توقیف اموال ایران در آمریکا از دیدگاه حقوق بین‌الملل و رسالت رسانه‌های برون‌مرزی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه حضرت معصومه (س) قم

2 دانش آموخته دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی

چکیده

علیرغم اینکه مصونیت دولت‌ها از صلاحیت محاکم ملی، قاعده حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی می‌باشد اما برخی قدرت‌ها برای افزودن استثناء به آن تلاش می‌کنند. تصویب کنوانسیون مصونیت دولت‌ها و اموال آن‌ها پس از 27 سال مطالعه کمیسیون حقوق بین‌الملل در سال 2004 نشان داد که جامعه بین‌المللی تحول مصونیت دولت‌ها از مطلق به محدود را پذیرفته است و استثنائات آن را مواردی نظیر قراردادهای تجاری، مالکیت و موافقت‌نامه‌های داوری می‌داند. با این وجود مصوبه 1996 کنگره آمریکا، احکام محاکم آمریکا، کانادا و لوکزامبورگ علیه ایران نشان‌دهنده تلاش برخی کشورها برای ایجاد استثنائات جدید به بهانه تروریسم، نقض حقوق بشر و قواعد آمره می‌باشد. دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در سال 2012 در دعوی آلمان علیه ایتالیا با تأکید تاریخی بر خدشه‌ناپذیر بودن اصل مصونیت دولت‌ها به‌عنوان قاعده حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی نشان داد که از نظر دیوان، نقض این اصل می‌تواند ثبات بین‌المللی را به مخاطره بیندازد. از سال 2016 با شکایت ایران علیه آمریکا (پرونده موسوم به برخی از اموال ایران) و دستور موقت 3 اکتبر 2018 دیوان مبنی بر داشتن صلاحیت رسیدگی به این پرونده، دیوان در معرض آزمون تاریخی دیگری برای دفاع از اصل مصونیت دولت‌ها قرار گرفته است. طبیعتاً تکرار رویه دیوان در این پرونده گام بلندی برای صیانت از قاعده عرفی مصونیت دولت‌ها از دکترین‌های جدید خواهد بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Seizing the Iran's Properties in US from the International Law's Perspective and World Service Media Prophecy

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyyed Hesam Aldin Lesani 1
  • Ahmad Kazemi 2
1 Corresponding Author: Faculty Member of Hazrat-e Masoumeh University, Qum, Iran
2 PhD in International Law, Islamic Azad University, Iran
چکیده [English]

Despite the fact that states' immunity of the national courts' jurisdiction is a rule of Customary International Law, but some powers tries to add exception to it. The ratification of Convention on the Immunity of States and their Property following the 27-year study of International Law Commission in 2004 show that International Community has accepted the states' immunity transformation from absolute to limited one and recognizes issues such as trade and property treaties as well as arbitrary agreements as exceptions. However, the US Congress' resolution and the sentences by US, Canada and Luxemburg courts against Iran show some countries' attempts to create new exceptions under the pretext of terrorism, violation of the human rights and Jus Cogens. Emphasizing the inviolability of the principle of 'the immunity of states' as a rule of Customary International Law, International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of Germany lawsuit against Italy in 2012 show that from the perspective of the court, violation of this principle can jeopardize the international stability. Since 2016, with Iran's complaint against the United States (The case is known as some of Iran's property) and the Court's temporary order on 3 October 2018 about having the competence to investigation this case, the court exposed to the another historical test for defensing the Immunity of states' principal. Naturally, the repetition of the court's procedure in this case will be a great attempt to protect the customary rule of immunity of states in new doctrines.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Immunity of States
  • International Court of Justice
  • Customary International Law
  • German lawsuit against Italy
  • Iran's complaint
  • US
  • Canada and Luxemburg courts
الف) فارسی
مقاله‌ها
حاتمی، مهدی و سادات‌حسینی، فرشته (1395)، «مصونیت قضایی دولت با تأکید بر رأی دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در قضیه آلمان علیه ایتالیا»، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، بهار، سال هشتادم، شماره 93.
خضری، سیدمرتضی (1391)، «مصونیت دولت از نگاه حقوق بین‌الملل»، پژوهش نامه اندیشه‌های حقوقی، پاییز، سال اول، شماره 3.
رمضانی قوام‌آبادی، محمدحسین و همکاران (1392)، «مصونیت قضایی دولت خارجی در دادگاه‌های ملی با عنایت به رأی دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در قضیه مصونیت صلاحیتی دولت»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، سال سی‌ام، شماره 48 .
سادات‌میدانی، سید‌حسین (1394)، «حق دادخواهی و مصونیت قضایی دولت‌ها»، رأی دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در اختلاف آلمان و ایتالیا، فصلنامه دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، بهار، شماره 69 .
عزیزی، ستار (1392)، «تعامل مصونیت دولت‌ها و قواعد آمره در پرتو رأی مصونیت صلاحیتی 2012»، فصلنامه حقوق دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، پاییز، دوره 43، شماره 3.
موسوی، سید‌علی (1385)، «کنوانسیون ملل متحد درباره مصونیت قضایی دولت‌ها و اموال آن‌ها»، فصلنامه سیاست خارجی، سال بیستم، شماره 4.
مهدی‌زاده، حسین (1391)، «استثناء تروریسم در آیینه رأی 3 فوریه 2012 دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری»، فصلنامه علمی ترویجی مطالعات بین‌المللی پلیس، زمستان، دوره سوم، شماره 12.
نقیب‌زاده، احمد (1382)، «بازخوانی نظم برخاسته از معاهدات وستفالی»، مجله دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، پاییز، شماره 65.
 
