نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار حقوق بین‌الملل پردیس فارابی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل پردیس فارابی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

نهادهای معاهده­محور حقوق ­بشری سازمان ملل متحد با رسیدگی به شکایاتی که بر اساس فرآیند طرح مکاتبات فردی علیه دولت­های عضو طرح می­گردند، نقش بسیار مهمی را در تشویق و ارتقای پیروی از تعهدات حقوق بشری ایفا می­کنند. این نهادها علی­رغم عملکرد شبه­قضایی خود می­توانند به‌منظور مصون نگه­داشته شدن حقوقی که مکاتبه­کننده مدعی نقض آن است و تا زمان صدور نظرات نهایی راجع به ماهیت مکاتبه، اقدامات موقتی صادر کنند. نظر به اینکه نظرات نهایی نهادهای معاهده­محور حقوق بشری به خودی خود الزام­آور نیستند و با توجه به اینکه در اسناد مؤسس و قواعد رسیدگی این نهادها به ارزش حقوقی اقدامات موقتی اشاره نشده است، این سؤال قابل طرح است که آیا اقدامات موقتی صادره توسط این نهادها برای دولت­های عضو الزام حقوقی ایجاد می‌کنند؟ این مقاله، الزام­آوری اقدامات موقت صادره توسط نهادهای معاهده­محور سازمان ملل متحد را در پرتو دکترین حقوقی و رویه این نهادها مورد بررسی قرار می­دهد.


کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Binding Nature of Interim Measures Issued by Human Rights Treaty Bodies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Alireza Ebrahimgol 1
  • Seyed Ahmad Tabatabaei Lotfi 1
  • Hasan Khosroshahi 2

1 Assistant Professor, International Law, University of Tehran, Tehran College of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D Student, International Law, University of Tehran, Tehran College of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

 
UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies play an essential role in the promotion of State parties’ compliance with international human rights treaties, through examination of complaints filed pursuant to individual communications procedure. These bodies, despite of their quasi-judicial function, are allowed to request interim measures in order to preserve the rights of the individuals claiming of being violated until the final views on the relevant communications are adopted.  Whereas, final views adopted by Treaty Bodies are not per se binding and considering the lacuna in their founding instruments and rules of procedure, it is to be seen whether or not interim measures requested by these Bodies could be considered as having a binding force. In the present article, the legal nature of interim measures issued by the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies is reviewed in light of legal doctrine and the jurisprudence of the said Bodies.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies
  • Human Rights Committee
  • Committee against Torture
  • Interim Measures
  • Binding
الف- فارسی
-            سادات اخوی، سید علی، فکوری، فرناز، «ارزش حقوقی دیدگاه­های پایانی کمیته حقوق بشر»، مجله حقوقی بین­المللی، سال بیست و هفتم، شماره 43، (1389).
 
ب- انگلیسی
Books
-            De Zayas, Alfred, “Petitions before the United Nations Treaty Bodies: Focus on the Human Rights Committee’s Optional Protocol Procedure”, in Gudmundur Alfredsson et al. (eds.), International Monitoring Mechanisms: Essays in Honour of Jacob Th. Möller, 2nd ed (The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2009).
 
-            Hennebel, Ludovic, La jurisprudence du Comité des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies, Le Pacte international relative aux droits civils et politiques et son mécanisme de protection individuelle (Belgique: Etablissements Emile Bruylant, S.A: 2007). 
 
-            Keller, Helen and Ulfstein Geir, Eds., UN human rights treaty bodies: law and legitimacy, (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
 
-            Miles, Cameron, Provisional Measures before International Courts and Tribunals (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017).
 
-            Quirico, Ottavio, “Droit ≪flou≫, droit ≪doux≫ ou droit ≪mou≫? Brèves réflexions sur la ≪texture≫ des mesures conservatoires et des constatations dans les procédures individuelles devant le Comité des droits de l’homme”, In Denis Alland et. Al, Unité et diversité du droit international/Unity and Diversity of International Law (Brill: Nijhoff, 2014).
 
-            Rosenne, Shabatai, Provisional Measures in International Law, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
 
-            Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol, Volume II (New York: United Nations, 1990).
 
-            Shelton, Dinah, “The Legal Status of Normative Pronouncements of Human Rights Treaty Bodies”, in Holger P. Hestermeyer et al. eds., Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity, Vol. I, (Brill: Nijhoff, 2011).
-            Thirlway, H. W. A., “The Indication of Provisional Measures by the International Court of Justice”, in Rudolf Bernhardt, Ed., Interim Measures Indicated by International Courts (Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1994).
 
-            Tomuschat, Christian, Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism, Second Edition, (UK: Oxford University Press, 2014).
 
-            Van Alebeek, R.; Nollkaemper, P.A., “The Legal Status of Decisions by Human Rights Treaty Bodies in National Law”, in Keller, & G. Ulfstein (Eds.), UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Law and Legitimacy (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
 

Articles

-            Albuquerque, de, Catarina, “Chronicle of an Announced Birth: the Coming Into Life of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—the Missing Piece of the International Bill of Human Rights, Human Rights Quarterly, No. 32, (2010).
 
