
-Case concerning Nuclear Tests Case, Australia & New Zealand v. France, 1995.
-Case Concerning Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, Hungary v. Slovakia, 1997.
-Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, Argentina v. Uruguay, 2010.
 
ITLOS Cases:
-Advisory Opinion on Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, 1 Feb. 2011.
 
EU Cases:
-Case 53/80, 1981 E. C. R. (Nisin Case;Koninklijke Kaasfabriek Eyssen BV).
-Case 174/82, 1983 E. C. R. (Sandoz Case).
-Case C-435/93, 1994, E.C.R. I-67 (wild bird Case; Association Pour la Protection des Animaux Sauvages et prefet de maine et loire de Prefet de la laire-Atlantique).
-Case C-180/96, UK. v. Commission, 99 E.C.R. I-8105 (mad cow Case).
-Case T-13/ 99 (Pfizer Case).
-Case T- 70/99, 2002 E. C. R. II- 3495 (Alpharma Case).
-Case T-74/00 (Artegodan Case).
-Case C-236/01, 2003 E.C.R. I-8150 (Monsanto Case).
-Case C-127/02, 2005, E.C.R. I 6515 (Wadenzee Case).
-Case C-14/06 and Case C-295/06 2007, E.C.R. I-7441 (Electrical and electronic equipment Case).
-Case T-229/04 Sweden v Commission, 2007 E.C.R. I-2437 (Paraquat Case).
-Case C-77/09 (Gowan Case).
-Case T‑333/10 (Animal Trading Company Case).
-Case C‑269/13 P (Acino Case).

-Joined Cases C-358/14, C-477/14 and C-547/14(Electronic Cigarettes Cases).

 
Other  CasesOther Cases
-Supreme Court of Canada, Castonguay Blasting Ltd. v. Ontario (Environment), 2013, Retrieved from: https://www.elaw.org/system/files/castonguay_en_0.pdf, Accessed: 7/10/2017.
-Supreme Court of India, Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Others, 2000, Retrieved from:http://www.narmadaandolan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/SC-18.10.2000-2000-10-SCC-664.pdf, Accessed: 8/10/2017.
-Supreme Court of India, Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others, 1996, Retrieved from: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934103/, Accessed: 8/10/2017.
 
D) Documents
 
-Court of justice of European Union, (2016), CJEU press release No. 48/16. Luxembourg.
     -Summary of the Communication from the EU Commission on the precautionary principle, 2001.