منابع اینترنتی
پایگاه اطلاع‌رسانی دولت (29/03/95)، «جزئیات شکایت ایران از آمریکا به دیوان دادگستری بین‌المللی»، تاریخ دسترسی 18 اردیبهشت 96، قابل دسترسی در:
http://dolat.ir/detail/280939
عهدنامه مودت ایران و آمریکا (1336ش)، مجموعه قوانین مصوب مجلس، مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی، تاریخ دسترسی 23 فروردین 96، قابل دسترسی در:
 http://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/94974
 
ب) انگلیسی
Books
Katzman, Kenneth (2017), “Iran Sanctions”, Congressional Research Service, Grs Report Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress, 7-5700, RS20871, US, Library of Congress.
Krajewski, Markus, Singer, Christopher (2012),”Should Judges be Front-Runners? The ICJ, State Immunity and the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law.
Yang, Xiaodong (2015), “State Immunity in International Law”, July, Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, ISBN: 9781107535831, Cambridge.
yearbook of the international law commission (1999), Summary records of the meetings of the fifty-first session 3 May-23 July 1999, Jurisdictional immunities of States and their property (A/CN.4/L.576) report of the working group, united nations publication, Volume I.
yearbook of the international law commission (1990), Summary records of the meetings of the forty-second session 1 May-20 July 1990, Jurisdictional immunities of States and their property (A/CN.4/415,1 A/CN.4/422 and Add.l,2 A/CN.4/431,3 A/CN.4/L.443, sect. E), Volume i, united nations publication.
Articles
De Santis di Nicola, Francesco (2016), “Civil actions for damages caused by war crimes vs. State immunity from jurisdiction and the political act doctrine: ECtHR, ICJ and Italian Courts”, International Comparative Jurisprudence, December, Volume 2, Issue 2.
Donoho, Justin (2009), “Minimalist Interpretation of the Jurisdictional Immunities Convention”, Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 9: No. 2, Article 12.
Knuchel, Sevrine (2011), “State Immunity And The Promise Of Jus Cogens”, Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights,Volume 9,Issue 2, 2011 Spring
Nagan, Winston, Root, Joshua (2013), “The Emerging Restrictions on Sovereign Immunity: Peremptory Norms of International Law”, the U.N. Charter, and the Application of Modern Communications Theory, UF Law Scholarship Repository.
Pittrof, Sabine (2001),“Compensation Claims for Human Rights Breaches Committed by German Armed Forces Abroad During the Second World War: Federal Court of Justice Hands Down Decision in the Distomo Case”, German Law Journal, Vol. 15.
Stewart, David P (2011), “The Immunity of State Officials Under the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property”, vanderbilt journal of transnational law, Vol. 44.
Talmon, Stefan (2012),“Jus Cogens after Germany v. Italy: Substantive and Procedural Rules Distinguished”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 25.
 