-            Ghandhi, Sandy, “The Human Rights Committee and Interim Measures of Relief”, Canterbury Law Review, Vol. 13, (2007).
 
-            Harrington, Joanna, “Punting Terrorists, Assassins and Other Undesirables: Canada, the Human Rights Committee and Requests for Interim Measures of Protection”, Mcgill Law Journal, Vol. 48, (2003).
 
-            Kammerhofer, Jörg, “The Binding Nature of Provisional Measures of the International Court of Justice: the ‘Settlement’ of the Issue in the LaGrand Case”, Leiden Journal of International Law, No. 16, (2003).
 
-            Kanetake, Machiko, “UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Bodies before Domestic Courts”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 1, (2018).
 
-            Naldi, J, Gino, “Interim Measures in the Un Human Rights Committee”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 53, issue 02, (2004).
 
-            Oellers-Frahm, Karin, “Expanding the Competence to Issue Provisional Measures – Strengthening the International Judicial Function”, German Law Journal, Vol.12, No.5, (2011).
 
-            Pasqualucci, M., Jo, “Interim Measures in International Human Rights: Evolution and Harmonization”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 38: No. 1, (2005).
 
-            Pocar, Fausto, “Valeur Juridique des Constatations du Comite des Droits de l'Homme, La Jurisprudence Recente du Comite des Droits de l'Homme des Nations Unies”, Annuaire canadien des droits de la personne, (1992).
 
-            Rieter, Eva, “Provisional Measures: Binding and Persuasive? Enabling Human Rights Adjudicators to Follow up on State Disrespect”, Netherland International Law Review, LIX, (2012).
 

پایان ­نامه­

-            McGoldrick, Dominic, The Practice and Procedure of the Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Vol. 1, Ph. D Thesis, (University of Nottingham: 1988).

 

آرا و تصمیمات مراجع قضایی و شبه قضایی

-            CAT, Cecilia Rosana Núñez Chipana v. Venezuela, Communication No. 110/1998, date of adoption of views: 10 November 1998.
 
-            CAT, Fawzi Jerjes v. Switzerland, Communication No. 27/1995, adoption of views on 28 April 1997.
 
-            CAT, K.N. v. Switzerland, Communication No. 94/1997, date of adoption of views: 19 may 1998.
 
-            CAT, Subakaran R. Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia, communication No. 614/2014, date of adoption of the decision: 9 August 2017.
 
-            CAT, T.P.S. v. Canada, Communication No. 99/1997, date of adoption of views: 16 May 1999.
 
-            CAT, Mafhoud Brada v. France, Communication No. 195/2002, date of adoption of views: 17 may 2005.
 
-            ECHR, Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 46/1990/237/307, Judgment dated 20 March 1991.
 
-            HRC, Darmon Sultanova v. Ozbekistan, Communication No. 915/2000, date of adoption of views: 30 March 2006.
 
-            HRC, Joseph Kindler v. Canada, Communication No. 470/1991, date of adoption of views: 30 July 1993.
 
-            HRC, K.B. v. Russian Federation, Communication No. 2193/2012, date of adoption of views: 10 March 2016.
 
-            ECHR, Mamatkulov andAskarov v. Turkey [GC], 4 February 2005, nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99.
 
-            HRC, Glenn Ashby v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 580/1994, date of adoption of views, 21 March 2002.
 
-            HRC, Andrei Burdyko v. Belarus, Communication No. 2017/2010, date of adoption of views: 15 July 2015.
 
-            HRC, Oleg Grishkovtsov v. Belarus, Communication No. 2013/2010, date of adoption of views:  1 April 2015.
 
-            HRC, Pavel Selyun v. Belarus, Communication No. 2289/2013, date of adoption of views: 6 November 2015.
 
-            HRC, Peter Bradshaw v. Barbados, Communication No. 489/1992, date of adoption of views: 19 July 1994.
 
-            HRC, Piandiong et al. v. the Philippines, Communication No. 869/1999, date of adoption of views, 20 December 2000.
 
-            HRC, Sholam Weiss v. Austria, Communication No. 1086/2002, date of adoption of views: 3 April 2003.
 
-            HRC, Zulfa Idieva v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 1276/2004, date of adoption of views: 31 March 2009.
 
-            ICJ, LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001.
 

اسناد بین­المللی

-            Commission on the Status of Women, Report on the forty-first session (10-21 March 1997), Economic, and Social Council Official Records, 1997 Supplement No. 7.
 
-            HRC, General comment No.33, Obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR/C/GC/33, 5 November 2008.
 
-            Human Rights Committee Annual Report to the U.N. General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/49/40 vol. 1 (1994).
 
-            HRC, General Comment No. 31 [80] The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 29 March 2004 (2187th meeting), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, 26 May 2004.
 
-            Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/3/Rev.3,1994.
 
-            Rules of Procedure of the Committee Against Torture, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/3/Rev.3,1998.