Internet Resources
Charter of the United Nations, accessed September 17, 2016, Available from: http://www .un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html.
 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Trindade, Jurisdictional Immunities of States,2012, (2012), paras 40 and52, accessed September 21, 2016, Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-04-EN.pdf
Edwards, Jim, (Jul.18,2016), The 'missing' pages of the 9/11 report allege Saudi government links to the World Trade Center hijackers, accessed February 23,2017 Available from: http://uk.businessinsider.com/911-report-missing-28-pages-allege-saudi-government-links-to-september-11-hijackers-2016-7
Freezing of Iranian assets legal, Luxembourg judge rules, (March 22, 2017), The Iran Project, accessed July 04,2017,Available from: http://theiranproject.com/blog/2017/03/22/freezing-iranian-assets-legal-luxembourg-judge-rules/
germany v. italy: greece intervening, reports of judgments,advisory opinions and orders, 3 February 2012, Sales number 1031, accessed March 03,2017, Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf
icj-cij, (June 15, 2016), accessed January 24,2017,Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/ docket /files/ 164/19032.pdf
icj-cij, (October 16, 2018), accessed October 23,2018, Available from:https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/175/175-20181016-PRE-01-00-EN.pdf
iran threat reduction and syria human rights act of 2012, public law 112–158)aug. 10, 2012, accessed March 05,2017, Available from: https://www.congress.gov /112/plaws/ publ158/PLAW-112 publ158.pdf
Iran was ordered by a U.S. judge to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to families of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, (March9, 2016), Bloomberg, accessed February 02,2017, Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2016-03-10/iran-told-to-pay-10-5-billion-to-sept-11-kin-insurers
Iran's World Court Case Against the United States May Impact Investment Arbitration (July, 2016), accessed April 07,2017,Available from: https://www.bakerlaw.com/alerts/irans-world-court-case-against-the-united-states-may-impact-investment-arbitration
Justices to Hear Dispute Over Seizing Iran Artifacts, (JUNE 27, 2017), The New York times, accessed March 02,2017, Available from: https://www.nytimes .com /aponline /2017/ 06 /27 /us/ politics/ap-us-supreme-court-iran-us-museums.html
liptak, adam (april 20, 2016), Supreme Court Rules Iran Bank Must Pay for Terrorist Attacks,The New York Times, accessed November 03,2016, Available from: https: //www.nytimes.com /2016/04/21/ business/supreme-court-rules-iran-bank-must-pay-for-terrorist-attacks.html?_r=0
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran (July 9, 2014), No. 13-2952,2d Cir, accessed March 04,2017, Available from: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13-2952/13-2952-2014-07-09.html
Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-first session, (2000), A/RES/54/111, accessed April 03,2017,Available from: http://legal.un.org/ docs/?symbol =A/RES/54/111
Silverman, David (June 10, 2016), Court awards Iran’s non-diplomatic assets in Canada to terror victims in $13-million case, accessed September 17,2016, Available from:http://nationalpost.com/ news/canada/court-awards-irans-non-diplomatic-assets-in-canada-to-terror-victims-in-13-million-case/ wcm/05f2d14f-ea4d-4b94-9764-44f64181af09
state immunity in Canadian courts (2012), State Immunity Act,R.S.C., 1985, c. S-18, accessed June 04,2017, Available from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-18/20120313/P1TT3xt3 .html
state immunity in Canadian courts, (2002),State Immunity Act,R.S.C.1985,c. S-18, accessed June 04,2017,Available from:http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-18/20021231/P1TT3xt3 .html
State of signatures and ratifications of the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property and the European Convention on State Immunity, (23 September 2011) committee of legal adviserson public international law(cahdi), accessed February 02,2017, Available from: http://www.coe.int /en /web / cahdi/meeting-documents?.
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004), accessed March 12,2017, Available from: https://treaties.un.org /doc/source /Recent Texts /English_3_13.pdf
united states: foreign sovereign immunities act of 1976, (october 21, 1976),sec 1605 to 1607,Public Law 94-583, 94th Congress, accessed November 04,2016, Available from: https://www.gpo.gov /fdsys /pkg /USCODE-2011-title28/html/uscode-2011-title28-partIV-chap97.htm
wang, vivian, (june 29, 2017), Manhattan Skyscraper Linked to Iran Can Be Seized by U.S., Jury Finds,The New York times, accessed July 04,2017, Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/nyregion/650-fifth-avenue-iran-terrorism.html
Zoldan, Evan (September 7, 2016), “Bank Markazi and the Undervaluation of Legislative Generality,YALR LAW, accessed April 04,2017, Available from: http://ylpr.yale.edu/inter_alia/bank-markazi-and-undervaluation-legislative-generality
120 nations accuse US top court of violating law over Iran, (May. 05, 2016), The Daily Star, accessed April 04,2017, Available from: https://www.dailystar.com .lb/ArticlePrint.aspx ?id= 350811 &mode=prin